Uncategorized

Summary

This panel discussion focused on the future of the internet and the development of digital technologies, exploring regulatory, ethical, and practical considerations. Participants emphasized the importance of building a global infrastructure to support emerging technologies like AI and the metaverse. They discussed the need for adaptable, interoperable regulations that promote digital connectivity while respecting data privacy and security.

The conversation highlighted Greece’s digital transformation journey, showcasing how investment in digital public infrastructure can lead to economic growth and improved governance. Panelists stressed the importance of creating regulatory frameworks that are flexible enough to keep pace with rapidly evolving technologies while addressing cross-border challenges and accountability issues.

Ethical considerations for the private sector were explored, with emphasis on integrating ethical principles into product development and building user trust. The discussion touched on data stewardship and sovereignty, noting the tension between maintaining national digital sovereignty and preventing internet fragmentation. Participants agreed on the need for collaborative, multi-stakeholder approaches to governance that prioritize user privacy, security, and consent.

The panel also addressed the importance of cultural engagement in new digital spaces and the challenges posed by evolving hardware standards. They concluded by emphasizing that all stakeholders have an active role in shaping the future internet, and that a principled approach focusing on user needs and economic opportunities is essential for positive development.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– The importance of building trust, transparency and user control into emerging internet technologies and platforms

– The need for adaptable and interoperable regulatory frameworks that can keep pace with rapid technological change

– The role of digital public infrastructure in enabling economic growth and improved governance

– Balancing data sovereignty with the need for global data flows and interoperability

– Ethical considerations and accountability in AI and other emerging technologies

Overall purpose:

The discussion aimed to explore key considerations for shaping the future of the internet and digital technologies in a way that promotes trust, economic opportunity, and good governance while addressing potential risks and challenges.

Tone:

The tone was largely collaborative and optimistic, with panelists from different sectors sharing perspectives on how to responsibly develop emerging technologies. There was a sense of shared purpose in wanting to create a better internet future, even while acknowledging complexities and challenges. The tone became more action-oriented towards the end, with calls for active participation in shaping the future of the internet.

Speakers

– Judith Espinoza: Governance Specialist, World Economic Forum (Moderator)

– Hoda Al Khzaimi: Advisor to multiple industries and companies

– Brittan Heller: Senior Fellow of Technology and Democracy, Atlantic Council

– Robin Green: Representative from Meta

– Apostolos Papadopoulos: Chief Technology Officer, Hellenic Republic of Greece

Additional speakers:

– Audience: Representative from Digital Impact Alliance (DIAL)

The Future of the Internet: Navigating Emerging Technologies and Governance Challenges

This panel discussion, moderated by Judith Espinoza, brought together experts from various sectors to explore the future of the internet and the development of digital technologies. The conversation focused on regulatory, ethical, and practical considerations for shaping a digital landscape that promotes trust, economic opportunity, and good governance while addressing potential risks and challenges.

Key Themes and Discussion Points

1. Emerging Technologies and Their Impact

The panelists emphasized that the future internet will be shaped by a constellation of emerging technologies, including artificial intelligence (AI), extended reality (XR), blockchain, and quantum computing. Judith Espinoza highlighted that AI should be viewed as an enabler for other technologies rather than a standalone product. This perspective underscores the interconnected nature of technological advancements and their collective impact on the digital landscape.

The discussion touched upon the need for a global infrastructure to support these emerging technologies, with particular emphasis on the development of the metaverse. Panelists agreed that building trust, transparency, and user control into these platforms is crucial for their successful integration into society.

2. Regulatory Frameworks and Governance

A significant portion of the discussion centered on the need for adaptable and interoperable regulatory frameworks that can keep pace with rapid technological change. Robin Green, representing Meta, stressed the importance of technology-neutral legal frameworks that can evolve alongside innovations. This view was echoed by Brittan Heller, who emphasized the need for cross-border regulation and coordination for effective internet governance.

The panel highlighted the challenges of balancing data sovereignty with the need for global data flows and interoperability. Robin Green argued for the importance of maintaining an open, interoperable internet while respecting national digital sovereignty concerns. Hoda Al Khzaimi emphasized the importance of respecting legal sovereignty rights when developing technology regulations across different jurisdictions.

The panelists agreed on the need for adaptable and flexible governance frameworks, with Hoda Al Khzaimi suggesting sandboxing approaches for developing regulations for emerging technologies.

3. Digital Public Infrastructure and Economic Growth

Apostolos Papadopoulos, representing the Greek government, shared insights from Greece’s digital transformation journey. He provided specific examples and statistics, such as the implementation of a national digital identity system, which led to a 25% increase in digital service adoption. The country also saw a significant reduction in bureaucratic processes, with 94% of public services now available online. This real-world example illustrated the potential benefits of embracing digital technologies at a national level.

The panel agreed that digital public infrastructure, including payment systems and digital identity, serves as a crucial pathway for connection and economic opportunity. Judith Espinoza emphasized the alignment of interests between users, human rights advocates, and economic development stakeholders in building a robust digital ecosystem.

4. Trust, Ethics, and User-Centric Design

Hoda Al Khzaimi stressed the importance of incorporating ethical considerations into product functionality from the outset. She advocated for transparency and accessibility in AI algorithms, as well as the implementation of user-centric dashboards that clearly show how personal data is being used and processed. Al Khzaimi also highlighted the need for a single source of truth in trust stack guidelines.

Robin Green echoed these sentiments, highlighting Meta’s commitment to responsible innovation principles that focus on user trust and safety. He provided practical examples of how these principles are applied, such as implementing privacy-by-design features and conducting regular human rights impact assessments. Green also emphasized the importance of accessibility in technology design.

5. Challenges and Opportunities in the Digital Age

The discussion touched upon potential risks associated with emerging technologies, including increased surveillance capabilities and the erosion of privacy. Brittan Heller raised concerns about accountability and transparency in automated systems, emphasizing the need for robust safeguards.

The panel explored the evolution of consent mechanisms for new computing platforms, recognizing that traditional models may not be sufficient in immersive or AI-driven environments. Brittan Heller highlighted the potential loss of cultural engagement spaces in the next iteration of the internet and stressed the importance of hardware floor considerations in emerging technologies like XR.

Hoda Al Khzaimi pointed out the potential of government technologies as a growing industry, suggesting opportunities for innovation in this sector.

6. Multi-stakeholder Approach to Governance

A key takeaway from the discussion was the importance of a collaborative, multi-stakeholder approach to internet governance. The panelists agreed that all stakeholders—including governments, private sector entities, civil society organizations, and users—have an active role in shaping the future internet.

The discussion also touched on the challenges faced by developing nations, with Ibrahim raising a question about how African countries can develop data governance frameworks.

Unresolved Issues and Future Directions

While the panel reached consensus on many points, several unresolved issues emerged:

1. Effectively balancing data sovereignty with cross-border data flows

2. Addressing potential increased surveillance and privacy erosion in new technologies

3. Resolving hardware floor issues in emerging technologies like XR

4. Evolving consent mechanisms for new computing platforms

5. Ensuring accessibility and inclusivity in the future internet across different regions and demographics

6. Developing appropriate data governance frameworks for developing nations

The discussion concluded with a call for continued dialogue and collaboration among stakeholders to address these challenges. The panelists emphasized the need for a principled approach that focuses on user needs, economic opportunities, and ethical considerations in shaping the future of the internet.

In summary, this thought-provoking discussion highlighted the complex interplay between technology, regulation, user rights, and societal values in the digital age. It underscored the need for adaptable frameworks, trust-building mechanisms, and the preservation of cultural spaces as we navigate the evolving landscape of the internet and emerging technologies.

Robin Green: changing, but in order to make this happen, it’s going to be essential to have the global infrastructure that supports it. Data centers are a great example of some of the kinds of infrastructure that we’re going to need, but in order to really, I’m so sorry, I think some people online couldn’t hear me. In order to grow that infrastructure, it’s going to be really important that we have a regulatory and legal environment that supports it. This means having globally predictable, interoperable, and adaptable regulations that promote digital connectivity and really bridge the digital divide, and that promote data flows and secure communications like encryption of data and transit.

Judith Espinoza: I really appreciate what you said about AI always being part of these technologies, right? I think it’s easy, perhaps from a consumer perspective, to look at things as siloed developments, but as we move into the next phase of internet, we can see that none of this is developed on its own. These are things that have to go together. AI is a enabler for lots of these technologies, but it’s not a product on its own, so I think this is perfect. With that, I also want to share, part of the way that at the forum we’re envisioning the future of the internet is that these are digital intermediaries for connection, whether it be through social media, whether it be to commerce, whether it be to health, agenda AI, you name it, right? And one of those ways, one of those pathways forward is through digital public infrastructure. So the way that people can connect to each other, also economic opportunity, growth. And with that, I want to turn to Apostolos, and I want to ask you, how has Greece advanced the next iteration of the internet experience through digital public infrastructure? How are you developing DPI in Greece, and what are some of the, maybe, the governance opportunities that that presents, right? DPI as an enabler of good governance, as a means of connection.

Apostolos Papadopoulos: Thank you very much for your question, and I’m excited to be here. So in the Greek context, I think, the digital transformation journey of the country is in two stages, in two phases. We’re currently in a stage where we are doing a lot more work in AI and working with emerging technologies, and you were talking about experiences, and I think the permeating word that would delineate this would be trust and directness and transparency. So citizens would like to interact with governments and to have a direct and easy way to do that. And a way to do that in a way. So currently, we’re doing a lot of work in AI. We are doing work in LLMs, where we created a government chatbot, so citizens can interact with the government portal and figure out easy ways to interact with every service and have access to digital services. We’re doing work in AI and education with digital tutoring and homework assignments. So in this phase, we’re investing a lot in new and emerging digital public infrastructure, emerging technologies. The first phase that allowed us to do that starts in 2019 with the creation of a digital ministry, digital transformation ministry, and that was because up to that point, some of that did not exist in Greece, and that created the baseline for the second phase to be able to be executed. So from 2019 to 2023, there’s been a digital tiger leap, as people have called it, in the sense that digital adoption was very low in Greece. 2018, we had 8 point something million digital transactions in total. Greece is a country of about 10 million people, so it’s a very low number of adoption. But 2023 ended with 1.4 billion. So if you chart that, it’s exponential growth, both in terms of supply as well as demand. So this stage, this first stage, created the regulatory framework, the engineering framework, the platforms for us to be able to go in the second phase and do more work with emerging technologies. And the regulatory framework, speaking of that, is a crucial layer of this stack. So you have to have common sense, light touch approaches, regulation, people can trade both internal and inside the government, as well as external partners. And overall, I would say, API in Greece currently is very much a given, and digital is considered something that is, you know, by default.

Judith Espinoza: People and businesses expect of the government. Thank you so much. I want to follow up with one more question for you. You’re talking about exponential growth and usership, and in following this model, do you think you see this as an essential way, I guess, for also for financial growth for the country, right? You’re connecting, it’s peer-to-peer, it’s also services-to-peer, and also, I guess, for businesses as well. How do you see this growth?

Apostolos Papadopoulos: Yes, very positively. One of the deliverables of this approach has been $2.5 billion in investment in FDI. We have, we are the, Greece is the only European member state, the only European member state, along with Poland, a major high-risk country. So, okay. Can you hear me better now? Perfect. Okay, great. All right, thank you. Sorry. So, FDI is a crucial part of this equation. Can you hear me better? Yes, that is fantastic. Okay. So, we had a microphone problem. So, I was just saying, FDI is crucial, and it is a direct byproduct of the strategy, and of the execution of the strategy. So, the Greek government has been working with international and local partners, and there has been a great synergy between all the stakeholders, and both in terms of job growth, as well as in terms of investments, has been a very positive story so far. Thank you so much.

Judith Espinoza: With that, you know, there is an interesting narrative that we are starting to weave here, right, which is investment, and that leads to growth, and that leads to opportunity. And that builds good governance, right? This is an opportunity to build better governance, to build better trust among stakeholders. And with that, I really want to pivot now to Britain. You know, we are talking about the Internet evolving, and as these technologies evolve, I wonder, what do you think are the core regulatory and policy obstacles that we must overcome to really make a better Internet, right? What have we done wrong? Where can we do things better? And are there really any new risks that you think regulators should be paying attention to? Thank you.

Brittan Heller: Can you all hear me? Great. So, I teach international law and AI regulation, and have worked in emerging technologies for about eight years now. So, I’m going to give you the conclusion first. The conclusion is that emerging technologies are a constellation, and if your regulatory approach focuses on one aspect in lieu of the others, you’re going to miss the bigger picture. So, you have to think about the way that AI will be interacting with immersive technologies. We’ll look at new payment systems like blockchain. We’ll look at the new petrol of the Internet, quantum computing, and seeing how all of those systems will feed off each other, will interact with each other, and how existing law may not be a clean fit for these new technologies. There are four things that I think can be valuable when you’re trying to figure out this puzzle about if your existing law will fit, and how to determine what needs to be addressed first in a regulatory regime. The first obstacle is ensuring that these regimes, which were designed primarily in the late 1990s and early 2000s, are adaptable enough to keep pace with the rapid evolution of these technologies. One example that I work a lot on are virtual reality or XR systems. We put on a conference at Stanford Law School last year called Existing Law and Extended Reality, because you can’t just take laws formulated for 2D computing, put them into 3D spaces, and expect that they’re going to work the same way. The way that you formulate jurisdiction, the way that privacy concerns operate in a technology that is different from your laptop because it has sensors that must reach out into the environment to calibrate your devices. your privacy looks different when it’s not just based on the words that are going in and out of servers, when it’s actually location-based and based on your biometric data. So looking at that, how adaptable is your legal system? Second is the question of cross-border regulation, and I know I sound like I’m coming straight at you from 2006, but it’s a very important issue, and when you look at all of this, look at it with all puns intended as a second bite at the apple. All of the things that you wish could be different about the way internet governance works and manifests in your jurisdiction, in your company, in your stakeholder group, you have a chance to do it differently this time. Take that opportunity. So looking at the way that data protection laws align with regulations in other parts of the world so we don’t create another fragmentary regulatory landscape, and how do you create the coordination necessary to make this work across different countries? Third is a question of accountability and transparency. As we rely more on automated systems, the question of who is responsible when something inevitably goes wrong becomes much more complicated. So when I evaluate AI regulatory regimes, it’s not just the robustness or strength of the laws that I look at, it’s the actual enforceability of those regulations. And the way that laws that are cut and pasted from one country and placed into another legal context may not have the same impact on the ground and in the business sector based on the way your corporate laws are structured. So you can’t expect the same results by cutting and pasting. And finally, in terms of new risks, one of the most pressing concerns is the potential for increased surveillance and erosion of privacy. As these technologies are evolving, you see enabled, they enable more granular tracking and profiling of individuals, oftentimes without knowledge or consent. And in new technologies where AI grows legs and walks out in the world amongst us, you you need this type of information to calibrate the device. So your conception of privacy, of consent, freedom of freedom of information, all of these things need to shift in the type of understanding that you see embedded in earlier generations of laws. Overall, regulators need to think about these risks on a broad scale, focusing on fundamental rights while fostering innovation. And the nice thing about these new ecosystems is that what is good for users is also good for human rights. So they don’t have to develop at odds with each other when you’re starting to create these systems of new. Thank you. Thank you so much. And I think this is a perfect segue to

Judith Espinoza: you, Dr. Hoda. We’ve heard now what those policy gaps are. I wonder, this is governance and policy, right? But from your perspective, you’ve advised multiple industries, multiple companies. What do you think the most important ethical considerations are for the private sector when developing these technologies? How do you think that this can be built in a trustworthy way? And then also, we always talk about trust at the forum, right? We want to talk about how you build trust with users, with society at large. But what are the metrics then to know that something is trustworthy, right? We can all say that something is trustworthy, but how can we prove that there is trust there, right? Whether it’s the government level, whether it’s at the product level. I

Hoda Al Khzaimi: think one of the most important aspects that faces the private sector is how can you bring the ethical stack into the trust component, into the functionality of the final product that you’re putting into the market. We have talked about several trust frameworks that exist internationally, with the OECD, with the UN, and as well with the World Economic Forum and in TASSI, which is mostly that’s addressable to accountability, transparency, security, inclusivity, and interoperability. But when you look at the technology that’s being produced in the market today, you don’t see that kind of holistic deployment of ethical components across map and the technology stack. So how can we encourage that at the algorithmic level is very important. And I think right now in 2024, when we are trying to publish in my research group and any kind of AI top tier conferences, what I see very positive is the fact that they kind of encourage you to make sure that your algorithm is accessible and the transparency is available in the system. And that’s quite important, because then you start changing the system. And you don’t get access to publication unless you do that. And I would like to see these kind of not just as well existing on the platform level. Because when we talk about the current social media platform, for example, we don’t see the same level of transparency. I mean, I’m not talking about annual reporting or reporting that exists at specific periodic level, but that kind of dynamic, quick at the tip of your finger level of ethical transparency that exists, that will tell you who used your data for what purpose you use your data, that kind of end user dashboard platform that should exist for user. And I think in the in the research space, we do a lot to improve security, we do a lot to make sure that we have, you know, privacy aspects, zero trust systems, homomorphic encryption, federated learning, these big tools that takes us sometimes years to develop in order to bring trustworthiness and level of reliability and security into the technology, but not necessarily always we see them used or transformed into the product cycle. So that’s kind of concerning on the map, on the holistic map. And I think the 2000, this area of 2025 to 2030, would be the period where we perfect this, perfect this kind of transitioning of ethical components into technology. That’s the first head, I think, or challenge that we see across the map. And the second challenge is for us to understand that bringing ethical and trustworthy digital solutions into the platform is a multi stack layer kind of challenge. So you’re not dealing only with the technology or with the ethical stack, but also dealing with the regulation aspects with the harmonization efforts that exist across the globe. You’re dealing with how we should write those into policies and to, as well, regulations that would bring data acts into action in different jurisdictions, respecting the indigenous differences of those jurisdictions is very important, because for as Breton just said, it’s quite different to bring activation of laws when you’re dealing with it in specific jurisdiction versus another. And we should respect that. And we should allow those kind of legal sovereignty rights of developing the law when it comes to technology to exist across different markets. So this is the second, I think, challenge that I see existing. And it worries me at the moment that everybody is looking at the EU, for example, AI act as the grand flagship regulation to be used across jurisdiction, which is not going to be the same because it’s risk oriented kind of framework of legislation that might not work for Asian countries, for example, where they are much more concerned about the value principle based kind of approach, and they want that to be, as well, translated into the platform. So interpretation of ethics and legislation into the platform is very important. And your second question is, what do we have to include when we are talking about the trust stack across board? I mean, if you ask the technology oriented person, the answers will be different than if you asked a legal kind of entity. And if you asked a different stakeholder who’s coming from the policy framework or from the implementation industrial framework, and in my opinion, the first thing we should have is a single source of truth into this, like a governance structure that would tell you a trust stack should, and the best kind of guidelines aspect include these different layers. And to me, the first layer is the ability to allow users to have accessibility to their data, and also visibility of data transactions that exist across the map, and authenticating who actually access those data transactions at different layer of the mapping. And this is something that we had in conversation and research communities, and as well industrial communities since 2009, because we had this massive technological crisis where user woke up one day and realized that they want to have acquisition of their own, as you have said, and also our colleague from Greece just highlighted, accessibility to data and accessibility to data market is considered today an economy by itself. The work we’re seeing around the DPIs and the government technologies, which is the new rise of technologies that we are gonna see until 2030, is gonna be massing to over 6 trillion USDs. So it’s a huge industry that’s being developed on the back of the data that’s being provided by the citizens. So how can we make sure that the first layer of providing accessibility to those data in a secure manner is available for the users? The second layer is about the security stack, and this is what we already have, and I think we’ve done quite a rigorous work around it. We just have to perfect the adaptability of those security stack onto different platform, especially if we’re talking about the metaverse, or if we’re talking about this kind of real-time transactions, then we need to make sure that they are, I would say, fast enough, they are as well light in operations to be able to be computed into different devices as well. And the third layer is the layer of legislation and regulation, because, I don’t know, we have discussed this several times across the map, but I think I just wanna reiterate this for people who don’t understand that legislation takes time. Legislation takes, I mean, a cycle of three years or a cycle of more than three years in certain jurisdictions to take an effect. And technology development is not waiting for legislation to be passed. We see new models of AI being deployed and pushed across markets, so how can we protect users through legislations if we can produce maybe something that’s faster than what we’re having in the current cycle?

Judith Espinoza: It’s very important. I wanna come back to a couple of your points, especially on data and open-source modeling, but I wanna, in the interest of time, open this up now to the audience. I wanna see if anyone has any questions. We can go ahead and pass the microphone around, and I’m also gonna ask that we monitor the chat online to see if there’s some questions. But we have a question over here. I can pass you the mic. Please tell us what your name is and where you’re from, and please address. Sure, fantastic, thank you.

Audience: My name is Ibrahim, and I’m from the Digital Impact Alliance, DIAL. We work in supporting countries in Africa to deal with or develop data governance frameworks which are in-line, up-to-standard, with global best practices. Now, with that in mind, what, and Dr. Hoda, I’m looking at you for this question, probably. Britain said this legal framework development is a second bite at that apple, which I think is quite exciting. But with countries in Africa, which are latecomers into this digital governance space, and with the advent of fast-paced development of technologies that require consume, ingest, but at the same time produce a whole lot of data, how do you expect countries in Africa, or how do you advise for them to deal with private sector actors at this point in time with enabling legal frameworks, with supportive legal frameworks that are not stifling innovation, but at the same time creating that ability to drive value out of engagement with the private sector? Ibrahim, right?

Hoda Al Khzaimi: Thank you so much for the question, I would say. The first thing I would say that Africa is not a latecomer into this conversation, because Africa itself have produced the first, I would say, payment infrastructure. Like, within DPI infrastructure, you care about payment scales, you care about digital identity, you care about, as well, accessibility to healthcare services and other type of services on the platform, and regulation. And Africa, as I said, is not a latecomer into this conversation. And Africa, with examples that happened in Kenya, like the M-PASA, for example, and the payment structure, were pioneering in this space, even globally, so I would say. And I think it’s one of the first or two payment global systems that existed. And as well, Rwanda itself, at the moment, is building loads of good stack when it comes to government tech, that is also pioneering on a government level. So I think there is a lot to learn from Africa when it comes to their mass deployment onto those structures. And also, when we talked, like in 20, I think, 23, we talked to the Minister of Technology and Infrastructure in Rwanda, and they were also trying to pass this knowledge through African countries to African countries from Rwanda, which is great to see. My advice, when it comes to developing legislation or regulations for government technologies in general, touching emerging technologies, not just one aspect of technology, is try to embody what we have already seen in the global de facto, which is a sandboxing approach. A sandboxing approach normally is something that we see mostly in financial sectors, because you’re trying to de-risk the threat that might come into the financial space from adapting a new technology or adapting as well a new emerging aspects into the mass deployment of a system. So a sandboxing approach into those technologies between private sector and public sector is quite important. And this is what we have tried to push for with the World Economic Forum in UAE as well. We have established a framework for the World Economic Forum in UAE as well. We have established this kind of a global trade regulatory structure where countries are encouraged to come and be on boarded on it to understand how can they deploy specific technologies like AI into different domains, not just in the government, but as well in the public sector as well as industry. So I think learning from those global examples and building your own niche localized example is quite important for you to understand the current pressing needs in your markets and try to keep that kind of indigenous a space of solution making and build your own jurisdiction of regulations and policies because this is something you should not, as Britain said, I do agree on this 100%, you should not copy paste from a global structure. You should try to understand the nonsense and the problems and the challenges that you have in the ground and that you’re trying to solve for because it’s part of the sovereignty aspects of technology, sovereignty aspects of data, sovereignty aspects as well of the infrastructure that you will be developing for these type of technologies across the map.

Judith Espinoza: Do we have anyone else in the room with a question? If not, can we pull up maybe the chat from the Zoom room so we can also look at that? Okay, while we wait for that to come in, I wanna… Okay, we’ve touched on some of these, but I wanna touch on something that came up here in this conversation. And I wanna really, there seems to be a tension, right? In most bodies of research and some work about having sovereignty, right? But also making sure that the internet that we develop isn’t fragmented. And I wanna, and a large part of that is this data economy that you touched on. And a lot of that is this really just global data stewardship, right? I mean, we’re talking about tech and we’re talking about platforms whether decentralized or centralized that really span multiple physical jurisdictions, right? Across countries, across nations, regionally. So I wanna come in and I wanna open this up. First, I wanna direct it to Robin. How is meta thinking about this data stewardship aspect of this technology, of this future internet? All of these technologies are sort of changing the way users either produce data or interact with data. So yeah, how is meta thinking about this? And how do you see it maybe changing or affecting again, building on that user trust?

Robin Green: Thanks, that’s such an important question. And I think it applies not only when you’re thinking about the metaverse and AI and things like that, but really to the way that we are interacting with the internet in general. I think we really need to get crisp on what we mean by sovereignty, right? Because there are a lot of different approaches and in different definitions to digital sovereignty. For some, it can mean sovereignty of government and often that historically has been very territorial in nature and physical in nature. But then with the internet, that sort of shifts all of that. But then there’s also the concept of personal sovereignty, digital sovereignty. And so I think one of the most important things to do is make sure that as we are creating different governance frameworks, we’re doing two things. One, making sure that they’re interoperable with one another so that we are not creating frameworks that are not compatible so that you can’t offer services in two separate jurisdictions at the same time that are more or less the same. And so I think that’s sort of one of the key things essential to ensuring that is making sure, as I mentioned earlier, we’re promoting things that are foundational to an open, interoperable and secure internet, in particular, the free flow of data across borders and digital security and broader adoption of some of the best technologies and tools that we have to augment digital security, like encryption of data. data in transit and data at rest. The second thing is we need to make sure that governance is adaptable. And that is a really hard needle to thread. I think we do this in every space of digital governance the best we can, but we’re still really trying to get to good. And the reason for that is because it’s really hard to know what the future’s gonna look like. I think Britain was absolutely hitting the nail on the head when she was talking about how these laws that we’re often applying today that were created in the 80s, 90s, and early aughts, they don’t necessarily seamlessly fit with the technologies of today. So let’s take that as a cautionary tale, not only around making sure that we are not just copy, pasting, and making the mistakes of yesterday, but also making sure that as we’re creating legal frameworks, we’re building them with, sorry, this keeps going out on me. We’re building them with enough flexibility and adaptability, and in a way that in some sense is really technology neutral, even though we’re still talking about tech governance, so that in 20, 30 years, we’re not in the same position where we have a slower to develop legal framework than technology is adopted that really is not fit for purpose. To that end, I think governance has to be collaborative, cooperative, and multi-stakeholder. One of the most essential things in how we think about not only product and, excuse me, product and service governance, but also just creating what the policy frameworks and legal frameworks around the world, what we think that they should look like, is making sure that we’re collaborating with other private sector peers, not only within our sector, but with other kinds of companies in different sectors as well, collaborating with government, civil society, academia, and users, and I think that’s one of the great examples of why FORA’s like IGF are so critical. It gives us this opportunity to come together and to really promote that kind of multi-stakeholderism, and then I think the last thing is we have responsible innovation principles, and one of the things that’s really important about those principles is we’ve developed them in a way that is meant to be adaptable in just the same way that I’m sort of suggesting our legal frameworks need to be adaptable. They’re high-level principles that we have to execute on in a way that users trust, and the way that we know we’re doing that right is because users are happy with it, and it’s exactly like Britton said. What’s good for users is good for human rights, and frankly, what’s good for users and human rights is also good for economic development and digital transformation, and so our responsible innovation principles are never surprise people. A good example of that is on our smart glasses, the Meta Ray Bans, if they’re turned on, you can see a little LED light, so people will know if a person in their vicinity is using these glasses to take pictures or to livestream or something like that, and if the user actually tries to cover up the LED, they’ll get a prompt that they have to uncover it in order to continue using the product as they want. In addition to that, we wanna provide controls that matter. This is especially important as it applies to youth using our products, not only making sure that youth have those controls and that we’re starting with built-in privacy by default, but also making sure that parents have the kinds of controls that they want so that they can play a really active role in guiding the experiences of the, excuse me, the experiences that their children are having online using these technologies. In addition to that, consider everybody. Consider everybody is our third principle, and it’s really meant to ensure accessibility. It’s meant to ensure that this is an internet and these are technologies for everybody. An example of how we do that is by making sure that we have adjusted height, for example, on our Meta Horizon operating system, which means that whether you are standing up or sitting down you can have the same really comfortable experience in VR. We also have a put people first principle. This is all about privacy and security. Oh, I’m sorry, I’m not good at holding microphones. You’d think I was a digital native, and so some of this would be easier, but I’m not great with technology, although I guess this isn’t really digital technology. So anyways, put people first, privacy, security, I could go on about that for a very long time. In the context of VR in particular in the metaverse, well, VR and augmented reality and XR, I think we think a lot first and foremost about the youth experience and making sure that we’re building privacy and security into that, but then the other aspect of that is making sure that adults have that same kind of control over their experiences and autonomy. We implement this through a lot of different approaches that range from the kinds of user controls that we’ve talked about, but also privacy enhancing techniques like processing data on device. And then we also try to minimize data collection as much as we can, and then we do safety and integrity as one of the major things, and I think you’ll notice that safety and integrity sort of principles are woven throughout some of our other principles, but it’s also its own standalone principle. And we really try to live that and make sure that our users can experience that principle by fostering safe and healthy communities. We want to make sure that we are promoting communities where people can gather with shared intent incentives and establish positive norms to connect online. We want to be empowering people, developers, creators, and users with the kinds of tools to create the experiences they want, but we also need to make sure that people with bad intentions are not able to just do whatever they want on services. And so with that in mind, we have a code of conduct for virtual experiences that makes sure that we do things like prohibit illegal, abusive behavior, or excuse me, behavior that promotes illegal activity, behavior that is abusive, or behavior that could actually lead to physical harm. And then we’re also doing things to promote admins and their ability to moderate their spaces. And so we just want to make sure that as we’re thinking about these things, those high-level values, those principles are really adapted into governance structures that governments are considering so that we can really be maximizing voice, safety, authenticity, dignity, and privacy in the growing adoption of these new technologies.

Judith Espinoza: Thank you, Robin. I think that was very comprehensive. And I want to touch on one thing that I think is really important, right? So when you’re developing these frameworks, right, you really do need a whole society approach, but there’s also something interesting here that I think we can all take away, which is there really is an alignment of interest, right? And it’s an alignment of interest for everyone because trust makes things work, right? When a user trusts a technology or trusts a platform or a service, that can expand, that can grow. That’s an opportunity for growth for everyone. And with that, I want to pass this on to Apostolos now. You’re sort of the example of what private-public cooperation can do. It’s kind of like the bread and butter that we do at the forum. So I want to ask you, how does Greece approach this, right, this issue of data? How do you approach data stewardship? How do you come up with these frameworks that work, that are trustworthy, that are interoperable, and that leverage all of these sort of new technological innovations so that people can have better access to opportunities through digital intermediaries? And then I’m going to pass on to Britton after that on a similar question, but I’ll let Apostolos go first. Please, go ahead.

Apostolos Papadopoulos: Thank you, Judith. Fantastic question. I think in the Greek context, trust, privacy, and data security are defining axioms and characteristics of the digital transformation strategy. Everything that was done and is still being done has always put users first, citizens first, their data, and everything happens with consent. So my colleagues here mentioned a bunch of great words earlier. Transparency, consent is important. So anything, anytime, a digital service, whether that’s commenced by the citizen or by another government organization, has to access data. The citizen has to consent to that data processing. Other than that, from an institutional perspective, when the Ministry of Digital Governance was created, the minister, it was designed that he was endowed with CIO roles, let’s say. That means he or they had the unilateral power to connect any data set they want. But I think connect is the operative keyword here because it’s not about owning the data sets. It’s not about owning the data. It’s about simply connecting different registries with the intent of producing a digital service outcome. for the citizen and the citizen has explicitly asked for that. So it’s not about the government going out there on its own and processing data and creating new registries and creating, you know, stuff like that. But it’s about creating the experience and creating the trust culture that people know, oh, I want to do X, Y, Z. Here’s how I do it. Here’s one platform to do it. And it’s being done in a transparent way to me and to my understanding. So trust, openness, trustworthiness are defining characteristics of the digital transformation strategy.

Judith Espinoza: Okay, thank you so much. You know, when we talk about traditional digital public infrastructure, the things that kind of come up really always are, you know, data exchange, online payment systems, and digital identity. And so, you know, across the stage, we see how people approach that in different ways, right? Whether you’re building soft digital identities and footprints through like a meta account or, you know, your Google account or whatever it is. But these all sort of build on this aspect of connection. And I want to pass on to you now, Britton. What do you think are those gaps really? Because we’re talking about, you know, theoretically, and we see this alignment, right? This is a good alignment of incentives. But what do you think is the gap there then to take us there? And then you can talk about it from a regulatory standpoint, but what do you think are the gaps there to make sure that we sort of all align and take this work forward? Three things.

Brittan Heller: Number one, I think if we are not deliberate about creating spaces for cultural engagement and education in the next iteration of the internet, we will not have them in the same way that we did in the first. When you look at the people who created the internets, the first time, they all were professors who were trying to share information. They really privileged, they worked for government organizations. They got their funding from government organizations. With the next iteration, having extensive private investment into it, it is not a natural evolution to have a cultural space emerge if civil society does not ask for it and if governments aren’t aware that that is a gap. You can look at this with the metaverse where you saw certain countries starting to create cultural properties. Barbados created an embassy in the metaverse. South Korea had a widespread presence. And if you look at Saudi Arabia, there’s actually augmented reality aspects of their cultural tours when you go to some of their UNESCO World Heritage Sites. So you have to think about how the things that make people unique, the things that your people value, the things that make you special, translate into the new mediums of computing. The second is you have to think about hardware floor because the hardware floor for some of these new technologies is not solidified yet. What this means is that we risk creating fragmentation via technical means when we may not intend for that to happen. The example for that is Magic Leap just announced that they are going to stop supporting their first edition of their XR headset. So all of the content that was created for the last eight years will no longer be accessible in a matter of weeks. This is happening again and again and again, and there are many industry groups and user groups within the XR community who are very, very concerned about the loss of their data, the loss of their creative energy because the hardware floor is not settled. We don’t know the format. There are groups working on that now that are just starting to emerge, like the Metaverse Standards Forum. Most people are very surprised to learn that it was just this year that the file format for 3D assets to actually move between worlds and function between worlds was created by Adobe, so the equivalent of a PDF-type format for digital assets. We’re really at that phase in some of these new computing platforms, and so you have to think about what that means and what will be lost if we don’t bring it along. I think the final piece is looking at ways that concepts like consent can be evolved with new computing platforms. I did a study that was published and presented at ISMAR, which is a big conference about spatial computing. Kind of strange for an international law professor to be there, but we were looking at different ways that the notice and consent mechanisms that you have in flat-screen traditional computing could be adapted to 3D computing, and if the affordances of 3D technology meant you could do it differently. And we found that, yes, you could do it differently. Users liked the mechanism that we built that showed them that their eyes were being tracked and how the eye tracking was working. They responded really, really positively to that, and then they felt like they were able to consent to the use of their data in more meaningfully informed ways. That’s kind of anathema to what a lot of companies thought, that if you showed people that their eyes were being tracked, it might freak them out, to be honest. But they liked understanding what the data flows… We visualized the data flows for them and explained to them how the device worked. That was the basis for meaningfully informed consent that you couldn’t do on a flat screen. You had to do it in 3D. I think those are the three pieces that might get overlooked if we’re just looking at it through a pure kind of platform policy or regulatory lens. That’s fantastic. Thank you.

Judith Espinoza: And we have now the warning three-minute mark, but I want to wrap up. And I think there’s some good takeaways to this, right? First, I think when we think about the future Internet, all of us are active participants in how we build that future together, right? None of us are, like, passive users of the Internet or online or digital intermediaries. We all have an active role in how we shape that. And I want us all to feel empowered and walk away in knowing that what we do matters, right, from a user standpoint or through your own personal capacities in whatever way you join us. I see Jeff from Amazon Web Services here, and we’ll chat in a bit with him. But the second takeaway is, regardless of what the future Internet looks like, right, we have to make sure that we’re taking a principled approach to how we build this, right? We want to make sure that the users at the center, that digital public infrastructure really is a means to further, whether it’s economic opportunity or connectivity, whether it’s metaverse, whether it’s projects like the ones that Brittan mentioned. And there’s also, you know, there’s the Duaverse now, which is like a Dubai Electricity and Water Association created this, like…

Hoda Al Khzaimi: I mean, in UAE, we have many. We have, as well, the one with MR and the land authority where you can pay and actually co-pay for real estate assets on this spot. We have, as well, developed a strategy that is extremely applicable to a wide scale of industries, and we are encouraging the industry to build that kind of metaverse collaborative space that reflects back into the economy and different FDI structures. So I think it is about how the leadership of this space will happen. I mean, we have advocacy on across the map from the leaders of the country, which translate to building economies and building companies and building a solution that translates across map. But this is exactly what we talked about, right?

Judith Espinoza: So we, in these examples, see how metaverse or AI is being built into DPI, right? This is really pushing forth how people are going to experience the future of the internet. And I think, lastly, right, all of our incentives align. No one advocates. No one wants, like, a bad future internet. So it’s important to all come together. And I want to thank, to close up, I want to thank the IGF for hosting us and allowing us to have this space. I want to thank all of you for being wonderful supporters of our work, but also really great collaborators in what we do. And, you know, the final takeaway is this is kind of the example of what we want moving forward, right? This is all of society represented on this panel and through the work that we’ve been doing here for the last couple of days. So I encourage you to take that with you and be active participants in the future internet that we want to create, right? It’s not static. It’s a product that keeps evolving. And we keep evolving with it. So, again, thank you so much. I’ll let all of us go. Again, thank you for spending the last day of the forum with us. We’re super grateful. And if you have questions and you want to hang around, please do so. We’ll be here for a couple more minutes. Thank you. Round of applause for our wonderful panelists. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Agreement Points

Need for adaptable and interoperable legal frameworks

Brittan Heller

Robin Green

Need for adaptable legal frameworks to keep pace with rapid technological evolution

Need for technology-neutral and adaptable legal frameworks

Importance of interoperable governance frameworks to avoid fragmentation

Both speakers emphasize the importance of creating legal frameworks that can adapt to rapidly evolving technologies and remain interoperable across jurisdictions to prevent fragmentation.

Importance of user privacy and consent in data processing

Robin Green

Apostolos Papadopoulos

Hoda Al Khzaimi

Importance of privacy, security, and user controls in new technologies

Importance of user consent and transparency in data processing

Need for user-centric dashboards showing data usage

These speakers agree on the critical importance of user privacy, consent, and transparency in data processing, emphasizing the need for clear user controls and information about data usage.

Similar Viewpoints

These speakers share the view that transparency and accountability are crucial in the development and deployment of AI and automated systems, emphasizing the need for responsible innovation that prioritizes user trust and safety.

Brittan Heller

Robin Green

Hoda Al Khzaimi

Importance of accountability and transparency in automated systems

Responsible innovation principles focusing on user trust and safety

Importance of transparency and accessibility in AI algorithms

Unexpected Consensus

Cultural engagement in the future internet

Brittan Heller

Judith Espinoza

Need for deliberate creation of cultural engagement spaces

Digital public infrastructure as a pathway for connection and economic opportunity

While not explicitly discussed by other speakers, both Brittan Heller and Judith Espinoza touch on the importance of cultural engagement and connection in the future internet, suggesting an unexpected consensus on the need for deliberate efforts to create spaces for cultural and social interaction in digital environments.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The speakers generally agree on the need for adaptable and interoperable legal frameworks, the importance of user privacy and consent, and the necessity of transparency and accountability in AI and automated systems. There is also a shared recognition of the interconnected nature of emerging technologies and their impact on the future internet.

Consensus level

There is a high level of consensus among the speakers on core principles such as user-centric approaches, the need for adaptable regulations, and the importance of transparency. This consensus suggests a shared vision for the future internet that prioritizes user rights, innovation, and responsible development of technologies. However, there are some variations in emphasis and specific approaches, particularly in how different countries or organizations are implementing these principles.

Different Viewpoints

Approach to data sovereignty and internet governance

Robin Green

Hoda Al Khzaimi

Balancing data sovereignty with an open, interoperable internet

Need for user-centric dashboards showing data usage

Robin Green emphasizes the need for interoperable governance frameworks and cross-border data flows, while Hoda Al Khzaimi focuses more on user-centric control and transparency in data usage.

Unexpected Differences

Cultural engagement in the future internet

Brittan Heller

Robin Green

Need for deliberate creation of cultural engagement spaces

Responsible innovation principles focusing on user trust and safety

While both speakers discuss the future of the Internet, Brittan Heller unexpectedly emphasizes the need for the deliberate creation of cultural spaces, which is not directly addressed by other speakers who focus more on technical and regulatory aspects.

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement revolve around the balance between data sovereignty and internet openness, the approach to user data control and transparency, and the emphasis on cultural aspects in the future internet.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among the speakers is relatively low, with more emphasis on complementary perspectives rather than direct contradictions. This suggests a generally aligned view on the future of the internet, with differences mainly in specific focus areas and implementation strategies.

Partial Agreements

Both speakers agree on the need for adaptable legal frameworks, but Brittan Heller emphasizes the importance of considering the constellation of emerging technologies, while Robin Green focuses more on technology-neutral approaches.

Brittan Heller

Robin Green

Need for adaptable legal frameworks to keep pace with rapid technological evolution

Need for technology-neutral and adaptable legal frameworks

Similar Viewpoints

These speakers share the view that transparency and accountability are crucial in the development and deployment of AI and automated systems, emphasizing the need for responsible innovation that prioritizes user trust and safety.

Brittan Heller

Robin Green

Hoda Al Khzaimi

Importance of accountability and transparency in automated systems

Responsible innovation principles focusing on user trust and safety

Importance of transparency and accessibility in AI algorithms

Key Takeaways

The future internet will be shaped by a constellation of emerging technologies including AI, XR, blockchain, and quantum computing.

There is a need for adaptable and interoperable legal frameworks to keep pace with rapid technological evolution.

Data governance and digital sovereignty must be balanced with maintaining an open, interoperable internet.

Incorporating ethical considerations and user trust is crucial in developing new technologies.

Digital public infrastructure and digital transformation offer significant opportunities for economic growth and improved governance.

A multi-stakeholder, collaborative approach is essential for effective internet governance.

Resolutions and Action Items

Develop governance frameworks that are interoperable across jurisdictions

Implement responsible innovation principles focusing on user trust and safety

Create user-centric dashboards showing data usage and processing

Establish sandboxing approaches for testing new technologies in regulatory environments

Deliberately create spaces for cultural engagement in new computing platforms

Unresolved Issues

How to effectively balance data sovereignty with cross-border data flows

Addressing potential increased surveillance and privacy erosion in new technologies

Resolving hardware floor issues in emerging technologies like XR

How to evolve consent mechanisms for new computing platforms

Ensuring accessibility and inclusivity in the future internet across different regions and demographics

Suggested Compromises

Adopting technology-neutral legal frameworks to allow for future adaptability

Balancing innovation with user protection through responsible development principles

Using sandboxing approaches to test new technologies within existing regulatory structures

Implementing privacy-enhancing techniques like on-device data processing to balance functionality with data protection

The conclusion is that emerging technologies are a constellation, and if your regulatory approach focuses on one aspect in lieu of the others, you’re going to miss the bigger picture.

speaker

Brittan Heller

reason

This comment introduces a holistic perspective on regulating emerging technologies, emphasizing the interconnected nature of different innovations.

impact

It shifted the discussion towards considering the broader ecosystem of technologies rather than isolated innovations, setting the stage for a more comprehensive analysis of regulatory challenges.

Overall, regulators need to think about these risks on a broad scale, focusing on fundamental rights while fostering innovation. And the nice thing about these new ecosystems is that what is good for users is also good for human rights.

speaker

Brittan Heller

reason

This insight aligns user interests with human rights, suggesting a win-win approach to regulation and innovation.

impact

It reframed the discussion around finding solutions that benefit both users and broader societal interests, encouraging a more balanced approach to technology governance.

The first thing we should have is a single source of truth into this, like a governance structure that would tell you a trust stack should, and the best kind of guidelines aspect include these different layers.

speaker

Hoda Al Khzaimi

reason

This comment proposes a concrete solution to the complex issue of building trust in digital systems across different jurisdictions.

impact

It sparked a more detailed discussion about the specific components needed in a trust framework, moving the conversation from theoretical concerns to practical implementation.

Let’s take that as a cautionary tale, not only around making sure that we are not just copy, pasting, and making the mistakes of yesterday, but also making sure that as we’re creating legal frameworks, we’re building them with enough flexibility and adaptability, and in a way that in some sense is really technology neutral.

speaker

Robin Green

reason

This insight highlights the need for flexible, future-proof regulatory approaches that can adapt to rapid technological change.

impact

It encouraged participants to think more critically about long-term implications of current regulatory efforts and how to create more adaptable frameworks.

Number one, I think if we are not deliberate about creating spaces for cultural engagement and education in the next iteration of the internet, we will not have them in the same way that we did in the first.

speaker

Brittan Heller

reason

This comment brings attention to the often-overlooked cultural and educational aspects of internet development.

impact

It broadened the scope of the discussion beyond technical and regulatory concerns to include cultural preservation and education in the digital age.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by encouraging a more holistic, user-centric, and culturally aware approach to internet governance and emerging technologies. They moved the conversation from siloed thinking about individual technologies or regulations to considering the broader ecosystem and long-term implications. The discussion evolved to emphasize the importance of adaptable frameworks, trust-building mechanisms, and the preservation of cultural spaces in the digital realm. This comprehensive perspective highlighted the complex interplay between technology, regulation, user rights, and societal values in shaping the future of the internet.

How can we ensure that governance frameworks for new technologies are interoperable across jurisdictions while still respecting local needs?

speaker

Robin Green

explanation

This is important to avoid creating incompatible frameworks that prevent offering consistent services across different jurisdictions.

How can we make governance frameworks for digital technologies more adaptable to keep pace with rapid technological change?

speaker

Robin Green

explanation

This is crucial to avoid the problem of outdated laws not fitting new technologies, as happened with laws from the 80s-00s being applied to current tech.

How can we create spaces for cultural engagement and education in the next iteration of the internet?

speaker

Brittan Heller

explanation

This is important to ensure cultural aspects are not overlooked in the development of new internet technologies, which are largely driven by private investment.

How can we address the issue of the unsettled hardware floor in new technologies like XR?

speaker

Brittan Heller

explanation

This is crucial to prevent the loss of content and creative work due to rapid obsolescence of hardware platforms.

How can concepts like consent be evolved for new computing platforms?

speaker

Brittan Heller

explanation

This is important to ensure users can provide meaningful informed consent in new technological environments like 3D computing.

How can African countries develop supportive legal frameworks for digital governance that enable innovation while creating value from private sector engagement?

speaker

Audience member (Ibrahim)

explanation

This is important for countries that are newer to digital governance to effectively manage rapid technological development and data issues.

What metrics can be used to prove that a technology or system is trustworthy?

speaker

Judith Espinoza

explanation

This is important for building and measuring trust with users and society at large in new technologies.

Summary

This discussion focused on democratizing access to AI through open-source large language models (LLMs). Panelists explored how open-sourcing can influence innovation rates in the AI industry and prevent monopolization by large entities. They highlighted the potential of open-source LLMs to foster collaboration, address local needs, and empower smaller economies and the Global South.

Key points included the importance of truly open-source models that allow free use, modification, and redistribution. Panelists discussed the challenges of building open-source AI infrastructure, particularly for developing countries, including the need for computing power, technical expertise, and high-quality data. The discussion touched on initiatives in countries like the Dominican Republic and Brazil to develop localized AI models that reflect cultural nuances and languages.

Participants debated the role of regulation versus open-source approaches in addressing monopolies and ensuring equitable AI development. Some argued for hard regulation to manage competition and protect data sovereignty, while others emphasized the potential of open collaboration and shared resources.

The conversation also covered the risks associated with open-sourcing, such as potential misuse and reduced incentives for large-scale investments. Panelists stressed the need for governance structures, ethical considerations, and investment in local capacity building to mitigate these risks. The discussion concluded with calls for trust, collaboration, and a focus on inclusive AI development that serves the public good and represents diverse populations.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– The role of open source in democratizing access to AI and large language models

– Challenges and opportunities for developing countries in leveraging open source AI

– The need for infrastructure, computing power, and data to support open source AI development

– Concerns about monopolization of AI by large tech companies and how open source can help address this

– Cultural and linguistic representation in AI models, especially for underrepresented regions

The overall purpose of the discussion was to explore how open source approaches to AI and large language models can promote more equitable access and development of these technologies, especially for developing countries and underrepresented groups. The panelists aimed to highlight both the potential benefits and challenges of open source AI.

The tone of the discussion was generally optimistic about the potential of open source AI to democratize access, but also realistic about the significant challenges involved, especially for developing countries. There was a mix of idealism about open collaboration and pragmatism about the resources required. Toward the end, some panelists expressed a more cautious view about the need for regulation in addition to open source approaches.

Speakers

– Ihita Gangavarapu: Coordinator of India Youth IGF, works in cybersecurity domain in India

– Daniele Turra: Private Sector, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)

– Melissa Muñoz Suro: Director of Innovation at the Government Office of ICTs in the Dominican Republic, GRULAC

– Bianca Kremer: Civil Society, GRULAC

– Abraham Fifi Selby: Technical Community, African Group

Additional speakers:

– Yug Desai: Online moderator from South Asian University

– Purnima Tiwari: Rapporteur for the session

– Audience

Expanded Summary: Democratising Access to AI through Open-Source Large Language Models

This discussion explored the potential of open-source large language models (LLMs) to democratise access to artificial intelligence (AI), with a particular focus on fostering innovation and empowering smaller economies and the Global South. The panel, comprising experts from diverse backgrounds and regions, delved into the opportunities and challenges presented by open-source AI, as well as the implications for governance and regulation.

Understanding Open-Source AI

Daniele Turra of ISA Digital Consulting provided a foundational explanation of open-source software and its four freedoms: the freedom to use, study, modify, and redistribute the software. He emphasized that truly open-source AI models should adhere to these principles, allowing for free use, modification, and redistribution. This context set the stage for discussing the potential and challenges of open-source AI.

Benefits and Potential of Open-Source AI

The panelists broadly agreed on the positive impact of open-source AI on innovation and accessibility. Ihita Gangavarapu, coordinator of India Youth IGF, emphasized that open-source enables broader access and participation in AI development. Daniele Turra noted that open-source models can reduce costs and foster innovation. Melissa Muñoz Suro, Director of Innovation at the Government Office of ICTs in the Dominican Republic, highlighted the potential for customization to meet local needs and languages.

Abraham Fifi Selby, an expert in AI development in the Global South, argued that open-source approaches can level the playing field for regions with limited resources. He stressed the importance of multilingualism and local policy development in addressing African needs. Bianca Kremer, a researcher and activist from Brazil, added that open-source can help address biases in AI models, contributing to more inclusive and representative technologies.

Challenges and Limitations

Despite the optimism, significant challenges were acknowledged. Daniele Turra pointed out that substantial computing resources, such as GPU clusters, are still required to train large models, which can be a barrier for many organizations and regions. Melissa Muñoz Suro and Abraham Fifi Selby both highlighted the lack of infrastructure and expertise in developing countries as major hurdles.

Melissa Muñoz Suro drew attention to the ongoing costs of maintaining and scaling open-source systems. The need for high-quality local data to improve models was emphasized by Selby. These challenges underscore the complexity of implementing open-source AI solutions, especially in resource-constrained environments.

Governance and Regulation

The discussion revealed differing opinions on regulating open-source AI development. Daniele Turra stressed the need for clear definitions and licensing of truly open-source models. In contrast, Bianca Kremer called for hard regulation to address competition issues, suggesting a more interventionist approach.

Melissa Muñoz Suro emphasized the importance of data sovereignty and local control of AI systems. Abraham Fifi Selby proposed exploring public-private partnerships to support open AI development. Daniele Turra suggested a “computing tax” and partnerships with civil society organizations as potential governance structures.

Practical Applications and Cultural Context

Melissa Muñoz Suro shared insights about the development of ‘Taina’, an AI system in the Dominican Republic designed to reflect local culture and language. This project exemplifies the potential for open-source AI to be tailored to local needs while respecting cultural nuances. Melissa Muñoz Suro detailed how Taina was developed using open-source tools and local data to create a culturally relevant AI assistant.

Bianca Kremer provided examples from Brazil, including the Tucano and Maritaca AI projects, which demonstrate successful open-source AI development in Portuguese. She also highlighted the issue of algorithmic racism, using an example of how Chat GPT associated the term “favela” with negative connotations, underscoring the importance of addressing bias in AI models.

Abraham Fifi Selby offered perspective on the African context, highlighting how open-source AI systems are enabling young innovators to develop solutions at a lower cost, despite challenges in funding and infrastructure.

Audience Engagement and Unresolved Issues

The discussion included audience questions, particularly regarding competition and monopolies in AI development. This led to a broader conversation about balancing open collaboration with the need for regulation in AI governance.

Other unresolved issues highlighted include:

1. Effectively distributing computing power for open-source AI development

2. Ensuring cultural nuances from underrepresented regions are included in AI models

3. Creating sustainable funding mechanisms for open-source AI in developing countries

Conclusion

In their final remarks, panelists reiterated the transformative potential of open-source AI in democratizing access to technology and fostering innovation, particularly in developing regions. They emphasized the need for continued collaboration, investment in local capacity building, and addressing both technical and socio-economic challenges to realize the full potential of open-source AI for inclusive global development.

Ihita Gangavarapu: All right. Hi everyone. Good morning. Welcome to our session. I’m the coordinator of India Youth IGF and I also work in the cybersecurity domain back in India. So our session is titled democratizing access to AI with open source LLMs, large language models. It’s a 60 minute session where we have ample time for audience interaction. So when we talk about, we have, although before we start, we have a few speakers offline, but we do have a few speakers online, including our online moderator. So when we talk about democratizing access to AI, we are talking about making sure that artificial intelligence technologies and resources are accessible to a broad range of people, not just to the large corporations, governments, or the highly skilled participants. And the goal is to ensure that everybody is empowered, even the small businesses, educators, researchers, and organizations from all backgrounds, all economies, and they benefit from AI. The development and dissemination of AI, particularly the large language models, are increasingly dominated by major technology companies right now. And that does raise certain critical issues around access, control, and equity. Now with proprietary models that are accelerating innovation economic gain for some, they are also risking consolidation of power and limiting the technological diversity. So when we speak of open sourcing LLMs, we are looking at it creating a pathway to democratize AI, potentially reducing the costs and fostering innovation by enabling more and more stakeholders to participate in the development of AI. So today’s discussion is going to be focusing on the strategic, economic, and social implications of open sourcing. open sourcing AI, LLMs particularly, and the potential to counteract monopolistic controls and encourage a broader distribution of technological and economic benefits. So before I start, I’d like to introduce you to our panel. I am Ahitha, but I’m joined by Daniel A, who is working with ISA Digital Consulting. I also have Abraham from Payag. Online, we have Yug Desai, who’s the moderator, online moderator from the South Asian University. We have Purnima Tiwari, who is the rapporteur for our session, as well as our speaker, Melissa, joining us remotely, who’s working in the innovation cabinet, Dominican Republic. Thank you all for joining us, and I now start off with our discussion. Very first policy question is to Daniel A. How does open sourcing influence innovation rates within the AI industry? What are the long-term implications of open source AI on the structure of the tech industry itself?

Daniele Turra: Thank you so much, Ahitha, for presenting me today. I’m so glad to be here to discuss this very important topic. Everybody right now is talking about AI. Open source has been around for a very, very long time, and the narrative is being, in a way, of course, influenced by these large big tech giants that we have just mentioned. But open source has, in a way, a different history, especially free and open source software. So before getting into the specific industry implications, I would like to spend a minute to just introduce, once again, the concept of open source. And we can just start by saying that open source was a philosophy that was first, in a way, brought forward by Richard Salmon and other important scholars in the United States. States that believed that open source should mean, of course, sharing the code, but they also tightly related with the concept of freedom. So free, not as in beer, as they say, but free as in freedom. That is, freedom of speech, but especially the four freedoms that define the core ideas of open source. There are the freedom to use code, the freedom to study code, to redistribute it, and to modify it. So there should not be any large or small actor entitled to, in a way, own strong intellectual property on that code. And this, of course, is an idea that can benefit so many actors, from the smaller to the larger, but in a way, can enable others to join the industry as well. So when it comes to the AI context, I think I had a few slides. I don’t know if tech support can put them on. But we are talking about specific solutions and software that are always created by two different parts. So there is not only a general idea of open source software. We are talking about models and weights. So when you produce a model, there are mainly two files. One is about the weights, and one is about the model itself. So based on this, the Open Source Initiative published the free and open source idea that defines both models and weights to be fully open source. So anybody that can access a truly open source LLM has access to both the model and the weights that is also the result from the training of the data set used to train that model. Then on the other side of the spectrum at the very opposite side we have the idea of a fully closed model you know when you are just maybe accessing it through APIs or anything like that but it’s already in production it’s not something that can be in a way you know inspected modified or distributed right and in between models that have been defined as open weights where you know there are licensing where you are as a researcher maybe allowed to explore either the model or the weights again but are not really entitled to use it as for commercial purposes and of course most often you’re not even allowed to you know redistribute it itself so this of course creates situations in which not everyone can actually benefit from those those models and the again I would like to stress that the only definition that is truly compliant with open source as we free free and open source software as we know it is the one that embodies all four freedoms as defined by the thinkers of the free and open source thought so I don’t know again if we have lights I don’t know about my timing right now but again we can think next slide please yeah here you can see the the frameworks I was talking about different licenses and not all providers actually have the same models and the same licensing for the models they provide so in this other slide that is AI as a service stack. I would like to bring the focus again on the components that are needed to build an actual AI solution from end to end. So a few scholars traced some comparisons between the cloud computing model. And at each of these layers, open source software can always be employed. So we should also ask ourselves, are we actively as private entities or public entities and so on, are we really entitled to have something that is truly closed source, even if we are employing so, so many community efforts coming from the entire open source community? And so in a way, this can be some food for thought, thinking about the different steps that are in implementing actively AI solutions. And when it comes to actively industry impacts, we can also think of all the open source software that goes both at the AI software services training and fine tuning the models, down to the actual infrastructure that is needed to have the computing power to have those solutions actively built. Because in the end, as the last slide shows it, please change the slide to the last one. Um, last slide, please. OK, the last one. There is a supply chain that starts from data collection to data storage, data preparation, algorithm training, application development. And at each of these stages, the entire idea of having community-supporting solutions that are open source can be something that can benefit also the private sector. So again, this is an entire invitation to think in terms of who builds the software and all the different steps that are needed to get to it and how technologies that are already around there can actively help in achieving truly, truly open source models. Thank you.

Ihita Gangavarapu: Thank you so much for your points. I would actually bring in Melissa here, who’s joining us remotely, to answer the same question. How does open sourcing influence AI innovation in the entire industry? And what are the long-term implications? Melissa, over to you.

Melissa Muñoz Suro: OK, can you hear me well? Yes. Perfect. Good morning, everyone. So yeah, I’m going to start. My name is Melissa Munoz and I work as the Director of Innovation at the Government Office of ICTs here in the Dominican Republic. And basically what we do in OPTIC is using technology to improve lives and make everyday interactions with government more efficient, inclusive, and even more enjoyable. I wanted to answer this question, illustrating it with a case of what we are doing here in OPTIC. And one of the most exciting ways that we are doing this through our national AI strategy, in which a big part of that vision is Taina. That basically is an open source AI system that in the future will make the government services faster, smarter, and even more personal. That’s what we are trying to do. Taina isn’t ready yet. Right now we are focusing on laying the groundwork with a project called Ciudadania. Open source technology plays a key role in this project because in a word it opens the door for more collaboration and innovation. We are building a strong foundation for Taina by collecting and organizing the data that we need basically to make it work. And how does it work? Well, we are collecting data from existing government systems like PuntoGov that is in personal service points and from online service platform GovDo and the 462 point line. And these systems let us possibly gather insights of how citizens interact with public services. We have also set up specific interaction points where people can actively contribute to the data. Things like how they phrase requests, questions. And this isn’t about collecting personal information at all. It is about understanding the way Dominicans communicate so the AI reflects our culture and our language. And this is a collaboration between government, citizens, and local universities. The universities help us basically to ensure that the data is… accurate, well-structured, and aligned with privacy standards. What is interesting about it is how open-source doesn’t just fool innovation itself, but it also shapes the structure of the tech industry, especially in smaller economies like DDR. And by using open-source frameworks, what we are breaking is the dominoes of the big tech companies. Instead of relying on their tools, we are creating solutions tied to the Dominican Republic specific needs. For us, that means building systems that understand Dominican and Spanish, that is different to all Spanish, and reflect our culture, solve our local challenges, but the potential doesn’t stop there. Specifically, open-source means that other Spanish-speaking countries can learn from what we’re doing, and that’s what we’re trying to do, to escalate this regionally. And Ciudadanía could inspire similar projects in the region, fostering cooperation, creating a shared path towards a more inclusive AI development. And open-source isn’t just about influencing innovation rates, it is about basically fundamentally reshaping how technology serves people, that’s what we think in DDR. And our current work with Ciudadanía and our vision for TIE at the end shows how open-source principles can empower governments to, and also engage citizens, and create opportunities for smaller economies to thrive. I got to believe that technology should make life simpler, that’s ultimately happier, and open-source is a key tool to achieve this vision and create a more inclusive and accessible world, and people-centered tech industry. Thank you.

Ihita Gangavarapu: Thank you so much for your points, Melissa, you also highlighted on certain initiatives. I would now, first, I mean, before I hand over the question to Abraham, I actually would like to introduce Bianca, who’s joined us, thanks for joining, she’s from CTSFGV Brazil. So the same question applies to you, Abraham, and after which we would like to take a comment or a question from the audience, before we move on to the second policy question.

Abraham Fifi Selby: All right, thank you very much for the session, and I’m very happy to join this panel. I’m from the Global South, especially in the African context, so I will be speaking based on that context, and we understand how open source in terms of a large language models can help us. When we say the impact of innovation rates, I’m going to highlight some few points, then we discuss about see how it is going to help the African context, the Global South context. In terms of influencing innovation rates, what we see in Africa is that we have a democratization of AI development, which means that there is a very low cost in terms of using the open source system. In Africa, getting funding for startup researchers in terms of developing AI systems is very hard, and we don’t have large systems, large data centers, so investments have to go through before we get that. This open source AI system is helping young people to bring out innovation because they can tap on such systems at a very low cost or very low rate so that they can improve upon development. Let me also go into fostering collaborations. Basically, the world is changing, and everything also evolves around technology is now moving into AI. We cannot focus on advanced countries and also not look at the local countries, so at least open source systems is helping the people from the Global South to make sure that at least they also provide a source of data which can improve the other regions and which the other regions can also tap upon. In Africa now, there are some countries creating a policy document, so let’s say startups, business people who need to get information about which policy they are doing this kind of policy. I need this policy, which does this law, policy, regulating that. Now these AI systems, people are feeding in data on it. They’re connected to open source AI systems, AI tools, which also helps. So if someone is in Europe, want to get an idea of business or some regulation policies in Africa, because there is a collaboration between Africa and Europe, they can be able to get and also ACI and other American countries. Let’s also look at addressing local needs. This AI tools that we use, basically in terms of, let me come into multilingualism, we have languages that people may even seem not to understand because of the evolving in Africa. Now collaborating this AI tools in terms of addressing local needs means that there are some needs that it may be in the context of global South and Africa, which may not be a need in Europe. So whilst we are talking about this open source system, it helps us to understand that we need to localize some kind of documentation, some kind of data, which will help us in the global South context. Let me also move into assessing some kind of investment that we need in Africa. This large language models helps so much to understand the context that there is more investment in there, but there is not much investment in Africa. So Africa is really very happy that at least we can tap this open source AI system from advanced countries to also improve on our livelihood. Let me go to some long-term implementations, which will help the structure of the tech industry. I’m looking at the tech industry around the globe and also specifically moving into the African context. There is a growth of local AI ecosystem in Africa. Africa, because now we are now tapping. Despite all this in the policy implementation, ethics has been a very difficult time, because I know Europe and some other countries have developed their AI strategy documented. Africa is still struggling in that. So if there are some ethics that gives maybe global concerns, licensing people, helping people to tap into this open source, I think it’s a very good way that we can enhance the rate of innovation. And also, monopolization. We see big entities having the data source and everything about open AI instance. Every system is now tapping from them. They have the large language model. They have everything, like the child GPT and other stuff. These AI tools is moving, and Africa is lagging behind. Why? Because we feel that if governments have upper hand on these AI tools, they can develop on their own. But we need to also connect to other sources and other open. So we need more investments to the large language models. We need more collaboration on that. And it will also reduce the monopolization, because startups can also build their own AI models that can also support development in Africa context. And the last thing is that in capacity building. We see so many AI labs that I’m very even happy about it, where my other speakers also talk about in their respective countries. But the global South, where is it? We are not getting it that. We are not getting it that the schools, the academic, are not also moving. So we must also invest much in our academia, bringing capacity building of AI models within that context. And I will leave my other colleagues to talk. Then I will come back later with some other point.

Ihita Gangavarapu: Thank you. Great points, Abram. And I think Melissa, as well as you, have spoken about addressing the local needs with respect to cultural languages as well. What we’d like to do now is hand it over to you all. Within a minute, if you have. a comment or a question. We will of course also be having a Q&A round towards the end of the panel discussion, but is there any comment or a question, we’ll be happy to hear from you. Yes. Meanwhile, Yuk, if there’s any comment or a question in the chat or from the online participants, please let us know.

Audience: Thank you for this. My name is Lina and I work with the Council on Tech and Social Cohesion and Search for Common Ground, it’s a peace building organization. So we work in conflict affected contexts and we are trying to deploy AI to build trust and collaboration. And there’s two challenges that I see. So you just mentioned ethics. So we’re actually trying to build things on top of the commercial models. And then there’s still an ethical question about where the data goes and how much we can be sure whether or not that data is being used to train those models. And the second is, you just said Africa needs to build its own models, but the resources required to actually have built these models is because they had billions of dollars in investment, including from the Saudi government and many other places to make this an enterprise that will dominate the market and which will end up becoming a major revenue builder. So there’s something a little bit almost naive about this idea that we can compete. There’s no competition unless you regulate the monopolies here. Otherwise, there will be no. So it’s kind of two questions. Thank you.

Abraham Fifi Selby: you’d like to answer. Yeah, I agree with you 100%. There is no competition in terms of this. That’s why I was even emphasizing that we have to foster collaboration. Because we need the global north data, and the global north also need African data. Despite that, we also have to encourage our government and member states in global south to also have some investment, as you said, in the infrastructure. What I want to address is that the building of our localness is where I was much emphasizing that. Let’s say the global south cannot come and build the data sources that we need locally. So let’s say we have some language models in Africa, Swahili, let’s say Arabic, French, and other stuff, Portuguese. All these things address localness in some African country context. So if we Africans are not making it up to also build some context that can connect to the large open source systems, we may be lacking behind. And this is the way that ethics comes in, that we must copy from what the global north is doing and build upon on ourself. But we can always not rely on the global north from the global south perspective. We must understand that we need to also build our own data models that we can use it to share with the other continent that can improve our AI development and AI policy. So this is how I was addressing that context. And I hope I have answered your question well, because you made a very clear point based on the investment in ethics, investment in infrastructure. And I really agree with you, because Africa is lacking because we don’t have that infrastructure. and we must all rely on the Global North. But in relying on Global North, we must also contribute to the Global North perspective by providing data that address local needs so that everyone can tap in information when they need according to the AI development. Thank you.

Ihita Gangavarapu: Is it okay if we just pick the question in 15 minutes? We have, yeah, we have, we’d move on to the second set of the panel discussion and then we’ll pick it up again. Well, the question I wanna ask is directly related to the monopoly competition issue. So I’d- Please go ahead.

Audience: Okay, so I’m disagreeing with the last question. I thought the whole point of open source was that it was open and that you essentially are sharing. So if you’ve developed a model, you’ve made all that capital investment and if it’s open source, which I understand that meta is halfway there or maybe full, maybe the first presenter would like to comment on this. But the point is you can have access to that. You don’t have to have the investment, you can use it. And regulation presumes that they are monopolies and you’re going to regulate how they, I don’t know how they sell it, which to me does not distribute the knowledge, does not distribute the capability. It is much better to go open source than it is to go through regulation. So I’m confused about how you’re approaching this issue.

Ihita Gangavarapu: So our next question is actually on monopolies, but maybe Daniel, if you want to just keep it under a minute to address this and we can pick up the discussion in a few minutes again.

Daniele Turra: Sure, actually, I was about to introduce some of the points that might help in that sense in this following question. But in a way, I agree on the fact that open source is a tool, is a philosophy that can help. in not really not systematically regulating monopolies but for sure sharing the knowledge and giving the opportunities to other actors to you know again get the skills and not being you know blocked by specific intellectual properties on that. So this is a way to do it again and Meta is again as you said halfway there. They have Lama as an open weight model so it’s it’s also not always some flavors of it are not commercially available. They are available for for example researchers to use it but only in some contexts the models also from other providers are allowed to be used in a commercial context. But again let’s always think about the skills and the resources needed to build those models and if some actors are really you know should be entitled really put a fully open source definition on that because there is an entire supply chain and I would like to avoid some let’s say open washing of things. We need to you know really categorize things and call them with the right name. Hope that was a you know answer could you know answer some some of your doubts. Thank you.

Ihita Gangavarapu: All right thank you. Thank you so much for your question as well. I would now like to request you can you confirm you can hear me? Yes I can hear you. Perfect so you will be taking care of the second segment of the discussion so I hand it over to you.

Audience: Yeah before that I think there was a hand raised in the online audience so I would like to pass the floor to Raj Jahan, if he has anything to add on the first policy question related to innovation and open source. Raj, are you there? Okay, it seems he’s not able to speak right now, so let’s, let’s jump to the second question and we’ve already sort of gotten into it already. So, the second policy question is, in which ways can open source models prevent a few large entities from monopolizing the AI landscape and what governance structures could be necessary to manage this? And to answer this question, I first want to pass it on to Bianca, Bianca, if you can share your thoughts on this question.

Bianca Kremer: Hi, everybody hears me? First of all, I’d like to apologize for the delay and other procedures, we’re in workshops room one, so thank you so much for the invitation. I’m sorry for all the logistic trouble, but I’d like to introduce myself, I’m Bianca Kremer, I’m a researcher and also an activist from Brazil. I work with AI and law, especially in the topics of discrimination, specific topics of racial discrimination in Brazil. And for this panel, I have, I have been questioning or proposing three specific questions that could address the topic in a way we can be, this panel could be a food for thought for us to exchange a little bit on these topics. So unfortunately I lost the first part of Daniel’s presentation, but I observed that he could bring a good opportunity for us to understand the supply chain of LLM. And I have some observations about what is happening in Brazil from your perspective and as well as you, Abraham. So the first question is, I’d like to take some steps back so we can move forward on the topic. The first one is, what actually are we talking about when we talk about open source LLMs? Otherwise, if we don’t address these topics, we will have some misunderstandings on questions about these subjects. So we have the difference between the closed source LLMs and open source LLMs. This is the first question that we will address. The second one is, what qualifies as an open source LLM? This is actually really important for us to address the challenges we will face on this. And the third one is, where are specific concrete cases where we can find possibilities with open source LLMs? And after that, I will bring some experiences from Brazil that we have been experiencing on open source platforms. And in a way, we can address the competition problem as well, being developed by universities in our country. It’s hard to do this, but I think we have been addressing. So what are we talking about when we talk about these open source LLMs? We are talking about these large language models as AI models that they are publicly accessible. OK, I think we have been talking about it. But what it means is that the source code and training data are made available to the public. And what happens? It allows us, not only the developers, but also us researchers and organizations from civil society as well, to freely use, modify and improve it, like the models, in their own purpose. So, this is something we have been, when we talk about the ratio, gender bias, for example, when we have open sources models, we can have an opportunity for us not only to improve it but make it better in a way that companies and business models are not interested in achieving due to economic purposes. Okay? So, what differences, how do these open sources differ from the other counterparts? We have the closed source LLMs, they are developed and maintained by companies like, as we have been saying, OpenAI, Entropic, Google, and they are typically proprietary. What it means is that you cannot access the underlying architecture of data that model was trained on. The other open source LLM, on the other hand, they are models that are free to download, they are free to modify, and they are free to be adapted. So, these projects have been instrumental, actually, in making models available to the public in order to also, not only, but also address social problems that we have been facing in the development of these technologies in some certain societies. Since we have been talking about global south, for example, in Brazil, we had a case, a concrete case that I would like to share with you about a deputy called Renata Souza, which she wrote on Chat DPT, for example, the word favela. Favela is a community, a poor community in Brazil, I don’t know if it has been heard about before, but she wrote a black woman in favela, and what happened is that an image was generated about a black woman holding a gun, pointing up. She didn’t write anything about guns, but it happened. So, it was a case of what we have been studying. the last 10 years what we call algorithmic racism in platforms in Brazil, for example. It’s a case, concrete case about how these generative AI technologies have been developing. Not talking about the gender bias we all know, when you have been written two years ago, name 10 philosophers and they were all European and white men. And then you say there are no women and they are always white women, European or North American. Also always white. So these are some bias we have been facing in the usage of these platforms that open source, for example, could be open to address and also to modify the model and addressing topics of solving some problems of bias. Not all of them, because when you have algorithms you always have bias, but some of them. So this is something I don’t want to talk too much, but just to address the topic of what we have been talking about and after we can open for questions and things. But I would like to also exemplify with the cases of Tucano activity and also Maritaca AI. Tucano and Maritaca are two birds from Brazil. We have several birds in our region, especially Rio de Janeiro where I’m from. So they are both birds and these are projects from public universities in Brazil developing open source technologies and we have been very successful in developing these technologies in Portuguese. And this is the third part that I want to have my remarks so I can hear my other colleagues, but just to not only clarify but also make an imagery of what we have been talking about. I am from CTS, Center for Technology and Society University in Brazil, but also I am a member, a board member of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee, a political party. BDS that has said that the internet is the place for Ù¾ Pulling makes a perfect thing. With the information from the participants it’s a political position. This year we have a forum held in Cape Verde Aprica and a lot of members from the community are here to talk about the importance of the internet in a broader community, in a broader perspective. And it’s even more dramatic for us because when you go to African countries, for example, they speak Creole among them others much more than Portuguese. So this is something I have been talking about. It’s also a matter of sovereignty. So I would like to thank you for the opportunity and I keep myself open for questions and to exchange with my colleagues. Yoke, over to you.

Ihita Gangavarapu: Yeah, maybe I’ll take it from here. I think we have time for one or two more questions and then we’ll take it over, Yoke, since we cannot hear you. So we, I would like to actually pose the same question to Daniel. And I want to understand in what ways can open-source models prevent a large entity from monopolising the AI landscape.

Daniele Turra: Thank you for the question. I think the answer is that technology licensing itself cannot really alone prevent a large activity from taking over in that sense. As I stressed earlier, I believe that we have to, in a way, protect the actual and correct definition of open source and software. But of course, software sharing practices and business can help, as one of the men here in the audience actually started to pointing to in terms of monopolies. So when we’re talking about licensing, I believe that open source is ideal, but also open parameters models can be a good way to achieve that sharing of knowledge in the larger ecosystem and be a big boost in this type of ecosystem, even for the global south. Some of these are not completely open source, but still an important role. But again, I would like to stress about the resources. I think that having, for example, a publicly managed infrastructure could be something that can help us. Just like the man in the audience actually started to pointing out, these large models are developed by big companies with private money, but it doesn’t mean that we cannot, in a way, benefit from those altogether. So not all businesses, especially SMEs, can employ these models. The global south is poor in terms of computing power and therefore does not have enough power to train these models. So the fundamental infrastructure there is lacking, and in that sense, this makes all these models not inclusive from the real beginning, because we are not including researchers and civil society organizations that could provide good input also in the sharing and the management of that infrastructure. So in that sense, we could also think of in terms of building the models and running the models in production. And in general, in both cases, I would say that… Now, one important thing that I would like to bring as a proposal is to have large cloud businesses that have the computing power offer this capacity for free when it comes to develop truly open source models that can be, in a way, published as open source and true open source. So, for example, the allocation of that computing power could be managed by a law, by, for example, paying, let’s call it a computing tax of some sort, or maybe partnership with some civil society organizations that work for coordinating the freedom of open source software production. Let’s think in terms, for example, the Eclipse Foundation or the Python Foundation. They supervise a lot of efforts in the open source community. I think we can do something very similar, including civil society organization in the production of open source. There is a lot of food for thought here. I’ve seen a few, I’ve raised a few eyebrows probably. But again, this is new for everyone. So I think if we get a look at how open source community works, we can get a few good inputs on how to develop the new open source model for the future. Thank you.

Ihita Gangavarapu: Very well answered, actually. Now, I’d like to request Melissa, who’s joining us online, for your comments on this question, if you could kindly keep it under three minutes, please. Thank you. I think we’re facing some issues. We can’t hear the online participants. Seems they cannot hear the online. Yeah, I think you’re all audible now. Please, Melissa, over to you. Can you hear me well? Yes. Okay, perfect.

Melissa Muñoz Suro: So basically, building on what I was mentioning earlier about our national AI strategy back in the Dominican Republic, one of its core principles basically is achieving technology and data sovereignty. This may ensure that the tools, systems, and data we create remain under national control, protecting both our public access and privacy for our citizens. And that’s why we choose to develop, in this case, our RELM, to not only anti-U.N. title from scratch, using our personal framework, but platforms like, for example, GPT-4 are robust. They came with significant recent dependency and data exposure. Open source allows us to design systems that align with our national priorities and values, ensuring independence and security in managing these technologies. Open source AI models can reduce reliance on external corporations, enabling nations to build systems tailored to the needs while fostering regional cooperation, mainly by using open frameworks which retain control over our tools and data, preventing external exploitation, ensuring that technology serves, actually, for public interest. However, open source is not without challenges. That’s something important I wanted to mention before. Building and developing these systems require more than just access to code. It demands robust infrastructure, technical expertise, high-quality data. And these are areas where developing countries like mine must focus to ensure successful implementation. One of the biggest challenges we’re facing right now with open source AI is having the right tools to make it work. These models need powerful computers to run what we call GPU clusters, and they don’t come cheap. For countries like the Dominican Republic, it’s hard to justify spending so much money on equipment when there are so many other priorities, like education, health, I don’t know, poverty. We like external services where the infrastructure is already handled for you. And with open source, we’re the ones who have to set it up, maintain it, and make sure it works. That’s something good to have in mind. Another big issue is getting the models to perform how we need them to. Open source models don’t come ready to solve… every problem, they are like a black canvas. So you need to put in the effort to fine tune them, to teach them how to understand specific techniques. And that takes time, expertise, and yes, more money that we, of course, don’t have in the global South as the one fellow was speaking before. And there is a blurring also with the data, a lot of data we have in the government systems, messy, it’s all scattered, and it’s not always useful. For a project in Surinam, for example, we have to work hard to clean it up, this data, and combine it with new information. We collect it from different government platforms. I was first in Surinam, and we have also set up places where citizens can share how they talk and ask questions so that they can build and truly understand our culture and language. Finally, the cost of keeping everything running. Open source sounds great, but because you are not paying someone else every time you use it, but the truth is, it’s still expensive to keep systems working over long-term. You have to upgrade the hardware, phase issues, make sure they can handle more users as it grows. And the reality is, open source AI isn’t something you just turn on and forget about it. It needs investment, planning, teamwork, and that’s why we are looking for partnership in the DR with other countries and trying to make it regional with international organizations too. And so we can share resources and make open source AI a solution that works for everyone. And that’s it on my part. Thank you.

Ihita Gangavarapu: So much, Melissa. All your points have been noted. I would now, given that we are a little short on time, we would like to open the floor for all of you for our interaction. But before that, I’d like to pose a question to all of you. What specific risks do you see open sourcing pose? And such as it could be the increased potential for misuse or reduced incentives for large scale investments in AI research. And how can these risks be mitigated? while still promoting open development and harnessing the opportunities. The floor is yours. Do we have anyone who would like to add a comment or a question? Yes, please.

Audience: Is it working now? Yes, perfect. Hi. Thank you very much for your panel and the interesting discussion that you were having. It’s not an answer to your question, but more of a comment or a question to you. I wanted to ask you more concretely about what are the enablers of open source LLM, so open source AI, because you were touching on the competition issue. And we see thus far from a market incentive, Facebook goes some extent towards open source, but they are still lacking. And they have little incentive to actually open the model fully to full reuse. Just for these large, big tech companies, there’s no real incentive to do it. And their models might have the ability to outperform open source models for a time. So we’re talking about this issue of smaller languages than English. So I would guess there would need to be some kind of common data sets, open data sets. Daniela was touching on the issue of how to distribute computing power. So I was wondering maybe if you could make concrete recommendations of what would we need to build, and how could we do so to actually set up a system in which open source LLM, so open source AI, can thrive. Thank you very much.

Ihita Gangavarapu: That’s a very detailed question. So maybe could we take one more comment or a question before we let the panelists answer them? And, Joerg, if you have anything from the online participants, feel free to unmute.

Audience: We had a question a while back, and I think this was related to what Abraham was saying. How do we ensure cultural nuances from Africa are included in these models, as well as sovereignty is maintained? That’s all I have online.

Ihita Gangavarapu: OK, OK, perfect. Thank you. I think for the second question, Abraham did answer quite a bit. But what I’ll do is, if we can have any comments on the first question. question, please, from the panel. Would you like to go?

Daniele Turra: Yeah, I’ll try to be very brief. So one key difference that we can see in open LLMs when it comes to their nature than other types of open source software is the fact that it needs lots of computing power to train. This is not the same for other products that are iteratively developed over years and years. And in a sense, can become much without specific compute power needed. But when it comes to training, we need GPU infrastructure. And that thing, again, doesn’t come cheap. So actual proposals, as I was saying, is, again, a way to make sure that who has the resources either be a private sector institution or a public sector research center, whatever it is. They have mechanisms in their governance systems to make sure they can allocate at least a percentage of that power to the development of those unrepresented, for example, communities or languages. I don’t know. I might have brought a few proposals earlier during my comments. But again, the general takeaway message of like you folks here to have is this. Let’s try to redistribute and better share that computing power.

Abraham Fifi Selby: OK. All right. Thank you. So I like the question that I’m asking about data sovereignty in Africa. The context is that in Africa now, we are now growing in terms of the digital landscape and economy. And data sovereignty is something that we cannot leave out because of how data is stored, data is collected, because there is a gaps related to the policies and regulations. the data And in terms of building in the global south context, there must be an established funding mechanism that can help in terms of grants, private or public partnerships, and also an investment that supports open AI or open source AI development within the global south by connecting researchers and innovators to the advanced countries on the global north, which can also bring that knowledge back to the global south for development. So this is what I would say. And it’s a very useful section that I really appreciate the experts and the questions that have been asked. And we can all build that together in that context.

Ihita Gangavarapu: Thank you very much. Bianca, over to you, please.

Bianca Kremer: Thank you. Very briefly, I’m less optimistic. I do believe that to address competition and the advance of the economics of these digital platforms as we are facing, we need hard law. So we need regulation. Of course, I’m from law. Maybe I’m biased. But in Brazil, we have just discussed the AI bill and the data protection laws for the last six years. And I do believe that when we have regulation on these topics and the participation of government on the free development and industrialization or deindustrialization of our countries for our participation in economy, if we don’t rely on regulation, hard regulation on these topics, we won’t move forward in our own development, not only as countries, but also as economic partners in the global south, for example. So this is why I’m not that optimistic. I do believe we need more enforcement in terms of legal participation on this process.

Ihita Gangavarapu: All right. Thank you, Bianca. Melissa, if you can hear us, your closing remark, please.

Melissa Muñoz Suro: Can you hear me well? Okay. Well, I think we should focus on trust and collaboration, as Bianca was saying, as the foundation for employee and I. This means prioritizing data ethics and being transparent about where the data comes from, how it is used, and ensuring it serves the public good at the end. And we also need to invest in local capacity. I think that’s the most important message that I can leave here on this panel. Our partnership with universities, research institutions, to develop talent and create a culturally relevant data set that truly represents the whole population, in the case of governments, for example, and also an invitation to invest in inter-regional collaboration to building resources and infrastructure to make AI accessible for all. Well, and inclusive AI should be at the center of our efforts, ensuring that technology works for people, builds trust, and attracts sustainable investment at the end. That’s my final thought. Thank you.

Ihita Gangavarapu: With this, we come to the end of the session. Thank you all for joining us. And when we talk about democratizing access to AI, there are a spectrum of concerns that come into play, and many of which our panelists have highlighted. So thank you very much for your inputs, and thank you all for joining us. And we hope that you carry forward these deliberations and come up with great recommendations in the halls of IGF and after. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Agreement Points

Open source AI enables broader access and innovation

Ihita Gangavarapu

Daniele Turra

Melissa Muñoz Suro

Abraham Fifi Selby

Open source enables broader access and participation in AI development

Open source models can reduce costs and foster innovation

Open source allows customization for local needs and languages

Open source democratizes AI development in regions with limited resources

The speakers agree that open source AI models promote wider access to AI technologies, foster innovation, and allow for customization to meet local needs, particularly benefiting regions with limited resources.

Challenges in implementing open source AI in developing countries

Melissa Muñoz Suro

Abraham Fifi Selby

Lack of infrastructure and expertise in developing countries

Ongoing costs of maintaining and scaling open source systems

Need for high-quality local data to improve models

Both speakers highlight the challenges faced by developing countries in implementing open source AI, including limited infrastructure, lack of expertise, and the need for high-quality local data.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize the importance of investing in local capacity building and fostering regional collaboration to advance AI capabilities in developing regions.

Melissa Muñoz Suro

Abraham Fifi Selby

Invest in local capacity building and talent development

Foster regional collaboration to share resources

Both speakers stress the importance of addressing biases in AI models and ensuring cultural relevance and ethical considerations in AI development.

Bianca Kremer

Melissa Muñoz Suro

Open source can help address biases in AI models

Ensure cultural relevance and representation in datasets

Prioritize data ethics and transparency

Unexpected Consensus

Need for regulation in open source AI development

Bianca Kremer

Melissa Muñoz Suro

Call for hard regulation to address competition issues

Importance of data sovereignty and local control of AI systems

Despite the general focus on the benefits of open source AI, both speakers unexpectedly agree on the need for some form of regulation or control to ensure fair competition and data sovereignty.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The speakers generally agree on the benefits of open source AI in democratizing access, fostering innovation, and addressing local needs. They also recognize common challenges in implementing open source AI in developing regions, including infrastructure limitations and the need for local capacity building.

Consensus level

There is a moderate to high level of consensus among the speakers on the main benefits and challenges of open source AI. This consensus suggests a shared understanding of the potential of open source AI to address global inequalities in AI development, while also acknowledging the practical difficulties in implementation. The agreement on these points implies a need for collaborative efforts and targeted investments to fully realize the potential of open source AI, particularly in developing regions.

Different Viewpoints

Role of regulation in open source AI development

Daniele Turra

Bianca Kremer

Need for clear definitions and licensing of truly open source models

Call for hard regulation to address competition issues

While Daniele Turra emphasizes the importance of clear definitions and licensing for open source models, Bianca Kremer argues for strong legal regulation to address competition issues in the AI industry.

Unexpected Differences

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement revolve around the role of regulation, the approach to addressing resource limitations, and the balance between open source benefits and implementation challenges.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among the speakers is moderate. While there is general agreement on the potential benefits of open source AI, there are differing perspectives on how to implement and regulate it effectively. These differences highlight the complexity of democratizing AI access across diverse global contexts and the need for nuanced approaches that consider both technological and socio-economic factors.

Partial Agreements

All speakers agree on the potential of open source AI to democratize access, but they differ on how to address the challenges of limited resources and infrastructure in developing countries.

Daniele Turra

Melissa Muñoz Suro

Abraham Fifi Selby

Significant computing resources still required to train large models

Lack of infrastructure and expertise in developing countries

Open source democratizes AI development in regions with limited resources

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize the importance of investing in local capacity building and fostering regional collaboration to advance AI capabilities in developing regions.

Melissa Muñoz Suro

Abraham Fifi Selby

Invest in local capacity building and talent development

Foster regional collaboration to share resources

Both speakers stress the importance of addressing biases in AI models and ensuring cultural relevance and ethical considerations in AI development.

Bianca Kremer

Melissa Muñoz Suro

Open source can help address biases in AI models

Ensure cultural relevance and representation in datasets

Prioritize data ethics and transparency

Key Takeaways

Open source AI models can democratize access and foster innovation, especially in developing regions

Open source enables customization for local needs and languages, helping address biases

Significant challenges remain around computing resources, infrastructure, and expertise for open source AI in developing countries

There is debate over whether regulation or open collaboration is the best path forward for inclusive AI development

Investing in local capacity building and regional collaboration is crucial for open source AI to benefit the Global South

Resolutions and Action Items

Invest in local capacity building and talent development for AI in developing countries

Foster regional and international collaboration to share AI resources and knowledge

Prioritize data ethics and transparency in AI development

Ensure cultural relevance and representation in AI training datasets

Unresolved Issues

How to effectively distribute computing power for open source AI development

How to balance open collaboration with the need for regulation in AI governance

How to ensure cultural nuances from underrepresented regions are included in AI models

How to create sustainable funding mechanisms for open source AI in developing countries

Suggested Compromises

Large tech companies could allocate a percentage of their computing power to develop AI for underrepresented communities

Combine open source collaboration with some level of government regulation and public-private partnerships

Develop shared, open datasets that include diverse cultural and linguistic information

Open source has, in a way, a different history, especially free and open source software. … There are the freedom to use code, the freedom to study code, to redistribute it, and to modify it.

speaker

Daniele Turra

reason

This comment provides important historical context and defines key principles of open source, setting the foundation for the discussion.

impact

It framed the conversation around the core values and goals of open source, influencing how participants approached the topic of open source AI models.

We are building a strong foundation for Taina by collecting and organizing the data that we need basically to make it work. … This isn’t about collecting personal information at all. It is about understanding the way Dominicans communicate so the AI reflects our culture and our language.

speaker

Melissa Muñoz Suro

reason

This comment highlights a concrete example of how open source AI can be tailored to local needs and cultural contexts.

impact

It shifted the discussion towards practical applications and challenges of implementing open source AI in specific cultural contexts, especially in developing countries.

In Africa, getting funding for startup researchers in terms of developing AI systems is very hard, and we don’t have large systems, large data centers, so investments have to go through before we get that. This open source AI system is helping young people to bring out innovation because they can tap on such systems at a very low cost or very low rate so that they can improve upon development.

speaker

Abraham Fifi Selby

reason

This comment brings attention to the unique challenges and opportunities that open source AI presents for developing regions.

impact

It broadened the conversation to include perspectives from the Global South and highlighted the potential of open source AI to democratize access to technology.

So, if you’ve developed a model, you’ve made all that capital investment and if it’s open source, which I understand that meta is halfway there or maybe full, maybe the first presenter would like to comment on this. But the point is you can have access to that. You don’t have to have the investment, you can use it.

speaker

Audience member

reason

This comment challenges the notion that open source necessarily requires massive investment from all parties and highlights the collaborative nature of open source.

impact

It sparked a discussion about the true nature of open source and how it can be leveraged even by those without significant resources.

Building and developing these systems require more than just access to code. It demands robust infrastructure, technical expertise, high-quality data. And these are areas where developing countries like mine must focus to ensure successful implementation.

speaker

Melissa Muñoz Suro

reason

This comment provides a reality check on the challenges of implementing open source AI, especially in developing countries.

impact

It deepened the discussion by highlighting the complexities beyond just having access to open source code, leading to a more nuanced understanding of what’s needed for successful implementation.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by broadening its scope from theoretical principles of open source to practical challenges and opportunities in diverse global contexts. They highlighted the potential of open source AI to democratize access to technology while also acknowledging the significant hurdles, especially for developing countries. The discussion evolved from defining open source to exploring its real-world implications, cultural adaptations, and the need for supporting infrastructure and expertise. This led to a more comprehensive and nuanced dialogue about the role of open source in AI development globally.

How can we ensure cultural nuances from Africa are included in AI models while maintaining sovereignty?

speaker

Online participant (via Joerg)

explanation

This is important to ensure AI models are culturally relevant and don’t perpetuate biases against underrepresented groups.

What are the specific enablers of open source LLMs?

speaker

Audience member

explanation

Understanding these enablers is crucial for creating an environment where open source AI can thrive and compete with proprietary models.

How can we create common open datasets, especially for smaller languages?

speaker

Audience member

explanation

This is necessary to improve AI model performance for less-represented languages and cultures.

What concrete recommendations can be made for building systems to support open source AI?

speaker

Audience member

explanation

Practical guidance is needed to implement and support open source AI initiatives effectively.

How can computing power be distributed more equitably for AI development?

speaker

Daniele Turra

explanation

Addressing the disparity in access to computing resources is crucial for democratizing AI development.

What governance structures are necessary to manage open source models and prevent monopolization?

speaker

Ihita Gangavarapu (moderator)

explanation

This is important to ensure fair and equitable development and use of AI technologies.

How can we mitigate the risks posed by open sourcing AI, such as potential misuse or reduced incentives for large-scale investments?

speaker

Ihita Gangavarapu (moderator)

explanation

Addressing these risks is crucial for the responsible development and deployment of open source AI.

What funding mechanisms can be established to support open source AI development in the Global South?

speaker

Abraham Fifi Selby

explanation

This is necessary to ensure equitable participation in AI development from developing countries.

Summary

This panel discussion at the Internet Governance Forum focused on the challenges of preserving collective memory in the digital age. Experts highlighted how the internet has fundamentally changed how memories are created, stored, and accessed. Key issues raised included the ephemeral nature of online content, with studies showing a significant percentage of web pages becoming inaccessible over time. Panelists emphasized the political and economic aspects of digital memory preservation, noting that curation decisions reflect power dynamics and monetary interests. The digital divide was identified as a major concern, with many countries, especially in the Global South, lacking robust internet archiving capabilities. Speakers discussed various initiatives to address these challenges, such as Brazil’s Grauna Project for archiving threatened websites. The discussion touched on the impact of emerging technologies like AI on collective memory, raising questions about data sovereignty and the authenticity of AI-generated historical content. Panelists stressed the need for more inclusive approaches to digital preservation that consider marginalized communities and indigenous languages. The conversation highlighted the complex interplay between memory, technology, and societal power structures, emphasizing the urgent need for comprehensive strategies to preserve diverse digital heritage for future generations.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– The challenges of preserving collective memory in the digital age, including issues of data storage, accessibility, and curation

– The unequal distribution of internet archiving efforts globally, with most concentrated in the Global North

– The political and economic aspects of memory preservation, including questions of whose memories are preserved and why

– The impact of new technologies like AI on collective memory and information retrieval

– The need for more inclusive approaches to digital memory preservation, especially for marginalized communities

The overall purpose of the discussion was to explore the complex challenges and implications of preserving collective memory on the internet, considering technological, social, political and ethical dimensions.

The tone of the discussion was largely academic and analytical, with speakers providing in-depth perspectives on various aspects of digital memory preservation. There was an underlying sense of concern about current inequalities and challenges, but also cautious optimism about potential solutions and the importance of addressing these issues. The tone became slightly more urgent towards the end as speakers emphasized the need for action on these topics.

Speakers

– Bianca Correa: Board member of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee, PhD in law and technology

– Marielza Oliveira: Chair of the advisory board of the e-Government Institute at the United Nations University, former director of UNESCO Communications and Information Sectors Division

– Juliano Cappi: Manager of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee Advisory Team, PhD in communications

– Ricardo Medeiros Pimenta: Coordinator of teaching and research at the Brazilian Institute of Information Science and Technology, professor at Federal University of Rio de Janeiro

– Samik Kharel: Journalist and researcher from Nepal

– Carlos Alberto Afonso: Director of NUPEF Institute in Rio de Janeiro, co-founder of Brazilian Internet Steering Committee

Additional speakers:

– Jean-Carlos Ferreira dos Santos: (role not specified)

– Tatiana Jereissati: (role not specified)

– Juliana Holmes: (role not specified)

Revised Summary of Panel Discussion on Preserving Collective Memory in the Digital Age

This panel discussion at the Internet Governance Forum explored the complex challenges of preserving collective memory in the digital era. Experts from various fields discussed technological, social, political, and ethical dimensions of digital memory preservation.

Key Challenges in Digital Memory Preservation

1. Ephemeral Nature of Online Content: Bianca Correa highlighted the rapid disappearance of online content, emphasizing the need for robust archiving systems.

2. Selective Digitization: Marielza Oliveira pointed out that high costs lead to selective digitization and storage, potentially excluding important information.

3. Global Disparities: Carlos Alberto Afonso noted the lack of internet archiving capabilities in Global South countries, particularly in South America, the Caribbean, and Mexico.

4. Government Accountability: Ricardo Medeiros Pimenta discussed the issue of broken links and vanishing government websites, which poses challenges for maintaining public records and accountability.

5. Technological Obsolescence: Oliveira highlighted the problem of obsolete storage formats, emphasizing the need for continuous technological updates in preservation efforts.

6. Indexing and Searchability: Oliveira mentioned the challenges of making preserved content easily searchable and accessible.

7. Political Transitions: Afonso pointed out the risk of content disappearance due to political changes, particularly in government websites.

8. Real-time Backup: Afonso emphasized the challenge of real-time backup for archiving projects, especially for rapidly changing content.

Political and Economic Aspects of Digital Memory

1. Political Agenda: Pimenta framed memory preservation as a political agenda, suggesting that decisions about what to preserve reflect power dynamics.

2. Curation as a Political-Economic Process: Oliveira emphasized that curation decisions are shaped by political and economic factors, raising questions about whose memories are being preserved and why.

3. Monetization of Data: Oliveira noted that the monetization of data often drives preservation efforts, potentially skewing priorities.

4. Forensic Evidence: Afonso highlighted the potential use of archived content as forensic evidence in legal and historical contexts.

5. Government Accountability: Samik Kharel discussed the need for accountability in data collection and use by governments.

Emerging Technologies and the Future of Collective Memory

1. AI and Language Models: Kharel explored how AI and large language models are reshaping memory construction and access.

2. Algorithmic Governmentality: Pimenta raised concerns about the challenges of algorithmic governmentality in social existence and its impact on memory formation.

3. Rapidly Changing Technologies: Oliveira discussed the challenges of preserving memory in the context of constantly evolving digital technologies.

Proposed Solutions and Action Items

1. Developing technologies to mine the Common Crawl for preserving collective memory in Global South countries.

2. Building capacities of individuals to preserve their own meaningful memories online.

3. Increasing efforts to digitize older content still in paper formats or obsolete digital formats.

4. Improving indexing and searchability of preserved digital content.

5. Considering data sovereignty issues in storing and accessing preserved memories.

6. Creating a dedicated institution in Brazil for digital preservation, as suggested by Alex Moura.

7. Exploring the possibility of NIC.br taking on the challenge of creating a Brazilian Internet Archive, as proposed by Carlos Afonso.

Additional Points of Discussion

1. The Grauna project: Afonso discussed this initiative aimed at preserving indigenous languages and cultures online.

2. Preserving multilingualism: Oliveira emphasized the importance of maintaining linguistic diversity in digital preservation efforts.

3. The Tempora tool: Pimenta mentioned this platform for analyzing temporal aspects of digital content.

4. Public vs. Internet Memory: An audience question raised the issue of mismatch between public memory and what’s preserved online.

The discussion concluded with a recognition of the urgency and complexity of preserving collective memory in the digital age. Panelists emphasized the need for multifaceted approaches that consider technological, social, and ethical dimensions, as well as the importance of inclusive and equitable preservation efforts that represent diverse perspectives and experiences.

Bianca Correa: Welcome to the workshop, the construction of collective memory on the Internet. As the IGF draws to a close, I believe this has been an intense and productive week for debates on Internet governance. You must be tired, but we have a very interesting discussion ahead that’s sure to energize and inspire you. I would like to introduce myself. My name is Bianca Correa. I’m a board member of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee, and I hold a PhD on law and technology. And I would like to thank the audience, both online and in person, here in Riyadh. A special thanks to the expert panelists who have kindly agreed to share their ideas and thoughts on this topic today. The workshop, titled The Construction of Collective Memory on the Internet, will last for 90 minutes. To make the most of our time, we will follow this discussion format. Each speaker will have 10 minutes to present their ideas. After that, we’ll move to a question-and-answer session, prioritizing interaction with both the in-person and online audiences. Finally, the panelists will deliver their closing remarks. So let’s get started. Memory is a vast and complex topic. It becomes even more complex when we think about the relationship between memory and the Internet, in preserving memory, promoting social memory, and constructing memory itself. This workshop aims to foster a debate on the challenges of preserving memory in the digital environment. It seeks to explore how the Internet and digital technologies can serve as tools for preserving, promoting, and constructing online memory. especially in a context where much of our culture, social and political processes are mediated by and even originate on the Internet. Memory preservation on the Internet involves tackling issues such as preserving the integrity of information, countering disinformation, protecting the right to information, promoting underrepresented cultural heritage, preserving multilingualism and more. We often say naturally everything is on the Internet but is everything on the Internet? Feeling frustrated at not being able to find information online seems to be becoming more and more common. Whether it is a news page, a blog, tweet and etc. Content on the Internet can disappear for different reasons. Online materials can be deleted, vanishing information is a reality and a study conducted by the US-based think-tank Pew Research Center Research that suggests that a quarter of all web pages that existed at one point between 2013 and 2023 are no longer accessible as of October 2023. In most cases this has become because of individual page was deleted or removed on an otherwise functional website. For older content this trend is even starker. Some 38% of web pages that existed in 2013 are not able today, available today, compared to 80% of pages that existed in 2023. So 23% of news web pages contain at least one broken link as do 21% of web pages from government sites. News sites with the high level site traffic and those with less are about equally likely to contain broken links. Local level government web pages and those who belong to city governments are especially likely to have broken links. So, given this context, this workshop aims to address some questions. What are the challenges brought by the Internet and the digital platforms to the preservation of collective memory? How do these new challenges relate to the promotion of information integrity, the protection of rights to information, the promotion of underrepresented cultural heritage and other issues traditionally debated in the Internet governance field? We’ll start the discussion with Maria Usa Oliveira. She is online. She is the chair of the advisory board of the e-Government Institute at the United Nations University, a former director of the UNESCO Communications and Information Sectors Division for Digital Inclusion, Policies and Transformation, where she led the support member states to strengthen capacities for access to information, digital inclusion, digital transformation and protection of documentary heritage. Before I call Maria Usa, I would like to introduce our moderator. Unfortunately, I won’t be able to be here the whole panel due to crossing agendas with other panels of IGF, but I would like to introduce a very important person for us that will be on my behalf moderating this panel. He is Juliano Cappi. He holds a master’s and a PhD in communications from the Pontifical Catholic University of Sao Paulo. He is the manager of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee Advisory Team. He coordinated the creation of the Center for Studies on Information and Communication Technologies, the CITIC.br, the UNESCO Regional Center for Studies on the Development of Information Society and the Brazilian School on Internet Governance, the EGI. And I would like to introduce and to raise their names, last but not least. Jean-Carlos Ferreira dos Santos, Tatiana Gereissati, and Juliana Holmes, without whom this panel would not be able to exist. Thank you so much for your hard work on this topic. Marielza, thank you so much for being with us, our dear friend, so the floor is yours.

Marielza Oliveira: Thank you very much, Bianca. Can you all hear me well? I hope so. Yeah, we do. Okay, great. Thank you. It’s so nice to see you again, and it’s nice to be with the CGI colleagues and all the colleagues around the room and on the internet that are participating and watching this panel. I think that this is one of the most absolutely relevant topics that we could be discussing because the internet is really changing the way we think about and record and recall our own memories. It’s changing it completely, and it has done that from the very beginning. When we started and we started accumulating some information online and when the browsers, you know, first browsers came around, we stopped really thinking about memorizing things because we could always find it on the internet. You know, it was just about, you know, oh, you can Google it. You know, it’s literally, you know, the browsers became our collective memory of what was happening, except that the browsers, you know, and the internet itself, it doesn’t have everything, you know, that, you know, we have in our own minds. We digitize very selectively, but we are less selectively, we’ve been less selectively over time. And the internet actually changed the way that we actually record things. And artificial intelligence made a huge change in the process as well. The first steps that we had was essentially we put things online. We created content, digital content online, and we digitized material. But now we actually went beyond just digitizing to actually data-fying content so that we could actually start searching and using content in a different way than before. In the beginning, because there’s a huge gap, a lot of disparity on the internet in terms of who has compute capacities and who has the skill sets and who actually can access the internet. In the beginning, it was even worse. Nowadays, we have about 70% of humanity online already. It’s 5.6 billion, if I’m not mistaken, out of the 8 billion that exists. In the beginning, we had quite a few less people online. And then, therefore, the content that was online was essentially the content that came from northern countries, from the US, from Europe, essentially, and with a lot less content being recorded by other countries that had less computer capacity, less access to the internet, and so on. So we end up with, for example, nowadays, 46% of the content that we have on the internet is actually in English, and very little. content is in other languages. We have 7,061 languages in existence in the world, in use in the world, and actually less than 300 of those are in use online. And of course, we’re seeing quite a lot of effort to increase that number of languages that are active, that we can actually translate from one language to another. But still, we see the vast majority of content that the internet has memorized in its 15.3 million websites. It’s essentially from a subset of the countries that are available and that exist. But we digitize and we digitize with a lot of disparity as well, like I was saying, because we simply don’t, not all countries have the capacity, but also the digitization process itself is a costly process. And in the beginning, we ended up with, we’re using technologies that are nowadays quite obsolete already. So for example, I don’t know about you guys, but raise your hand if you have CDs. If you have CDs, do you have CDs? I have 400 CDs and no CD players anymore. It used to be that computers came with a CD player. And nowadays, if you ask for one, people go, why do you need that? It’s essentially we moved from a technology that existed before that no longer exists. And a lot of the storage that this technology had, that is the capacity. to restore was left behind and a lot of the archives that were digitized already, you know, were lost. Were lost, you know, because this is no longer an accessible format, you know, for most computers. And just like that kind of format became obsolete, there are quite a lot of different formats obsolete as well from the very beginning. You know, computers started, my first computer, I actually, my first personal computer that I used, you know, it had recorded things on tape, you know, and, you know, so those are gone. And, you know, so we lost, you know, quite a lot of what was memorized, you know, and recorded in this kind of archive. And that’s not the only gap that exists, you know, in terms of storage. In terms of storage, you know, collectively, we store less than 10%, you know, we in data centers than what we actually produce, you know, in terms of information or content. Now, I’m not going to even call it information because a lot of it is not necessarily information, it’s content that we put on the internet. In 2010, already, you know, about 15 years after the first browser, you know, was made available, in 2010, we had two zettabytes of data online, a zettabyte being one trillion gigabytes, essentially. Now, we had in 2010, two zettabytes. In 2020, we had 64.2 zettabytes online. And in 2025, five years later, we are expected to have 181. zettabytes of content. So in 10 years, we went from two zettabytes to 64. And now in less than five years, we are going to multiply that by three. So the amount of content that we produce with the number of people online is growing at a pace that is incredible. But storing this content is highly expensive and very selective. So what we have online is not necessarily what we have in storage in terms of data centers, for example. And those are very expensive, very expensive technologies. And not only expensive in terms of the creation of the tech itself, the infrastructure itself that is very costly, but also environmentally costly in terms of water that it drinks to cool the data centers, the energy that it consumes to power these data centers for them to continue working. So digitization is a process that is incredibly expensive. So selection of what ends up stored is a process that is on a continuous base, making a lot of what we produce being discarded. And that discarding is not necessarily done by us. It’s not a process that we select to do. It’s by the organizations and the platforms that we use that end up making that kind of selection. What is worth keeping? And what is getting thrown away on a daily, on a continuous basis? So for every byte that we have to store nowadays, another byte has to be thrown away. So, how do we select that? Organizations make that choice, and we end up not having access to a lot of information. We have the broken links that were mentioned in the beginning by Bianca. We have a lot of this loss of content that we use to store in the cloud, or in different types of systems that end up obsolete, and discarded, and so on and so forth. But it’s beyond that. Digitization is this costly process, but datafication is a costly process as well. We need to be able to actually search this content, and the vast amounts of content that exist to be able to be searchable, to be accessible. They have to become beyond just a record. They have to be a searchable record, and being searchable is a complex process as well. You actually have to datafy, create, index this kind of information, this kind of content, so that this content can then be accessed in different ways. The process of indexing is very complex as well. It used to be, for example, that when we scanned text, for example, we scanned a book, that we took a picture of that book. Essentially, it was a digital Xerox copies of that book. It’s not a searchable mechanism. You just have this kind of a picture. Now, you actually, then we started using. using OCR technology, you know, the optical character readers technology that actually converted a page, you know, instead of being just a picture to being, to reading the text and absorbing it. But now it’s, even that, you know, it became at some point the heart. So you actually have to index it in different ways, finding, you know, keywords, for example, for text and et cetera. So who decides those keywords? Who decides on what basis you access information on the internet? It is the kind of thing that when we start looking, we find all kinds of issues with that. For example, I don’t know whether, you know, you’re familiar with a, the ImageNet, you know, a dataset, which was a dataset created, I think it was Harvard, you know, that created this dataset, you know, and started, you know, putting a big set of pictures, you know, together and somebody had to figure out a way of making sure that this, this data was searchable. And so they started labeling the pictures and the labeling pictures, and it became an issue that brought in all kinds of biases and discriminations, you know, and, you know, for example, you know, it would look at, at the faces of, of, you know, people that are black or brown, you know, or faces that are not the typical blonde, blue eyed Northern, you know, and, and label them in different, you know, as, you know, in many derogatory ways, you know, hyper sexualizing, you know, women, for example, women of color, you know, or calling men of color with a criminality linked associations and so on and so forth. So that’s the kind of thing that ended up happening. And then when we search for these images, when we try to recall the memories that these images encode, you end up bringing these biases in as well. So you have all kinds of issues with digitization. Then you have the process of datafication. And then you actually try to generate. Nowadays, we use this vast amount of data to generate applications. For example, using to generate generative AI, artificial intelligence, large language models, diffusion models, and so on. And those encode this datafication mechanisms that are quite biased, quite disrespectful, actually, of different cultures, and are keeping content from cultures that are not necessarily representative of all the cultures of the world. So we end up with generative AI, a set of collective memories on the internet, and particularly in data centers that are not the memories that we put in, the content that we put in. And then we end up with this content that is coming out that is not necessarily. It’s a kind of pasteurized, amalgamated, average content that is not the memory of the world. you know, but it’s the memory of everyone, and it’s not respectful of cultural heritage and cultural precedence. But, you know, this is what we have online. And of course, generative AI, it actually generates content as well. And the generation of content by generative AI actually creates tremendous issues on memory that we collectively have on the internet. First, it hallucinates. You know, it creates information or content of things that never happened. It doesn’t exist and don’t exist. You know, it doesn’t have any links to reality or to facts. It simply predicts, you know, the next image or the next picture or the next word. And, you know, so it predicts, you know, those and end up creating, you know, citations of books that don’t exist, pictures of events that never happened, and so on. And actually, historians, many of those are actually using, you know, the images to illustrate, you know, generating images to illustrate episodes in history that had no photograph, you know, of them happening, you know, before photography was invented. So you actually now have pictures of, you know, that never existed of an event. And, you know, and those pictures are incredibly biased as well. For example, generative AI, one of the things that it’s interesting, it just generates on the basis of what exists. There are quite a few tests, for example, about, you know, for it, but trying to generate. images of black doctors treating white children in hospitals. It happens every day. But generative AI has enormous difficulties creating this kind of image. But it makes it easy for you to create, for example, images of Indians in the US, wearing traditional clothing and sitting around negotiating treaties with cowboy-dressed white men in the 16th century. So it’s not accurate. And we end up with these images polluting our environment as well. So we have hallucination, which is the unintended creation of fact-free content, when I call it fact-free. Then you have actual intentional creation of content that is also fact-free. It’s not linked to reality. And then you have actually malignant kind of distribution of this, which is misinformation, disinformation, which is actually created with the intention to deceive. And so we actually spit it all out on the internet again. And we keep polluting our information environment to the point that now we are in the process of digitization, datafication, and usage of, you know, this information online, the biggest skill that we need to have is actually the skill to verify, you know, to say, is this real? You know, is this true? And how do you do that is becoming more and more difficult, exactly because of the broken links and the disappearing behind paywalls of the content that is trustworthy. So, such as content from media organizations that have to charge, you know, for this presentation of this content in order for them to survive, you know, instead of what platforms do in presenting information to us with by that they monetize through ads and other means such as that. So, yeah, you know, we live in a completely different world, you know, from when you could just Google it, when actually search engines are using generative AI to hallucinate results and offer them to us, you know, including as a first option. So, we don’t have the memories of humans anymore. We have, you know, content generated by computers being presented to us as, you know, the collective memory of the world. We need to be very, very cognizant, you know, very, very, um, we need to really understand the impact that this has on everything we do, you know, the valuing of science, for example, you know, if facts can be mixed up with non-facts, you know, with fact-free content such as that, what is the value? of the trustworthy organizations that use to generate content for us, you know, science, media, you know, authorities, and so on. They’re becoming less trustworthy as well, you know, simply because we cannot differentiate between content that is generated, you know, that is part of our collective memory, that is fact-based, evidence-based content, to, you know, something that is being, you know, put on the internet by, you know, some artificial entity. So, just some provocation to start, because I think that this is one of the most important topics that we have. How do we preserve the, you know, the validity, the reliability of our information environment? This is the question that we have, you know, for the next few years. It’s the most important question that we could, you know, be discussing. Thank you.

Juliano Cappi: Thank you so much, Mariela. I’m assuming that we should now pass to the next speaker, which is Ricardo Pimenta. So, Ricardo Pimenta, the floor is yours.

Ricardo Medeiros Primenta: Thank you. Thank you, Juliano. So, good morning. I’d like to begin by thanking CGI for the invitation and also the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation of Brazil for this honor of representing it. So, to begin with, let me share a popular Yoruba saying from Brazil’s Afro-Brazilian culture. that says, Eshu killed a bird yesterday with the stone he threw today. So, Eshu, we know, it is a figure of movement and transition in Yoruba mythology, bridges the human and divine, enabling communication and connecting them. This notion of interconnectedness reminds us that maintaining and developing connections in our digitized world is both our responsibility and a challenge, even when the connection is between past and present. In fact, in our current digital reality, these connections generate immense data and information raising pressing questions. What should be preserved and how do we distinguish the essential from the superfluous? The challenge of maintaining collective memory has grown exponentially. We now face a flood of disorganized and even lost data stored across countless devices, complicating retrieval and comprehension. For public policy, this issue is particularly urgent, given the unprecedented speed and volume of data production in the past three decades. So, memory, as highlighted in the Yoruba saying, it isn’t just about the past. It is actively constricted in the present. Remembering today shapes our understanding of yesterday. And memory itself is updated and rewritten in real time. In Brazil, the time has come to think about yesterday’s bird. So, memory, it’s a political agenda, not just a cultural one, which should primarily unite public and third sector institutions. so that it doesn’t end up being driven mostly by the market, leading to what Andrés Hussein has described as a disneyfication of memory, which through its overexploitation would also invite us to greater collective and irremediable forgetfulness. This has profound implications for public and collective memory in the digital age. We must approach it ethically, curating what is preserved, while recognizing that not everything can be saved. Social platforms like Instagram or Facebook, for example, add complexity as the content they host belongs to their owners, including disinformation and toxic narratives. This threatens the representations of our past and present, and meanwhile Brazil’s more than 5.3 million internet domains contribute every day to the vastness of this challenge. To tackle this, initiatives by institutions like IBICT, the Brazilian Institute of Information Science and Technology, where I am a researcher and currently the teaching and researching coordinator, provide some valuable examples. First of all, I can speak something about the Tynakon software. The Tynakon is a software that digitizes and systematizes cultural collections from IFAM, that is an institute for our historical and artistic heritage, National Institute, and the IBRA, that is an institute from Brazilian museums. So ensuring the Tynakon could ensure access to museums and memory institutions. This is one example that are developed in IBICT inside the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation. The second is the Cariniana Network. That is a network that preserves… over 700 open-access electronic journals automating processes like storage and validation. The third is the Arquivo.gov. It’s a kind of a pilot project that archived nearly all Brazilian government websites in 2021 with plans for user-driving websites collection and preservation inspired by models like the Arquivo.pt and the Internet Archive but more the experience of Arquivo.pt is the reference for us. And the last, the Tempora. Tempora is a digital tool developed in a digital humanities laboratory in Ibict. It is a platform for archiving and visualizing digital information in the form of a timeline which during the 2022 presidential elections we started publications from fact-checking agencies with the intention of creating a timeline of disinformation events and contributing to the memory of that event in the midst of this disinformation fever we are experiencing globally. So, these efforts showcase Ibict’s potential leadership in preserving Brazilian Internet memory but broader challenge will remain, particularly regarding who preserves the entirety of Brazil’s online presence and now and how storage limitations are addressed. The issue recalls the Argentine writer José Luis Borges who wrote Funes de Memorios where the desire to remember everything leads always to a paralysis. Memory thrives in balance. between remembering and forgetting, recovery and erasure. The technological promise to store everything is illusory. We must curate what defines the memory of the Internet, shaping what is remembered and what is not. To do this, two challenges stand out. The first is about management, in my perspective. The challenge of memory today is its management, its control in a scenario where space and time are atomized and the volume of information expands entropically, invites us to feel this kind of Freudian death drive, intimately that pushes us to confront, to innovate and generally to the vibrant creation of means, techniques, strategies, policies and practices capable of making us overcome it one day at a time. The second could be about governance, a good one. A good one that is capable of circumscribing different actors, able to decide what to preserve and who makes those decisions. This isn’t just a technical issue, but a political and institutional one, requiring ethical collaborative solutions. Furthermore, if the object we are looking at is the Internet, how will any proposal to preserve its memory be able to progress without thinking about the mechanisms that need to be aligned with the devices, actors and institutions that regulate it? So, in my perspective, governance could play one singular role to keep proper access to information and freedom of expression without major ethical complications and transgenerational public and collective memory mediated by information… communication technologies that are now in different parts of our private and public daily lives. In closing, I return to the Yoruba saying, the actions we take today to preserve the Internet’s memory will determine if the bird was indeed killed or not yesterday. So thank you. Thank you so much Ricardo and I

Juliano Cappi: just gave the floor to Ricardo without presenting. Ricardo then I’m sorry and I’m doing it just as now. Ricardo is currently the coordinator of teaching and research in information and science and technology at the Brazilian Institute of Science and Technology and he’s a permanent professor at the postgraduate program of in information science at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro. Ricardo has been a full research at the Brazilian Institute of Information Science and Technology since February 2013. Sorry Ricardo and thank you so much for your insightful thoughts. Then I would give I give the floor to Samik Karel. Samik is a journalist and researcher from Kathmandu at Nepal with over a decade experience in reporting on contemporary issues for national international media. He has contributed to leading research institutions focus on technology ethics and human rights. Karel has received a multiple international fellowship and grants and he teaches critical thinking at university at university while exploring electronic music. Karel thank you for your participation. The floor is yours.

Samik Kharel: Hi, can you hear me? Yeah. So yeah, thank you very much. Hello to everyone at the IGF in Riyadh. From myself enjoying a sunny winter afternoon in Kathmandu, at least a couple of minutes back. I’m overwhelmed to be a part of this esteemed panel. I would like to thank the CZI for this wonderful opportunity to talk about collective memories in digital realms. I think it’s the collective memories that have actually brought us together, our past activities that’s on the internet. And so, yeah, although this is a very deep and awesome to dive in, I would like to start very general and narrow my interest towards my own expertise and probably my geographic reason as well. So yeah, just an anecdote to start with. When I was very young, I was given a chalk and a slate, you know, like by my parents. And a formidable technology at that time to write and learn first alphabets. It was not very long ago, but like, you know, it was like three decades back. And I thought it was the most convenient tool because I could scribble on it, write anything. And if I didn’t like it, I could erase it as well because this tool was very ephemeral, you know. So I don’t remember what I scribbled then, you know, like not much memories of it, except writing a few alphabets and maybe like scribbling some Mickey Mouses and Donald Ducks. But passing this phase, I was given a notebook and a pencil. Now I was told I was to have more structures, you know, like write between the lines, do this, do that, be more disciplined and only erase the errors. A little bit later, like a few years after the pencil, I was given a pen. a more permanent it was it was an idea which gave me more permanence and I and what I scribble stayed a little bit longer there were no no traces of my chalk and slate experiences and now still now like I although I don’t find anything else in my basement in my parents basement I still find like some scribbles of whatever I did with the pen and pencils you know like so yeah I mean that’s how I would like to start and how these were my memories and that were keep kept in like soup boxes in my parents basement and probably many of these contexts you can relate to as a collective memory yourself so we have a tendency to save and retrieve our memories as desired and as memories play a huge role in construction of our identities so fast forward to my teens so like you know like we get a computer with with a little bit of access to the internet a little bit later they’re more restricted and diverse I was being watched by my guardians to go there not to go there probably being logged and being checked my history compared to the most more analog past I had the internet seemed to make everything present you know even the past was so well weaved with the present everything now felt like a block this is likely because at present our memory function is increasingly organized via media systems specifically digital media and which has become entry very integrated this integrated media system internalizes the main functions as cultural memory now which has become a focal point of the document is in system of the past and the present Example like now I use Google photos and it gives me like, you know, seven years back memories You were in the ocean and today you’re in the ocean. So you I mean you’re doing well, or I don’t know Yeah, this is this is how you Tag your memories with this tokens so like coming again to an ad is what they say like the internet never forgets, but people do and And When people do then internet actually rightly reminds you again that you have not forgotten and so now you know like with internet and digital technologies and in particular internet and web-based information and communication technologies Our memories our collective memories are formed and shaped during the digital era While internet systems have enabled Kind of demo democratizes in memory with it with You know, like everyone’s basic technology and internet, you know, like devices can produce their own content promote it on the web um while now the big part is many who have been left behind as even with the lack of basic technologies and infrastructures Are not being able to do so my one of my country and the reason and the majority world about chronicles these digital divides which majority which measurably still affects already vulnerable population and the marginalized ones in our reason and my country so, uh this reason witnesses particularly of Of a patriarchy on internet as well as majority of narratives and discourses are still male dominated You know, like all these narratives discourses coming from political institutions parties Universities are still very patriarchal Uh, that’s what I feel. Um the same population with this which actually did not have cameras books access to libraries, information, newspapers, access to education, basic health care. They’re the same population who don’t have access to the internet, which is really sad. Their memories have never been documented. Rather, sometimes they’ve been part of subaltern narratives which have been seen by others and brought out to the world. While this divide is closing in data with more access to technology, the debates on what we call meaningful uninterrupted access still lingers. That’s where we stand in this region, particularly Nepal, India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and the rest of South Asia. Where we lag is while social media helps forming collective communities. You have people who play games, different interest groups who don’t have to be face-to-face. These vulnerable populations are still left out of discourse. They don’t know what’s happening, where they are, where they stand in this technological world, which was supposedly principled under democratization and participation of collective memory making. Coming forward, the process of creating, storing, managing, removing, manipulating digital data. Let’s talk about public data and collective memory. Where we stand right now in the digital age, collective memory are often intertwined with the data we generate, from the photos we post online to the interactions we have in social media. This raises concerns about who controls our public collective memory, how it is used, whether it is a subject to manipulation. Most likely, we are very vulnerable when it comes to the government using our data. With the lack of very comprehensive data policies, mostly in this part of the world and elsewhere too, there’s a lack of accountability. While the governments have been proactively using available technologies to collect data, data from the citizens, there has been less accountability of where this data is being used, where it is being stored, for what purposes, for how long, how it will be used, in what cases it will not be used. There has been no accountable answers to these. There have been several breaches and leakages of data and personal information, personal data example. I would like to give a few examples of the election data that was collected but that was breached and used for other things. The government yet to realize people’s, the value of people’s data and being accountable for it. Also data being collected for one purpose and being used for another one, like you use for national, you know, like a national demographic population data for something else, you give it to like some marketeers, corporate houses, for their own benefits. So that is another problem. Also data being, also other sensitive cases of data collection and retrieval being procured to other countries because we don’t have the expertise to manage our own data, which is very, which keeps us very vulnerable position in the absence of comprehensive data law. Then again, there’s like the trustworthiness of social media platforms. Which have been pretty active in most of these countries. While we’re using social media platforms in our day-to-day activities, from our information sources to businesses, we tend to use all this like big social media as vital tool for our information, for even for our businesses. But no one questions the trustworthiness of it. The government has tried to grip the social media companies in this part of the world and other places as well. Asking them to work in coordination, filter harmful data against national integrity and national interest. And also establish a focal communication person for the, so that they can. actually been in touch with these companies. Few companies like TikTok, which was banned in Nepal and less some other countries in South Asia have also adhered to the government’s proposal, established a focal person, worked with the government for data breaches, but still it’s in a very nascent phase. TikTok was banned by government of Nepal, which has been lifted after they agreed to set up their centers and go accordingly. Also the rife of misinformation in the platforms is ever increasing, political parties and political wings are using the internet and social media to change narratives that have been abundant, which is like everywhere, especially during the crisis, which is a crisis during elections or some natural disasters or the pandemics. Whitewashing, smear campaigning, conspiracy theories, an area of these enforced to collective memories. At the same time, memories shared publicly in social media have also been very crucial during natural disasters and pandemics. I’m not saying all is bad, there’s good things as well. The recent floods, the use of social media and like the posts made by citizens actually helped rescue many people as well. Also coming back, like as a journalist, I need to bring this together, like the best example of consolidated open source, what we say is Wikipedia, which does not conform to historical recording practices. However, internet as a whole and social media are also a great tool for open source. Now, as a journalist reporting with limited resources from this country, not being able to travel everywhere on foot, I think open source has been very crucial to my coverage on very sensitive issues. It gives me multiple perspectives, angles, diverse ideas, and approach to report. I think it’s a marvel for modern news journalism if you know how to use it. So yeah, the future, I know like I have been closely following the LLMs and as Mariella also pointed out, how it’s gonna herald new ecosystem for the collective memory. Is it gonna be the future of collective memory is a question, particularly generative AI seems to have taken a technological leap and with building new infrastructures for memory, while it also enables combination of various diverse encounter memories. Now LLMs are being used to memorialize chat with historical figures and philosophers, bringing them from past life. There’s this Silicon Valley thing of saying long-termism and like, yeah, memorializing someone. So you can talk to Russo, even if he was dead like, I don’t know, many hundred years back. So the Russo chatbot becomes more dynamic in engaging in public memory with all the interactions with other people, quite exciting times, even those, the saturated discourses are likely to be dynamic again. So while AI could be the future of collective memories, it could be crucial to ensure participation of marginalized communities from the global South in progress towards inclusion and multilingualism and multiculturalism. That’s what I think. So we cannot be left behind and our already vulnerable community is getting more vulnerable without the lack of internet, with the lack of internet and connected infrastructures. So I would like to end there and I would like to discuss more. Thank you.

Juliano Cappi: Thank you so much, Samick. As we are advancing to the closing of the session, I go straight to Carlos Afonso. Carlos Afonso has a master’s degree in economics from University of Toronto, also a doctoral studies and social political. Through a thought at the same university, he has worked in human development field since the early 70s. He is co-founder of the Association for Progressive Communication, APC. He coordinated the Eco92 Internet project with APC and United Nations. He is a member of the United Nations Working Group on Internet Governance. He is a special advisor of the Internet Governance Forum. He was, in 2007, a member of the UNCTAD Expert Group on ICT and Poverty Alleviation. He was a member of the UNCTAD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation. He was a member of the Mood Stakeholder Advisory Group of the IGF. He is co-founder and member of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee. He is co-founder and chair of the Brazilian Chapter of Internet Society. Finally, he is a director of the NUPEF Institute in Rio de Janeiro. The floor is yours.

Carlos Alberto Afonso: Good morning. Were you hearing?

Juliano Cappi: Yes, we hear, but with a little bit of noise, but yes.

Carlos Alberto Afonso: Let me see if I can switch.

Juliano Cappi: I’m sorry, we are having difficulty to listen.

Carlos Alberto Afonso: Yes, can you hear me now?

Juliano Cappi: Yes, yes, perfect, perfect, great.

Carlos Alberto Afonso: Okay, thank you. Thank you. Well, good morning, good morning, right? You are, no, it’s still morning there? No, it’s not. It is, yes. So, it’s five in the morning here, so. Well, you probably are looking at a map that is from Wikipedia, which I posted there. And the map, as most maps are, is distorted, benefiting the Northern Hemisphere. So, the Northern Hemisphere shows much bigger than the Southern Hemisphere. But the important thing is, the countries painted green are the countries which have significant Internet archiving services, like the Internet Archive, like many other efforts to archive the Internet. Countries below the equator, which takes most of South America, and also the Caribbean and Mexico, there is no indexing, no indexing of the Internet in those countries. When I say there is no indexing, I say there is no significant indexing, which is worth mentioning. There are experimental ones. We are a small institute. We are doing a project like that. But it’s too small to figure in the map, no? In Africa, you have only one country with a… an important indexing service, internet indexing, web indexing service, which is Egypt. And why Egypt? Because they have the Alexandria Library, which does internet archiving. Wonderful, no? But it’s only Egypt in the entire Africa, no? In the Southern Hemisphere, you have only Australia and New Zealand doing significant internet archiving. So this is a major challenge for the southern countries in the so-called Global South, no? And we need to address that because we are losing a lot of information because as other speakers mentioned, the information on the internet is anything but eternal. It disappears and many government sites disappear when political issues arise, no? And this happened recently in Brazil, several sites almost disappeared. We are trying in Brazil, there are initiatives, but are not at the scale which could be present in that map. But there are initiatives trying to do something. And one of them is our small institute which we call the Grauna Project. Grauna is a bird, is a bird with a strong, tremendous resistance to environmental challenges and so on. And it’s also a figure of a famous cartoon in Brazil, which represented people, impoverished people in the northeast of Brazil. So we use the name Grauna to represent our project of trying to do indexing of the internet in Brazil. And it has two components. One of them is indexing based on the technologies used by the Internet Archive by Arquivo.pt, which is the major indexer in Portuguese language, but does not index Brazil, index only Portugal. And several others which use open source technology and the reproducible technology to index the Internet. And this Gaona project also includes a local server, a very small server, which is a small box, which you can carry with you anywhere, which has a copy of many information systems which are there to be used in remote communities which have poor or no connectivity to the Internet. So they have a reproduction of Wikipedia in Portuguese, for instance, in this box, and several other facilities, information facilities. So this is part also for Gaona project, no? And what are we doing right now is the project in an experimental phase and trying to protect content relevant to the democratic processes, which is a potential target of hacker attacks, censorship, political pressure, or eventually, which cannot be backed up satisfactorily, no? The Gaona Archive stores websites selected using a methodology that prioritizes qualitative interviews and analysis of the political scenario. It is very experimental. In this experimental phase, some priority areas are defined, like environment, health, culture. human rights, but we have defined in principle 18 thematic areas to index and the challenges we are confronting are quite interesting and we had to do it to understand why people are not indexing the Internet and now we know it’s very difficult, it’s a big, big challenge. We have created several interesting features in the system for archiving like the ability to belong to a group of users, for example, if a research group wants to have multiple users creating archives for the same project in the system. Ability to schedule, requiring archiving to maintain different versions, display of archiving date and time, which is typical of the major Internet archives. And we have defined, to begin, 18 themes from culture to government, racial equality, gender, elections, communication, etc., etc. In recent years, there have been several cases of removal of or alteration of the content of public information, as well as deliberate attacks on web pages. There are also frequent reports from civil society about greater difficulty in accessing previously available public information. Despite some relevant experiences in the academic field, for instance, at the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, there is an indexing initiative, Brazil still lacks permanent projects aimed at archiving the web on a scale compatible with the breadth and reach of the Internet in Brazil. Disappearance of information in all elections due to poor management or incorrect application of electoral law is an issue which has to be considered. And Graona started in 2018, and we managed to get some funding from the Open Society, the Media Democracy Fund, and others to help us start the project. We have support from NIC.br with equipment and from the National Research Network, which provides connectivity to our project. And we conducted about 60 interviews about threatened websites, relevant content, security of their own websites. And we also had a legal context document prepared by our lawyer regarding archiving of content which may be challenged by the actual owners of these contents. And this is a challenge that has to be contemplated in these projects. In 2022 and 2023, we improved the infrastructure to ensure the necessary conditions for the system to run securely. And part of it is to provide almost real-time backup of the system, which is one major challenge if the main data center fails. You have to have a backup to run immediately, almost immediately. And this is also a challenge that has to be contemplated. We initially had 18 themes active with 227 archived sites and more than 100.gov.br sites, government sites, archived. That was especially important because there was a political transition in Brazil in which many of these government sites were challenged or disappeared. The scale of indexing is much smaller than the Internet Archive and others, and at this stage of the project is specifically aimed at preserving content at risk for several reasons. It’s also an experiment that seeks to address the challenge of indexing content that is publicly available, but often extremely difficult to capture. There are several reasons, use of increasingly complex technologies, frequent changes in the technologies used, huge databases, sites with multiple depth levels, many other challenges. There is the possibility of archiving that is not made public, is one of the features that we managed to install in the system, which is useful, for example, for the storing of sites that promote disinformation, and that we do not want to multiply, but can preserve. There is still controversy, however, about the use of archiving as forensic evidence. Preservation of dialogues in Brazil about preservation of web contents are happening in the sessions, in dialogues, and meetings of academics and other interest groups in Brazil since at least 2019, and we are discussing this now here at the IGF. And in the IGF, there is, I understand, an intersessional initiative, a policy network dedicated to highlighting best practices for preserving and creating local content. And a major challenge, for instance, for the original idioms, languages, which are a challenge in our region especially. We are finishing the first version of the software of the system, the RULA, and will be available on GitHub for free development using application by other organizations and also by the public authorities. And we are organizing a permanent curation team or committee to preserve more sites and review archiving criteria, which is a big challenge. The criteria for archiving, which was mentioned here by, I think, Marielza. And advanced research on public debate on the formats to archive, which have to be compatible with several library and other standards. Advanced debate on the authenticity of archives in WARC format so that they can constitute evidence. Establish support partnership to advance the development of the project. And train people to perform archiving. Hire a team to perform more complex or large volume archiving. Further improvement in usability of the tool, which is already online, by the way. Keep the system up to date in light of the constant transformation of the web and expand the infrastructure to increase processing storage capacity. Preserving content in any language is a complex challenge. Brazil currently has more than 300 indigenous ethnic groups with more than 270 languages, all of which are at risk of disappearing. And with them, an entire culture disappears. Similar challenges occur in Latin America and other countries, in the Portuguese-speaking countries and so on. How can internet resources be used to support the preservation and continuity of these languages and cultures is a big challenge. That’s it. Thank you. I talk too much. Here, the address of our institute is nupef.org.br. I will put this in the chat. And the address of the Grauna project is grauna.org.br. I’ll put there as well. Thank you.

Juliano Cappi: Thank you so much, Carlos Afonso. We have one question from the online audience. I would ask if someone here in the room would like to have a question. We have a question here.

Audience: Hi, I am a researcher based in Germany. I would like to ask Ricardo, can you hear me? You mentioned the link between memory or political agenda, or collective memory and the elections in Brazil. Can you give us some examples to elaborate how collective memory has been used or has impacted the results of the elections in Brazil? I also have a question for the journalist from Nepal. Can you give us some examples of the relations between whitewashing and collective memory? And if possible, could you give us examples from Nepal? And I would like to give, I’m sorry, but I forgot the name of the first speaker, the only female speaker in the room. Okay, okay. If you can hear me, actually I’m also working on collective memory. And when it comes to the deaf people in famine and natural disasters in the past, I couldn’t find the number of you know dead female bodies just because in the past only males house only for age households males dead bodies were counted what would you suggest me do it like you know doing to count to counter this challenge and that is I think that is also the question for all the panelists there was no data on certain issues in the past and maybe when you apply for funding when you apply for when you talk to your editors when you will talk to your bosses to convene someone of your research proposals they would ask you where’s your data what do you get data from and in case when there is no data due to historical injustices what would you do thank you

Marcelo Ferreira da Costa Gomes: hi I’m Marcelo Ferreira from Osvaldo Cruz Foundation and CGI.br thank you for the interesting very interesting interventions and I was thinking about the interventions you mentioned public institutions NGOs or civil society institutions looking for for memory open sourcing initiatives also very interesting but I found it is a lack of business interest on memory like companies and the compared to my Maria said that the technology expensiveness and indexing expensively we see on business today people saying that cloud storage and cloud processing it’s cheap so what I feel after this is that you have technology that are cheap for business interests for producing products and private services and expensive reform memory and I’d like you to comment about that because we see that you have technology for private interest that they’re cheap and available but when you think on public interest on there is no market interest And I’m not thinking only on states, but on the public, the common goods and the public interest. We don’t have investments of states or even of business. I’d like to comment this difference between the access and availability of technology for private interest and public interest like memory. We have this hard way to do that.

Alex Moura: Hi, I am Alex Moura, originally from Brazil. I work here in Saudi Arabia currently in the Cal State University. And I have a question for Carlos Afonso. As I have a past working back in RMP, the Brazilian Academic Network, I am aware of the challenges that happen in the science and education area, where people struggle to also have data for scientific purposes, for educational purposes, in universities, in research institutions. And this brought me a recollection that this is an open problem in Brazil, that we don’t have a specific institution towards storage or preservation, digital preservation. So how are you tackling this part of the problem of the storage capacity for the Grauna project? And what are your thoughts on how Brazil and other countries can address the problem of the storage capacity for many purposes, not only for internet memory, but also for scientific education and cultural and arts and etc.?

Bianca Correa: We have one question that we received from the online audience, I think I will also pose this question because then we can give the floor to all the speakers to answer them. So Dr. T. V. Gopal from Anna University in Chennai, India, he asks, he says, public memory is short, internet memory is seldom so. Any solutions for the mismatch hazard in the geopolitical space?

Juliano Cappi: Well, we have very good question in very short time. Then I would ask panelists to make their final remarks, trying to address the questions, which are very important and interesting, but I would also have to ask you to not go further than three minutes, because we will have to close the session very soon. Then we could start from backwards with Carlos Alberto Afonso, and then Samick, and then Marcelo, Ricardo, Pimenta, and then Mariausa, please, Carlos Afonso, the floor is yours.

Carlos Alberto Afonso: Thank you. I’ll be very brief, a good question. I recall that the Grauna project is an experiment, still an experiment, exactly to measure the difficulties which you mentioned, among others, like for instance, backing up in real time is a tremendous challenge. The cost of doing that is already very expensive in a big scale. That’s why we restricted the breadth of the information that the project can capture. to mostly civil society organizations’ web information. And on the basis of this experiment, we will try to progressively expand. But, of course, considering that this means more storage, more memory, and more backup, which is tremendous, the challenge is tremendous. Our idea with the project is also to provide a sort of a small reference, but a useful reference for an organization that could tackle the challenge in full and really do a Brazilian Internet Archive. And I have to say that one of the organizations that has these resources to do that, especially technical resources, is NIC.br. And we do hope that they consider this in the future. Thank you.

Juliano Cappi: Sameek, please.

Samik Kharel: Hi, thank you. I would just like to address the question from a lady in Germany. She asked about parties, memory, and whitewashing, I think. So, like, it’s been a common trend for major political parties in Nepal and the reason to deploy what we call the cyber army. So, what they do is look around the Internet and, you know, like, if there is any criticisms about them or if there is any critical discourse about them, they document that and they go to make a counterargument against that to make their image better. So, it’s very common for them to do that these days. And to inject some populist ideas and what is go against whatever is trendy. So, that’s how it works. Anyway, finally, speaking of collected memory with the ubiquity of Internet, the way we are accessing. Collective memories, storing, discovering, and retrieving these collective memories has changed with emerging technologies. The way we interact with our memories has changed, and I think it will keep on changing with the advents of LLMs and generative AI, mainly social media and platformizations have also augmented new ways to approaching these memories by allowing us to actively contribute to them, making collective memories more interactive and collaborative now. However, we should be careful to ensure everyone has equal access and infrastructures to these. There should be accountability of our data, and the future should be shared, equal, and be democratic, and bring together all marginalized and vulnerable populations of the majority world together. Thank you.

Juliano Cappi: Thank you so much, Sameek. Luis, Thiago, Ricardo, Pimenta, I’m sorry.

Ricardo Medeiros Primenta: Okay, so I’ll try to answer in one brief. So about the question about elections. The memory is always a place of struggle, political struggle. Many people tell about the cultural side of memory, but that is okay, it exists, obviously, but even the cultural side of memory, if we can talk about this, is a result from political struggles, struggles about power. So how it impacts precisely related to the fact that it is potentially violated or rewritten as a field of dispute. by those who seek to dispute the discourse on fruit, political past, science, and so on. And let me tell you something about the tool I was talking about, the Tempora. The Tempora, this digital tool, was created during the COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil. From 2019 until mid-2022, we collected there, with this digital tool, almost 6,000 notices from media in Brazil, Brazilian media. Stories about how COVID spread in Brazil, something like that. And, obviously, the Brazilian media that didn’t have a paywall. So, in the process, most of the news stories produced by the Ministry of Health in Brazil and other Brazilian government bodies’ websites had their links broken. In 2019, this happened very quickly. And then we realized this back in 2019. We tried to develop the system so that we could save an image, a kind of PDF website, and also scrap the entire corpus of news that soon tended to disappear. So, how the question of memory could impact the elections, for example. The elections are a place of struggle, dispute, about discourse, about the past, the near past. and about projects of future, so we can afford this kind of thing and we need to develop something, some strategies to avoid that this kind of discourse could stay in some groups, some political groups that could do all bad things that we almost know, we already know that they are. So the other thing that I think I can answer about the question of data and so on, it’s a perspective about algorithmic governmentality, it’s a kind of new regime of truth. So about data, I think our biggest danger is the automation of social existence. I think we all talk about that. Automation of social existence through computational process deployed in online media. Its memory that comes from it will not be a memory preserved by the demands and conflicts of social groups, institutions or cultural practices. This kind of memory, rather it will be mathematically elaborated by algorithmic devices that are in turn programmed by groups such as the acronym GAFAMI, that is Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft and IBM. So in the end, the perspective of a political surveillance that we are talking about here today, we know that it’s something that we must fight against. But the surveillance by the market, many of us let this kind of thing happen. So is this correct? I think there is a kind of reification of the practice when we just give to GAFAMI, for example, our data in change of visual and informational kinds of consume. So look, I don’t agree with any kind of surveillance, but it’s a fact that we all practice it on different scales, the culture of following on social networks, the culture of attention that we all share a little bit, a little bit more, a little bit less, our surveillance practice also. So that we carry out in intimately and in a valid way. So I find this paradigm difficult to overcome. And right now, the answer is that I don’t know how we can solve this problem. But I know that in stats, these types of questions is important.

Juliano Cappi: Ricardo, thank you so much. And then we close the session with Marielza Oliveira. Please, Marielza, the floor is yours.

Marielza Oliveira: Thank you, Juliano. Well, it was a fabulous exchange. Thank you very much for this. I’m going to close with a very simple thing. Curation is a political economic process. It’s as simple as that. We have to ask, whose memory is being preserved? you know, why do we care to preserve memory now if we didn’t care so much before, you know, and the proof that we didn’t care so much before is simply that physical archives are being led to rot, you know, essentially, you know, you go into warehouses of documents that are, you know, exposed to, you know, floods and fires and mildew and simply neglect, and we haven’t really digitized everything that should have been digitized, you know, since the beginning. One of the simplest statistics is that about 40% of the birth records of people above 60 years of age are still on paper and not digitized, you know, it’s simply because there’s this tremendous backlog of content that have never been digitized to begin with, and we simply don’t do it, we don’t get to it, we keep looking at the, you know, creation of digital records, you know, new digital records, you know, the birth records of the young children that are born now, but we forget that we haven’t done it, you know, equally for everyone, that we left behind the older generations, for example, since they didn’t, you know, start with digital archives to begin with. So we have to really ask this question, you know, and the reason why we are caring so much about, you know, digitization right now, the preservation of memory, is that we found that it has a value, a monetary value, because, you know, if the point is not to preserve memory, the point is to create data that then feeds into generally, you know, generative AI and other, you know, mechanisms such as that, you know, that then can be monetized and drive the economy for other reasons. you know, for other purposes. We are looking at the AI, not at the memory. But we need to really ask, you know, about the memory. How do we preserve it? And as a matter of fact, you know, there are very simple things that need to be done. First, we need to digitize more. Digitize, close the digitization divide that exists. For example, the content for older generations that is still, you know, on paper, or if it’s not on paper, has been digitized, is on outdated, obsolete formats that need to be brought into, you know, this new format. Then we need to look at this issue of indexing that was mentioned before. You know, the fact that we need to really think about how, you know, we create the mechanisms for searchable data, you know, because just creating data is insufficient. We need to look at searchable data. And the cleaning up of, you know, quite a lot of content that is, you know, literally toxic, or, you know, cleaning up and separation of this content. We have already the common crawl, you know, which is done once a month, you know, about once a month, crawling the entire internet. So for Global South, you know, developing the technologies and the methodologies to really mine the common crawl, to extract what is the collective memory in particular countries would be a huge thing. But we also need to build capacities of people, you know, to preserve their own memories, you know, because we don’t, we can’t just preserve memory for somebody else. We need to allow them, to give them the tools to preserve their own memories, the ones that are meaningful for them. Because actually, the terrible thing is that. only 2% of what gets on the internet, you know, it gets preserved hardcore, and only about 10% get preserved overall. It’s increasing, you know, because more data centers are being built because companies such as the GAFAM are really investing to the point that they are building nuclear reactors to power these data centers. They value it so much. But we need to value our own memories as well as, you know, the global south. And think about where do we store it in terms of data sovereignty as well. You know, how do we keep access to these memories if, you know, and to this content, if it end up, you know, ends up being, you know, switched off somewhere else. And that’s, you know, that degrades and the quality of our own, you know, collective memories in different countries. So I’m going to stop here and say thank you for the chance to have this fabulous conversation.

Juliano Cappi: Thank you so much, Marielza. Thank you, all panelists, Ricardo, Samik, Carlos Afonso. We had a great panel and this is a first initiative to debate the challenges related to memory, collective memory online. Hope that we can have further discussions in considering this event, which is in the core of internet governance on this debate. Thank you and we now finish the session. Thanks a lot for everyone. Thank you, everyone. Bye bye. Bye bye.

Agreement Points

Challenges in preserving online content

Bianca Correa

Marielza Oliveira

Carlos Alberto Afonso

Ricardo Medeiros Pimenta

Rapid disappearance of online content

Selective digitization and storage due to high costs

Lack of internet archiving in Global South countries

Broken links and vanishing government websites

Multiple speakers highlighted the difficulties in preserving online content due to rapid disappearance, high costs, lack of archiving services in certain regions, and issues with broken links and vanishing websites.

Biases and inequalities in digital memory preservation

Marielza Oliveira

Samik Kharel

Unknown speaker

Dominance of English and Northern countries’ content online

Exclusion of marginalized communities from digital discourse

Patriarchal narratives dominating online discourses

Gender biases in historical data collection

Several speakers addressed the issue of biases and inequalities in digital memory preservation, including language dominance, exclusion of marginalized communities, and gender biases in data collection.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the importance of preserving diverse cultural perspectives and languages in digital memory, particularly focusing on indigenous and marginalized communities.

Carlos Alberto Afonso

Samik Kharel

Loss of indigenous languages and cultures

Need for inclusive participation in AI-driven memory preservation

Both speakers highlighted the political and economic aspects of memory preservation, emphasizing that decisions about what to preserve are influenced by costs and power dynamics.

Marielza Oliveira

Ricardo Medeiros Pimenta

Selective digitization and storage due to high costs

Memory preservation as a political agenda

Unexpected Consensus

Impact of emerging technologies on memory preservation

Marielza Oliveira

Samik Kharel

Ricardo Medeiros Pimenta

Obsolescence of storage formats

Impact of AI and large language models on memory construction

Challenges of algorithmic governmentality in social existence

Despite coming from different backgrounds, these speakers all addressed the significant impact of emerging technologies on memory preservation, highlighting both challenges and opportunities. This consensus suggests a growing recognition of the transformative role of technology in shaping collective memory across various contexts.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement among speakers included the challenges of preserving online content, biases and inequalities in digital memory preservation, the importance of cultural and linguistic diversity in digital archives, and the impact of emerging technologies on memory construction.

Consensus level

There was a moderate to high level of consensus among the speakers on the key challenges and issues surrounding digital memory preservation. This consensus implies a shared understanding of the complex nature of preserving collective memory in the digital age and the need for multifaceted approaches to address these challenges. However, there were some variations in the specific focus areas and proposed solutions, reflecting the diverse backgrounds and perspectives of the speakers.

Different Viewpoints

Approach to preserving online content

Carlos Alberto Afonso

Marielza Oliveira

Lack of internet archiving in Global South countries

Selective digitization and storage due to high costs

While both speakers acknowledge the challenges in preserving online content, Afonso focuses on the geographical disparity in archiving services, particularly in the Global South, while Oliveira emphasizes the economic constraints leading to selective preservation.

Unexpected Differences

Role of AI in memory preservation

Samik Kharel

Ricardo Medeiros Pimenta

Impact of AI and large language models on memory construction

Challenges of algorithmic governmentality in social existence

While both speakers discuss AI’s impact on memory, their perspectives differ unexpectedly. Kharel sees potential benefits in AI for memory preservation, while Pimenta expresses concerns about algorithmic governmentality’s impact on social existence and memory.

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement revolve around approaches to content preservation, the role of technology in memory construction, and the political implications of digital memory.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among speakers is moderate. While there is general consensus on the importance of preserving digital memory, speakers differ in their focus areas and proposed solutions. These differences reflect the complexity of the issue and the need for multifaceted approaches to address the challenges of preserving collective memory online.

Partial Agreements

Both speakers agree that memory preservation has political implications, but they differ in their focus. Pimenta discusses it as a broader political struggle, while Kharel provides specific examples of how political parties actively shape online narratives.

Ricardo Medeiros Pimenta

Samik Kharel

Memory preservation as a political agenda

Use of “cyber armies” by political parties to shape online narratives

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the importance of preserving diverse cultural perspectives and languages in digital memory, particularly focusing on indigenous and marginalized communities.

Carlos Alberto Afonso

Samik Kharel

Loss of indigenous languages and cultures

Need for inclusive participation in AI-driven memory preservation

Both speakers highlighted the political and economic aspects of memory preservation, emphasizing that decisions about what to preserve are influenced by costs and power dynamics.

Marielza Oliveira

Ricardo Medeiros Pimenta

Selective digitization and storage due to high costs

Memory preservation as a political agenda

Key Takeaways

Preserving collective memory online faces significant challenges including rapid content disappearance, selective digitization due to high costs, and lack of archiving infrastructure in Global South countries.

There are major biases and inequalities in digital memory preservation, with dominance of English and Northern countries’ content, and exclusion of marginalized communities.

Technological challenges include obsolescence of storage formats, difficulties in capturing complex web content, and need for robust backup systems.

Memory preservation is inherently political and economic, with curation processes shaped by power dynamics and monetization incentives.

Emerging technologies like AI and large language models are reshaping how collective memory is constructed and accessed online, raising new challenges and opportunities.

Resolutions and Action Items

Develop technologies and methodologies to mine the Common Crawl for preserving collective memory in Global South countries

Build capacities of people to preserve their own meaningful memories online

Increase efforts to digitize older content still in paper formats or obsolete digital formats

Improve indexing and searchability of preserved digital content

Consider data sovereignty issues in storing and accessing preserved memories

Unresolved Issues

How to address the digital divide in memory preservation between Global North and South

How to ensure preservation of underrepresented languages and cultures online

How to balance privacy concerns with the need for comprehensive archiving

How to fund large-scale digital preservation efforts, especially in developing countries

How to mitigate biases in AI-driven memory preservation and retrieval systems

Suggested Compromises

Focusing preservation efforts on select high-priority content given limited resources

Balancing between preserving raw data and curated/indexed content

Collaborating across sectors (government, academia, private) to share costs and expertise in preservation efforts

Memory is a vast and complex topic. It becomes even more complex when we think about the relationship between memory and the Internet, in preserving memory, promoting social memory, and constructing memory itself.

speaker

Bianca Correa

reason

This comment sets the stage for the entire discussion by highlighting the multifaceted nature of memory in the digital age. It prompts participants to consider memory not just as preservation, but as an active process of construction and promotion.

impact

This framing guided the subsequent discussion, encouraging speakers to address various aspects of digital memory beyond simple archiving.

We digitize very selectively, but we are less selectively, we’ve been less selectively over time. And the internet actually changed the way that we actually record things. And artificial intelligence made a huge change in the process as well.

speaker

Marielza Oliveira

reason

This comment introduces the idea of evolving selectivity in digital preservation and the transformative impact of AI. It challenges the notion that digital archiving is comprehensive or neutral.

impact

It shifted the conversation to consider the biases and limitations in our current approaches to digital memory, leading to discussions on representation and the role of AI in shaping collective memory.

Memory, as highlighted in the Yoruba saying, it isn’t just about the past. It is actively constricted in the present. Remembering today shapes our understanding of yesterday. And memory itself is updated and rewritten in real time.

speaker

Ricardo Medeiros Pimenta

reason

This comment provides a cultural perspective on memory as an active, present-tense process. It challenges the static view of memory and introduces the idea of memory as a dynamic, constantly evolving construct.

impact

It broadened the discussion to include cultural and philosophical aspects of memory, encouraging participants to consider how digital technologies interact with these dynamic processes of remembering and forgetting.

Countries below the equator, which takes most of South America, and also the Caribbean and Mexico, there is no indexing, no indexing of the Internet in those countries.

speaker

Carlos Alberto Afonso

reason

This comment highlights a significant global disparity in digital archiving efforts. It brings attention to the geopolitical aspects of digital memory preservation.

impact

It shifted the discussion towards issues of global inequality in digital preservation, prompting consideration of the potential loss of cultural heritage and the need for more inclusive archiving efforts.

Curation is a political economic process. It’s as simple as that. We have to ask, whose memory is being preserved?

speaker

Marielza Oliveira

reason

This comment cuts to the heart of the issue by framing digital memory preservation as a political and economic process. It raises critical questions about power, representation, and the motivations behind preservation efforts.

impact

It prompted a deeper examination of the underlying forces shaping digital memory, encouraging participants to consider issues of data sovereignty, representation, and the economic drivers of digital preservation.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by broadening its scope from technical aspects of digital preservation to include cultural, philosophical, geopolitical, and economic dimensions. They challenged simplistic notions of digital memory as neutral or comprehensive, instead highlighting issues of selectivity, bias, and global inequality. The discussion evolved from considering how to preserve digital memory to questioning whose memories are being preserved and why, emphasizing the active and political nature of digital memory construction in the present.

How can we preserve the validity and reliability of our information environment?

speaker

Marielza Oliveira

explanation

This was highlighted as one of the most important questions to be discussing in the coming years, given the challenges of misinformation and AI-generated content.

How can internet resources be used to support the preservation and continuity of indigenous languages and cultures?

speaker

Carlos Alberto Afonso

explanation

This was identified as a big challenge, particularly for Brazil with its 300+ indigenous ethnic groups and 270+ languages at risk of disappearing.

How can we address the lack of historical data on certain issues, particularly related to marginalized groups?

speaker

Audience member

explanation

This was raised as a challenge for researchers when there is no data available due to historical injustices or biases in data collection.

Why is there a lack of business interest in memory preservation compared to other technological investments?

speaker

Marcelo Ferreira

explanation

This question highlights the disparity between cheap technology for business interests and expensive technology for public interest projects like memory preservation.

How can Brazil and other countries address the problem of storage capacity for various purposes, including internet memory, scientific research, education, culture, and arts?

speaker

Alex Moura

explanation

This was identified as an open problem in Brazil, where there is no specific institution dedicated to digital preservation across various sectors.

What solutions exist for the mismatch hazard between short public memory and long internet memory in the geopolitical space?

speaker

Dr. T. V. Gopal (online audience)

explanation

This question addresses the potential consequences of the disparity between how long information persists online versus how long it remains in public consciousness.

Summary

This discussion focused on the critical intersection of cybersecurity and national security in today’s data-driven world. Experts from various countries and organizations explored the challenges and strategies for addressing gaps in policies and practices. The panelists emphasized the importance of trust in digital systems and the need for a multi-stakeholder approach to tackle cybersecurity issues.

Key points included the evolution of cybersecurity from a technical issue to a central national security concern, the importance of aligning national security priorities with rapidly evolving cyber threats, and the need for robust legislative frameworks. Participants discussed the vulnerabilities exposed by cyber threats such as spyware, phishing, and cyber warfare, as well as the potential of decentralized digital solutions to enhance resilience.

The discussion highlighted the importance of international cooperation and information sharing to combat global cyber threats. Panelists stressed the need for capacity building, particularly in developing countries, to address the digital divide and enhance cybersecurity capabilities. The role of public-private partnerships and the importance of involving academia in cybersecurity efforts were also emphasized.

Challenges such as balancing privacy with security, the need for technical literacy among policymakers, and the importance of routinizing threat information sharing were discussed. The conversation also touched on the potential of emerging technologies like AI and IoT to both enhance and complicate cybersecurity efforts.

In conclusion, the discussion underscored the urgent need for stronger policy innovation, collaborative efforts, and a shared approach to addressing cybersecurity challenges in the interconnected global digital landscape.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– The intersection of cybersecurity and national security in the modern data-driven world

– The need for international cooperation and information sharing on cyber threats

– Challenges around trust, privacy, and data sovereignty in cybersecurity efforts

– The importance of capacity building, education, and awareness on cybersecurity issues

– The role of government, private sector, and civil society in addressing cybersecurity challenges

The overall purpose of the discussion was to explore the complex relationship between cybersecurity and national security, identify gaps in current policies and practices, and discuss strategies for enhancing cyber resilience through collaborative efforts.

The tone of the discussion was largely collaborative and solution-oriented. Participants shared insights from their diverse perspectives and experiences, acknowledging challenges while focusing on opportunities for cooperation. The tone became more urgent when discussing the need for immediate action, but remained constructive throughout. There was a sense of shared responsibility and recognition that addressing cybersecurity issues requires a multi-stakeholder approach.

Speakers

– MODERATOR: Session moderator

– Ihita Gangavarapu: Cybersecurity expert, works in private sector and contributes to cybersecurity community

– Paula Nkandu Haamaundu: Coordinator and advisor at GIZ African Union, seconded to African Union Commission

– Monojit Das: Experience in academia, media, and government

– Samaila Atsen Bako: Security manager at Code for Africa, director of communication at Cybersecurity Experts Association of Nigeria

– Karsan Gabriel: Coordinator of the African Parliamentarian Network on Internet Governance

– Lily Edinam Botsyoe: PhD candidate in IT at University of Cincinnati, focus on privacy

Additional speakers:

– Sreenath Govindarajan: European Law Students Association, specializes in international law

– AUDIENCE: Representative from the FBI

Revised Summary of Cybersecurity and National Security Discussion

Introduction

This panel discussion brought together experts from various countries and organizations, including representatives from the private sector, academia, government agencies, and international organizations, to explore the critical intersection of cybersecurity and national security in today’s data-driven world. The diverse panel, which included an FBI representative, examined challenges and strategies for addressing gaps in policies and practices, emphasizing the importance of trust in digital systems and the need for a multi-stakeholder approach to tackle cybersecurity issues.

Key Themes and Discussion Points

1. Intersection of Cybersecurity and National Security

The discussion highlighted the evolving nature of cybersecurity from a purely technical issue to a central national security concern. Ihita Gangavarapu, a cybersecurity expert from the private sector, emphasized that cybersecurity directly impacts national security and critical infrastructure. Lily Edinam Botsyoe, a PhD candidate in IT, described cybersecurity and national security as “two sides of the same coin in the digital age,” using an analogy of a market and shopkeepers to explain cybersecurity concepts. The FBI representative further highlighted trust as a key factor in the relationship between cybersecurity and national security.

2. Challenges in Cybersecurity Collaboration

Several speakers identified significant challenges in cybersecurity collaboration:

– Lack of trust and information sharing between organizations (Paula Nkandu Haamaundu, GIZ African Union)

– Political factors and changes in government leadership disrupting initiatives (Samaila Atsen Bako, Code for Africa)

– Differences in data localization and privacy policies between countries (Monojit Das, academia/media/government experience)

– Balancing privacy and security concerns (FBI representative)

– Emerging technologies like IoT and AI posing new challenges

3. Strategies for Enhancing Cybersecurity

The panelists proposed various strategies to enhance cybersecurity measures:

– Comprehensive legislative and institutional frameworks (Ihita Gangavarapu)

– Capacity building and implementation focus (Paula Nkandu Haamaundu)

– Improving digital literacy and infrastructure to address the digital divide (Samaila Atsen Bako)

– Developing international cooperation and frameworks (FBI representative)

– Decentralized solutions for cybersecurity challenges

– Youth involvement in cybersecurity efforts

4. Role of Different Stakeholders in Cybersecurity

The discussion underscored the importance of a multi-stakeholder approach, highlighting roles for government, the private sector, civil society, NGOs, and international organizations in developing and implementing cybersecurity solutions.

Country Perspectives

India’s Cybersecurity Initiatives:

Ihita Gangavarapu and Monojit Das provided insights into India’s cybersecurity landscape, discussing the country’s efforts in data localization and the challenges faced in balancing these efforts with global tech companies’ policies.

African Perspective:

Karsan Gabriel mentioned the African Parliamentarian Network on Internet Governance, highlighting regional efforts to address cybersecurity challenges.

International Cooperation and Information Sharing

The panel emphasized the critical need for international cooperation in addressing global cyber threats. The FBI representative advocated for developing international frameworks, while other panelists stressed the importance of information sharing and trust-building between nations and organizations. Specific international forums mentioned included the Global Forum on Cyber Expertise and the Anti-Phishing Working Group.

Specific Cybersecurity Challenges and Solutions

– Education sector identified as a major target for cyberattacks (Ihita Gangavarapu)

– Need for tailored approaches to address unique challenges faced by different nations and sectors

– Importance of addressing the digital divide to enhance overall cybersecurity posture

Key Takeaways and Action Items

1. Explore opportunities for bilateral and multilateral cooperation on cybersecurity issues

2. Develop robust frameworks for sharing threat intelligence and best practices internationally

3. Focus on building trust between nations and organizations to facilitate better information sharing

4. Prioritize capacity building initiatives, especially in developing countries

5. Work towards creating international standards or frameworks for cybersecurity

6. Increase youth involvement in cybersecurity efforts

7. Address challenges posed by emerging technologies like IoT and AI

Conclusion

The discussion underscored the urgent need for stronger policy innovation, collaborative efforts, and a shared approach to addressing cybersecurity challenges in the interconnected global digital landscape. It highlighted the complex interplay between national security, economic development, and technological advancement. The conversation emphasized the need for tailored approaches and multi-stakeholder engagement in cybersecurity efforts, recognizing the diverse perspectives and unique challenges faced by different nations and sectors. Moving forward, continued collaboration and trust-building among all stakeholders will be crucial in effectively addressing the evolving cybersecurity landscape and its implications for national security.

MODERATOR: I believe it’s a yes here section actually so during this session I’m very happy to be here with you today and I’m very pleased to be joined by Dr. Iheeta and Dr. Manojit. Yes, just to give you a brief introduction of the session, as you may know, over this nine minutes, we aim to explore the intricate and increasingly critical relationship between cybersecurity and cyber security. The goal of this session is to dissect the overlapping challenges within the intersection as well as to identify actionable strategies for addressing gaps in policies and practices. Through cases, case studies, experience sites and collaborative discussions, we will examine how cybersecurity has evolved from being a technical issue to a central issue. We will also explore the challenges of cyber security and how it has contributed to global health. Together we will explore topics such as the vulnerabilities exposed by spyware phishing and cyber warfare and how decentralized digital solutions and robust legislative frameworks can enhance resilience. We will also explore the challenges of cyber security and how it has contributed to global health. We will also invite participants to share their thoughts and questions through the sessions, whether through the chat for those who are online and the Q&A for those who are here on the site. As we focus on the case of cyber security, we will also highlight the challenges posed by cyber crime and its impact on national stability, particularly concerning youth and illicit digital activities. We will also highlight best practices such as cybersecurity by design principles and open sources, decentralization, to build a more secure and sustainable cyber ecosystem. We will also highlight the challenges posed by cyber crime and its impact on national stability, particularly concerning youth and illicit digital activities. We look forward to your active participations in this critical discussion or let’s say conversation. So to welcome the panelists and introduce themselves, I would like to introduce myself. My name is Alvisar. On site, allow me to give the floor to Hita to introduce herself and then move to Paula and then Dr. Manojit. You have the floor, Hita. Thank you so much. My name is Alvisar. I’m the coordinator of the cyber security team. We will be giving five minutes each of you to introduce the panel.

Ihita Gangavarapu: Perfect. Hi, everyone. Thank you so much for joining our session. I am Hita. In addition to this, I work a lot in the cyber security space both as a private sector but also contribute quite actively to the community. Thank you.

Paula Nkandu Haamaundu: Can you hear me now? Okay. A very good morning to you all. Thank you very much for the invitation to be on this panel and thank you for thank you to the audience for joining us. My name is Hita. I’m the coordinator and advisor at GIZ African Union, seconded to the African Union Commission. My role there is basically to enhance the cyber security posture for the African Union Commission and its internal processes. My experience really has been in the private sector, cyber security, and really just working on information security . I am also quite active in the cyber security community. I am primarily focused on enhancing capacity building for young women in cyber security. I am a mentor at cyber girls fellowship which is really a program that’s trying to ensure that we have adequate skills in the young upcoming women. Thank you very much.

Monojit Das: Thank you for having me. I would like to mention a few things that might be relevant to this. I was initially with academia. Then I moved on to media. And then now I switched on to government. So I have practically the experience of all stakeholders and I will be loving to hear what you have to say. Thank you very much. Thank you.

MODERATOR: Thank you. I’m very happy to be also part of this youth supported by GIZ. I was supported on 2022 in Ethiopia, which is a very good participation we had. It was very interesting because you have had to experience all this. Having the heart of civil society, academy, and now you join it officially, the government, which will be very interesting as well. Moving to the online participation, I think we have Sumaila who is online. Sumaila, if you wish to have the floor to introduce yourself, please.

Samaila Atsen Bako: Thank you so much. Thank you for the opportunity to be here. My name is Sumaila. I’m a professional based in Nigeria. In summary, I work with a couple of NGOs. One of them is Code for Africa, which is a continent-wide NGO that focuses on different technology-based initiatives. I work there as a security manager. I’m responsible for in-house security culture and awareness as well as being a subject matter expert on our external projects. I’m also the director of communication at the Cybersecurity Experts Association of Nigeria. It’s a pleasure to be here, and I look forward to engaging with the audience as well. I would like to thank you very much for being here and I would like to thank the other panelists on this important topic.

MODERATOR: Thank you, Samaela, for your introduction. I keep one key word, cyber security. Hopefully you will be sharing very good insights from your country’s perspective how to tackle nationally these issues. Thank you very much. I would like to give a special thank you to Carsten, who is here. Her video is not available based on the geographical difference we have in terms of time. But we have one more last. Shall we connect this online as well? Carsten, are you here?

Karsan Gabriel: Thank you very much. My name is Carsten. I work as the coordinator of the African Parliamentarian Network on Internet Governance. What we do is we empower African legislators in their work of representing the masses, but also in the work of legislation oversight in terms of digital policy and also to make more informed decision-making in terms of the work of the African Parliamentarian Network. We do a lot of research as well as research to get the nuances and differences between different cybersecurity frameworks, but also what it means to our policymakers, and just the context about our session today, it has been highly inspired by Dr. Manojit here, who has a wide tapestry of experience towards national and cybersecurity, and I’m very much looking forward to the next session.

MODERATOR: I think we definitely are eager, I mean, to have your perspective as policymakers in terms of digital policy and legislation. We have felt the importance of having policymakers this year, and I think this time, this is the right moment to have your insights and draft together a resolution or a framework that will enable us to tackle these issues together. If I’m not wrong, I think we have also Ernest. Kazan, can you confirm, please?

Karsan Gabriel: No, Ernest is not available. Let’s proceed.

MODERATOR: Thank you, distinguished panelists, for your introductions. Now we are moving into the discussions. We have, I would prefer to ask two questions, and it’s up to you to answer one of them. The first one is, how can we better align national security priorities with rapidly evolving cybersecurity threat, or what gaps exist between cybersecurity practices and national security agendas, and how can we bring them together? An Indian perspective would be very interesting as well. Thank you.

Ihita Gangavarapu: All right, I’ll be happy to. So a lot of my talk today is about the best practices, and maybe a little bit around the developments that have happened in India in the past decade. So when we talk about cybersecurity, it has direct implications on national security, and there are certain key initiatives and strategies that nations have taken, and my perspective will be purely from an Indian context. Internet infrastructure, spanning across the banking sector, healthcare, BFSI, telecommunications, even education for that matter, so any disruption to these infrastructures can cause catastrophic effects for nations. And there are certain state actors, non-state actors, proxy actors who are continuously seeking ways to exploit these vulnerabilities, and given that we have a lot of national secrets and very strategic assets that are kept online now, it becomes even more correspondent. So this brings us to this critical realization that cybersecurity and national security actually intersect in a Venn diagram that must be sorted out with precision and urgency. So certain key initiatives and strategies that India has taken, I will take you through from a legislative measure and the institutional frameworks for that matter. First, we have the Information Technology Act, which is a new law that has been passed by the Indian government to make sure that cyber incidents are not reported to the public. First, we have the Information Technology Act. So this particularly has provisions that establishes critical entities such as your CERT, as well as your infrastructure protection center in the country that plays a pivotal role in handling and responding to cyber incidents, to the critical internet infrastructure. Then we also have a defense cyber agency, which is an additional level. Then we have the National Cyber Security Institute, which is a new framework that came out very recently in 2024, which offers guidance to organizations to establish a robust cybersecurity architecture. Now, this from a national perspective, we also have sectoral regulations and guidelines that, for example, in the banking sector, we have RBI, which is a reserve bank of India, compulsory cybersecurity training for the senior management, as well as board members of banks. So we have a lot of regulations and guidelines. Then we have a lot of the devices that we’re getting. We need to make sure they’re sourced from a trusted source. So the government mandates that there has to be an induction of trusted and security-certified products in the networks, and the guidelines are also determined by the government. So you mentioned IoT. IoT, the proliferation is increasing. It’s a tremendous deployment in the country now. There’s a lot of visibility into the landscape of IoT deployments in the country, and then that is where trusted telecom becomes very important, trusted components. But we can’t do all of this without awareness. We have something called ICEA program, which is information security educational awareness program. That is for the entire country. It’s free of cost. You can train yourself. And something that has happened very recently is that we’ve had the national annual cyber exercise for all critical sectors, and we’ve had a lot of people come to us and say, hey, we want to do this. And this, I think, these among other inputs, I’m sure Mr. Monojit will be highlighting a few more, has ensured that in the ITU’s global cybersecurity index, earlier, India was at the 47th rank, but right now we’re on the 10th rank, and we are at the 14th rank. So we’re at the top of the list, and we’re very, very excited about how, when you start prioritizing cybersecurity initiatives, there is a tremendous change that you can see, but I also feel like it is not just the government. It is a significant work that the private sector also has to do. So just in the last couple of years, we’ve seen almost 300 plus companies come up in the country looking at cybersecurity solutions and services, and I actually come ‑‑ I work as a consultant in the ITU, and one of the things that I have seen is that there are a lot of companies that are looking at monitoring, and you’ll be surprised to know that one of ‑‑ as per their findings, you’ll be surprised to know that can you maybe guess what sector is most impacted or which sector has had most amount of cyberattacks? It’s the education sector, not banking, not healthcare. So, you know, that highlights the critical point that we need visibility into the threat landscape, we need visibility into the threat landscape, and we need to be able to make targeted strategies, and we need to be able to make targeted strategies, you know, and what are the strategies that we currently have to ensure that we make targeted strategies sectoral or from a national perspective? Thank you.

MODERATOR: Thank you for this wonderful point you have highlighted. I still remember about national cyber framework you have just highlighted. I’m not sure if you can give us a little bit more detail about the implementation of this very interesting framework.

Monojit Das: Well, Anita has already highlighted the majority of the facts, but I would like to give you a perspective that I have managed to acquire through my experience. Initially I was in private sector working with a company, then I moved on to academia to learn, and I did my PhD on the same topic of Internet governance, then I moved on to ICT, then I began my own하게 career of Arts and Sciences outside of architecture. Then I ended up majoring in IT as a technician. I moved on to pursue my law focusing on Cyber law and now in. So my point of discussion here is that cybersecurity today to me was the significant development we have done. Today we are courtesy that again sometimes brings a debate whether, you know, whether the move was good or not, bringing private players to give in data at a very cheaper rate. Today we enjoy one of the cheapest Internet data. Like $4 a month or roundabout of less than $5 a month you get per day 2 GB of data, which is huge. So that creates a lot of data, I mean, user data. That can be used for multiple purposes. Today if you can map a user, it will not be difficult to find out his whereabouts using that. But my point of discussion here is that cybersecurity is not just a technology. It is also a human right. My main suggestion or like a discussion here is that when we talk about the best practices, we need to incorporate that cyber security and national security is not just today rely only on critical infrastructure, but also the other structures as well. Like for example, the submarine cable, it’s other format like you see the emerging players like for example, Starlink, the lower earth orbit satellites, which we are not discussing at that openly, but that it becomes a big challenge to us because it involves multiple agencies and also potentially ruining the bilateral relation. When I mean in this case is that suppose you see the scenario when a lower orbit satellite, whether it is Starlink or any other company that the space debris is caused, it can impact the other space objects that are there. So what can be the repercussion in this? So not only we are going to have, but at the same time we’re going to have a strained relationship between the bilateral, which again going to ruin the relations, not just digitally, but also in the physical, I mean among the countries. But at the same time, you see internet or the technology at large, we are trying to fix it in the form of a like a software diplomacy as well. Today, Indian government releases a large number of scholarships in form of ICCR, Indian Council for Cultural Relations. So we have this specific support to African countries through African scholarships overseas as a part of software diplomacy. Now understanding the importance of cyber security and as you know, diplomacy plays a key role in ensuring the national security, we have been giving us a very high number of scholarships for studying computer security only. I mean the cyber security. Similarly, we have a dedicated program of ITEC. So through ITEC, it’s again under the Minister of External Affairs Division, we train the foreign, I mean the friendly countries IT experts. So just to ensure the best practices are shared among us. And at the same time, I’d like to also share that the gap in understanding the legislation, the existing legislation, my colleague Aita pointed out, that the IT Act assert, you know establishments are there, but they do lack a coordinated approach because the elements of cyber security or the acts are transnational. We need a thorough coordination and collaboration with all of the partner countries because the origin of a server, you know, it can be a step don’t have an extradition treaty. Suppose, for example, even we can trace it, the location to be somewhere, but we don’t have an extradition treaty, how do we do that? So we need a very coordinated approach and again, acknowledgement of regional bodies or for example, if we take the example of NATO or you see international criminal court, many countries don’t recognize it. You know, taking cases of other incidents when you have a person blacklisted or he’s under the, you know, arrest list that he will be arrested, the first country don’t comply to that. So how do we focus on it? So considering this, all the hindrances that we have, I feel that we need to focus on some converging areas, which all the countries who don’t really agree to this point, whether they’re signatory to such extraditions or not, but can agree to minimum points that includes like, for example, preventing child pornography, like this, this few topics that are convergent to everyone, you know, everybody will agree. While others may not agree, like for example, cyber offense to another country because there is no mention of a threshold. Like if you see today, United States and NATO, they say that if at all there is an attack on the critical infrastructure, they will be retaliating in full scale. But they don’t explain that what is the threshold to it, like into what sense. So with this, I’d like to pass on so that, you know, next when you come across, I can share a little more. Thank you so much.

MODERATOR: Thank you, Dr. Menojit, for your insight and collaborations in the multi-stakeholder approach is really essential, I mean, to tackle these issues. Before to give you the floor, Paula, to talk to us about how international organizations and more specifically, GIZ support these mechanisms, let me introduce our online speakers, Lily, who might be recorded as well. So can you just share, please, Lily?

Lily Edinam Botsyoe: Hi everyone, my name is Lily Edenabotre, and I’m excited to be joining you today online. And this is one of the reasons why we are so thankful for the gift of the internet. And like I mentioned, my name is Lily, I’m originally from Ghana, but I’m right now, I’m a PhD candidate in IT at the University of Cincinnati. And so for a topic like this one, I’d love to share from a point of interest, which is my interest in privacy, because that is what my dissertation is about. I’ll start with an analogy to get us to understand what it is we’re talking about. Because usually, when we talk about cybersecurity, sometimes it feels far-fetched and it looks as though it’s only something that people and technology should care about. So I’m going to start with this analogy and move from there. So imagine walking to a very busy market, right, and every shopkeeper locks up their stall and their portion of the market. At the end of the day, that is not just to protect their goods only, it’s also to ensure that the whole market remains a safe space for commerce or for business. Think about it. You lock your space, it’s secure, then the whole market probably is locked up. If it’s an open market, it puts everything away, so nobody comes in to be able to steal from you, right? Now, maybe the cyberspace and this global market, which is our generation, our time, and this revolution where everything is characterized by digital tools. So in this space, there is data, not goods, that is traded. So it’s not just physical goods. We have real data that has been sent across many networks. Many things are happening. So just like this single lock stall in a market can probably jeopardize the whole market, it looks like what our cybersecurity looks like. In the same way that if you don’t protect a very small part of what you are supposed to take care of, it can lead to a breakdown of the whole. So for instance, somebody gets into a particular spot in the market and can go through and join another or enter another shop. It means that everything has been replicated. So when we talk about the cyberspace, cybersecurity in relation to national security, it means it called for this stakeholder angle. And usually, we say it’s kind of repetitive, but really, that is what it is. It’s actually very protected. So now, how do we see that what I’ve described really merges with our cybersecurity world? So the question I’m going to be answering now is, how do we see this cybersecurity measure in national security in a data-driven age? And it’s one of our policy questions. So in this data-driven age, cybersecurity is also a big part of national security. And the reason being that governments now depend on data to protect borders, to conduct diplomacy, and manage critical infrastructure. This is very true. So the threats no longer come in solely from physical attacks at all, but also from invisible threats. And they exploit all of these vulnerabilities in the networks. And it can come from anywhere. Usually, even misinformation that we see on different platforms can lead to people doing things that can literally jeopardize national security. So from things like ransomware that is crippling hospitals, to disinformation campaigns, to targeting elections, to cybersecurity breaches, all of these have the potential to, in essence, destabilize an entire nation. And that is why this conversation is important. So cybersecurity really merges with national security when safeguarding data becomes as critical as protecting your borders. Let’s also think about what is a national defense strategy. And that could include some things that would make sure that your country is safe, both online and offline. So some of these things include just being proactive in protecting the online assets you have so that you can prevent attacks and anything that can undermine sovereignty and public trust. You want to take proactive steps towards it. So in that sense, I also want to go to answer the topic of what the intersection is between policy and security in the cyberspace. So policy and security are two sides of the same coin in the cyberspace world, right? And policies establish a framework for behavior, for accountability, and racism. On the other hand, enforces that these frameworks, true technology, or it enforces the framework through technology and practice. So that’s what it looks like. And policies guide how we share intelligence, how we regulate encryption standards, and how we set even penalties for cybercrimes. In essence, what is the penalty if somebody does something wrong? And then at this intersection, we need the effective collaboration between policymakers and security aspects to ensure that the regulations are both realistic and enforceable. And in that sense, you don’t just pick anything. and their systems in place for it. And there are people who also have expertise to be able to implement them. And when we are talking about one of our policy questions that deals with how do we improve synergy to enhance cybersecurity legislation in the Global South. As somebody from the Global South myself, I feel like this is a burning topic and something that is really important. And policymakers have to pretty much redouble their efforts in this area. And all of us are playing a role to be able to have this conversation started. So in this area, there’s an improving synergy in the Global South, which requires addressing three key areas. One of the very first ones is capacity building. We’ve been talking about it a lot, but very much important. We are equipping, how do we equip policymakers and institutions to craft informed legislation. They didn’t know what’s happening in the cyber world. Can they bring expertise even to their policymaking space? And then there’s also another critical area, which is the public-private partnership. So we have to encourage a collaboration between government, the private sectors, and civil society to leverage diverse expertise and resources. And another very crucial one is regional cooperation. So in that case, we’ll be fostering cross-border alliances to share best practices and respond to trends that really maybe cause national boundaries to pretty much be at risk. And so all of these would also be linked to international support and funding for these initiatives to ensure that they create foundation for sustainable improvement in cybersecurity legislation. I think there’s another question about, in our policy question that detailed, what is a defining base of parameters for shaping inclusive cyber laws and prioritizing digital security and national security policies? I know there are many times we’ve said as Africans, or spoken about the Malabo Convention, and spoken about how countries haven’t ratified it, despite the importance of cybersecurity, right? But when we are building some of these inclusive cyber laws, we must prioritize accessibility, especially in the area of making it applicable and understandable to all citizens, and not just only people who are technical aspects, right? And we also have to look at equity in the sense that we have to address the digital divide so that marginalized groups are not disproportionately impacted by cybersecurity measures. And then we also have to think about resilience and even the ability to bounce back. And a big part for me, like I said, I love privacy. So we also have to have a balance between security and individual rights so that we avoid any overreach and build public trust. And so with all that I’ve said, there is a need for us to emphasize all of these principles, taking into consideration humans, what we have as our national assets, what we have as our online assets, and expertise so that people understand that this is something that we are collectively doing and everybody should be a part. So in our digital age, security is no longer just about locked doors and guarded borders. It goes way beyond that. It also includes what we do online. It includes fostering collaboration and building frameworks to protect both individuals and nations. And one person saying one thing online, if not checked, can cause the chaos. And sometimes you’ve seen all of these upheavals coming without any implications, but it’s time for us to rethink it. So by treating cyber security as an integral part of national security, countries in Asia, in Africa and whatnot, we can create a resilient, inclusive policy or policies that safeguard our collective digital future. I hope this gives some light to some of the discussions we’re having and gives an intersection, like we call it a Venn intersection, between what we have as national security and cyber security. Thank you so much, and I hope you do have a good time interacting with the rest of our speakers. Thank you.

MODERATOR: Thank you, Lili, for your presentation. I have to tell you that Lili is one of the very young youth coordinators to bring youth into the Internet governance ecosystem. Before we move to Paula, Kazan, if you may prepare yourself to tell us a little bit about how, I mean, legislation or how, what does, I mean, legislation play in strengthening the nexus between cyber security and national security in Tanzania? Allow me to give the floor to Paula. Tell us a little bit more about how this international organization can contribute to support the mechanism towards financial assistance or capacity building program,

Paula Nkandu Haamaundu: whatever you think it’s going to be. Thank you. Thank you, Dr. Jose, and maybe just to open up my perspectives on the topic. Hope you can hear me. Yes, just to open up my perspectives on the topic. When it comes to cyber security, I always try to think, what is the end goal? Okay, we’re protecting infrastructure, we’re protecting systems, we’re protecting this data, but what is the end goal? And for me, the end goal is trust, trust in the systems, trust that the data that I’m seeing is correct data, trust that the data that is available to me has not been tempered with. So we put across all these measures, all these controls, because we want to be able to trust the systems and want to be able to trust the data that we’re getting from these systems. In the context of national security, obviously every country has to define what is critical infrastructure to them, best of their culture, best of their needs, and really an assessment of what’s important to them. And so for the government to be able to trust whatever systems they are using, for instance, if it’s like from the perspective of the health sector, trusting that data in order to make informed decisions, we need to put in place cyber security. And that’s where, for me, I see the link between cyber security and national security, meaning it’s one side of the same coin, so to say. You can’t have one without the other in this current data-driven age. But in terms of what international organizations can do to enhance the cyber security posture, I will refer to – so GIZ has a program called Global Cyber Security Program, and there’s a particular project called Partnership on Strengthening Cyber Security, which is funded by the German Federal Foreign Office. This particular project is working and collaborating with the various partners to enhance cyber security across the globe. There has been a lot of progress. For instance, if you look at the ECOWAS region, the ECOWAS region just recently adopted three CBMs, confidence-building measures, and these CBMs really are to the context of the region itself. And so the partnership between GIZ and between ECOWAS is really to enhance cyber security in that region and or rather reduce the rates of cyber crime. One of the things that has been done is really to capacitate the policy makers with an understanding of what cyber security is. So there’s a lot of discussions around cyber diplomacy, ensuring that the member states are able to interact and cooperate with the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, which was one of the first to have the CBMs. So you see that there’s a lot of cooperation that’s happening, and this is why international organizations can come in to partner with various member states to ensure that cyber security posture is enhanced. I think Yuta had mentioned the issue to do with having an understanding of the threat landscape and the data to make informed decisions. I like to think about cyber security more from the cyber risk management perspective because it’s almost impossible to ensure that there’s 100% cyber security. And so sometimes you have to weigh, okay, what are we able to do? Then there’s trade-offs that are going to happen. What are we able to do? What can we do in the next few years? And you identify what’s really critical for you or what’s high risk, and then you address those issues. So another form of collaboration that I would say is happening between GIZ and the ECOWAS region is to enhance the ECOWAS region’s threat data to understand what their assets are, what their vulnerabilities are, and just try to improve how they make decisions based off of their risk management that will come from a cyber security perspective.

MODERATOR: Thank you, Paula, for sharing this wonderful point and initiative that we wish you can have also the opportunity to work on. Kazan, can you tell us about what is going on in Tanzania in terms of cyber security and how to deal with these challenges? We will also have our last speaker on the line, Laila, who should also be speaking about how can decentralizing data national security, if so, how? And then we will open the floor to the audience to ask questions. Kazan, are you here?

Karsan Gabriel: Yes, I’m here. Thank you very much. It’s quite a pleasure to listen to the different nuances that have been shared by my previous speakers. When we drove into the question at hand, the critical intersection of cybersecurity and national security in today’s data-driven world, it’s more than a Tanzanian question. I think it’s all global, just like the internet, because the digital age has already connected in an unimaginable way. But these connections do come with a lot of vulnerabilities, and these vulnerabilities transcend borders, institutions, and even generations, because we do have almost 60 years with the internet now. We need to start by acknowledging that the reality, the boundaries are blurred between cybersecurity and national security. A single vulnerability, like, for example, the log4j flaw, can expose a lot of government data and disrupt critical infrastructure, but in the end, jeopardize citizens’ safety. As they say, the weakest element in any cybersecurity chain is the user. It’s important when we yield our solution to the person, people-centeredness. So cybersecurity is no longer just a technical issue, but it is a matter of national resilience. Consider Tanzania now. We have a very youth-driven population, and they’re vulnerable to phishing and online scams, and many people are being exploited in terms of the financial systems, and the core element of understanding and literacy still does not exist. We see countries like Nigeria also have problems with big attacks on biometric databases, which have raised a lot of national security concerns, and both these issues are tied to a lot of human and institutional behaviors. So to understand the connections between the human and institutional behaviors, we see they align directly to how the user might interact with the system, hence cause the risk. It’s important when we bridge the gaps. In terms of the policy intersections, I think where the cybersecurity initiative meets is in areas of critical infrastructure, because cybersecurity policy operates now at intersections of very many competing resources. Example, the protection of individual rights, like the privacy and freedom of expression issue, is mostly part of the cybersecurity question, protecting also the critical infrastructure, like power grids, financial systems, and the digital backbone infrastructure of many nations, and also ensuring national sovereignty, because a lot of national resources are also protected online in this globalized area of digital threats. So in Tanzania, we do have a cybersecurity role that has become operational since 2020, and a lot of people have been pulling towards the understanding of what it really means to protect their resources, their platforms, and their processes, but it has been highly connected to the different regional cyber acts, like the Malabo Convention, but also the EU Act, in creating more sustainability and cross-border interoperability of the data, because to protect oneself, we need to have a good understanding on how trust is shared cross-border, and one of the best practices we have been exploring involves the building of cyber resilience, because to strengthen cybersecurity and national security, we need to prioritize critical strategies, such as security by design, use of open source decentralization, but also education and inclusion, and because policy and systems must be embedded with a security angle from the start, incorporating encryption, but also regular assessments on the systems, but as well as the people’s understanding. Think of it like building a house with fireproof materials, instead of throwing the sprinklers when the fire starts, it’s good when you have prevention, because prevention is always better than cure. Decentralized systems are also harder to compromise, for example, new technologies such as blockchain, with good transparent and decentralized enhanced security, can also be applied, and applying these principles of decentralized infrastructure could mitigate a lot of points of failure to most systems, but in the end, literacy programs can help, especially for Africa, with a youth tech-savvy population, to be prepared for threats and cyber security issues that happen, but also turn them into assets of fighting and protecting. Imagine a program which can train a lot of African youth, or the so-called yahoo boys, to become ethical hackers, and to see the bigger picture in building stronger systems. I think these practices are not just technical, but they are a big shift on how we see security, because security now in the digital world is a bigger question. It’s a technology property and characteristics. Thank you.

MODERATOR: Thank you for sharing your points. I think we just missed having your picture on the screen. Sorry, we wish to know who is behind the screen, talking about such interesting points. So, for the next stage, for sure, we wish to have you as a video. Now, we will move to Samaila, if you can please tell us about how can decentralized digital solutions enhance national security, and if so, how?

Samaila Atsen Bako: Thank you so much for throwing the mic to me at this point. I think, just before I go into my own comments, I would say the speakers before me have done an excellent job. I think issues around issues around the use of cyber measures, and even understanding the impact of emerging technology, it’s critical in this conversation. I just want to add that when we talk about this topic, cybersecurity and national security, you realize that it’s really from the angle of diplomacy that most of these issues are even political than they are actually technology-based or people-focused, in fact. And so, what that means is that the bulk of the efforts lies in the government. The issue there is, are they people who are intellectual, young enough to think of the future, and so are they more focused on governance, or are they more focused on building power? Because that will determine to a large extent where their priorities lie. And if you talk about efforts, whether in Nigeria or even regionally, I think Paula mentioned ECOWAS, and when you talk about ECOWAS now, the number is about to drop in January, right? So, the measures that have been adopted or used in the last, would I say, 18 months when there have been some risks in the region to douse tensions and make sure that there’s better collaboration. So, I feel like if you now compare that with what happens in Europe, where there’s been collaboration for decades, and there’s trust, there’s information sharing on a very high scale and things like that, you see that the results speak for themselves. And so, I think that’s a huge missing piece regionally, especially from the West African or African perspective. And so, for me, there’s a cap on what private sector or civil society or end users can do. But now, let me go back to my own question, which, again, is a similar answer in the sense that whatever you’re building may still be limited by government, or we still be at the mercy of the government. You know, if you talk about solutions, you look at how certain governments are more focused on things like maybe surveillance, for instance, or they’re always looking for ways to bridge people’s privacy, as opposed to maybe funding the national program on serocity awareness, or even, in fact, even improving the budgets for academia to make sure we build distance on a larger scale. So, what I’ll say at national level, there are decentralized approaches that have been taken, and I think a bit similar to India from what one of the earlier speakers have mentioned, where there’s a structure in place to have what we call emergency response teams in different sectors, from the telecom sector to the banking sector, moving forward for the government agencies and the defense industry as well, which helps when you also now have a coordinating body called the National Cyber Security Center. So, it gives a bit of structure, and then when you’re adding things like laws and you empower the regulators, you know, you give them the capacity and you build their skills so they are able to actually give the right directions to the organizations within their build a certain level of resilience for the country at the central level. At the end of the day, it’s always good to have direction. We’ve seen cases where there are laws or there are agencies being built up, but there’s no structure. instance, who do people report incidents to, or if you notice something wrong in terms of cyber security, you know, who do you report it to, or who coordinates the response to those issues. So it’s very important that the structure in place makes sense. There’s a very important need for a link between academia, a link between academia and users. A lot of the times these groups of people feel left out, simply because sometimes it seems as if even the government itself targets, you know, civil society and end users, or while academia may feel like they don’t get enough funding, you know, some countries don’t have a good R&D culture. I’m just trying to, I keep saying some countries, but I don’t want to specify a particular country, but yeah, and even the private sector often feel like government is just on their toes to tax their money to a level. So I feel like the direction the government takes plays a huge role about these issues. And like I said earlier, for me, these issues are usually more political and rely on diplomacy than they are about technology itself. At the end of the day, if you have leaders who do not understand the criticality and even the devastation that can be caused when security is not taken seriously, or cyber security in particular is not taken seriously, then you’ll find your country languishing in so many kinds of issues. I think I will yield the mic at this point, so we can move on to the others. Thank you.

MODERATOR: Thank you, Samaira, for sharing with us this very interesting perspective. And we all know that this, I mean, discussion is very sensible and we have to get in collaboration. Now I will open the Q&A to have questions from the audience. And hopefully, our distinguished panelists will be able to answer these questions. So who might be the first? Yeah. Can you just introduce yourself and ask the question, please?

Sreenath Govindarajan: I’m Srinath Kovindarajan from the European Law Students Association, and I specialize in international law. And my question is targeted towards India, but I would appreciate a global perspective on it, too. So the talent manual on cyber attacks is largely undecided on what critical and when you look at regional powers, does India view its neighbors and ever coming to an agreement on what CIs are in the future? It’s a blanket question.

MODERATOR: Thank you for your questions. I think I see Dr. Manojit is always ready to answer kind of questions. Or perhaps, Yehita, you wish to go for it?

Monojit Das: My views will be mine. It’s not the stand of the government. But the very first line you said, you know, is very important that it’s nothing is, you know, constructive or nothing, you know, is fixed. As I mentioned, if you can kindly recollect, that if you see even the threshold for a cyber war is not defined. Many countries, as I mentioned, that they have the provision written very much clearly that we will retaliate in a full scale if at all any war is raised on our critical infrastructure. But to at what point? Because we have seen the Office of the Personal Management in a large scale, but still that was not. Again, we have seen a Stuxnet attack. That was in a very large scale. But then what exactly will be the highest threshold? And to your context of asking whether there will be trust, you know, in cyberspace, you can’t trust anyone. With any country, there were instances, you know, five eyes spying on each other, whether it is a ten eyes, every eyes will be spying on the other eye. Coming to this factor that, you know, particularly if you talk about India, you will have a doubtedly the world’s largest democracy at this stage. There may be some questions that sometime calls it to be a one-sided, but given the large fact that internet-wise or data-wise, you know, people are very largely connected to internet. You have to agree to this part, irrespective of the differences in opinion that may be circulating in the good morning messages that is very popular in India, the good morning culture. But if you see the problem that comes with democratic country like India is that the debate between initially getting defense versus development, when one section used to say focus on defense, other section used to focus on development. There’s a huge gap in that outcome you see, you will experience it today. But today the debate largely lies on privacy versus security. So at one side, the government urges that if you want a total privacy, security, then in some cases you have to give the control to us. Like in what happens when you see your building infrastructure, you just or a society at large, you see, we have not just the security personnel outside the premises, but inside also we have the armed guards. So in a case when I have my medium-scale or large-scale enterprise, if I want myself to be, you know, secured from a transnational threat that origins from another country, in somehow, if I wish my government to safeguard me, like how we give control to third-party softwares or third-party companies to audit our firm, to have a third-party firewall. So we have to give the same liberty for the government to come inside and to have a control on that so that even they can save. But at the same time, when it is a government enterprise, you see, we will have that inner thought between whether they are going to make the data go against us or not. So that apprehension, because cyber skepticism is still alive. One of the very senior researchers who still believes that AI is not very much popular and AI doesn’t have potential, like you see, to disrupt the proceedings. But it is seen, you know, cyber has the potential to disrupt. That’s why Stuxnet happened. And so we have to realize that cyber holds potential. There used to be people who are researchers, you know, the very culture of doing a selfie like this, and these people have, you know, managed to draw the fingerprint and, you know, through silicon printing, they have managed to unlock phones. So nothing is impossible. It’s possible, but the same argument I’d like to put, and since you are focusing more on international law, I’d also like to request to let things come from your side as well, you know, the challenges that does exist. Suppose, for example, the submarine cable breakouts that are happening nowadays, it forms a very critical… The talks are there, if at all submarine cable, then who is handling? It’s the Navy, the naval forces, then again it comes to the Ministry of Defense. So the Ministry of Defense coming and securing the submarine level, then where is Ministry of IT? Because in every country almost, the ministries are different. There is nowhere a coordination that talks about the Ministry of IT will be focusing on Ministry of Defense and guiding them what they will do, because the bureaucratic hassle everywhere, you know, they will be, you know, it’s my job, I am the superior, then it comes the cadre and then it comes the services in every way. So we need to understand this, and that’s why even if you talk about the lower orbit satellites, you know, it’s going to be disruptive for sure. So we need to focus on this international dimension. And okay, so I’ll not take much time. Thank you.

MODERATOR: Thank you, Doctor. We do face interlinked issues. I think it’s also important to hear from the perspective of African high-level sites, and I wish to hear from Kazan. How do you deal with the low-levels that address critical infrastructure, cyber attacks? Kazan, are you around?

Karsan Gabriel: Kazan, are you around? Yes, I am. And thank you for your question. To be honest, we are still at a very entry phase in building critical infrastructure. And this is not just for Africa, it’s mostly for the world. We’re still tied within these paradigms of global north or global south issues, but the cybersecurity context is always about the person. So if we center it around the person, then we can get the nuances of the cultural element. For example, in Tanzania, we’re still building our infrastructure. We’re still shaping how our infrastructure will be enabled, especially being a young country. It means that it’s the youth who will be the actual utilizers, and they will get the context if they’re based on principles. But the principles of cybersecurity and security should be the same for any human being. You’re protecting your resources for the best interest in terms of utility and passing it on in terms of sustainability to the next generation. So our culture is highly around the issue of create, curate, and disseminate based on the interest of the specific person. And we want, first, our demographic to be literate in terms of using the resources that are available in a place where still there’s a big population that still has no basics of computing or digital literacy in itself. Security by design and a competent civil service or policy element that is people-centered and understands the nuances of the culture are important. And I think this is for any country or every country. So in Tanzania, we are still based on the same element that collectively build, but also collaboratively enhance the knowledge of the people in understanding the core pillars of security, confidentiality, integrity, and availability of all the resources in their best interest. Those are my remarks.

AUDIENCE: I’m hearing a lot about, I think, the shared approach to cybersecurity, national security, and that intersection. Do you feel like we are adequately sharing globally the indicators of compromise and the threat side? Do you think there’s more to make sure we’re making it more difficult for our global adversaries who are targeting all of our networks?

MODERATOR: Thank you so much for your questions. But we also wish to hear from you as a US perspective. How do you deal with national security?

Ihita Gangavarapu: Yes, I think that’s an incredible question. And yes, there you are. So we’d love to hear from you, of course. But this is just one thing I wanted to highlight, is when you look at, from a cybersecurity or threat intelligence perspective, all of us tend to focus on the indicators of compromise. There’s an attack, which is more proactive. So when you look at a cyber kill chain, you have, let’s say, at the reconnaissance stage when you’re gorging the entire threat landscape, then you’ll have an initial attack once you have some initial entry into the chain or in the ecosystem. And finding the exact initial attack vector, your indicator of attack, it makes a lot of difference because a compromise is post. So sharing best practices and ensuring that we have a repository or data around what are the potential indicators of attack will ensure that there is more national perspective, even sectoral for that matter. Maybe I’d like to hear from you if you want to add something to this.

AUDIENCE: Yes, I think, so from the FBI’s perspective, absolutely, I agree with you. Looking at and going back, the only challenge, I think, and this is where the public-private partnership becomes so important, is that many times it’s really taken a lot of work for us. I love that you all use the word trust because I think that’s really what this all comes down to. And so building the trust with also our private sector companies that we’re here for them to protect them, but that way they feel comfortable they’ve actually had attacks. And of course, that’s how we’re seeing a lot of this. And then we can go back, and I’ll use a US term, but reverse engineer or go back to look for what were the attack indicators. I think that’s right. And that’s why I wanted to find out, I’m not sure we’ve connected specifically with those of you around the table and online with our African nation partners to make sure we’re connected. And we’re sharing those best practices and those indicators of attack and the compromise as well so that we are, again, tightening. Because I think what we’re also finding is there are global advanced persistent threat actors. There are global criminal enterprises and they’re targeting all of our networks because for financial, we all have financial resources. We all have defense resource. I’m not sure we’ve knitted the cybersecurity community globally. So I wanted to hear from you and your perspectives. Do you feel that way? I can definitely see some room for growth after hearing your perspectives. And so just wanna make sure we’re doing our part.

Paula Nkandu Haamaundu: I just wanna add to that from my experience in the private sector. And so I worked in the financial services industry and I’ll give an example of what would normally happen. Bank A experiences a cyber incident. Two days later, it’s going to be Bank B experiencing the same type of cyber incident with the same order of brandy. Three days later, the next bank and so on and so forth. And the biggest challenge for me was that we didn’t have a community of sharing information. And when we would bring this up to the regulator, the collective issue was that there was no guiding principle on how we’d be able to share this information. Mostly with the private sector, if you share is that it’s going to go out to the public and the public will know you’ve been hit and then you’re going to lose your reputation and things like that. So if we have a guideline of sharing threats So if we have a guideline of sharing threat intel, that would still safeguard the company. I think we’d see more organizations coming forth and reporting these incidents. I also just wanted to add that there is an organization called Shadow Saver, and they work with different governments and countries and search to share threat intelligence across the globe. So you could, and then they’ll be able to share what they’re seeing from there and to ensure that your understanding of the threats that are coming to you is better enhanced.

AUDIENCE: on how we’re working with you, but certainly in the international space, we’re very active. But let me tell you sort of how we do it domestically and regionally, because I love that you all share those perspectives. For us, I think what we’re really finding is you sort of can’t have enough representation. And for us, that’s at the national level. So we’re also trying to influence policy and development and make intelligence as well as sort of all of the designs around critical infrastructure, that they’re all factored. And I loved what one of you mentioned, I apologize, I don’t remember, but you said you need to have sort of technical literacy with your policymakers. So we’re at that strategic level. And then internationally, also trying to share it. That’s why I’m here, by the way, is we’re getting more active in the standards bodies to try to bring this perspective into it. But separately, we even go out down to our field office level. We have 55 field offices, and we have this group called InfraGard. And the whole design behind InfraGard was to bring private sector partners into the fold and be able to share with them what we’re learning even from the international community down to, okay, here’s how to protect your business. We do a ton of public service announcements where we’re going out. In fact, I know many of you, I was gonna ask this. I know you’re hearing about Salt Typhoon, our recent targeting of our telecommunications industry. We just have been going out with messaging over the last week, week and a half to share a guide of that, and then giving guidance on how to protect. So I think that’s an area, too, where we’re going out to our international partners to say, are you also seeing this type of vector, this type of targeting, this type of presence in the networks, and what that looked like? And if you are or are not, what were the actions that were taken? And again, how do we make sure that there can be detection? And I think that’s a huge part of this. I don’t know if I adequately answered your question. I was just trying to give you a flavor for how we kind of take it, as you all said, from the local to the regional to the national to the international. And I think that’s, and I think you’ve all said it here, too, there’s a bottom-up approach to cybersecurity, and there’s a top-down. And we have to make sure that those are intersecting in the most meaningful ways. And it is difficult. I say it, it sounds so easy to say the problem, but it is very difficult in practice for all the reasons that you just said. You’re right, admitting that you have been attacked means you have admitted to vulnerability in the eyes of the private sector. And our citizens and our users. That is not what we want. But there has to be a little bit of openness to be able to ensure the next victim is not vulnerable, and that there’s, you know, we stop the harm. But those are some of the local groupings. And again, there are international forums. I just, I’m not sure if we’ve, I’ll use the word routinized, like we’ve made it a part of always practice to just always go back to the default to share. Who needs to know this, and how quickly can I get it to them?

MODERATOR: Thank you so much. I always. said, openness and international access is essential, I mean, I mean, as stakeholders to be able to collaborate together to tackle these issues. We have just heard a perspective from the FBI on how these mechanisms work. Ismaile, can you tell us how can we collaborate together to make sure that these challenges can be addressed in a multi-stakeholder or let’s say international cooperation?

Samaila Atsen Bako: Thank you for the question. I would say there are quite a number of multi-stakeholder, sorry, I can hear an echo, this is kind of distracting, but anyways, I would say there are quite a number of events and conversations. For instance, even the IGA is one of those discussions. There’s the GC3B and some other ones. And I mean, personally, again, speaking for myself, personally, I think that these conversations can go on, but at the end of the day, what happens when it comes to implementation? You know, I feel like sometimes because we tend to rely on government effort, it can be a problem because, for instance, when power changes from one government to the other, who may be heading certain agencies, who may retire, or who may be posted to other jobs. And so sometimes because the effort is usually sometimes on the investment in a particular department or agency, when they leave, those efforts tend to either stall or even regress. But that being said, right, that being said, I think there’s some promise in the sense that we see the efforts of the private sector. I mean, even META in Nigeria tends to do a lot around child online protection, anti-fraud efforts, a lot of, a whole lot of non-profits. I think Paula mentioned she mentored in the Cyber Girls program. There are so many other NGOs like the Cyber City Foundation and the ones I’m part of that do a lot of things on digital literacy, on raising awareness, engaging with governments when they are coming up with regulations and laws, helping to give them the end-user perspective to make sure that they are not just looking at it from maybe from the angle of how to serve you, you know, people and things like that. So everyone has a role to play. General, like I said, after these conversations are had, the priority or the focus or the goal of the implementing people or organizations is what usually takes precedence. If a law is, if for instance they want to create a Data Privacy Act, but they are targeting maybe funding that can be added to the law, it means that at the point of implementation, the goal would be to make sure that that funding does come in, not necessarily how do we guarantee data privacy, even though the law itself is a privacy law. That’s why I say a lot of these things tie back into the political that drive it. But we can’t give up as, you know, end-users, as private sector, as professionals in the industry. We have to keep pushing, keep speaking out of what should be, hoping that these things do come into play. From a practical perspective, I would say the key thing is to fix the education curriculum, fix the infrastructure deficits. Within our region, there’s a lot of what we call digital divide, you know, and if people can’t come on four devices, or they don’t have access to even networks at all, then how do they come into the data, or how do we bring them into the data? How do we even make them part of the global economy, for instance, nationally and things like that? So I think we need to start from the basics, we need to get to a point where infrastructure itself is good, where the necessary funding is put towards things like academia, you know, instead of just a fraction of the budget. And we build an R&D culture where, you know, it’s in the second nature to do research so much within the continent, not just relying on what comes from outside. I mean, we have open source things that can be leveraged as well. So I think if we take the conversation from this perspective, you know, as the global south, you know, then it helps us to build capacity as a whole, as a region, as a country, and then from there, even your citizens tend to benefit from the economic side of things. So I think those are my ideas on how we can move things forward and collaborate.

MODERATOR: Thank you, Samaila, for addressing this important collaboration between the global south and the global north. Dr. Melejit, if we consider the FBI’s ambition to collaborate, the three points on which we can work on, on the top of the list?

Monojit Das: In addition, by our esteemed, I’d like to say now you are more than a part of our speaking panel only. You have added a very new dimension. So let us be on to the reality that, you know, relation between India at large and the U.S. has been very cordial, given the few instances that has happened geopolitically, whether you live in 1971, 1999. But, you know, trust, when you talk about trust in terms of cyber security, you see big giants like Meta, Google, they have an agreement with the U.S. government that it bounds them to share the information or at large the data. But we attempted the same with one of our startups. We failed miserably, and that attempt was largely highlighted by the U.S. government. So, by the so-called the West to ensure, you know, India is trying to bring on surveillance, but in other way, because whenever we attempted anything from our side, we never got that same support. Just to ensure that, you know, monopoly or duopoly from the West is never harmed. We actually don’t intend to harm anyone, you know. All is that we want our indigenization because we are really progressing and we attempt to do in that way. What I feel that a greater collaboration in terms of really trustworthy, when I mention this word trustworthy, it should be not in exchange of, you know, we support in exchange of data, but really we support the ideas of data localization. Let the data be within us. If you need, you kindly request and we are always ready. We have several exchange agreements, whether you’re starting from the agreement of supporting your shifts in limo or we have all sorts of agreements. We can do that, but not to take data from the other way around. I feel that digital cooperation and certainly we have very flagship initiatives like of ensuring digital divide or I like to say overcoming the digital, I’m sorry, that we have developed some applications that are by the Ministry of Education that calls Anubhavini app. Like that translates, and I’m really happy to say far better than even Google to ensure the language, the whatever India we speak English in a very courtesy of population. So I feel this type of applications, we not only promote 22 languages of India, but also other 9 and 10 overseas languages. So if this can be potential area of collaboration where we together can, you know, outreach this to our African brothers and sisters so that they can get in touch because you have the outreach, we have the product and we can certainly do so. So this can be one. And other than cyber security, as you mentioned, the APT are advanced persistent threat. So I feel this is the one of the key area because you see our neighborhood, Bangladesh, the Bangladesh Bank highest, you know, it remains by the so-called North Korean actor. As we thought, like, you know, it was not managed, if you can recollect kindly. So this type of, you know, the collaborations can certainly help in preventing because today India’s money or like every people in India, every person at large will have a phone pay, Google pay or all sort of, you know, payment mechanism, BIM, government doesn’t know. So we are largely dependent on mobile pay or QR everywhere. So just to ensure safeguarding in this line as well. So these three can be the one and largely what through your embassy, the United States can do is undertake cyber security. Otherwise it does a very good work. Like the United States embassy has been very active in India, promoting culture through your scholarship and other methods. But I feel cyber security awareness can also be taken as a part and we can do so.

MODERATOR: Thank you. Thank you, Dr. Going back to the FBI. I mean, cyber issues is quite like climate change today is internationally or on common interest. We need to collaborate together as we have been highlighting. I mean, like that collaborate work on from the FBI perspective, do you think we should have international cyber security framework or a bilateral cooperation can be enough to change or establish kind of capacity programs?

AUDIENCE: Yeah, thank you. And thanks to my colleague from India, those were great points and I will actually take that back because our legal attache, of course, there at the embassy could likely be very helpful to you. So if you’d like to answer the question, I think we need bilateral cooperation for those areas, like to bring this back to national security. Sometimes there are, you know, certain things that are sensitive because it’s, you know, maybe targeted a very sensitive part of your critical infrastructure and sharing could actually open up additional targeting or, you know, vulnerabilities to be identified. So I think there are certain times when bilateral cooperation, particularly in national security is probably required, but more so than that, I think what you’re getting at, and again, the colleague here as well, the financial systems part of this are ubiquitous, ubiquity. I don’t know if it translates to everyone’s language, but it’s this idea of it’s everywhere now, it’s persistent. I think there’s a ubiquity of certain things like financial services, I think like the applications for communication, where there’s a great opportunity for international cooperation on really trying to understand and evaluate, and I think one of you mentioned it too, this idea of the intersection between privacy and security. I think everyone wants to make that about things like, you know, and I’ll say it from our point of view at the FBI, they want to make it, you know, solely about encryption or solely about, you know, as though that’s it. And in reality, I think we all understand sometimes it’s sort of security versus security, which is if you want absolute privacy, then that means there’s absolute sometimes anonymity, right, of a person and all of their activities. I think that’s where we’re trying to find a little bit of balance and understanding so that we can make sure that users, whatever their level of digital literacy, and companies, whatever their level, are thoughtful and deliberate about just making those decisions, where an individual going into a global common, it’s such a powerful, wonderful thing, and it’s huge for economies. I think you mentioned that for economies, it is about my colleague online. But there is now, I think, I agree with the person who said, you know, security is now the next real challenge. It’s out there, it’s real, and everyone’s sort of paying attention now because there’s been levels from individual to corporations and governments. So that’s where I think the international piece has to play a more prevalent role. That’s why I use that word routinization or routine. We have to make it a common fabric that we’re consistently trying to make the opportunity smaller for our adversary. And there are a lot of ways to do that. But it is also one difficulty is we are in information overload from, I think, individuals, you know, there’s so much information hitting us every day, but also at the government level and probably on the, certainly on the private sector side, as they try to understand also the markets. So as we possibly can, and I feel like it’s been growing out of control for a while. So anything we can do to shrink that would be welcome.

MODERATOR: Thank you so much for sharing this very important point and for your presentation, let’s say, because we have learned a lot from you, and we are eager to continue to learn more and more. I think we only have three minutes left, so I will be giving the floor to all the speakers, I mean, for 30 seconds to perhaps answer any questions you think, or for your comments, perhaps answer any questions you think, or for your closing remarks. So let’s start with our distinguished leader.

Ihita Gangavarapu: All right, I’ll keep it short. I think I appreciate the point around reducing the size of the attack surface. And given that we have so many emerging technologies coming in and the cyber security threats that they’re posing, I don’t, I think cyber security should have just started giving it a priority a long time ago. Given now that, especially with AI and IoT and all, so the applications that are coming in, we have to be very cautious. The other thing I just want to address with respect to the different forums that are there, two that I’ve been engaged with in some capacity is the Global Forum on Cyber Expertise. We have GFC, where a lot of organizations, including governments and private sector, come together to discuss best practices. Then you also have, for a more nuanced kind of cyber issue discussion, is the APWG, which is the Anti-Phishing Working Group. I think these, and I’m sure there are a lot more if somebody would like to highlight. Yeah, I think with this, I’d like to hand it over to my colleagues to close it.

Paula Nkandu Haamaundu: I’ve really enjoyed the discussion today, and I do more of understanding from the different perspectives, such as India and the USA. But in my closing, I just wanted to mention three points, which is cooperation, capacity building, and implementation. So from the perspective of cooperation, I think we can’t deny the need for different regions, different partnerships to happen. For instance, from the perspective of GIZ, the Partnership for Strengthening Cyber Security is a project that’s really trying to ensure that all our partners have enhanced cyber security postures. I think the gentleman there had asked a question on international law in the cyber space, and had adopted the common position on international law, on application of international law in the cyber space. And one of the things that they’ve been doing to ensure that member states in Africa build their capacity is to hold roundtable workshops, where they can get different perspectives from the different member states and have that conversation, because it’s very important. I was in one of the workshops, and a lot of conversations came up, but especially around data sovereignty. So there’s a lot of conversations there. Okay, I see I’m being given time. But essentially, cooperation is very important. We can’t deny that. Capacity building, we need to ensure that from the technical perspective, we, from the policymakers, from the cyber diplomats, we have that capacity built. And lastly, implementation. I think Samahila had mentioned how important it is. That one we can’t deny. We can talk, talk, talk, but if we don’t implement, then we’re not going to go anywhere.

MODERATOR: Thank you so much, Paula. Ednas, let’s say Kazan, please, you have 10 seconds to tell us like about

Karsan Gabriel: what don’t. Yes. Great. Thank you very much. I think, I think, for me, the most important part should be based on trust. That trust should be a principle that is building all of our security architecture and access policy. So when we have trust in systems which are implemented, I think we can have a good intersection with cyber protection and cyber security.

MODERATOR: Thank you so much, Kazan. Over to Samahila. 10 seconds as well.

Samaila Atsen Bako: Maybe I should just ask you a question. In my closing remarks, in all the times we find out that the attackers aggressed governments, so what can we do? It’s a question to all of us. What can we do to use or stop government from attacking people, attacking different political interests? To all, or perhaps to the FBI, I may say anything. No, no, no, to everyone. I can’t just…

MODERATOR: Thank you so much. Based on the experience, I think the FBI can answer this question. So, Dr. Menejit, please, 10 seconds.

Monojit Das: Well, terming it as a closing remark, but I’d love to make it as an opening path for our first, you know, possible discussion henceforth, and as highlighted by our participants and guest special invitee here, I consider. So I feel we can collaborate and at least have the common ground where we can convergence. We have convergence and sort out, start focusing on that because they become a tool for geopolitical aspect as well. So differences will be there, and that will be used for, you know, what you call surveillance, reconnaissance, and whatever the other factor, but let us find some common ground as a part of converging area, and we collaborate. And let’s start from today once we are done with the session, and I feel there’s more to it. Thank you.

MODERATOR: Thank you so much. As we conclude this insightful session on the VN intersection of cyber and national security, I would like to thank you, panelists, for your expertise and all participation to the discussion as highlighted, the critical and growing overlap between cyber security and national agencies, emphasizing the urgent need for stronger policy innovation, innovative practices, and collaborative effort to address the challenges we face in this digital age. Thank you, participants, and thank you, LFBI, for your also participation in this very interesting discussions. Thank you so much all. Group photo, please.

Agreement Points

Cybersecurity is integral to national security

speakers

Ihita Gangavarapu

Lily Edinam Botsyoe

Karsan Gabriel

arguments

Cybersecurity directly impacts national security and critical infrastructure

Cybersecurity and national security are two sides of the same coin in the digital age

Cybersecurity is not just a technical issue but a matter of national resilience

summary

Multiple speakers emphasized the inseparable link between cybersecurity and national security, highlighting how cyber threats can significantly impact critical infrastructure and national stability.

Need for international cooperation in cybersecurity

speakers

AUDIENCE

Paula Nkandu Haamaundu

arguments

Developing international cooperation and frameworks for cybersecurity

International organizations facilitate cooperation and knowledge sharing in cybersecurity

summary

Speakers agreed on the importance of international cooperation and knowledge sharing to address global cybersecurity challenges effectively.

Importance of capacity building in cybersecurity

speakers

Paula Nkandu Haamaundu

Samaila Atsen Bako

arguments

Focusing on capacity building and implementation of cybersecurity measures

Improving digital literacy and infrastructure to address the digital divide

summary

Speakers emphasized the need for capacity building, including improving digital literacy and infrastructure, to enhance cybersecurity efforts.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers highlighted the importance of collaboration between the private sector and government in developing and implementing cybersecurity measures.

speakers

Ihita Gangavarapu

Monojit Das

arguments

Private sector involvement is essential for developing cybersecurity solutions

Government plays a crucial role in setting policies and frameworks for cybersecurity

Both speakers emphasized the critical role of trust in facilitating information sharing and collaboration between different stakeholders in cybersecurity efforts.

speakers

AUDIENCE

Paula Nkandu Haamaundu

arguments

Trust is a key factor in the relationship between cybersecurity and national security

Lack of trust and information sharing between organizations hinders cybersecurity efforts

Unexpected Consensus

Role of non-governmental organizations in cybersecurity

speakers

Samaila Atsen Bako

Paula Nkandu Haamaundu

arguments

Civil society and NGOs contribute to awareness and capacity building in cybersecurity

International organizations facilitate cooperation and knowledge sharing in cybersecurity

explanation

While government and private sector roles were expected to be discussed, the emphasis on the role of NGOs and international organizations in cybersecurity efforts was an unexpected area of consensus.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement included the integral relationship between cybersecurity and national security, the need for international cooperation, the importance of capacity building, and the roles of various stakeholders including government, private sector, and NGOs.

Consensus level

There was a moderate to high level of consensus among the speakers on the fundamental aspects of cybersecurity and its relationship to national security. This consensus suggests a shared understanding of the challenges and potential strategies for addressing cybersecurity issues, which could facilitate more coordinated and effective approaches to cybersecurity at national and international levels.

Different Viewpoints

Data localization and privacy policies

speakers

Monojit Das

AUDIENCE

arguments

Differences in data localization and privacy policies between countries pose challenges

Balancing privacy and security concerns is a key challenge in cybersecurity

summary

Monojit Das highlights tensions between India’s data localization efforts and Western tech companies’ policies, while the FBI representative emphasizes the need to balance privacy and security concerns globally.

Unexpected Differences

Focus on education sector in cybersecurity

speakers

Ihita Gangavarapu

Samaila Atsen Bako

arguments

Private sector involvement is essential for developing cybersecurity solutions

Improving digital literacy and infrastructure to address the digital divide

explanation

While most speakers focused on critical infrastructure like finance and healthcare, Ihita Gangavarapu unexpectedly highlighted the education sector as the most impacted by cyberattacks. Samaila Atsen Bako, on the other hand, emphasized improving digital literacy and infrastructure, which indirectly relates to the education sector but from a different perspective.

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement revolved around data localization policies, the balance between privacy and security, and the specific approaches to involving the private sector in cybersecurity efforts.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among speakers was moderate. While there was a general consensus on the importance of cybersecurity for national security, speakers had different perspectives on implementation strategies and priorities. These differences reflect the complex nature of cybersecurity challenges and the need for diverse approaches tailored to specific national contexts.

Partial Agreements

All speakers agree on the importance of private sector involvement and trust in cybersecurity efforts, but they differ on how to achieve this. Ihita Gangavarapu focuses on private sector solutions, Paula Nkandu Haamaundu emphasizes the need for better information sharing frameworks, and the FBI representative stresses building trust between public and private sectors.

speakers

Ihita Gangavarapu

Paula Nkandu Haamaundu

AUDIENCE

arguments

Private sector involvement is essential for developing cybersecurity solutions

Lack of trust and information sharing between organizations hinders cybersecurity efforts

Trust is a key factor in the relationship between cybersecurity and national security

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers highlighted the importance of collaboration between the private sector and government in developing and implementing cybersecurity measures.

speakers

Ihita Gangavarapu

Monojit Das

arguments

Private sector involvement is essential for developing cybersecurity solutions

Government plays a crucial role in setting policies and frameworks for cybersecurity

Both speakers emphasized the critical role of trust in facilitating information sharing and collaboration between different stakeholders in cybersecurity efforts.

speakers

AUDIENCE

Paula Nkandu Haamaundu

arguments

Trust is a key factor in the relationship between cybersecurity and national security

Lack of trust and information sharing between organizations hinders cybersecurity efforts

Key Takeaways

Cybersecurity and national security are deeply interconnected in the digital age

Trust is a critical factor in cybersecurity collaboration between organizations and nations

A multi-stakeholder approach involving government, private sector, and civil society is needed to address cybersecurity challenges

Capacity building, especially in digital literacy and infrastructure, is crucial for improving cybersecurity in developing nations

International cooperation and information sharing are essential for combating global cyber threats

Resolutions and Action Items

Explore opportunities for bilateral and multilateral cooperation on cybersecurity issues

Develop more robust frameworks for sharing threat intelligence and best practices internationally

Focus on building trust between nations and organizations to facilitate better information sharing

Prioritize capacity building initiatives, especially in developing countries

Work towards creating international standards or frameworks for cybersecurity

Unresolved Issues

How to balance national security interests with the need for international cooperation on cybersecurity

Addressing the challenges of data localization and sovereignty in a globalized digital world

Finding the right balance between privacy and security in cybersecurity policies

How to effectively combat state-sponsored cyber attacks without escalating international tensions

Developing a universally accepted definition of critical infrastructure in cyberspace

Suggested Compromises

Focus initial international cooperation efforts on universally agreed-upon issues like combating child exploitation online

Develop bilateral agreements for sensitive national security matters while pursuing broader multilateral cooperation on general cybersecurity issues

Create tiered systems of information sharing that allow for different levels of disclosure based on sensitivity and trust levels

Establish neutral international bodies to facilitate cyber threat information sharing between nations

When we talk about cybersecurity, it has direct implications on national security, and there are certain key initiatives and strategies that nations have taken, and my perspective will be purely from an Indian context.

speaker

Ihita Gangavarapu

reason

This comment set the stage for examining the intersection of cybersecurity and national security from a specific country’s perspective, providing concrete examples.

impact

It led to a detailed discussion of India’s cybersecurity initiatives and frameworks, offering insights into how one nation is addressing these challenges.

Cybersecurity today to me was the significant development we have done. Today we are courtesy that again sometimes brings a debate whether, you know, whether the move was good or not, bringing private players to give in data at a very cheaper rate.

speaker

Monojit Das

reason

This comment highlighted the tension between accessibility and security in cybersecurity policy.

impact

It broadened the discussion to include economic and social factors in cybersecurity, leading to considerations of the trade-offs involved in policy decisions.

So in Tanzania, we are still based on the same element that collectively build, but also collaboratively enhance the knowledge of the people in understanding the core pillars of security, confidentiality, integrity, and availability of all the resources in their best interest.

speaker

Karsan Gabriel

reason

This comment provided a perspective from a developing country, emphasizing the importance of education and collective effort in cybersecurity.

impact

It shifted the conversation to consider the challenges and approaches of countries at different stages of technological development.

Looking at and going back, the only challenge, I think, and this is where the public-private partnership becomes so important, is that many times it’s really taken a lot of work for us. I love that you all use the word trust because I think that’s really what this all comes down to.

speaker

FBI Representative

reason

This comment emphasized the critical role of trust in cybersecurity efforts, particularly in public-private partnerships.

impact

It led to a deeper discussion on the challenges of information sharing and collaboration between different sectors and countries.

I think there’s some promise in the sense that we see the efforts of the private sector. I mean, even META in Nigeria tends to do a lot around child online protection, anti-fraud efforts, a whole lot of non-profits.

speaker

Samaila Atsen Bako

reason

This comment highlighted the role of private sector and non-profit organizations in addressing cybersecurity challenges.

impact

It broadened the discussion beyond government efforts to consider the multi-stakeholder nature of cybersecurity solutions.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by broadening its scope from a focus on government policies to a more comprehensive view of cybersecurity that includes private sector involvement, education, trust-building, and international cooperation. They highlighted the complex interplay between national security, economic development, and technological advancement in addressing cybersecurity challenges. The discussion evolved from country-specific examples to considering global collaboration and the unique challenges faced by developing nations, emphasizing the need for tailored approaches and multi-stakeholder engagement in cybersecurity efforts.

How can we better align national security priorities with rapidly evolving cybersecurity threats?

speaker

MODERATOR

explanation

This question addresses the need to keep national security strategies up-to-date with the fast-changing cybersecurity landscape.

What gaps exist between cybersecurity practices and national security agendas, and how can we bring them together?

speaker

MODERATOR

explanation

This explores potential misalignments between cybersecurity implementations and broader national security goals, seeking ways to integrate them more effectively.

How can we implement the national cyber framework in India?

speaker

MODERATOR

explanation

This question seeks more details on the practical application of India’s recently introduced national cyber framework.

How do African countries address laws that address critical infrastructure cyber attacks?

speaker

MODERATOR

explanation

This question aims to understand the legal frameworks in African countries for protecting critical infrastructure from cyber threats.

Are we adequately sharing globally the indicators of compromise and the threat side?

speaker

AUDIENCE

explanation

This question addresses the need for improved global collaboration in sharing cybersecurity threat intelligence.

How can we collaborate together to make sure that these challenges can be addressed in a multi-stakeholder or international cooperation?

speaker

MODERATOR

explanation

This question explores ways to enhance international cooperation in addressing cybersecurity challenges.

Should we have an international cybersecurity framework or is bilateral cooperation enough to establish capacity programs?

speaker

MODERATOR

explanation

This question considers the most effective approach for international cybersecurity collaboration and capacity building.

What can we do to use or stop government from attacking people, attacking different political interests?

speaker

Samaila Atsen Bako

explanation

This question addresses concerns about government-sponsored cyber attacks and how to prevent them.

Summary

This discussion focused on improving local online service delivery in a global context, with a particular emphasis on the Local Online Service Index (LOSI) methodology. Speakers from various countries shared their experiences and challenges in implementing and assessing e-government services at the local level. The session highlighted the importance of aligning national and local government strategies for digital transformation, with Saudi Arabia presenting a successful model of coordination between different levels of government.

Key challenges identified across multiple countries included low digital literacy, funding scarcity, and lack of specialized human resources. The discussion also addressed the need for standardization of services across different municipalities within countries, as well as the difficulties in assessing local government services due to varying organizational structures and service provision models.

Several countries, including India, Tunisia, and Cambodia, shared their experiences in implementing LOSI and other assessment frameworks. These case studies demonstrated the value of such assessments in identifying areas for improvement and benchmarking progress. The United Arab Emirates presented their digital maturity model, which incorporates elements of LOSI and other best practices.

The discussion also touched on future trends, including the potential use of artificial intelligence in assessing and improving e-government services. Speakers emphasized the importance of continuous improvement and the need for innovation in local government, even if it means accepting some level of failure in the process.

Overall, the session underscored the global nature of the challenges in local e-government development and the potential for international cooperation and knowledge sharing to drive improvements. The LOSI methodology was presented as a valuable tool for guiding and assessing progress in this area, with potential for further refinement and expansion.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– Challenges and opportunities in applying the Local Online Services Index (LOSI) methodology to assess local e-government services

– Experiences of different countries in implementing and using LOSI

– Alignment and cooperation between national and local levels of government in digital transformation

– Use of AI and other technologies to improve local e-government services

– Importance of citizen engagement and meeting local needs in e-government

Overall purpose:

The goal of the discussion was to share experiences and best practices in assessing and improving local e-government services using the LOSI methodology, as well as to explore challenges and future directions for local e-government development.

Tone:

The overall tone was informative and collaborative. Speakers shared their countries’ experiences in a factual manner, while also expressing enthusiasm for improving local e-government. There was a sense of mutual learning and desire for cooperation among participants. The tone became slightly more urgent towards the end when discussing the need for innovation and alignment between government levels.

Speakers

– Dimitrios Sarantis: Senior Research Analyst, UNU Operating Unit on Policy-Driven and Electronic MRIs in Portugal

– Angelica Zundel: Consultant for UN

– Ayman Alarabiat: Professor, Al-Balqa Applied University, Jordan 

– Dr Gayatri Doctor, CEPT University, India

– Mehdi Limam: Member of the Tunisian E-Governance Society

– Abdulaziz Zakri: Representative from Digital Government Authority (DGA), Saudi Arabia

– Manal Al Afad: Digital government and open government expert, Telecommunications and Digital Government Regulatory Authority, United Arab Emirates

– Yin Huotely: Representative from Monitoring and Evaluation Department, Digital Government Committee, Ministry of Post and Telecommunication of Cambodia

– Vannapha Phommathansy: Representative from Digital Government Centre, Ministry of Technology and Communications, Laos

– Nevine Makram Labib Eskaros: Professor, Chair of Computer Information Systems Department, Sadat Academy for Management Sciences, Egypt

Additional speakers:

– Delfina Soares: Professor

– Young-Hwan Jin: Representative from the Seoul National University research team

Improving Local Online Service Delivery: A Global Perspective on LOSI Implementation

This comprehensive discussion brought together experts from various countries to explore the challenges and opportunities in implementing and assessing local e-government services, with a particular focus on the Local Online Service Index (LOSI) methodology.

LOSI Methodology and Components

Dimitrios Sarantis introduced the LOSI methodology, explaining that it consists of four main criteria:

1. Institutional framework

2. Content provision

3. Services provision

4. Participation and engagement

The LOSI assessment evaluates 86 indicators across these criteria, providing a comprehensive view of local e-government capabilities. Sarantis also highlighted the complexities in assessing local government services due to varying organizational structures and service provision models across different countries and municipalities.

Country Experiences and Challenges

Several countries shared their experiences in implementing LOSI and other assessment frameworks:

1. Jordan: Ayman Alarabiat highlighted issues with awareness, resources, and resistance to change. He emphasized the need for capacity building and change management strategies.

2. India: Gayatri Doctor reported that the LOSI assessment helped identify gaps in online services and challenges with distributed portals. The assessment process led to improvements in service delivery and citizen engagement.

3. Tunisia: Mehdi Limam explained how they leveraged EGDI scores and the UN toolkit to implement LOSI effectively. He stressed that LOSI helps identify weaknesses and benchmark digital maturity, driving continuous improvement in local e-government.

4. Cambodia: Yin Huotely emphasized the need to improve connectivity and digital literacy.

5. Laos: Vannapha Phommathansy highlighted additional infrastructure and adoption challenges due to the country’s early stage of development.

6. United Arab Emirates: Manal Al Afad presented their digital maturity model, which incorporates elements of LOSI and other best practices.

7. Saudi Arabia: Abdulaziz Zakri shared a successful model of coordination between different levels of government, aligning national and local efforts through governance frameworks. He highlighted plans to expand their e-government initiatives to ten major cities across the country.

Common challenges across countries included low digital literacy, funding scarcity, lack of specialized human resources, and the need to improve connectivity and infrastructure.

UN Local Government Toolkit

Angelica Zundel presented the UN Local Government Toolkit, designed to support LOSI implementation. This resource provides guidance and best practices for local governments looking to improve their online services.

Strategies for Improvement and Future Directions

1. Alignment of national and local efforts: An audience member, Delfina, raised the question of how local governments align their efforts with national-level strategies. The discussion highlighted the importance of coordination across different levels of government.

2. Expanding the LOSI network: Sarantis explained the purpose of the LOSI Network in facilitating knowledge sharing and addressing common barriers.

3. Leveraging emerging technologies: Nevine Makram Labib Eskaros from Egypt proposed using artificial intelligence to assess and improve e-government services, presenting a five-stage framework for AI integration in e-government assessment.

4. Regular assessment and benchmarking: Speakers emphasized the value of LOSI in identifying areas for improvement and tracking progress over time.

5. Addressing diverse local contexts: The discussion acknowledged the need to balance standardized assessment with country-specific needs and contexts.

Key Takeaways and Future Considerations

Dimitrios Sarantis concluded the session with key takeaways:

1. The importance of continuous improvement in local online service delivery

2. The value of knowledge sharing and learning from diverse experiences

3. The need for ongoing refinement of the LOSI methodology

Future considerations include:

1. Standardization of assessment across diverse government structures

2. Effective engagement of policymakers in utilizing LOSI results

3. Addressing resource constraints, particularly in developing countries

4. Ethical and effective integration of AI in e-government assessment

The session ended with a call for participants to complete a questionnaire regarding services provided at the local government level, further contributing to the ongoing development of LOSI.

Conclusion

The discussion underscored the global nature of the challenges in local e-government development and the potential for international cooperation and knowledge sharing to drive improvements. The LOSI methodology was presented as a valuable tool for guiding and assessing progress in this area, with potential for further refinement and expansion. As countries continue to develop their local e-government services, the insights shared in this discussion provide a foundation for more targeted and effective improvements, ultimately aiming to enhance service delivery for citizens worldwide.

Dimitrios Sarantis: Okay, we start. I welcome you to IG session entitled improving local online service delivery in a global world. My name is Dimitrios Sarantis, Senior Research Analyst in the UNU Operating Unit on Policy-Driven and Electronic MRIs in Portugal, together with Angelica Zundel and Denis Husser from United Nations Economic Cooperation. And we will moderate this session. I would like to welcome our eight distinguished speakers in the panel. And before starting the session, I would like to make a brief reference of the session structure and describe its sections. Firstly, I invite online participants to submit their comments and questions in the Q&A section of the online session. With the help of Angelica, we will gather all of them and do our best to transfer them to our panelists. Of course, participants in the room can set questions orally. Online participants have the possibility to also make comments if they request it. So let’s go quickly in session. The first part, the first section, is entitled Opportunities and Challenges in Applying LOSI. In this section, panelists will identify benefits of applying LOSI in their countries. They can suggest possible use of LOSI application results and ways of using them in policymaking. They can mention examples from their own experience. They will suggest ways to engage policymakers and local researchers in LOSI network activities. And they may identify challenges. of applying LOGIE and possible ways of facing them. And they will suggest, hopefully, ways of improving LOGIE methodology and expanding the network. After that, we will have a Q&A section. Then Angelica will briefly present a government LOGIE toolkit. She will explain this toolkit that is created from UNDES and UNUIGOV in order to support LOGIE application. The next section is local government present and future. So panelists will present the existing needs of citizens and cities in their countries. They will describe ways, for example, applications, technologies, innovations of facing these needs in local government level. They will also suggest future trends in local government coming from their countries. And also, they may suggest ways that we can assess local government development. And challenges and ways of facing these assessment methods and possible ways of collaboration and funding sources, which are problems that we face currently. Okay. Before going to the panelists, I will say, let’s say, the main topics of LOGIE instrument, which is a collaboration of UNDES and UNUIGOV. We started this collaboration back in 2018, and the reason was to support local government development. Here’s EGDI to assess e-government at the national level. So because citizen is more close to local government than the national one, we thought that there is a need to cover there. So we came up with this methodology. Very briefly, at the moment, the methodology comprises 95 indicators. And it is divided in six areas, in six criteria. In brackets, you can see the indicators that we use for each criteria. The first one is institutional framework. The next one is content provision. So we assess aspects about content, then services provision. So what online services are provided by the city. Participation and engagement. The next one, technology. The fifth, and the recently introduced one, e-government leadership. So together with this methodology that is applied biannually from UNDES and UNEGO, and the results are published in United Nations e-government survey, we use local government questionnaire, which gathers information from local government municipalities in preparation for the upcoming survey. So this gives us a better insight from local governments because of public officials that give us this information. The results from this assessment are published in United Nations e-government knowledge base and biannually. And you can see them in detail, all the results of the city. So we will not spend more time on that. We apply this methodology in the most populous city of each country, of the 193 member states. So, because there is… applied in more cities worldwide, we designed and applied the idea of Lossy Network, which invites interested institutions to participate with their resources and with our support, UNDESA and UNEGOV, in order to apply Lossy methodology in a larger number of cities in their country, after signing a memorandum of understanding. Okay. Now, I think it is the right time to go to the first section, where we will see partners that have already joined Lossy Network, and they will talk about their experience. The first panelist is Ayman Al-Arabyat, Professor Ayman Al-Arabyat, from Al-Balqa Applied University. Ayman, the floor is yours.

Ayman Alarabiat: Good morning, everyone. First of all, I would like to thank UNDESA, UNEGOV, IGF, and also the Sudanese government for organizing this forum. I will start with telling you about the story, how I got involved in Lossy. Of course, the main reason is my teacher, Professor Delfina Suarez. I like the concept, and I think it’s very crucial, very important to evaluate and assess the e-services at local level. Two years ago, Dimitris and I have conducted a study, we evaluate around 19 cities’ portals or websites in Jordan. So at first, Jordan is a small country in the Middle East, but we are, as Jordanians, we believe it’s great because of its people. At local level, we have two administrative levels of government, one under the Ministry of the Interior, for the municipalities, they are controlled under the local or the Ministry of Local Administration. We have around 100 municipalities in Jordan, however, the majority of Jordanian municipalities are, has a financial problem because of many financial situations in Jordan. The main expenses in Jordan municipalities goes to salaries, around from 50 to 85% of municipalities’ budget goes to salaries. As I said, we have evaluated around 19 cities in Jordan, for our methodology, Dimitris and I agreed that we remove around 16 indicators from the LOSI methodology that are related to service provision indicators. The reason that all of these 15 services are provided by national department or national ministries. in Jordan. For our result, a table that all Jordanian municipalities were ranked at middle or lowest group, except one city, it’s the capital, Amman. All of Jordanian municipalities face main challenges and main limitations in technology, service provision, and also in citizen engagement. However, our result indicates that small municipalities sometimes doing better than larger municipalities, despite having fewer resources. Maybe that’s related to the vision or the strategy that those small municipalities have taken in their perspective. Now, after we have done our study, we promote LOSI in Jordan. How we did that, we sent our report to local administrative ministry. We also have interactive lectures with greater Amman municipalities, and we have online session with Arab Smart Cities Network that are located in Jordan. At that session, around 100 persons from around 70 municipalities have attended that online session. Now, for the challenges and opportunities, in fact… In fact, we face a main challenge regarding the awareness of local administrative or local official about the international evaluation. They are not familiar with that. They also have limited resources, and digital transformation is not in the top of their priority. Of course, there was a resistance to change that we found when we talked to them. And also, I delivered some training program in IPA. It’s an institution of public administration in Jordan for many times. And the attendance was from many municipalities, and they do not have full awareness of the importance of digital transformation. And if they have, they don’t know how to move to digital transformation. The second challenge is regarding how we could transform this theoretical result into practical actions. For our opportunity, I think we should work in the long-term strategy for engagement. We have started some initial talk with the Ministry of Local Administration in Jordan. And also, we are trying to collaborate with potential partners like Arab Smart Cities Forum. They are expressing their willingness to participate with us in the next study that we are what we are going to do in 2025. So, thank you very much for your listening. So, of course, any valuable suggestions will be welcome. Thank you very much. Thank you, Dimitris.

Dimitrios Sarantis: Thank you, Professor Al-Arabyat, especially for the challenges… and the ways that we can move forward… engaging policy makers in using lousy results. Let’s move now to the second speaker, Dr. Gayatri Doktor… from CEPT University in India, which is an online speaker. And, Dr. Gayatri, we welcome you. Please, the floor is yours.

Gayatri Doctor: Thank you very much. First of all, I would like to thank UNDESA, UNU-IGAV and IGF… for having this open forum… giving an opportunity to talk about the LOSI experience… and the pilot studies that we have done in India. Can I have the next slide, please? So, as everybody knows, India is a large and diverse country. We started off with the first pilot of LOSI in 2023… where we assessed the most populous city in each state… and the union territories. And we applied the LOSI methodology. This came out to 27 states, 9 union territories. But, of course, two cities did not have municipal government portals. So, our total assessment was of 34 cities. I had a student researcher… who worked with me on this, Soumya Mehta. In the second pilot, which we did, we decided to concentrate on only one state, which was Gujarat. And in Gujarat, we targeted 53 urban local bodies, or 53 cities, which was across municipal corporations and municipalities, with the municipal governance portals. And we also tried to study two cities where they did not have a municipal government portal. So this was also done with a student researcher, Devanshi Shah. Can we move to the next? In the Indian context, when we look at it, there are a variety of portals that are available. We have centrally-government portals of the government of India. Each and every state has state-governed portals. Then comes the district level, where there are district portals. And we have the city websites. Could be municipalities, municipal corporations, or city councils. This breakup is basically made on the basis of the population of the cities. So there are multiple modes of service delivery to access citizen service. There are some services available on district, state, or central portals. And the urban local bodies, that is the city websites, according to the Indian jurisdiction system, is supposed to perform certain specific services. We have something called the 74th Amendment and 18 services which a city should perform. When we did these studies, both of the pilots, we could identify cities based on high, medium and low maturity. We did not have anybody with the very high maturity. The LOCIE methodology helped us to assess and improve the efficiency, accessibility and the quality of the locally government services. Basically, when we assessed the 34 cities across the country, it was a little more difficult, but when we accessed a particular state, which were the 53 cities, we could immediately tell the type of accessibility and the type of services and the quality of the local e-government service. The next slide, please. So of course, when we did the LOCIE across both the pilots, we could see that we could identify the gaps in the online service. So there were some cities which were in the high, some in the middle, some in the low. So why were they? So we could see the cities, there was transparency and accountability and it helped us make some informed decisions as to which cities needed more information on their websites and things like that. With the introduction of the LGQ, though we did not get too many feedbacks from many cities, it was an understanding of how the government also appreciates this particular evaluation. Users were also… experience of users can be evaluated. Next slide, please. Of course, we did have challenges in applying the LOCIE network because all the services were not available on one city portal. They were distributed across different portals like the district, the state, the central, or some parastatal bodies. Also, some cities did not have an active or an updated MGP. There was some of them, the data was incomplete. There is some tax information which is supposed to be mentioned in the part of the LOCIE thing. But in India, there are various forms of tax, income tax, property tax, professional tax. So all these were not, it was difficult to capture all the elements in the current LOCIE. And also the organizational structure under LOCIE in the infrastructure institution setup, the organization structure has to be defined, which varies depending on the classification of the cities. So there were these type of challenges. And India being a diverse country, we have lots of languages. So the availability of the MGP accessible in multiple languages is also a constraint. Of course, once you give suggestions, there is always some sort of resistance to change, to implement the suggestions. In addition to which, resource constraints, both financial and human at the local government level, are always there. Next slide, please. So there is, when we do a benchmarking and best practices, because LOCIE helps us to identify the good performing cities, and policymakers can benchmark their services against the successful models so that other cities can adopt these particular things. It also helps policymakers to identify the areas and allocate resources and do some strategic planning. Of course, over a period of time, you can monitor the LOCIE data and track the progress of the cities and their impact over time. Next, please. This is just generic, that how do you do it? You can have stakeholder workshops and seminars. You can create policy briefs and reports. Do public consultations and feedback with the users, because citizen-centric services must have interactions with the citizens. And being in a country where there are a lot of different levels of government, we could have some intergovernmental collaborations with an approach to improving e-government services. Next, please. So on the whole, I would say that LOCIE is a very valuable tool for assessing and improving the e-government services at the local level. It helps in service improvement, resource allocation, policy formulation, benchmarking and best practices, capacity building and citizen engagement, and transparency and accountability. Thank you. The way forward, we are going to be doing a LOCIE pilot 3 in 2025, where we would be even studying in the Indian context, there is a state level e-service delivery system. So we would be studying that and comparing it with LOCIE. Thank you. Thank you, Dr. Gayatri.

Dimitrios Sarantis: Well, India is a huge country. So for us, it’s a very important partner because we can have a very useful insight in order to improve LOCIE from this type of organizational structure, from this federation type of structure in the country. And I will just highlight here this aspect, the organizational structure in India varies depending on the classification of cities. They have municipal corporations, municipalities, different types of organizational units. And we face this not only in India, we face this aspect also in other countries that it is not easy to identify the organizational unit in municipality level, in city level that provides the services that we assess in our instrument. For example, in the UK, they have this structure of cities, municipalities, boroughs, the smaller ones. So which one provides the services? This comes in many places and is an issue that we should discuss in the future and find solutions. Anyway, we will proceed because, thank you, Dr. Gayatri. Now the next panelist is Mehdi Limam from the Tunisian government. society. The panel is yours.

Mehdi Limam: Good morning everyone. I’m Mehdi Rimem, a member of the Tunisian E-Governance Society and today I have the pleasure to share with you the experience of implementing the LUCI methodology in Tunisia and to discuss the opportunities and challenges it presents. We will take a look at the benefits of LUCI, key steps for implementation and the path forward for applying this methodology. Let’s begin with the first slide. This is a representation of the result of the implementation of LUCI in Tunisia. We evaluated 24 municipality portals across the 24 states. As you can see, only 9 achieved the rank of middle while the rest have low scores. We won’t dive too much into the results. For full details, I encourage you to consult our report which outlines our findings and insights from our evaluation. Next, LUCI has proven to be a powerful tool in enhancing local government. By evaluating the government portals, LUCI can help identify specific weaknesses, enabling municipalities to improve their services which can lead to more user-friendly and efficient portals. Additionally, benchmarking digital maturity through LUCI provides the municipalities with clear metrics, allowing them to strategically plan their digital transformation. One of LUCI’s greatest strengths is its ability to foster collaboration by learning from global best practices. LUCI enables governments to benefit from shared experiences. Countries that apply the methodology can serve as valuable case studies. Now, in the next slide, the question is how can countries effectively implement closely. Based on our experience in Tunisia, there are three key steps. First, as we can see, we can start with the EGDI scores. Analyzing the country EGDI scores provides a strong foundation for understanding the digital maturity of the country. The next step will be leveraging the UN Local Government Toolkit, as we see in the next slide. This toolkit provides guidance on Lucy indicators with concrete examples. And the final step, we suggest studying the country background to determine which criteria are likely to be present and which ones are not likely to be provided. This will help save time and ensure a more efficient evaluation. But implementation is just the beginning. To really leverage Lucy, we must build on opportunities. Next slide, please. Next. Thank you. First, collaboration is key. Partnering with other countries interested in Lucy allows for the exchange of experiences and best practices. We’re currently working on collaboration. Second, we must invest in training municipal employees on emerging technologies. Civil society can lead this effort to build local capacities. We also recommend launching initiatives for data collection and publication. Civil society can collaborate with municipalities to make data accessible on portals, which increase transparency and citizens trust. Finally, fostering public-private partnership is essential. This collaboration can expand e-services like digital payments. The private sector can provide expertise and resources for municipalities to deliver more modern and better solutions. Of course, we had some challenges, engaging policymakers and ensuring the methodology adoption at the local level can be difficult. Limited resources, both technical and financial, often slow implementation. Also ensuring consistent stakeholders engagement and overcoming resistance to change in local government can be challenging. But by expanding the LUCIE network, refining the methodology and involving stakeholders, we can address these barriers. In conclusion, this was our experience and findings in the Tunisian E-Governance Society in implementing the LUCIE methodology. I would like to extend my gratitude to Vivienne, UNDESA and UNUGOV for the opportunity and their trust in our work. I also want to thank our entire team for their tremendous efforts in making this implementation a success. And to all of you here today for following and engaging with us, we are open for collaboration and look forward to strengthening local governance globally. Thank you.

Dimitrios Sarantis: Thank you, Mehdi. Pynisia is one of the most recent LUCIE partners in our network. So now it is time to open the first Q&A section for comments, questions to our panelists or to any comments that you may have. Allow me to do the first question to Mehdi, starting from this thing that he mentioned at the end about the collaboration with the policy makers using the LUCIE results. So I would like to ask you Mehdi, if you have tried or you have succeeded to disseminate and serve the knowledge. produced from LOSI application in your country with government officials and decision-makers in your country? And if yes, or not the same, how do you think they should use the extracted results? And give us some thoughts which could be the next steps to improve local government development in Tunisia using LOSI output.

Mehdi Limam: Well, thank you. Currently, we have a slight problem. There is hesitance in local governments because we are waiting for the elections. The local entities’ mandates are over, but the elections are delayed. So there is hesitance to make any change, waiting for the new elected officials.

Dimitrios Sarantis: Okay. Thank you, Mehdi. So I invite now the participants or the online participants to, if they have any questions, please, it is the time to do it now. Yes, please. Please introduce yourself also for all the participants.

Audience: Hello. Yeah, my name is Young-Hwan Jin from the Seoul National University research team for doing the application of the LOSI methodologies in South Korea. So we just concluded all the researches and submitted the drafts to the UN DASA, and we are trying to wait for the comments right now. And this is a very great opportunity to have a very strong network to enhance the status of the local online services by measuring them and suggesting the new features. directions of the local online services. So I believe as this impact dated in every two years, and that’s why they came to date, and continuously they’re suggesting the most challenging indicators, such as the rise of the use of AI, and update of the internet, you know, the standards. Why? But in here, I try to ask the very one good question about the new future direction of the LUCI. So I believe that one of the most strong role and the purpose of LUCI is providing some guideline for the local government, like acting like a lighthouse, showing them the way, how the future looks like. So in here, I try to mention that the struggles, I’m not going to ask this as challenges, but struggles we have in the South Korea. So as a background, the South Korean cities can see that they’re some of the most developed countries in terms of the data governments and online services. So in our research, they show that the last of the cities, they have very high score in terms of the LUCIs. But the most, the third part we had is that the some of the services that is indicated in the LUCI index is not authorized to provide in the local government, because a lot of services there’s mentioned in the LUCI is not allowed to provide by the local government. Some of them are controlled and provided by central government or the state government or provincial governments. So I believe this, the very similar problem was already mentioned in the Indian cases than any other cities, something like that. In these kinds of cases, so what are the future direction we should have in the side of the UNESCO and the UNU, that that is one of the question I should ask. So how we deal with these kinds of struggles? Thank you.

Dimitrios Sarantis: Thank you. Thank you very much for the question. Well, I don’t know if I have the answer. The only thing that I can say is that we have identified clearly this problem. This is one of the basic problems that we face, designing the indicators specifically for the services criterion. Because our colleague here identifies this problem that not all cities in the world provide the same services and are authorised from the government to provide the same services in local level. So this is an issue that we should face. We try to do our best and identify, let’s say, the most common services that are used in all cities around the world. It’s very difficult to do that. What I can say is that Lossy Network is a solution, maybe partly in this problem, because what we do with our partners in each country is to identify their specific needs in their context, in their national context, and adjust those services in the specific case. So this is a solution. But again, when we go to the UN, the government survey every two years, it is very difficult to find the ideal set of services for each city. You can understand that. It’s very difficult. Finally, an answer to this would be the citizen at the end is not interested if he or she receives the service from the city or from the central government. Finally, he should receive the service that he expects to receive. So we have this approach in our methodology. We don’t seek and ask in the assessment if the city provides this service. service, but if the municipality website gives the access to this service, so for example, if they give the link to the national government for this service, this is enough because the citizen can receive this service in the way that he wants. But yes, this is a very interesting hot topic for us and for this reason, we have something for you at the end. We have made a questionnaire in order to identify, maybe to try to improve this set of services that we ask. We will, you will see at the end, and we are asking all of you to feel this. Thank you very much for your question. Any other questions or should we move to the next? If not. Okay. Now, Angelica will take the floor from you in Deza and she will give you a brief presentation of a very interesting, very useful, not interesting, very useful toolkit that we have designed and offered to everyone. It is publicly open and yeah, she will say more about that in a while, Angelica.

Angelica Zundel: Thank you, Dimitris. Hello, everyone. For those who don’t know me, my name is Angelica and I work as a consultant for UN. Let me quickly show you, so I’m just presenting first this QR code, which will give you access to our UN eGovKB city data page on which you can access your latest results for the biggest city in your country. So I’ll just give you a few seconds to scan this or insert the link and then I’ll just quickly show you what that looks like on the website. And of course, I can also link the paste, sorry, paste the link on the chat afterwards. So hopefully you can see, yes, you can see my screen. So this is the page you’ll land on. Again, this is for the city data of the latest UNIGOV survey, and you can find all the major cities. So let’s say I’m interested in Istanbul’s latest findings. You’ll land on this page, which will give you an overview of the LOCIE of 2024, comparing to the world leader, as well as the sub-region leader, which is Riyadh. And then you’ll find more granular data on each of the sub-components of the LOCIE. And this is especially useful for you to understand where your strengths and where your weaknesses are. So in this case, if I were Istanbul, I would understand that technology and e-participation perhaps are two of the sub-components that I’d need to work on more, particularly in order to improve my LOCIE performance. Now with this sort of knowledge in mind, we encourage you to then check out our local e-government toolkit, which again, you can access here through this QR code or the link. Just giving you a few seconds to scan that, but again, I’ll share that again on the chat and also by email. So it’s especially useful to use in complement to what you just saw on the city data page, because the local e-government toolkit is essentially structured around the LOCIE and the six sub-components. Each module sorry, I hope you can hear me, is based on these sub-components. And so from what I saw as Istanbul, I would, let’s say, be interested in the technology sub-components. So I’ll click here and then I’ll land on a slide deck, which will give me information on which indicators are. assessed in this subcomponent as per the latest 2024 survey. So here’s an index of all the different indicators, just to give you an overview. And then let’s say I’m interested in what exactly that consists of. So what does that mean? I’ll click on the slide. And then each slide, which essentially looks the same here, it has the same structure. But for each indicator, it’ll give you an explanation of what that is exactly, why is it important, and then a generic kind of guide on how to implement those in your local government portal, as well as a case study or a guide for each indicator. So I’ll keep it short, because we have other presentations. But this is just a little preview for you to know how to use this toolkit, as well as the city data page, to really ensure that you can improve your LOC performance. So back to, I think, the main slides. Or rather, I think we’ll proceed with the fourth presentation. And if you have any questions, feel free to put them in the chat or email me. Thank you.

Dimitrios Sarantis: Thank you, Angelica. So yes, please have a look at the toolkit. You will find it very useful. So now we move to the second section that is named Local Government, Present and Future. So here, we have speakers from countries that have not applied yet LOGi methodology, but I think they are most of them in this track. So the first speaker is from Saudi Arabia, Abdulaziz Zakri from DGA. And he will present us a few things to show us why DGA, why Saudi Arabia and Riyadh have made such a great improvement in the government recently. Abdulaziz, the floor is yours.

Abdulaziz Zakri: Thank you, Dimitris. We are very happy to have you here today in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Arabia and it’s my pleasure to be here among this audience and it’s really honored today to speak about Riyadh’s achievement in becoming one of the top three cities globally in local online services and as a matter of fact to achieve this status Riyadh has worked in three driving factors that set it apart. The first factor is Vision 2030 and by improving the quality of life and enhancing the quality of a government services and boosting the digital economy as well as encouraging the digital innovation. The second factor is the digital government strategy with its five pillars. We speak here about satisfied citizen and enabled businesses, effective government, efficient investment and regulated ecosystem. Third factor is third factor is of course is important Riyadh needs is about service delivery, citizen empowerment and inclusion and we make sure that no one left behind and lastly daily life improvement. All of them are driven by SDG which is sustainable development goals. Here let’s look very quickly at the four foundational pillars of Riyadh digital transformation strategy. Starting with empowering businesses, prioritizing beneficiaries and encouraging active participation and harnessing emerging technology. Together those principles or pillars have propelled Riyadh as innovative and interconnected hub or urban hub where different system services and people are seamlessly connected. This is a very important part as the Digital Government Authority and Riyadh Municipality have collaborated extensively to implement the LUCI assessment framework and this relation between Digital Government Authority and Riyadh, I would say, has driven the alignment of municipal services with the global standards as well as enhance the digital processes and integration or integrated innovative technologies. And this relation lead to strengthen Riyadh today as we are positioning as a top global performer today in a government. And we decided to expand this successful journey with other major cities in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia like Mecca, Jeddah, Medina, Dammam. And this is not only because the successful story of Riyadh. Also, it is part of the plan of the Saudi authorities for the project called Saudi or city, smart city in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to be implemented for 10 cities across the country. And it is the first stage for this plan. And yes, and we believe that we are delivering because we have all success factors to achieve it. Here, an example for a municipal service for Riyadh and this is part of the success use cases of Riyadh which is MyCity. MyCity is an online application. It provides Riyadh citizen and resident access to essential services, also enabling community participating in improving the urban landscape of the city. One of the services is called snap and send, and this is about if you want to fix your street, or there is a light in the street is broken, or anything will affect any issue related visual appeal, you just have to take a picture and you send it, and you have surface level agreement with agreed time to have the respond to any issue that you have it around you or any location in Riyadh city. And we also have a valid platform is not only application, it provide service through the web. It is a data driven platform in a national scale, serving all municipalities in Saudi Arabia, including Riyadh. And this is also a good example for collaboration between Ministry of Municipal and Housing, and also Riyadh city, and as well as DGA to deliver the best quality of the services. Riyadh also has or provides GIS information to support Riyadh and users to take a decision based on the information. For example, if you have a business, you’d like to build this business, you can choose your location. And also you would like to buy a house and you can understand from this information how to make the decision. And also we place a participation and public engagement as a priority in our decision making. It is by law, every policy also, and every legislation has to be announced to the public and to receive their feedback before we make the decision and take it into the action. And this guarantee that public participation in policymaking is 100% is happening by cooperating with the stakeholders and partners of the city. On the other hand, most decisions related to Riyadh are being taken through consulting people and the service design. by this consultation and reflect to improve this quality of services. Sorry. Sorry for the confusion. And on the other hand, most decisions related to Riyadh are being taken through consulting people and services designed to improve by co-creation activity to ensure users’ satisfaction and service efficiency. And of course, if you would like to report any issue or complain through Riyadh City, we have these services and also we are offering open data for public to use it and make success case from data for Riyadh. This is the last part and one of the most slide I like about Riyadh. As you can see here, some of the Giga project in Riyadh. We can speak about like Green Riyadh Project and King Salman Bar. We can see at the Riyadh Development Program. And if we speak briefly about two projects, let’s start with the Green Riyadh Project. It’s about transforming the city with a million of trees and to have a cleaner air and sustainable space for healthier and greener future. Also, as you can see, King Salman Bar Project is one of the largest urban parks in the world. And it’s all about green spaces and cultural hubs and recreation to create vibrant and thriving of Riyadh. I will end my topic today with this slide and thank you very much for your attention. Thank you.

Dimitrios Sarantis: Thank you very much, Abdulaziz, for your excellent presentation. And thank you because you showed us, you gave us a flavor. some ideas why Riyadh and Saudi have made this great progress in e-government, because you showed us real practical life applications that serve the citizen in real life. So, and also what I identified, collected from your presentation, this is this example that the success of local government in Riyadh will not stop here, but will work as a model to be expanded in the rest of the cities in Saudi. And maybe this is a pattern that can be followed also in other cases. So, thank you very much. And let’s move to the next speaker who comes from United Arab Emirates, Manel Al-Affad from Telecommunications and Digital Government Regulatory Authority. The floor is yours.

Manal Al Afad: Thank you, Demetrius. First of all, I would like to thank you and DISA and UNU for this opportunity to be part of this distinguished panel and distinguished workshop. And thank you for King Saudi Arabia for hosting this fabulous event. For me, it’s the first time to attend the IGF, and really, it’s my pleasure. This is Manel Al-Affad. I am from United Arab Emirates. I’m a digital government and open government expert. I’m leading the UAE competitiveness profile. I’m here today to present for you the UAE story with regard to implementing Lucy unofficially and some other instruments. UAE commitment to digital transformation, actually, it’s a fundamental on the way UAE The fourth pillar, which is forward ecosystem, consists of the digital transformation and providing the most prestigious interactive proactive service for the whole community in the UAE. We have four pillars under this strategy. First of all, forward society, forward economy, forward diplomacy, and forward ecosystem, which is the main pillar we are talking about. Okay, what does the citizen need? All of us here are citizens, either expat or local, either a tourist or maybe from outside the country. All of us seek for a service, all of us want to know, want to get a service. So here in UAE, we are focusing on leveraging advanced technology, fostering seamless interaction between government and society, ensuring equitable access to essential service, whatever user is. So it is digital service, yes, but we need to reach for a person who cannot use digital tools. We need to go to him and provide him a service. Okay, how to assess the local e-government in the UAE? Actually, we are using two instruments, two tools. One of it is with which is Lucy methodology, we are implementing on seven emirates. And the second one, which is the UAE digital maturity model, which is built using a best practice model. One of this model is the UN e-survey and the Lucy methodology, which is built on the DNA of this digital maturity model, which consists of three pillars, leadership and policy, technology accelerators, organizations and data. You can see here this key framework implemented on seven local. emirates or d govs and 14 federal entities 14 federal entities which is the main sectors here providing service for community and it is assessed each two year each two year we are assessing this maturity model last year was the baseline and you can access it online of course what if what is we done for the world we are cooperating with bsi and providing and transferring this digital maturity to a pass standard which is passed 2009 2024 alhamdulillah we released this pass in cooperation with british standard institution on february which is digital maturity for government organization it is a guideline for any digital government or organization all over the world to for strategic integration of technology for efficient service deliver and for applicability globally so this is standard available for anyone they can download it from bsi you can download it from bsi website okay i would like to present from this platform abu dhabi case where is it’s providing the government service system which which is a super app for providing a digital service for the community its name or branded tem which is in english done okay this platform tem consists of more than 700 plus city services provided for the whole citizen across the abu dhabi emirates and even a tourist This application available you can check it online and you can check the website as well. It consists of 2 million users and more than 10 million digital government transactions annually. It consists with 221 women using a service only dedicated for women and 57,000 for elderly which is senior citizens and 99,000 young people using a service through this platform in Abu Dhabi, 15,000 for people with determination using a service specified for this category and this application or this super app super platform saved 24,000 24 million 300 visits to customer including 1 million and 900 visit for elderly and 382,000 visit for people of determination. This was for 2023 data and now we have different data in Abu Dhabi platform. Actually Abu Dhabi platform super app one of the success story on a local level it is now an organization it’s transferred to an organization with a director general with a factory to produce a service on a local level in cooperation with the whole organization under Abu Dhabi digital government. And here I would like to thank you all for hearing me I hope that it was not long and I will be happy to receive any question.

Dimitrios Sarantis: Thank you and and yeah you mentioned it’s not a question just a comment you mentioned that you do regularly assessment in UAE so every two years so maybe this explains or is an one of the explanation why UAE is well ahead regarding digital government. So you assess and then you improve things. Let’s move and we will have maybe the time at the end for questions. Next speaker is Yin Huatli from Cambodia, from Monitoring and Evaluation Department. Please, the floor is yours.

Yin Huotely: Thank you so much. Good morning, everyone. First of all, I would like to thank to the organiser, especially to Dimitris for giving me the opportunity to join such a wonderful event. This is my first time to join ITS forum here. My name is Ellie. I’m from the Digital Government Committee, Ministry of Post and Telecommunication of Cambodia. I’m in charge of M&E department. I’m very amazing of the presentation of Saudi Arabia and also UAE because here I am just give the overview of the local e-government in Cambodia because we are quite young and also we may be left behind the UAE and then Saudi Arabia. We come here to seek for the recommendation and also for the cooperation from the UNDESA and UNGOV for the cooperation for the fusion cooperation. Thank you. I have a short presentation here. Just before we go deep to the local service that provided by the local government to the local citizens, I just give the overview of the… e-government in Cambodia. We start the e-government project in 2002. This e-government project is under the financial and technical support from the Republic of Korea. The first e-government project in Cambodia, we call GAI, Government and Resilient Information System. We have the five core information systems in here. FEC, real estate information system, electronic approval system, resident information system, and also the B Corp registration information system and the connectivity. In this period, the support of the project is very large in five years. At that time, the e-government was implemented by involving all the 27 line ministries, but only one implementer. At this time, we can say that the issues of ownership is a big ownership problem. When the project ends, some of the core projects are no longer used and will move to the expertise line ministries, such as, for example, the real estate information system. They move to the Ministry of Land Management and Planning by using the LMAB. Also, for the electronic approval system, this system is no longer used. Right now, the MPTC, Ministry of Post and Telecommunications, are using the document workflow. This is for internal use only. For the resident information system, they have to move to the Ministry of Interior. At that time, from the period of their moving, they are also implementing a new system by their own. Also the vehicle information system moved to the Ministry of Public Work and Transportation and also they implement their own system too. And during the period of 2010 to 2020, yeah, the ownership issues is solved, but the lime district began to implement their own system. So the increase of silo system and also the interoperability issues also occur at that time. From 2020, here to solve the problem, Royal Government of Cambodia worked on the two policy frameworks we call Digital Society and Economy Policy Framework and also the Digital Government Policy Framework. And at that time, yeah, at that time, the four core DPI, digital platform for the core government, four digital platform, we established by the, recognized by the government and we use it as the central, the interoperability platform. The first is we call Verify Digital Authentication, verify.gov.kh and this is the government platform that can also write all the government issues document and with the standard QR code and this system is using the blockchain technology and very accurate, yeah. Right now, we We have more than 600,000 certificates that are using the Verify platform. Also, we have another digital platform called CAMDX, it’s for data exchange. This provides to register the business online registration. This platform interoperates between the line ministries that are involved with the business registration together, so the user can use only one platform in order to register their online business. Also, we have a digital payment called Bakong. Citizens can transfer money from one bank to another bank very easily. Right now, no charge. Also, the digital ID. Here is the current status of the digital government of Cambodia. This is the source I got from the digital government policy. As I mentioned, the role of ministries and institutes, they have developed their own public system. No interconnected, so the lack of information sharing from a ministry to another ministry is very left behind. Also, for the services from the government to the citizens and the services from the government to the business, the citizens can go to only one office called One Window Service Office. This One Window Service Office connects to all the line ministries that provide the public service to the citizens. and the business. Right now, the one-window service office is provided more than 1,000 service to the citizen. The one-window service office is operating countrywide. In all the country, they have one-window service. And also, yeah. And in this year, in 2024, there’s a pilot test to deploy 114 services fully online for the four sectors, agriculture, handicraft, tourism, culture, and fine arts to the Phnom Penh, in the Phnom Penh, the capital city of Cambodia, and to some districts that have fully set up infrastructure. Yeah. This is the key challenge for improving the local service in Cambodia. The first is limited access of internet access. This is what we call the connectivity. We still have a problem with the internet access, especially in the urban area. And also, some internet quality in the Phnom Penh, the main city of Cambodia, also has some part. Also, the quality of internet also has a problem. And at that time, yeah, we got the Ministry of Post and Telecommunication, and also the Telecommunication Directorate of Cambodia take action on this. They build more internet. and also have the internet speed test app in order to give the local citizens to report the internet quality to the regulator office here. And also the law of digital literacy, this is very crucial part for improving the local government in Cambodia to be fully online because the citizens are lack of basic digital skill and also the limited digital capacity of the one-window service officer also. Sorry, Ian, I’m sorry, I’m going to have to ask you to summarize because we have two more presentations and a very, very long time, so please summarize. Thank you so much. Okay, thank you. So this time, the Minister of Post and Telecommunications also worked with UNESCO to work on, to put on the digital media and information literacy framework and for further action according to the activity that mentioned in the framework. And also the resource size of cybersecurity and teleoperability that I mentioned in the report and resistant chain. And thank you so much.

Dimitrios Sarantis: Thank you very much for the presentation and the full picture of a government infrastructure that you have in Cambodia. And as you requested and asked before, we are here to help you. So whatever you need in regarding national level assessment or local government assessment, we are here when you ask us to provide any guidance in these areas. And of course, you are welcome to Losi Network where you can find a lot of support. Moving forward, the next speaker is Vanama Phommathani from Laos, from Digital Government Centre, Ministry of Technology and Communications. Please, the floor is yours.

Vannapha Phommathansy: Yeah, good afternoon. My name is Vanama Phommathani from Digital Government Centre. Government Centers of Lao PDR. I’m the second to last speaker. I’m trying to be quick. However, I can’t even turn on. I think the slide was not there yet. Okay. Okay. So, I will just keep presenting first. So, Lao PDR is a small landlocked and also least developing country. We are in one of the ASEAN countries. Okay. Maybe I’m going to go back to the start. All right. So, in 2024, the released UN e-government index, our indicator was 152. We did a lot, improved a little bit, but then there is still a lot to catch up, even comparing to our neighboring country like CLMB. So, the government, we also realize the importance of digital transformation where we define three key pillars. One is digital government, digital economy, and the third one is digital society. We are actually the late adopter, and we are actually the newcomer in terms of digital transformation. So, in 2022, with the help of UN, United Nations, UNDP, we conducted the country-level digital majority assessment. I think that many indicators, we also look into LOSI, we look into the UN e-government index. So, we assess into six key pillars. So, out of the five metrics, we are in the nascent stage. The overall country only scored 1.7, the ministry levels 1.8, and the provincial level is 1.3. So, when we talk about the local online service index, it’s going to fall under the provincial level, where we have 18 provinces and 142 districts. So, at the province level, we still have a lot of things to improve, especially the interconnectivity, the languages, and the local content, and also the digital skills and the quality. of the services. So the challenges for Laos PDR, I think we share very similar challenges with other countries and also the participants at the panels. So the limited digital infrastructure, silo system, legacy processes, low digital literacy, also funding resources, as Laos is the, we call it the least developing country in our, we have mountainous area, a lot of development and infrastructure need to be made that use a lot of investment. And also we have low user adoption, as most of the people are still, you know, having difficult buying the smartphone or getting the laptop or even go online. And the language and also cultural barriers where most of the content have to be available in English, so Laotian language was not on the map. And also the regulatory enforcement is also a challenge. So what we help the local government is that we create this government website platform, so that most of the city and municipality, they don’t have their own platform, they don’t have the portal. So we can help them, zero code, they can just come in and adopt this and they can use this platform, just plug and play. And the second one is we have in Laos portal, we want to gather all the portal of all the government, both at the local and also central. And we also have the government, we call it a super application, we call it GovX, we also onboarding services from line ministry, but we also have to work with the local government to include their services, including like the bus tracking, postal tracking, electronic document tracking and the form. And digital ID will probably be the next step that we have to

Yin Huotely: take on in order for us to do the verification and also to process the electronic transaction. So at the city level, we have the, we call it on one door service centers, but it’s now considered as a hybrid model. So all the transaction has to still go to physically, but at least the citizen can access to information with the application where they know what kind of licenses they need and how much for the application fees and how long it will take. But however, the electronic transaction and the digital payment is not available yet. So the future plan, we also hope to take the LOCE, and so UN Economic Index, and map it into our local digital government index. And we also want to access the local government every two years. I think start from January, we wanted to do some dissemination and also the consultation with our local government. So the question is, is LAO ready for LOCE? LOCE is very interesting and it’s very good to keep, however, I think having to improve our understanding on also having to, because at the end of the day, if we assess ourselves, it’s going to be all no, there will be no point. So I think having to build the infrastructure, having people digitally distribute, and also having the city to onboard their services and online and make it able to do transaction online. That will be, I think, the first step. And the second step, we also will take a look into LOCE and mapping ourselves and get ourselves on board. So with that, I think I have no more time. So thank you so much.

Dimitrios Sarantis: Thank you very much for the presentation. This is how LOCE can be used as the, also, it was the comment of a Korean partner, Korean colleague here, that it can be used as a guide to the country. What should we implement at least in an initial level, and then you can move forward to them. Also you identified some challenges, low digital literacy, funding scarcity, lack of specialized human resources, which are common findings in countries that show low. And you also gave… I remember well you use a centrally provided platform as a solution to local government, so this is a kind of solution to the resources. Anyway we should move, thank you very much, we should move to the last speaker which is online. So we welcome Professor Naveen Makrab from Sadat Academy for Management Science in Egypt. Naveen the floor is yours. You should unmute maybe. Can’t hear you Naveen. Unmute please. Still can’t hear you. She’s not muted but I think it’s on her side. Naveen can you check your sound please? There’s something. Seconds. Ah there we go. Can you hear me right now? Yes.

Nevine Makram Labib Eskaros: Okay it was synchronized with my mobile phone. So let me thank you for your very kind invitation, really happy to be amongst all of these eminent experts in the domain. I’ll be sharing my presentation with some insights about how to make use of AI in assessing the government services, especially that in Egypt we’re very keen and very much interested in aligning the AI strategy with all of the other strategies and plans to assess our services. So where is the presentation? I’m sharing my presentation so is it clear? Yes can you just click on present it’s on the lower menu. Exactly yes perfect thank you. So I’m the chair of computer information. Information Systems Department in Sadat Academy for Management Sciences, and I’m also the vice president of ISIS Act, which is the Egyptian Society for Information Systems and Computer Technology. My main specialization is medical informatics, so I also work on the board of our Ministry of Health and Population. I thought that it would be very useful to make use of all of the artificial intelligence technologies in this very important assessment. So by AI, of course, we’re not talking only about artificial intelligence, but also about the machine learning, how to feed the machine with all of the data so as to take some prediction and some patterns into consideration whenever it comes to policymaking or decision making, and also the deep learning and finally the generative AI. All of these, as we all know, are aligned with the achievement of all of the SDGs. So why have I suggested this framework? It’s because now we’re in the stage of working on the second phase of our AI strategy in Egypt, and we’re kind of redesigning the electronic services provided to citizens. So I thought that it would be more useful and more beneficial to all of us to see if we can make use of all of these technologies. My proposed framework so as to leverage AI in order to provide better assessment of the government e-services is composed of these five stages, how we’re going to collect and prepare and pre-process the data. I developed a very simple AI model. I included some assessment criteria. And I highlighted the AI-powered assessment, what would AI help and aid here, and finally how we can work on the continuous improvement. Regarding the data collection, we have many data sources. The important ones are coming from government websites, mobile applications, some social media platforms now associated to all of the ministries, the user feedback forms, and some performance metrics. As for the data extraction, I focused on the text mining because with text mining techniques we’re able to extract information from all of the unstructured text such as the user reviews, especially that we also have a system for the complaints of any citizen regarding any service. So it’s kind of a central system that collects all of the complaints and that deals with all of these complaints. Regarding the data cleaning and pre-processing, of course we do some pre-processing of the data before feeding it into the system or the framework here, and we aim here at removing any noise, any inconsistency. We also try to handle the missing values with many well-known technologies related to AI, and finally we have good data so as to be able to feed it into our system. Regarding the AI model development proposed here, I added the with natural language processing we can assess the sentiment and we can analyze the sentiment of the citizens which is very very important in assessing the user satisfaction. We also apply the text classification so as to be able to categorize the user feedback and identify any common issue. We also work on the topic modeling so as to be able to discover any underlying themes in user feedback, which is again very important. I also suggested to apply supervised and unsupervised machine learning for the supervised we make use of the classification. So as to be able to predict the service performance metrics with the unsupervised we’re aiming at identifying patterns and anomalies. And finally, I thought about applying deep learning techniques, especially the artificial neural networks techniques, so as to be able to help with the prediction. The benefits of the AI powered assessments lies in these four points. First of all, we’ll be able to have an automated monitoring system, which will help to identify any problems that arose at any time. It’s kind of real time system. We’re also being able to apply both the predictive and the prescriptive analytics. In our country nowadays, we’re applying what we call the data driven decision making. So we make use of the data analytics framework. And we’re keen about having some prediction to help whenever it comes to policy making, especially in our two priorities, whether we’re talking healthcare or education, and of course, the citizen satisfaction. And finally, we have the continuous improvement, which is an advantage of being able to apply the AI here. When I proposed this framework, and I was thinking how we’re going to implement it, I thought that we will be faced with many ethical considerations, like the data privacy, which is a problem, or let’s say a challenge with all of the data protection laws and regulations, and how to make sure that the AI system that will be developed based on this framework, how this will help without posing any threat or any problem to humans, especially that in Egypt, we’re focusing nowadays on the responsible AI. We have the National Council of Artificial Intelligence that started in November 2019 and in 2023, we had developed a charter for responsible AI, which has many pillars and it’s trying to make sure that any of the AI systems developed in Egypt or used in Egypt should be aligned with our cultural aspects, our values, and making sure that it is for the benefit of humans, not posing any threats. Regarding the assessment criteria, since we’re talking AI, I thought about, yes, yes, okay. That’s kind of the last slide, if you allow me. So here we have the assessment, the usability, the accessibility, and the efficiency. I also added here a proposed roadmap if we are to implement this framework. So we should focus on having data repositories, on having national centers so as to be able to integrate these data, and on developing and deploying solutions. And a main challenge for us in Egypt is the update of the regulations and policies and to ensure the technology trends. Final words. Thank you. By applying this, we can improve citizen satisfaction. Thank you very much.

Dimitrios Sarantis: Thank you very much, Nevene, for the presentation. You introduced the AI perspective in local government. It is the future in local government. So thank you very much. I don’t know if there is only one question or not. Okay. We ran out of time, unfortunately. So is there any question? Yes, if you have one question, you can…

Audience: If there is time I will try to be very brief because it is an issue that I think comes every time we talk about local government and national things are connected. One of the main difficulties that we realize when conducting these assessments and when working with government at local level is how can and how are government at the local level aligning things with what is defined at the national level. Because we know that most of the countries are more, it is not for all, but most of them are more developed and more mature at the national level. They have strategies, many different strategies, many roadmaps, many action plans, etc. They have also many platforms, but at local level usually things are not so developed. All of you that are working at the local level and also all of you that have responsibilities at the national level, how are you interacting and discussing and aligning things and reusing things? This connects with the presentation that we attended from Saudi Arabia, where from what I could have understood, there is a strong linkage between the DGA that acts mainly, I think, if I’m not wrong, at the national level and what happened in Riyadh. Maybe it is also related to that, that we have this position, Riyadh is also our position in the ranking, because this has been, based on the experiences that we hear from many different responsibles for ICT at local level, one of the biggest difficulties and challenges that is how to align things, particularly when this connects with the lack of resources at the local level. So this is a discussion that I would like, if we have time, to hear and to hear from you, to see how this alignment, if it exists or not, and what is hindering this kind of alignment, and if it is or not relevant. This is just one point.

Dimitrios Sarantis: Thank you, Delfina. Yes, if you have any comment on that, on this alignment between different levels of government in Saudi, which I think it exists.

Abdulaziz Zakri: All right. I believe we have a very strong governance framework, an operational model that supports this achievement, because we have a steering committee that supports the international indices. We have a digital transformation committee. We have a technical committee. And Riyadh is part of the steering committee for EGDI that is led by a digital government authority. This committee has more than 25 entities that they are meeting regularly, and we are checking and evaluating and monitoring the KPIs that we have built. And also we do bi-weekly meetings and workshops. I’m talking generally, including Riyadh. We have done more than 500 workshops, and we have a regular assessment that we are working closely with Riyadh, and we make sure that they are aligning and complying with the Lucy framework. And we also use the whole government approach, that all governments are working together. And I would say the framework and the business model that we are working on is the main factors that make us achieve this level.

Dimitrios Sarantis: Thank you, Abdulaziz. the alignment mechanism works properly in the Saudi. This is maybe the secret behind the success. Thank you. So here we have also…

Abdulaziz Zakri: We have a very good colleagues at DGA that we are working for delivering and we love the country and they provide all driving factors or successful factors and we say always why we don’t deliver it and we feel that from DGA because I saw my colleagues from Ministry of Interior we are really working together and I would like to thank him also because he’s attending today the session and we really feel that all government entities are working for one goal. Thank you.

Dimitrios Sarantis: Thank you very much. Okay so now going at the end we have a questionnaire for you for all participants to fill where we can try to collect to identify which services are provided in local government level in each city that you are a resident. So please fill it because it gives us a good insight, good information regarding the services provided in local level in each area of the world. And closing now so just very briefly by bullet some key takeaways from this workshop. Alignment in different levels of government, national, local, state level and a cooperation mechanism is a must. We identify also a gap applying assessment methods in local government so consequently governments and decision makers do not have a clear picture of the status regarding local government development in their countries. There are some challenges identified by speakers, low digital literacy, funding scarcity and lack of specialized human resources that are common findings in slow level development countries regarding local government. And also, I think that we should also reconsider the innovation thinking in local government. We should raise the bar from what our expectations are, iterate, pilot, to be more forgiving. Innovation sometimes means failure, so we have to get comfortable with that. You need to move fast, learn, and forgive. So we need to try more regarding innovation in local government. So with this one, closing the session, I would like to thank my colleagues in UNUIGOV who critically helped to design and develop our unit, Professor Delfina Soares, our research coordinator Morten Meijerhoff, Zoran Zordanovsky, and of course our co-organisers Ewin Deza, Vincenzo Acquaro, Denis Huzar, and Angelica Arzuntel. Last but not least, I would like to thank our host country, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and its people for their exceptional hospitality. Your warm welcome, attentiveness, and support were invaluable and are greatly appreciated. Thank you very much, all of you.

Agreement Points

LOSI is a valuable tool for assessing and improving local e-government services

Mehdi Limam

Gayatri Doctor

Dimitrios Sarantis

LOSI helps identify weaknesses and benchmark digital maturity

India identified gaps in online services and challenges with distributed portals

LOSI can guide countries on what to implement at initial levels

Multiple speakers agreed that LOSI is an effective tool for evaluating and enhancing local e-government services, helping to identify areas for improvement and providing benchmarks for digital maturity.

Challenges in implementing e-government services at local level

Ayman Alarabiat

Yin Huotely

Vannapha Phommathansy

Jordan faced challenges with awareness, resources, and resistance to change

Cambodia is working to improve connectivity and digital literacy

Laos is in early stages and faces infrastructure and adoption challenges

Several speakers highlighted common challenges in implementing e-government services at the local level, including limited resources, low digital literacy, and infrastructure issues.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the importance of structured frameworks and models for assessing and aligning e-government efforts at national and local levels.

Abdulaziz Zakri

Manal Al Afad

Saudi Arabia aligned national and local efforts through governance frameworks

UAE uses a digital maturity model to assess local governments

Unexpected Consensus

Need for collaboration and knowledge sharing in LOSI implementation

Mehdi Limam

Gayatri Doctor

Dimitrios Sarantis

Expanding LOSI network and refining methodology can address barriers

India identified gaps in online services and challenges with distributed portals

LOSI can guide countries on what to implement at initial levels

Despite representing countries at different stages of e-government development, these speakers all emphasized the importance of collaboration and knowledge sharing in implementing LOSI, suggesting a shared recognition of its value across diverse contexts.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement included the value of LOSI as an assessment tool, common challenges in implementing e-government services at the local level, and the importance of structured frameworks for aligning national and local efforts.

Consensus level

There was a moderate level of consensus among speakers, particularly on the challenges faced and the potential benefits of LOSI. This consensus suggests a shared understanding of the importance of local e-government development and the need for standardized assessment tools, which could facilitate more targeted and effective improvements in local e-government services globally.

Different Viewpoints

Unexpected Differences

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement were related to the specific challenges and approaches in implementing LOSI across different countries, reflecting varying levels of digital maturity and local contexts.

difference_level

The level of disagreement was relatively low, with most speakers focusing on their own country’s experiences rather than directly contradicting each other. This suggests that LOSI implementation is highly context-dependent, and strategies need to be tailored to each country’s specific needs and challenges.

Partial Agreements

Both speakers agreed on the need for improving digital infrastructure and literacy, but their approaches and specific challenges differed based on their countries’ contexts.

Yin Huotely

Vannapha Phommathansy

Cambodia is working to improve connectivity and digital literacy

Laos is in early stages and faces infrastructure and adoption challenges

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the importance of structured frameworks and models for assessing and aligning e-government efforts at national and local levels.

Abdulaziz Zakri

Manal Al Afad

Saudi Arabia aligned national and local efforts through governance frameworks

UAE uses a digital maturity model to assess local governments

Key Takeaways

LOSI (Local Online Service Index) is a valuable tool for assessing and improving local e-government services

Many countries face common challenges in implementing LOSI, including limited resources, low digital literacy, and resistance to change

Alignment between national and local e-government efforts is crucial for success

AI and other emerging technologies offer potential for improving e-government assessment and service delivery

Regular assessment and benchmarking helps drive continuous improvement in local e-government

Resolutions and Action Items

Expand the LOSI network to include more partner countries

Refine the LOSI methodology to address challenges identified by implementing countries

Encourage use of the UN Local Government Toolkit to support LOSI implementation

Conduct regular (e.g. biannual) assessments of local e-government in partner countries

Unresolved Issues

How to standardize assessment of services across countries with different government structures and service provision models

How to effectively engage policymakers in using LOSI results

How to address resource constraints, especially in developing countries

How to balance standardized assessment with country-specific needs and contexts

Suggested Compromises

Use centrally-provided platforms to support local governments with limited resources

Allow some flexibility in LOSI indicators to account for country-specific service provision models

Leverage partnerships and knowledge sharing between more and less advanced countries in e-government

We have identified clearly this problem. This is one of the basic problems that we face, designing the indicators specifically for the services criterion. Because our colleague here identifies this problem that not all cities in the world provide the same services and are authorised from the government to provide the same services in local level.

speaker

Dimitrios Sarantis

reason

This comment acknowledges a fundamental challenge in assessing local e-government services globally, highlighting the complexity of creating standardized metrics across diverse governance structures.

impact

It sparked discussion on how to adapt assessment tools to different local contexts and led to consideration of more flexible approaches like the LOSI Network.

We decided to expand this successful journey with other major cities in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia like Mecca, Jeddah, Medina, Dammam. And this is not only because the successful story of Riyadh. Also, it is part of the plan of the Saudi authorities for the project called Saudi or city, smart city in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to be implemented for 10 cities across the country.

speaker

Abdulaziz Zakri

reason

This comment illustrates how success in one city (Riyadh) can be leveraged to drive digital transformation across an entire country, showcasing a strategic approach to scaling e-government initiatives.

impact

It shifted the discussion towards the importance of national-level planning and coordination in local e-government development, prompting questions about alignment between different levels of government.

I thought that it would be more useful and more beneficial to all of us to see if we can make use of all of these technologies. My proposed framework so as to leverage AI in order to provide better assessment of the government e-services is composed of these five stages…

speaker

Nevine Makram Labib Eskaros

reason

This comment introduced a novel perspective on using AI for assessing e-government services, demonstrating how cutting-edge technology could be applied to improve evaluation methodologies.

impact

It broadened the scope of the discussion to include future technological developments in e-government assessment and raised important considerations about data privacy and ethical AI use in government.

One of the main difficulties that we realize when conducting these assessments and when working with government at the local level is how can and how are government at the local level aligning things with what is defined at the national level.

speaker

Audience member (Delfina)

reason

This comment highlighted a critical challenge in e-government implementation – the alignment between national strategies and local execution, which is often overlooked in discussions focused solely on technology.

impact

It prompted a deeper exploration of governance structures and coordination mechanisms between different levels of government, leading to insights about successful models like Saudi Arabia’s approach.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by highlighting the complexities of assessing and implementing e-government services at the local level. They moved the conversation from a focus on specific tools and metrics to broader considerations of governance structures, national-local alignment, and the potential of emerging technologies like AI. The discussion evolved to emphasize the importance of flexible, context-aware approaches to e-government assessment and implementation, while also exploring how successful models can be scaled and adapted across different settings.

How to address the challenge of different organizational structures and service provision models across cities and countries when applying LOSI?

speaker

Dimitrios Sarantis and Young-Hwan Jin

explanation

This is a recurring challenge in applying LOSI across different contexts, affecting the comparability and applicability of the assessment.

How can countries effectively implement LOSI and leverage its results for improving local e-government?

speaker

Mehdi Limam

explanation

Understanding best practices for LOSI implementation and utilization can help countries maximize the benefits of the assessment.

What are effective strategies for engaging policymakers and ensuring methodology adoption at the local level?

speaker

Mehdi Limam

explanation

Overcoming resistance to change and ensuring buy-in from local governments is crucial for the success of LOSI assessments and improvements.

How can the LOSI methodology be improved to better accommodate the varying levels of digital development across different countries?

speaker

Yin Huotely

explanation

Adapting LOSI to be more relevant for countries at different stages of digital development could increase its usefulness and adoption.

What are the best practices for aligning local e-government initiatives with national digital strategies?

speaker

Delfina Soares

explanation

Understanding how to effectively coordinate between national and local levels of government is crucial for successful e-government implementation.

How can artificial intelligence be effectively and ethically integrated into local e-government assessment and improvement?

speaker

Nevine Makram Labib Eskaros

explanation

Exploring the potential of AI in e-government assessment could lead to more efficient and effective evaluation and improvement processes.

Summary

This panel discussion focused on the ethical use of AI in combating non-consensual intimate image (NCII) abuse. Experts from various organizations, including Meta, Digital Rights Foundation, and SWGFL, explored the potential benefits and risks of using AI in this context.

The panelists emphasized the importance of putting victims and survivors at the center of any technological solutions. They discussed the need for AI systems to be adapted to different cultural and legal contexts, as current models are often trained on Western data. The experts highlighted the potential of AI in detecting and preventing NCII abuse, but also stressed the importance of maintaining human oversight and easy reporting mechanisms for users.

Privacy concerns were a significant topic, with panelists noting the sensitive nature of the data involved and the need for transparency in how AI systems handle this information. The discussion touched on the challenges of balancing the use of AI for protection with respecting user autonomy and privacy.

The panel addressed the evolving nature of online harms, including the rise of deepfakes and synthetic content. They noted that while the images may be fake, the harm to victims is real and can have severe psychological impacts.

Accountability was another key theme, with panelists discussing the need for better collaboration between platforms, law enforcement, and NGOs to hold perpetrators accountable. The experts called for more research, investment in NGOs working in this space, and the development of ethical frameworks and governance structures for AI use in combating NCII abuse.

The discussion concluded with a call for a global effort to develop AI solutions focused on safeguarding users and creating robust guardrails to protect against misuse. The panelists emphasized the need for ongoing dialogue and collaboration among various stakeholders to address this complex issue effectively.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– The ethical challenges and potential benefits of using AI to combat non-consensual intimate image (NCII) abuse

– The importance of putting victims/survivors at the center when developing AI tools and policies

– The need for more transparency from tech companies on how they are using AI to address NCII

– The evolving nature of NCII abuse, including the rise of AI-generated deepfakes

– The gaps in legal frameworks and accountability measures for perpetrators of NCII

The overall purpose of the discussion was to explore how AI technology could be responsibly developed and deployed to help combat NCII abuse, while considering the ethical implications and potential risks.

The tone of the discussion was thoughtful and nuanced throughout. Panelists acknowledged both the potential benefits of AI in addressing NCII as well as the ethical concerns and need for caution. There was a sense of urgency about the issue, but also recognition of the complexity involved in developing effective solutions. The tone became slightly more urgent towards the end when discussing the need for better legal frameworks and accountability measures.

Speakers

– David Wright: CEO of UK charity SWGfL and Director UK Safer Internet Centre 

– Nighat Dad: Founder of Digital Rights Foundation, member of Meta Oversight Board, member of UN Secretary General’s AI High Level Advisory Board

– Karuna Nain: Online safety expert, former director of Global Safety at Facebook/Meta

– Sophie Mortimer: Manager of the Revenge Porn Helpline and Report Harmful Content Service at SWGFL

– Boris Radanovic: Head of Engagements and Partnerships at SWGFL

Additional speakers:

– Deepali Liberhan: Global Director of Safety Policy at Meta

– Niels Van Pamel: Policy Advisor, Child Focus Belgium

– Adnan A. Qadir: Senior Legal and Advocacy Advisor, SEED Foundation

The panel discussion on the ethical use of artificial intelligence (AI) in combating non-consensual intimate image (NCII) abuse brought together experts from Meta, Digital Rights Foundation, SWGFL, and the Revenge Porn Helpline. The conversation explored the potential benefits and risks of using AI in this context, highlighting the complex challenges faced by stakeholders in addressing this sensitive issue.

Ethical Considerations and AI Implementation

A central theme of the discussion was the need to prioritize victims and survivors when developing technological solutions. Sophie Mortimer of the Revenge Porn Helpline emphasized that victim privacy and consent must be at the forefront when using AI tools. The panel debated the terminology of “victims” versus “survivors,” acknowledging the importance of empowering language while recognizing the ongoing nature of the harm.

Karuna Nain and Deepali Liberhan outlined their company’s approach to AI and safety, highlighting the potential of AI in detecting and preventing NCII abuse. They noted that AI can help with the scale and speed of content moderation, but stressed that human oversight remains essential. Boris Radanovic from SWGFL used an analogy comparing the development of AI to the Wright brothers’ plane, emphasizing the need for continuous improvement and refinement.

Nighat Dad, founder of the Digital Rights Foundation, raised a crucial point about the cultural nuances that AI systems need to account for. She noted that current AI models are often trained on Western data and contexts, potentially limiting their effectiveness in other parts of world. This observation highlighted the need for more diverse and culturally sensitive AI development to ensure global applicability.

Evolving Nature of Online Harms and Victim Support

The panel addressed the rapidly changing landscape of online harms, including the rise of deepfakes and synthetic content. Nighat Dad pointed out that while the images may be fake, the harm to victims is real and can have severe psychological impacts. The discussion also revealed changing demographics of NCII victims, with an increasing number of cases targeting men and boys.

The crucial role of helplines in providing support and resources was highlighted, with Sophie Mortimer noting that case volumes for helplines are rising exponentially. David Wright mentioned on-device hashing tools like StopNCII.org as a means of empowering victims. Karuna Nain and Sophie Mortimer provided more details about StopNCII.org, explaining how it allows users to create digital fingerprints of their intimate images without uploading the actual content, helping to prevent their distribution on participating platforms.

Legal Challenges and Platform Accountability

The discussion revealed significant gaps in current legal frameworks for addressing NCII abuse. Panelists highlighted the challenges of prosecuting NCII cases and called for better collaboration between platforms and law enforcement agencies. They emphasized the need for more research, investment in NGOs working in this space, and the development of ethical frameworks and governance structures for AI use in combating NCII abuse.

Karuna Nain called for greater transparency from tech companies about how they are using AI to combat NCII. This sentiment was shared by other panelists, who emphasized the need for platforms to improve their reporting mechanisms and cooperation with law enforcement agencies.

Gender Dynamics and Cultural Considerations

Nighat Dad discussed the gender dynamics of NCII, highlighting how societal norms and cultural contexts can exacerbate the impact on victims, particularly women and girls in conservative societies. The panel acknowledged the need for AI systems and support services to be adaptable to different cultural contexts and sensitive to the unique challenges faced by victims from diverse backgrounds.

Conclusion and Future Directions

The discussion concluded with a call for a global effort to develop AI solutions focused on safeguarding users and creating robust guardrails to protect against misuse. Key takeaways included:

1. The potential of AI to help combat NCII when implemented ethically with human oversight

2. The importance of prioritizing victim privacy, consent, and empowerment

3. The need for improved transparency from platforms and better collaboration with law enforcement

4. The crucial role of helplines and victim support services

5. The importance of adapting AI systems and support services to diverse cultural contexts

6. The need for continued research and investment in NGOs working on NCII issues

As the conversation progressed, it became clear that addressing NCII abuse requires a multifaceted approach involving technology, policy, and support services. The panelists’ insights underscored the complexity of the challenge and the need for continued research, adaptation, and collaboration to develop effective strategies in this rapidly evolving digital landscape.

David Wright: to this particular workshop that we’re having, looking at, or entitled, Bridging the Gaps, AI and Ethics in Combating NCII Abuse. And NCII abuse is around non-consensual, intimate image abuse, which is a subject that we’re going to be exploring over the course of this panel. I’m David Wright, I am CEO of a UK charity, SWGFL, and a director of the UK Safe Internet Centre. We will explore, and a couple of my colleagues are here, will explain some of the, more aspects of this, some of the things that we do, particularly the Revenge Porn Helpline, and also StopNCII.org. And so we will clearly cover some of those gaps. I’m joined, in terms of this panel conversation, by a number of very esteemed guests and panellists. And I’m going to introduce those to you, just to start with. And so, we’ve got a series of questions that we’ll be asking. And so, each of the panellists, and I’ll just, first of all, introduce Negat Dad, in the middle. So, Negat is from, a founder of the Digital Rights Foundation, and also a member of the Metta Oversight Board, as well as part of the UN Secretary General’s AI High Level Advisory Board. If I next turn to Karuna, who’s joining us online. So, Karuna is an online safety expert, with two decades of experience, in the intersection of online safety, policy, government affairs, and communications. She consults with tech companies and non-profits, on their strategy policies, and technology to make the internet safer. Karuna previously served as a director, Global Safety… at Facebook, Meta, where she spent nearly a decade working on issues of child online safety and well-being, women’s safety, and suicide prevention. At Meta, she partnered with SWGFL to launch StopNCI.org to help victims of non-consensual intimate image abuse. Prior to Facebook, Karuna worked at the U.S. Embassy in India, Ernst & Young, India’s first 24×7 news channel, New Delhi Television, and German broadcaster. Karuna is a graduate of St. Stephen’s College, University of Delhi, and has completed her post-graduate studies from Albert Ludwig’s University. So, welcome to Karuna. Also joined by Deepali, sitting next to me. So, Deepali Liberhan is Global Director of Safety Policy at Meta, and has been with Meta for over a decade. She leads a team of regional safety policy experts and works on policies, tools, partnerships, and regulation across core safety issues. Also joined by one of my colleagues, Sophie Mortimer, online from the UK, where it’s rather early. Thank you, Sophie. Sophie is Manager of the Revenge Born Helpline and also the Report Harmful Content Service at SWGFL. She coordinates a team of practitioners to support adults in the UK who have been affected by the sharing of intimate images without consent and other forms of online abuse and harms. As part of the StopNCI.org team, she works with NGOs around the world to support their understanding of StopNCI and the help it can give victims and survivors in their communities. The NGO network shares learning and best practice to ensure that StopNCI evolves as a proactive tool that works for everyone, wherever they are. And finally, if I turn on to my far right, is my colleague, Boris. Boris Radanovich is an expert in the field of online safety and currently serves as the Head of Engagements and Partnerships at SWGFL. the UK-based charity, which we’ve already talked about. He works with the UK Safe Internet Centre, which is part of the European InSafe Network, in educating and raising awareness about online safety for children, parents, teachers and other stakeholders across the world. Boris has worked extensively with various European countries, including Croatia, where he worked at the Safe Internet Centre there, and has been involved in numerous missions to countries like Belarus, Serbia, Montenegro, North Macedonia, and present online strategies, online safety strategies, to government officials and NGOs. His focus is on protecting children from online threats, such as cyberbullying, child sexual exploitation and scams, as well as empowering professionals through workshops and keynote speeches. One of the key contributions today includes leading online safety education efforts, where he emphasises the evolving risks in the digital world, such as grooming and intimate image abuse. His involvement with initiatives like StopNCI.org reflects his commitment to helping prevent non-consensual sharing of intimate images. Introductions complete. So what we’ve got, I’m just going to invite all the panellists just to give us a couple of minutes introduction, and then we’ve got a series of structured questions that will open to each of the panellists, and then to everyone in the room here, and also to those of you online as well. So we will be having a really in-depth conversation about this, and based on some of the conclusions from what you now can understand, it is a very esteemed panel in this particular subject. So if I can just, Nighat, if I can throw it over to you, just a two-minute introduction into this. Thank you.

Nighat Dad: Can you hear me? Okay. Yeah, no, thank you so much, David, for organising this panel. It’s a pity that we are doing this on the last day. It should have been on the first day, because many of us have been working on the issue of non-consensual intimate imagery and videos for the last several years, and not only working on the issue and addressing it, but also looking into solutions. Of course, the Helpline, Revenge Porn Helpline in the UK, and at Digital Rights Foundation in Pakistan, we also started a Helpline, Cyber Harassment Helpline, and we collaborate together on this as well. In 2016, we started this, and the main idea was basically to address online harms that young women and girls face in a country like Pakistan. And there’s so many cultural, contextual nuances that many a times platforms are unable to capture that, and that was the main reason that why… we started the helpline not only to address these complaints by young women and girls in the country, but also to give a clear picture to the platforms that how they can actually look into their products or mechanisms, reporting mechanisms, or remedies that they are providing to different users around the world. I think I’ll just say one thing and stop there, that over the years we have seen that online harms or violence against women, or tech-facilitated gender-based violence, now we have so many names of this, but non-consensual intimate imagery around the world has very different consequences in different jurisdictions. In many part of the world, it kind of limits itself to the online spaces, but in some jurisdictions it turns into offline harm against especially marginalized groups like young women and girls. And in last couple of years, I think the very concerning thing is how AI tools are easily accessible to bad actors where they are making deep fakes and synthetic histories of women, not only normal users, but also women in the public spaces, and verifying those deep fakes I think is a challenge, not only people who have been working on this issue, but for the law enforcement, and then you just look at the larger public who absolutely have no idea how to verify this, and they just believe what they see online. And I think this is the challenge that we all are facing at the moment. I’ll stop here.

David Wright: Nigat, thank you very much. Yes, a subject we will get into without any doubt. I’m next going to just throw it to Karuna who’s joining us online. Karuna, for just a couple of introduction. Thank you.

Karuna Nain: Thank you so much, David. I do want to give a shout out to you for organizing the discussion on this topic because I don’t think we’ve done enough work or had enough dialogue as to how the power of artificial intelligence can be used to actually prevent some of this distribution of intimate imagery or to deter perpetrators online. And lastly, from also to support victims, you know, we’ve heard time and time again as to how absolutely debilitating it can be to be in that moment where you know you are worried that your intimate images are going to be shared online or they have actually been shared online and you’ve just come to know, and there’s so much that we can do with artificial intelligence to support people in that moment to give them the opportunity to actually perpetrate themselves online. So I just want to give a shout out to you for organizing this very very important discussion and I’m looking forward to hearing what you know comes out of this workshop and the kind of the ideas that are generated as to how not just tech platform but nonprofits, such as Southwest group for learning and you know they got digital rights Foundation can actually leverage to be able to support people online.

David Wright: Thank you very much. Very kind. But yeah, as you say, let’s let’s try to harness some of the power about this rather than necessarily the some of the challenges that we always see as well. So thank you very much. Next we’ll turn to Deepali.

Deepali Liberhan: Thanks David and thank you, Karina I think that that was really very informative and I think that it was very clear that we have to be very, very careful when we think about safety and multi prong so we think about a couple of things when we’re thinking about safety, we think about do we have the right policies in place on what is okay and not okay to share on the platform, we have our tools and features to give users choice and control over what over what they’re seeing and to years to be able to address some of the work that we’ve been seeing. I just want to step back a little bit and talk about how currently StopNCII.org came to being when Meta heard loud and clear from a lot of our experts, a lot of our users, that NCII is a huge issue. And Karuna was actually one of the people who was working on this. And we were able to actually move beyond just being able to address this issue at a company level on our platforms and address it at a cross-industry level. So I think there is really a genuine place for industry and civil society to come together to address some of these harms in a very scalable way, something as important as non-consensual intermediary. And we’ve also to come together and try and understand, as Karuna put it, what is the ways that we can use this technology to actually help victims or provide education or provide resources? So we do that currently on our platforms. So for example, if you look at something like NCII, or let me give you an example of suicide and self-injury, we’re able to use proactive technology to identify people who have posted content which can contain suicidal content or content referring to eating disorders. And we’re able to catch that content and able to send them resources, as well as connect them with local helplines. That is such an important way that we can use technology to make sure that people who need the help are able to get it. And sometimes there are not quick solutions, but it takes time to have discussions work together. And it’s a combination of technology and the advice of experts who are actually working on this issue to come up with solutions both to prevent that harm, to address that harm, and to provide resources and support to victims. Sorry, David, I know I took the long way. long way to this, but I just wanted to provide some context.

David Wright: Deepali, thank you very much. Next, I’m going to throw it, Sophie, to you in terms of two minute introduction. Thank you.

Sophie Mortimer: Thank you, David, and good morning, everyone. Having worked supporting survivors of intimate image abuse for over eight years, I do think that we need to approach the use of AI in providing support with caution. We know that there are advantages to be gained by the use of AI technologies in reporting harmful content at scale and with speed. However, it’s also important to remember that victims and survivors can be abused with these tools and may not want to engage with them while seeking support, because trust is understandably degraded. We in fact, we have previously worked at Southwest Grid for Learning on developing an AI support tool. And ultimately, we decided that the risks were not outweighed by the benefits, certainly not at this time. We simply couldn’t be sure that the technology could safeguard people in their time of need adequately enough. I really hope this will change because I think there is huge potential here, and that we can revisit these concepts, but it’s just really imperative that we have trust in the security of such a tool and that it prioritises the safety and wellbeing of users.

David Wright: Thank you, Sophie. And finally, Boris.

Boris Radanovic: Thank you, David. And thank you very much for organising this and good morning, everybody. I think at least a good personal note to note, it is morning. And if I’m going to call on anything in my introduction is that we all, especially the policy and the governance sector, need to wake up to the benefits and potential threats of AI. If we know anything in the last couple of decades, online safety and protection of children and adults, is that modalities of harm are changing rather rapidly. And speaking about the application of AI or the benefits of AI, we are missing. And I’m really, really glad that this is on the last day of IGF. So I hope this conversation will continue. But we are missing governance and structure and frameworks coming from and being supported by, yes, the industry, yes, the NGOs, yes, the researchers, but as well, nation states across the world. And if I can jump off a point from Karuna, absolutely, we need a broader conversation on this, of understanding, yes, the potential threats to it, but as well, emphasizing the benefits and how it can be utilized to better protect and better align with some of our policies. And I would agree with my dear colleague, Sophie, from the Revenge Porn Helpline, that currently, the threats do outweigh the benefits, and we need to make sure that advocating for the proper use of tools such as StopNCI.org and other inventive ways of solving already known problems by AI, with AI, or at least with the support of AI, is gonna be imperative going forward. And only thing that I can say, is the possible support coming out of the technology capabilities of AI is tremendous, and we need to rein that in and understand it much, much better than we do now.

David Wright: Okay, Boris and everyone, thank you ever so much. And we’re also joined from a moderation perspective, colleague Niels is also managing the online aspects of this. So those of you joining us online, if you’re asking any questions… Excellent, we’ve got one. Okay, so by way of diving into this particular issue that you’ve heard some brief introduction, in terms of specific questions, as we get down into the aspects about AI, but particularly in context of non-consensual intimate image abuse, I’m first going to turn to Nighat. So Nighat, the question to pose to you, so your advocacy for digital rights, particularly in regions with differing privacy laws, places you at the forefront of this debate. How should AI systems for NCII detection be adapted ethically to fit varying cultural and legal contexts?

Nighat Dad: Yeah, I think Sophie and Boris touched a little bit on that. Yes, we can use AI systems to our benefit as well and harness them in terms of giving speedy remedies to the victims and survivors of tech-facilitated gender-based violence. But at the same time, I think in our context, we have to be extra careful and cautious. AI systems need to solve for cultural nuance and we know that current models are trained on English and other Western contexts and languages. But I’m also hopeful and optimistic that while we are having these conversations, these conversations will lead to a new generation of AI that will better understand cultural and linguistic nuance. And I understand that sitting at the UN Secretary General’s AI high-level advisory body, we have had those conversations in the last one year where we brought global majority perspective from different angles, not just that the conversations around AI are only happening in the Global North by some Global North countries and global majority countries are not really part of those conversations. And until or unless you are not part of the conversation, you actually don’t know how to address different issues while using AI technologies or being aware of the threats and risks of these technologies. So I think these conversations are happening at different spaces. I’m glad that we are also talking about this as different helplines and those who are addressing NCII. But I think it’s also important that we cannot, we understand that we can’t solely rely on AI to combat NCII. Platforms, social media platforms still need to commit to human moderators and human review and they need to create easy pathways for users to escalate this content when automation misses it. So that’s three things that comes to my mind. Broader training for AI, continued human oversight, and user-friendly reporting mechanisms. I’d also like to see transparency and constant auditing of AI so we can see how well these automated content moderation systems are performing and transparency should be granted to civil society so that there are opportunities for third-party reviews of how these models perform. And I’d just like to plug our white paper that we released from Oversight Board which is around content moderation in the era of AI. And it sort of draws our own experiences for the last four years while dwelling into cases that we have decided and looking into so many cases related to gender and tech-facilitated gender-based violence that that users have faced on meta platforms. And we looked into the tools, we looked into the community guidelines and policies of meta and gave them really good recommendations. But also this white paper is not just for meta platforms, this is for all platforms who are actually using AI to combat harassment on their platforms. And there are so many recommendations that we have given and one of them is basically constant auditing of their AI tools on their platforms that they are using, but also giving access to third parties like researchers in terms of like what kind of feedback that they can give to the meta. And I think meta has a leverage because they have a very good initiative as a trusted partners initiative. and they can leverage that sort of ecosystem in terms of getting feedback and also providing them support who are already addressing tech facility to gender-based violence.

David Wright: Some great, really great points there and I’m really struck too by, you know, the point about the westernized data and extensive training models is a really good point and also want to recognize the global leadership that you provide in this space and have done for so many years. So it’s great to have you here and what an opportunity for everybody to ask questions too. So Megha, thank you very much. Okay, just as I sort myself out, next I’m going to turn Karuna to you in terms of question. And so now as both a trustee of ours, very important trustee of ours, thank you very much, and obviously a key advocate as well for Stop NCI having been the one with the original idea and certainly what the heavy responsibility we feel for Stop NCI in having yours being largely created it. So your question, you know, as a driving force behind Stop NCI.org, what role do you see AI playing in scaling global NCI protection efforts? What ethical principles are essential to ensuring AI tools support victims without compromising user autonomy? Karuna?

Karuna Nain: Thank you, David. And, you know, both, I think there are two questions. Yours is a two part question and both really, really important, you know, questions. The one thing that, you know, just following up from, you know, what Nughat was saying, I think there’s not been enough transparency. from the tech industry, unfortunately, as to how they’re currently leveraging the power of AI in this space. We’ve heard a lot of how they’re using AI to get ahead of, for example, child sexual abuse materials or anything related to child abuse on their platforms. But they’re not sharing enough of how they are using AI to get ahead of some of the harmful non-consensual sharing of intimate images on their platform. And credit to Meta Deepali. Meta has been one of the few companies that’s really talked about how they were able to leverage the power of AI in one way. And I’m not sure, Deepali, if you’re going to touch on this later. And forgive me if I’m sealing your thunder here. But the work that the use of AI, especially in closed secret groups where victims may not be aware that their intimate images are being shared. So using AI in those spaces to be able to proactively identify if an image or a video is potentially non-consensually shared and to pump it up to reviewers for reviewing the content and taking it down if it is NCI. I think that’s a really great example of how this technology can be used to get ahead of the harm. Because many times we’ve heard from victims that the onus and the burden on them for reporting, for trying to check if this content has been shared online, is excruciatingly painful. So I think I talked about this in my earlier opening statement as well. There are three ways, particularly I think that companies could be leveraging the power of AI to get ahead of this harm prevention. So if there are signals which they have on their platforms, if someone is, for example, updated their relationship status to say that they’ve recently been through a breakup or expressed any kind of trauma or hurt, which could potentially mean that they have intimate images which they might want to send through stopncii.org, for example, to nip the harm in its bud. Or if deterrence, if someone is trying to upload NCII, if the signals are all there, could the platform then bump up an education card to tell them that this? is actually harmful, it’s illegal in many countries, or again, you know, to really stop that abuse in its tracks and not allow that content to be shared in the first place. And third is, of course, you know, supporting victims. Again, you know, things like if someone is searching for NCIR-related resources on a search engine or on a platform, then could you bump up something like StopNCIR.org to them at that point to tell them these kind of services or these kind of support options exist, helplines exist around the world. Many victims don’t know, and this is the first time that they’re ever hearing of this abuse when they’re experiencing it. But, you know, both, all three actually, Sophie, Nighat, and Boris, all really raised very important points about thinking through some of the risks and some of the loopholes with deploying AI without being very thoughtful about it. So a few things that I’d love to list down, just, you know, things that we learned when we were building StopNCIR.org or working with Sophie and other helplines around the world on what is it that organizations really need to keep in mind when they’re building out these technologies to support victims. One, keeping victims at the center of the design, making sure that you’re not speaking on behalf of them, you’re giving them agency, you’re empowering them, but not taking any decisions on behalf of them. Two, no, you know, shaming or victim blaming. They’re under enough pressure, enough stress. This is not their, you know, mistake that, you know, intimate images are being shared. This is on the perpetrator. That’s, you know, trust. Trust is not a bad thing, you know, over here. It’s the perpetrator who’s broken the trust, and they need to feel ashamed, not the person who’s in those intimate images. You know, Nighat talked about bias and just, you know, making sure that any technology that is developed is not taking into, is taking into account other instances where, you know, this content, it may not be NCII. I’m not sure that AI, you know, is at that stage right now where it needs more training. It needs more support to be able to make sure that it’s 100% accurately identifying content as NCII and recognizing those biases. is really important part of it. Also, accountability and transparency. If tech companies are using these technologies, I’m hoping that they are, or if organizations, nonprofits are thinking about how they can use AI in this space, being transparent, being accountable, ways for people to report. Nighat talked about how important reporting still is even in these scenarios, giving people the ability to reach out to the service or the platform is really important. And of course, I will always keep harping on prevention if there are ways that this technology can be used to prevent the harm in its first place, to deter the harm, I think that a lot more work should be done over there because once the harm has happened, it’s already quite late. So the more work that can be done in that space would be really great. I’ll stop there, a lot of things that I’ve thrown out.

David Wright: Karuna, thank you very much. Can I also, perhaps we’ve made an assumption and not really introduced stopnci.org. Karuna, can I ask you to do that? Just to explain briefly to everybody what stopnci.org is and how it works.

Karuna Nain: Absolutely, and Sophie, please jump in if I’m missing anything, I know it’s your baby and I’m just talking about it. But stopnci.org, the whole goal behind stopnci.org is to support people to really stop the abuse in its tracks. The way stopnci.org works is that if you think you have, if you have intimate images, which you are worried, which will be used without your consent on any one of the participating platforms, you can use this platform to create hashes or digital fingerprints of those photos and videos and share those hashes with the participating platforms so that if anyone tries to upload that photo or that video on those participating platforms, they can get an early signal that this content may violate their policies. They can send it to their reviewers or use their technology to determine whether this violates their policies or not and stop that content from being shared on their services. So it’s really, you know, it’s very much a prevention tool. If content is being shared on platforms already, we encourage people to actually report on that platform to get fastest action. But if you’re worried that it’s going to be shared on any one of the participating platforms, in addition to that, you can use stopnci.org to stop that abuse in its tracks. Sophie, I don’t know if I missed anything and if you wanna add anything onto that.

Sophie Mortimer: Beautifully done. I would just highlight the fact that these digital hashes are created on somebody’s own device. They don’t have to send that image to anyone. And I think that’s enormously empowering and a huge step forward in the use of technology that puts the victims and survivors right at the heart of these evolutions.

Nighat Dad: Absolutely. One more thing, if I can just add, sorry, David, Sophie, is about privacy preserving way in which stopnci.org has been built. In addition to not taking those photos and videos, just taking the hashes from the victims, very minimal data is asked of the victims because we know that this is such a harrowing experience. We don’t want to stop them from using the service in any way. And I think that’s also very important as we’re talking about ethics around building of any of this AI technology, making sure whatever data is collected, it’s minimal, it’s proportionate to what is needed to run these services, but not using the data for anything than what you’re collecting it for. And you’re telling people that you’re collecting the data for and also not using the data without their consent for anything. I think it’s really, really important. Privacy and data should be at the center of the design of any AI technology that’s built in this space.

David Wright: Thank you both. Yeah, amazing kind of explanation from the two people leading this. Thank you. Next, we’re gonna come to Deepali, who we’ve already heard. So he’s Director of Global Safety and Policy at META. So Deepali, with your expertise on safety, can you talk about how META is thinking about responsible development of AI? Can you give some examples of how META is thinking about safety and AI and the challenges ahead, clearly in context of NCII?

Deepali Liberhan: Thanks, David. I think Karuna has done such a good job of it, but I’m gonna try and add some additional context. The first thing that I wanna say is just to step back and talk a little bit about how Meta is. currently using AI. So I’ve been with Meta, like I said, for about a decade. When I joined, and in fact, when Karuna joined as well, when we talked about safety and when we talked about our community standards and community standards essentially are rules, which we say clearly what is okay and not okay to post on our platforms, including NCII, including hate speech, including CSAM, we used to really encourage user reporting because we didn’t really have proactive technology built out at that time. So we were dependent on the signal that we were getting from users to be able to understand why that content is violating and rely more on human review and have that content reviewed by human reviewers to be able to take the appropriate action. Over the years, we’ve invested in really developing proactive technology to be able to catch a majority of this content even before it’s reported to us. So we know that a lot of people will see content and just not report it, or they may feel like their peers will judge them for reporting it. So proactive technology really helps to identify that content and remove it. And also it doesn’t remove the need for human reviewers, but it makes their job easier and we’re able to do this better at scale. So today, for example, we publish in our community standards, we’re able to remove a majority of the content that violates our community standards before it is even reported to us. And we’re also trying to work on understanding how our large language models can essentially help us do this better. And two ways where we think that there’s going to be an impact is going to be one is speed and the other is accuracy. Will it be able to help us identify this content even faster? And if we’re able to identify this content faster, what is the accuracy with which that we can take action in an automated way, which also lessens the time that human reviewers need to spend on really the important cases versus the cases where there’s clearly very high confidence that it is violating and therefore it can be taken down quickly. So I mean, to answer the issue in a shorter version, I think that there is a lot more scope for this technology, but there continues to be the importance of a combination of using automated technology as well as human review. So we are taking the right actions and we’re taking the appropriate actions. As we move to responsible AI, David, Mera has an open source approach to our large language models. As you know, we’ve open sourced our large language models. And therefore it’s been really important that before we do this, that we have a very thoughtful and responsible way on how we’re thinking of developing AI within this company. And I’m gonna talk about a couple of pillars that we have that we consider when we’re talking about Gen AI. Actually, I’m not gonna go through all the pillars because that’s gonna take a lot more time. I’ll go through a couple of them. The first is obviously robustness and safety. It’s really important that we do two things before we’re releasing our large language models. The first is stress testing the models. So we have teams internally and externally who stress test those models and stress testing or what we call red teaming is essentially making sure that experts are stress testing the models for finding vulnerabilities. And then we are able to identify those vulnerabilities. So to give you an example, we have specialist teams at Meta who are stress testing or red teaming the large language models. We also open it up to the larger public to be able to stress test. So for example, in Las Vegas, there’s a conference called the DEF CON Conference, and our large language models were tested. Over 2,500 hackers actually stress-tested those models and identified vulnerabilities, which we then used to inform the development of our models. The second thing is fine-tuning the models. Fine-tuning the models, essentially, is fine-tuning the models so that they’re able to give more specific responses, and especially that they are, in some cases, fine-tuned to deliver expert-backed resources. So to give an example of this, currently what happens on Facebook and Instagram is if somebody posts content where they are feeling suicidal, or for example, there are mental health issues, and either somebody reports it, or we’re able to proactively find that content, we are able to send expert-backed resources to the person, which is essentially connecting to helplines. So if you’re sitting in the UK, you will get connected to a UK helpline. If you’re sitting in India, you’ll get connected to an India helpline. This is because I think fundamentally we believe that we are not the experts on safety in terms of providing this kind of informed support. And to the point that Sophie made, we don’t want our technologies to be able to actually be providing that support. What we want to do is we want to make sure that we are making available the right tools by which the young people, or vulnerable people, or targeted people can use the right resources. So coming back to fine-tuning our AI models, the AI models will be fine-tuned through expert resources. So if somebody talks about suicide or self-injury, the response should not be that it’s going to provide you guidance. The response that it will throw up is here are a list of expert organizations that you can contact in your particular organization. And I know I’m repeating myself, but this is a really important way in which we can use these technologies to provide a level of support that we have been able to provide on other platforms like Facebook and Instagram. The third thing that I want to talk about, essentially, when we’re talking about safety and robustness is a lot of people don’t really understand AI or AI tools and AI features. So we’re also working with experts, generally, to try and ensure that they are understanding what Gen AI is. So for example, we work with experts to have resources where parents have tips on how to talk to young people about Gen AI, et cetera. So these are just a couple of things that, at a high-level overview, we think about when we’re thinking about building AI responsibly. I want to quickly cover the other pillars. I won’t talk too much about it. But the other pillars that we’re thinking about, because it’s about safety and robustness, but it’s also about making sure that there’s privacy so that we have a robust privacy review to make sure that there is transparency and control. As everybody on the panel said, it’s really important to be transparent about what you’re doing. with your Gen AI tools and products. And we are also working cross-industry to be able to develop standards, to identify provenance, to make sure that users understand whether their content is generated by AI or is not generated by AI. And the other pillar really is good governance, as we talked about, transparency, good governance, as well as, and I don’t know if Nikhat mentioned this, but fairness is really important. Fairness to ensure that there is diversity, as well as that it’s inclusive in terms of these technologies, because we all know that access to these technologies is still an issue. So, I mean, that is overall our approach to responsible AI. Let me give you one example. I know I’ve talked about robustness and safety, but in terms of fairness and inclusivity, we actually have a large language model where we are able to translate English into over 200 languages. And there are some of the lesser known languages. And I say this because in the trust and safety space, a lot of the material that we develop and a lot of the experts that exist are in English language. And this is another example of not particular to NCII, but overall in the trust and safety space that we can actually use a lot of these products and tools that have been developed to further enhance safety and make sure that this messaging is available in the languages that people really understand and not just English or Western languages. Wikipedia, for example, is using this to translate a lot of information. of their content into these languages. So I think that there is two things. There is a lot more work to be done, but I think that there is a great room for collaboration in terms of both how we prevent this, how we address it, but how do we even collaborate better in being able to support some of the people who are dealing with these issues in actually a better way than we’ve currently been able to do so. The last thing that I would say is that I know that sometimes we get asked this a lot. We have a community standards which make it very clear what kind of content is not allowed on the platform, irrespective of if it’s organic content or it’s been developed by Gen AI. If it violates our policies, we will remove that content. And we’ve updated our community standards to make that very clear as well.

David Wright: Deepali, thank you very much. It’s great as well to hear that. Also, the use of and creation of some of the tools, too. Particularly, I’m interested in the translation to different languages, which we probably all know is a real challenge. And I know from a Stop NGI perspective, we do struggle with that, trying to make it as accessible and to support as accessible as we possibly can. So thank you, Deepali, for that. And also for Meta’s help and Meta’s support with Stop NGI, too. Next, Sophie, I’m going to come to you. And so, as we’ve already heard, your work with the Revenge Porn Helpline, I know that particularly well. The question that I want to pose is about what ethical dilemmas have you observed with technology to address NCI abuse? particularly regarding privacy and consent. How do you think AI systems should be designed to respect these sensitive boundaries? Sophie?

Sophie Mortimer: Thank you, David. I think it’s a crucial question because there’s no doubt that the development of this technology is moving at pace. And I think we could all get quite carried away with what we can achieve with these technologies, but it’s so important that we put the victim and survivor experience at the centre of them. I could probably talk for quite a while on this, but I’ll try and keep it a bit tighter. But I think, crucially, the supporting the privacy of victims who in a moment of absolute crisis is really, really key. So we can use AI tools to help identify and remove non-consensual content, but that requires access to people’s very sensitive images and data. And that can be a huge concern to individuals who might fear the access of technology, because it’s technology that has participated in their abuse. They can fear data breaches or a lack of transparency in how their information is being stored and processed. So there’s a real dilemma there in balancing that need for intervention with the protection of victims and the preservation of their privacy and stopping future harm. We can use AI technologies to track the use of someone’s images. And this could be enormous. And I think Dipali referenced this in terms of the use of technology to handle the scale and the speed at which this content can move across platforms. But that just brings more complexity. So the methods for tracking content can concern victims around surveillance, or that there’s a risk of creating systems that monitor individuals more broadly than we’re. intended? How will those images and that data be used in a way that won’t impact on people’s privacy and autonomy? Then the use of people’s data is always very, very concerning. It’s very sensitive personal information used to address this harm. There can be a lack of transparency from many platforms about how these systems are used. How are the models trained? Again, the large language models that are used, and this has been referenced already, I think, by Nagat earlier, that we know that they don’t always respond as well, perhaps, to people of different cultural, religious, or ethnicities. That’s really, really challenging for the risk of presenting false positives and false negatives. Also, one area that’s often referenced is around synthetic sexual content, which is often referred to as deepfake. I think there’s a tendency to say, well, we can identify that as fake so that the harm is less. I think the evidence of some victim and survivor voices is that that just isn’t the case. I think just labelling something as fake can undermine the experience of individuals because there is a real loss of bodily autonomy and self-worth. It can cause really significant emotional distress. If we only focus on the falseness of an image, an AI system might overlook the broader psychological and social impacts on individuals. Certainly, AI can help with evidence collection and privacy. There’s a real role there in terms of watermarking or embedding metadata that helps track the origin, but then there’s more ethical questions there around consent. privacy of people’s data and do people understand? I think again it’s already been referenced that people’s access to technology and understanding of how these technologies works around the world and we can’t assume consent and it’s just really important that consent that is given is really informed and I think we’ve got a lot of work to do there to ensure that we have that but it is absolutely crucial. I also think sometimes that the technology moves fast but perpetrators of abuse move fast as well and for all the safeguards we put in we have to be aware that perpetrators are working hard to circumvent them so we need to be really flexible in our thinking and I think the priority for me is keeping that human element. Humans understand humans and can hopefully foresee some of these issues and combat ways but also to put humanity at the heart of our response to individuals who are humans themselves to state the obvious but don’t want to be supported entirely by technology, they want access to humans and that human understanding.

David Wright: Sophie thank you very much. Perhaps it is a point as well here just to talk that the term victims being used and I know we’ve had this conversation because I think there’s been, there’s often has been criticism that we shouldn’t be using this in terms of terminology, we shouldn’t be using the word victim and that shouldn’t be the case. That should be really survivor and I think I’ll perhaps if I may put words in your mouth given the conversations that we’ve had is that no, particularly from a revenge porn helpline perspective, no we very much do support victims. Our job is to make them a survivor. Now clearly anybody’s entitled to have a reference however they see fit but certainly I think we’re making the point here is that whilst our job is to make victims into survivors of particular tragic circumstances we’re not always successful which just goes to highlight the, in large, in many cases the catastrophic impact that this has, that this abuse has on individuals lives. I don’t know Sophie is there anything you want to add there? No I think you’re right David, we

Sophie Mortimer: We tend to take quite a neutral position when speaking to people because it’s not our place as a helpline to identify somebody as victim, survivor or anything else. So in practice, we reflect back to people what they say, but I completely agree that the majority of people coming to us are very much, would identify themselves as victims, because we are usually there for them quite early in that journey. And it is absolutely our aim to make them a survivor and in the hope that they can leave all of those labels behind and put this totally behind them.

David Wright: Thank you, Sophie. Nighat?

Nighat Dad: No, I think this is very interesting, because in our helpline, we also when we address folks who reach out to us, we are very careful, what do we call them? And we sort of leave it to them, what do they want themselves to call? Many times when we call them survivors, and this is like our priority, like we say, we call them survivors and not victims, because they are reaching out and they’re fighting the system. And they’re like, but I haven’t received any remedy. So I’m still a victim. So this is a very interesting conversation. And I think it should entirely be on the person who is facing all of this, to call whatever they want to call themselves, either victims or survivors. Our priority is to call them survivors, that many times we were like, I’m not that resilient. Don’t call me survivor. I don’t have that much energy left to fight back platforms or the legal system that they are dealing with.

David Wright: Yeah, Sophie, I don’t know if you want to react to that. And I’m here, I’m thinking too around, often when we’re approached by the media, that they want to speak to somebody who we’ve supported. being careful not to add a name, which we have a policy of specifically not because of the acute vulnerabilities that the individuals have. Sophie?

Sophie Mortimer: I completely agree with Nigat. It’s not our place to apply that label, and certainly the majority of people who come to us would describe themselves as a victim. In fact, I’m not sure I can recall anyone who self-identified without any prompting as a survivor, because that is not how people are feeling in that moment and in that space. The harm feels so out of people’s control, because what has happened is on platforms. We all know that images now can move quite fast, and the fear, that loss of control is the overwhelming feeling that people have when they come to services like ours. That doesn’t make anyone feel like a survivor, unfortunately, at that time. That’s why we use neutral language in that first instance and reflect back what somebody will say to them, because that’s how they’re feeling. I hope that we provide that reassurance that when they hang up the phone, they will be feeling better than they did when they picked it up.

David Wright: Thank you, Sophie. Also, for all that hard work that goes in the background as well, which I know acutely to the extent of that. Okay, finally, I’m going to turn to Boris. I say finally, too, because that’s after Boris has given us a contribution. This is when we open the floor for further, for your questions, either in reaction to anything that you’ve particularly heard, or indeed if there’s any other aspects that we perhaps haven’t covered, both within the room and also online as well. Boris, if I just turn to you. As Boris has said, he’s Head of Partnerships and Engagement at SWGFL. Given your extensive work in online safety, particularly at SWGFL, How do you see AI evolving as a tool to support NCI detection and intervention? What are the ethical frameworks do you believe are necessary to avoid potential harm to users while ensuring victim or survivor or whichever terminology we deem fit to support them? Boris.

Boris Radanovic: Thank you for that very much. I just want to say I’m really honored and proud to sit amongst heroes, definitely in the space, and thank you so much for the invitation. Thinking about AI, a quote came to my mind, and please agree or disagree with me. Specifically talking about AI, I think we know little about everything and a lot about nothing. While we fully understand the complexity of the space, whether that’s the technology behind AI or the stakeholders implementing AI, I don’t think we fully understand nor utilize the true power or the possible true power of AI. There is much more we could be doing. I know in a two-minute contribution, trying to unpack it might be a bit difficult, but I do hope that these conversations and this session reaches stakeholders from policy and government, but as well stakeholders from the industry sector. I loved the notion of stress testing and using hackers and all of that, but I would also advocate for, as we just had a conversation about users and victims and children and a lot of people that we don’t maybe fully grasp to be those first movers to test out or stress test those AI models so we can see maybe a different way of thinking. Talking about that, I think we need to go back to foundations, and the foundation is that the current models may or may not, and in some cases they do consist of, their data sets having child sexual abuse material in it, non-consensual intimate imagery in it, and many other that we probably don’t know, illegal or harmful material. So, if any, and I hope a lot of stakeholders are listening, let’s first clean out the fundamentals of the tools that we are supposed to be using. And number one, yes, you can use StopNCR.org hashes that we can help you clear out already known instances of non-consensual intimate image abuse, but we must go further. And as we spoke, and as I listened to really admirable contributions from every speaker here, I hope somebody’s listening to me and in a year’s time will prove me right that we are missing a global power force in AI development to focus on safeguarding, to focus on the guardrails, to be the solution for all of these companies that are having the same issues and problems. If there’s anybody who’s willing to work on that, SWGFL is here and definitely willing to support. But let me come back to the question about detection and intervention. I think that’s an important two-piece of a much larger, much larger picture. Yes, we can talk about detection of behaviors. And again, from a perpetrator point of view, but as well from a user’s point of view that might put them at risk without knowing it. And we need to utilize AI tools en masse to help us mitigate some of those issues. But as well, we need to talk about how do we then engage with those perpetrators after we detected it? And how do we guide those people to the right course of actions? Or what are the consequences of their repeated, and sometimes we know that those are happening on platforms, repeated offenses, or people or individuals taking part in something called a collector’s culture. With their intentionally collecting thousands and hundreds of images of other various individuals. And we know they exist on many platforms. And the question is, okay, now that we use AI to detect this, what are we going to do next? And how are we going to act on that when we’re talking about intervention? I think as well, Sophie and the Revenge Porn Helpline are already using a rather innovative way, I would say, of utilizing AI tools to help us mitigate the number of reports using a chatbot function that allows us to collect those reports. communicate and support much, much bigger, larger number of people than we would be able to do with just human support. So again, when we talk about intervention, how about user-specific, mental and health-based, legal-based support that those users can gain when or if they encounter that harm online. But as well, I think the question was about frameworks, and I think we are missing a lot, as I said in prior introductions, governments, frameworks, structures on the use, but as well, research that stands behind it. And ethical frameworks needs to be user-focused and user-centric, victim-informed or survivor-informed, most definitely, but then balancing the threat of having access to the most sensitive pieces of data that you have, and that is the data of your own or others’ abuse, and how does it unfold and to whom and where, but at the same time, extremely sensitive data sets that we might learn from and research and maybe mitigate some of those risks in the future. So I’m not trying to say this is a easy thing to do, but I’m saying that we should start combating it now before we are ending up in a much, much, I would say, more difficult space to entangle. So if I’m looking at it, what do we need to do? I think from a stakeholder company’s perspective, we need more dedication, and I support Meta, and I love our friends from all over the world involved with StopNCI.org, but we are at 12 of the biggest platforms in the world engaged with us. We need hundreds, we need thousands of platforms dedicating to this, of advocating for a solution in this space, and then bringing it forward, and definitely more investment to NGOs and researchers across the world battling in this space, because we are at the forefront, and we are non-governmental, small and agile organizations. We are meant to be at the forefront, but as we know, with every arrow, there is a long, long piece behind it that needs to be supporting us and pushing us forward. And I love the quote and the comment from Karuna about transparency. Absolutely, we need more transparency. And as well, please agree or disagree with me that in now the first movers, the first companies that we see in the AI space, correct me if I’m wrong, but it does seem to me that they’re more interested in safeguarding their intellectual property and their finances, but instead protecting and safeguarding their users. And I think that’s a big question if we move with the AI as a part of every part of our daily life, what do we value more? And I think many of us sitting here and many of us listening would advocate for the privacy and protections, but as well, safeguarding of our users first and foremost. And then we can build upon those tools. And maybe in the end, I was trying to find a picture that helps me better understand the extreme rapid rise and development of AI. And I remember, I don’t know if you saw the first movies and first pictures of the Wright brothers and the planes when we started inventing them. And then after a couple of meters, the plane crashed. Then they spent months or years developing, then a couple of dozens of meters, then hundreds of meters. So we evolved rather slowly and then more rapidly. The plane, something that brought us all here in this wonderful city of Riyadh. I think with AI, we are slowly moving at light speed pace of development, but we have no idea who’s flying and we have no idea how we’re going to land. So I fully advocate that we need to fix the foundations and invest more in clearing the data sets, invest in the NGOs around the world, battling these issues and trying to find solutions and help us all understand better and use AI better. So hopefully we can land safely and find a better and more powerful use for AI for the benefit of us all. I think that would be it. And thank you so much.

David Wright: Thank you, Boris. There’s a point to finish on, forgive me. And if anyone does have any ideas about how NTI is going to land. then we would very much like to hear that. Okay, so now we’re going to turn it to you. We’re gonna turn it over to you in terms of any particular questions that anyone has. Niels, have we got any questions? Not yet online, but I might introduce a personal question then in that case, I have the mic anyway.

Audience: First of all, thank you all very much for these very, very valuable contributions. It was a very interesting panel. For those who don’t know me, I’m Niels Van Pamel from Child Focus, which is the Belgian safer internet center. So I definitely agree with almost everything has been said here. Also with the comment of Sophie that like how deep fakes right now that we are maybe focusing too much into showing that something is a fake, but that doesn’t like, it doesn’t really matter for a victim but it’s for example, somebody who’s a victim of deep noting with fake naked pictures that everybody believes to be real anyway, right? So we’ve done a study last year on deep noting and seeing how this, first of all, how the market looks like, what is happening with young people in Belgium right now and how this is exploding in our faces right now. And we’ve seen first of all, that the long-term traumatic impact for a victim is exactly the same as for somebody compared to victims of real NCII, right? So first of all, we need to also debunk some myths. And I also wanted to add to, I think it was Boris who said that like, that we have to take into account how fast things are changing and moving right now. And also we’re jumping to conclusions. To give an example, in this study, we noticed it’s a study from 2023, that 99% of all the victims of deep noting are women and girls. But this year, 50% of the cases we opened at Child Focus were also men that were victims. So what we concluded is that in the early days, 2023, Most of the victims were girls because the data sets that were used were only working on girls and women. But right now in a world where sextortion is like perpetrators who want to sextort victims, they are using AI also much more in their behalf to guide themselves, misguide themselves. And this technology apparently now also works into having boys into, how do you say this, make deep nudes of boys. So if we don’t do research, more research in finding out how these technologies are finding more and more ways into new vulnerable groups, we might look over them. So that was maybe a comment on that. So we need longitudinal follow up and academic research. So that was my comment here.

Nighat Dad: Can I just respond to the men becoming victims of sextortion? At our helpline, when we started, we started keeping in mind that more young women and girls are actually becoming victim and survivor of this kind of crime. But we ended up getting 50% complaints from men. And starting from 2016, up till now, we never said no to them, because we started the helpline only for women. But when men reaching out to you from a context and culture where shame is so much associated with anyone, men or women, and what we noticed that young men had nowhere to turn to. There was other helplines for women for psychological support. Of course, the cyber harassment helpline was the unique one. But there were other helplines for women, but none for the men. So we ended up dealing with their complaints. Another thing that we noticed that young boys and men were hesitant to go to the law enforcement as well. And again, the culture of shame associated to it. But also, I think now this is more related to privacy. They were really scared, like women, to give their evidence to the law enforcement that how they will… will deal with or how they will protect my data when I’ll give it to them as an evidence and they will work on my case. So what they wanted basically was to report to the platform first and the helpline. So their first line of reporting was always the helpline and the platform instead of law enforcement. So I think it kind of touches upon that it’s beyond any gender or sex. This impacts everyone and especially from conservative cultures, women still find some space to talk to each other but young boys actually, they just suffer in silence.

David Wright: Yes, and then maybe to add to this comment when you said like boys are scared to go to law enforcement with evidence. I guess that’s where on-device hashing comes in.

Boris Radanovic: Wonderful, thank you so much. Niels, appreciate the comment and if I may, I think it proves to the point that both of us that the modalities of harm are changing so rapidly that even we who our job is to follow them sometimes have a difficulty. And I loved using this, especially describing deepfakes is that the image may not be real, but the harm is. And we need to understand in a fast evolving AI visual space, we now have more and more AI tools that are being developed that can, based on one prompt, design you a couple of minutes of video that that unfortunately use case will extend and unfortunately being far more wide reaching where we can have fake or digitally altered imagery than now videos that might seem or might not be real but the harm that we already now know. So we don’t need another reason, we don’t need more experiences that we know that the harm perpetrated amongst towards victims and users will be real. So thank you so much for that comment.

David Wright: Okay, just to carry on that theme and just before, again, I opened for a question here. Sophie, is there any response to that? And particularly as well, knowing the increasing call volume as well as Nagat said, changes in terms of gender? Yes.

Sophie Mortimer: interesting to hear what Naguette was saying. We certainly have always had a substantial proportion of cases of male victims affected by sextortion, though that was a proportion that rose significantly at around 2020, and hasn’t really fallen away ever since, and now makes up between a quarter and a third of our caseload. And I think it’s interesting that they’re talking about the creation of synthetic content to use in sextortion, but of course AI is also being used to generate those conversations at scale, and the presentation of the person that the victim survivor thinks that they are talking to, it can also be AI-generated. And that, of course, just ramps up the scale of these forms of abuse and, frankly, crimes. The other thing that struck me was I looked at some cases earlier in the year, and very, very harmful to them in their own communities. And I know it’s always the staple that we refer to of a woman without wearing a headscarf, but that was the reality that people are experiencing, and that can cause enormous harm. So I think we need to be aware that there are, again, broader definitions of intimacy globally, and we need to be very nuanced in our responses, but also be aware that there are, again, broader definitions of intimacy globally, and we need to be very nuanced in our responses, but also how these technologies can be used to cause other forms of harm as well. So there are huge challenges here. Not least the tenfold increase in case volume in the last four years. And there’s that. Absolutely, David. Case numbers can continue to rise year on year, and yes, certainly in the last four or five… years they have they have risen exponentially. Okay thank you very much.

Karuna Nain: David I don’t know if you can see me but you know I just wanted to follow up on the gender discussion to just check in with both Sophie and Nigat based on what they’re seeing on the helpline because the initial research that I’ve seen also indicates that usually it’s more financially motivated when it’s you know related to men and to boys versus you know with women there are other motivations which are at play. Is this consistent with what you all are seeing on your helplines or you know what are you all hearing from people who are calling in?

Nighat Dad: Yeah Corona I’ll quickly respond to that. I think it’s kind of changing from men who are public figures like politically active, human rights defenders, journalists and their intimate imagery or videos are actually one way of sort of intimidating them into silence basically. So it’s also changing from financial side to the other motives by the bad actors.

Speaker 1: Just a short point in terms of the role that companies and this is not just Meta but companies like Meta and other social media platforms can play in disseminating a lot of education as well as resources because I think that that’s really important as well and I know a lot of people mentioned sextortion so we’ve recently run a sextortion PSA in a number of countries where we worked with experts to be able to develop the exact messaging that is really important for young people and you know young women and young men too here and I think that that’s something that is you know that’s something where more of us can collaborate because I think that everybody’s doing things in isolation but I think that there is really room for collaboration in those spaces.

David Wright: Thank you very much. Okay I’m going to walk out here because I think we’ve got a question. If we can just ask you introduce yourself as well, that would be great.

Audience: Thank you. My name is Adnan. I’m Senior Legal Advisor, SEED Foundation. It’s a local NGO in Iraq, Kurdistan region. I have one question regarding, so before that, I want to thank all the panelists for their valuable insights and thoughts. I want to talk about accountability and how we can promote accountability, like these perpetrators, for example, on these platforms, for example. They are not conducting or committing one crime and leave. They will be posting or using the content maybe for someone else, later for someone else. So is there anything that those companies do with regard to holding them accountable? And the second question will be, I know that there is always a line when we talk about collaboration with courts and judicial authorities handing over evidence and materials that have been removed, because that will help accessing justice for those women. A lot of times when women seek assistance, some of them seek stopping the content or removing the content, but others, they want justice and they want the perpetrators to be accountable. Thank you.

David Wright: That’s a great question. Thank you very much. Panel?

Audience: We’ve got an online question. Carissa is asking, do existing legal frameworks hold any weight in preventing NCII, both real and AI-generated, both real and AI-generated, such as ICCPR, Article 17 for privacy? Okay. And one more question from the field. Hi, I’m a researcher based in Germany, and I have a question to the representative from META. I’m actually reporting hate speeches and, you know, like, sexually abusive content on a weekly basis. And I do it not just for work, but also on a personal level. The problem is that there are three possibilities. Only one request of mine was accepted by Meta. The second situation is that there was no response at at all, and there was no way for me to challenge or to continue my request or to send any follow-up request. And the third possibility was that there was no acceptance of my request. So in the case of wanting to follow up with my own request or challenging your meta decision, what would you suggest me to do? And I also want to ask, what is meta take on punishing the perpetrators of those images? Because I know that so far, the highest punishment is to deactivate or to delete the account. And my question to the woman in chat of a helpline, I’m sorry, I don’t remember your name. In your experiences, were there any women or gender diverse people who complained about sexual abuses? Because actually, I’m also doing research on online gender-based violence. And in my own research, there are a lot of trans teenagers or gender diverse people who actually face the issues. And also, how would you reach out to the people who don’t really understand the issues and who don’t really have any hope of addressing their issues? Thank you.

David Wright: OK. I think there’s a lot of commonality between the two questions. And perhaps, there’s one specifically for meta. And given, as well, the oversight board, there’s a relevant point. So the question about particularly to do with prosecution, the first question, anyone wish to respond?

Nighat Dad: I can respond from Meta’s perspective. So we work with law enforcement agencies across the globe. And in terms of when we get valid legal requests, we will respond with the data that is required to prosecute, which is the job of the prosecutors. We also disclose in transparency reports that we publish in terms of the number of data requests that we’ve received from authorities and how many data requests that we’ve complied with. We also have teams who work in Meta who are working directly with law enforcement authorities to ensure for the crimes, and I’m not just talking about NCII here, for the really high severity crimes that we have someone in case they need a point of contact. What I will say is there is less visibility that we have in terms of the actual prosecutions. So, for example, where we have the issue of child sexual abuse material, we are required to report as a U.S. organization to NCMEC. NCMEC then works with law enforcement authorities in terms of making sure that really sensitive data is available in a very privacy protective manner, which is available to law enforcement authorities. We don’t really have visibility on how that data is being used to prosecute the perpetrators, and I think that it’s an important link of the chain that is missing, and I think one of the things that we talk about is it’s a whole chain and somebody asks what do you do in addition to deplatforming. I think that all stakeholders have a role and we can remove the content and we can deplatform and we can work with law enforcement agencies to respond to valid requests, but I think that there needs to be a lot more transparency in terms of the prosecutions. We know that in a lot of countries, a lot of these crimes may be reported but not necessarily are prosecuted for a number of reasons including lack of capacity, lack of understanding, lack of resources or just the inability to prosecute. Yeah, responding to the researcher, so not only as a helpline and sitting at the oversight board, we actually investigated a bundle of deep fake images, one from India and one from US. And we actually recommended so many things to Meta around the gaps that we saw. But one thing that was clear to us was that Meta platforms need to create pathways for users to easily report this type of content and they must act quickly as well. And it shouldn’t matter whether the victim is a celebrity or a regular person. What we noticed that in the cases that we picked up were of the celebrity, they were public people, like public persons. But then when their content went viral, that’s where we took up the case. But what exactly is the mechanism at Meta in terms of giving importance to every user’s report is a matter of concern. I would also say that what we do as a helpline, we raise awareness a lot in different institutions, schools, colleges, try to work with the government, although it’s not their priority. But just to let people know that this kind of crime exists, but there are also remedies and who they can reach out to. And I think you raised a point around repeated offenders. And I think that’s also a point of concern for us that when people who are repeated offenders, they find a way to come back to platform and then do the same thing. And I think this is like a really question to the platform that what they do with the repeated offenders.

David Wright: Thank you, Nighat. Also to do with Carissa’s question, I think too, Sophie, I think this one, I anticipate you may have a response to as well in terms of, Nils, I think the question was around existing legal frameworks hold any weight in preventing NCII. I suspect you have a response to that one.

Sophie Mortimer: Thanks, David. I’ll try not to take too long. But quickly first on the evidence point. I think, unfortunately, even in the UK, where we’ve had legislation around the sharing of non-consensual intimate images for almost 10 years now, the collection of evidence still represents challenges and there is no consistent approach. We have 43 police forces in the UK, so consistency is always a challenge, but certainly there’s nothing really around evidence. But we have, as a helpline, provided statements to the police. We can just establish what we have done, facts, dates, the links that we have removed. And I also think there’s a bit of work around categorisation of intimate images, because I think sometimes this content, and it’s very off-putting for victims, is shared amongst multiple police officers with the prosecuting services and in courts. And that’s a massive barrier, I think, to people coming forward. And I think that we could do some work around supplying information and categories that should be accepted by courts, so that all those individuals don’t have to view content. And I think that would be quite a supportive measure to get people coming forward and supporting prosecutions. But in terms of legal frameworks, as I say, it’s nearly 10 years since the UK first got legislation in this area. And in fairness to them, it wasn’t great legislation to start with, but they responded fairly quickly, government, in that they recognised within six-ish years that the legislation wasn’t fit for purpose and a really thorough review was done. And we got new legislation at the beginning of this year, which is much more comprehensive and focuses on the consent of the person that is depicted in an image rather than the intentions or motivations of perpetrators. And that’s quite a powerful step forward, because this intention to cause distress is still quite current in other forms of legislation around the world. But there is definitely more. more to do in terms of the status of legal content. We are, this content, we are campaigning in the UK for non-consensual intimate images, particularly after conviction, to be classified as illegal content and to be treated in the same way as child sexual abuse material, to give us the same powers to remove, we are already good at removal, we have great relationships with industry, but where we can’t because there are multiple non-compliant sites whose business model is based on the sharing of this sort of content, and they don’t comply with us, and they don’t comply with other regulators, and they are hosted in countries beyond the reach of regulation. So I think it’s really important that we find other ways of leveraging the law to make this content much less visible, to give people the security that they can actually move on with their lives and not be in fear that their images are two, three clicks away from being viewed by anyone.

David Wright: Thank you. Thank you, Sophie. I wanna give a shout out too, as well, to the draft UN Cybercrime Convention that was published in August, and particularly I think UNODC’s global strategy in terms of the inclusion of NCII. It was much to our surprise, the inclusion of NCII within the new cybercrime, or at least the draft Cybercrime Convention, which we’re anticipating will be ratified next year, that all states should have laws to do with NCII. So perhaps in response to that question, will we have some today? There are some. To what weight? We’ve heard from Sophie there’s some degree, but they can prove quite porous. But then optimism around a push, a direction across the world in terms of laws that will help in this regard. I’m conscious we’ve only got. a couple of minutes left. You wanted to make a quick comment, Boris? I’ll try.

Boris Radanovic: Thank you for the questions, and as well. Far from me to say coming from an NGO and working in this space from an NGO perspective, all of the three questions come back to the same thing in my mind. We talked about accountability, legal frameworks, and then reporting. It does come back to the middle letter of this conference, and that is the Internet Governance Forum. I don’t think the scary question is what are you gonna do, Meta, TikTok, Reddit. I think the scary question is what are we gonna do, and how are we gonna define accountability for perpetrators on those platforms, develop the legal frameworks and the governance to then make sure that the platforms do follow that and then have accountability on there, and I think that’s a difficult question for us to define, and absolutely the legal frameworks, I would say, need to be more inspired around the world, more forward-looking, so we as a society in all cultures and different nation-states defined how do we approach accountability of abuse in a digital space, and how do we hold those accountable to rights, and I think it’s a far more diverse question that we need to discuss as a society than one stakeholder can answer, but I’m here for it, and if anybody has a good idea or an inspiring legal framework around the world, please do share it.

David Wright: Which will probably have to be the closing remark. Given we’ve run out of time, the transcribe’s stopped. Hopefully we’ve given you some form of response here, and also the panel, we’ve always said, so we’re a world-leading panel in terms of insight, so I pay tribute to all of your work, and I would invite everyone to show our recognition for both the extraordinary work that these people do together with the panel session as well, so thank you very much. .

Agreement Points

Need for transparency in AI use by platforms

Nighat Dad

Karuna Nain

Boris Radanovic

Platforms need better reporting mechanisms for users

Transparency is needed on how AI tools are being used by platforms

Current AI models may contain problematic training data that needs to be addressed

The speakers agree that there is a need for greater transparency from tech companies about how they are using AI to combat NCII, including better reporting mechanisms and addressing issues with training data.

Importance of victim-centric approaches

Sophie Mortimer

Nighat Dad

David Wright

Victim privacy and consent must be prioritized when using AI tools

Victim-centric language and approaches are needed

On-device hashing tools like StopNCII.org empower victims

The speakers emphasize the importance of prioritizing victim privacy, consent, and empowerment when developing and implementing AI tools to combat NCII.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers recognize the potential of AI in addressing NCII but emphasize the continued need for human involvement, whether in content moderation or in developing more comprehensive legal frameworks.

Sophie Mortimer

Speaker 1

AI can help with scale and speed of content moderation, but human oversight is still needed

Existing laws often fall short in addressing NCII

Unexpected Consensus

Increasing prevalence of male victims in NCII cases

Nighat Dad

Sophie Mortimer

Audience

Helplines play a crucial role in providing support and resources

Case volumes for helplines are rising exponentially

Sextortion cases are increasing, including against men/boys

There was an unexpected consensus on the increasing prevalence of male victims in NCII cases, challenging the traditional narrative that primarily focuses on women and girls as victims. This highlights the need for support services to adapt to these changing demographics.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement include the need for greater transparency in AI use by platforms, the importance of victim-centric approaches, the necessity of balancing AI capabilities with human oversight, and the recognition of evolving victim demographics in NCII cases.

Consensus level

There is a moderate to high level of consensus among the speakers on these key issues. This consensus suggests a shared understanding of the complex challenges in combating NCII and the need for multifaceted approaches involving technology, policy, and support services. The implications of this consensus point towards a potential for collaborative efforts in developing more effective strategies to address NCII, while also highlighting the need for continued research and adaptation to emerging trends.

Different Viewpoints

Use of AI in victim support

Sophie Mortimer

Karuna Nain

Victim privacy and consent must be prioritized when using AI tools

Transparency is needed on how AI tools are being used by platforms

While Sophie Mortimer emphasizes caution in using AI for victim support due to privacy concerns, Karuna Nain advocates for more transparency from tech companies about how they are using AI to combat NCII.

Unexpected Differences

Gender distribution of NCII victims

Nighat Dad

Audience

Helplines play a crucial role in providing support and resources

Sextortion cases are increasing, including against men/boys

While Nighat Dad initially focused on young women and girls as primary victims, the audience member’s comment about increasing sextortion cases against men and boys revealed an unexpected shift in victim demographics. This highlights the evolving nature of NCII and the need for support services to adapt.

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement centered around the readiness and appropriate use of AI in combating NCII, the balance between technological solutions and human oversight, and the evolving nature of NCII victims and perpetrators.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among speakers was moderate. While there were differing perspectives on the implementation of AI and the approach to victim support, there was a general consensus on the importance of addressing NCII and the need for improved legal frameworks and platform accountability. These differences highlight the complexity of the issue and the need for a multifaceted approach involving various stakeholders.

Partial Agreements

Both speakers agree on the potential of AI in content moderation, but disagree on the current state of AI readiness. Speaker 1 emphasizes the immediate benefits of AI with human oversight, while Boris Radanovic highlights the need to first address problematic training data in AI models.

Speaker 1

Boris Radanovic

AI can help with scale and speed of content moderation, but human oversight is still needed

Current AI models may contain problematic training data that needs to be addressed

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers recognize the potential of AI in addressing NCII but emphasize the continued need for human involvement, whether in content moderation or in developing more comprehensive legal frameworks.

Sophie Mortimer

Speaker 1

AI can help with scale and speed of content moderation, but human oversight is still needed

Existing laws often fall short in addressing NCII

Key Takeaways

AI has potential to help combat NCII, but must be implemented ethically with human oversight

Victim privacy, consent and cultural nuances must be prioritized when developing AI tools

Platforms need to improve transparency around AI use and cooperation with law enforcement

Helplines and victim support services play a crucial role but are facing rising case volumes

Legal frameworks for addressing NCII are improving but still have significant gaps

Emerging threats like AI-generated deepfakes pose new challenges

A multi-stakeholder approach involving industry, civil society and governments is needed

Resolutions and Action Items

Platforms should provide more transparency on how AI is being used to combat NCII

More research is needed on evolving trends and impacts of NCII across different demographics

Stakeholders should collaborate on developing ethical frameworks for AI use in this space

Efforts should be made to expand tools like StopNCII.org to more platforms

Unresolved Issues

How to effectively hold perpetrators accountable across jurisdictions

Balancing use of AI for detection/prevention with privacy and consent concerns

Addressing non-compliant websites that host NCII content

Improving consistency in evidence collection and categorization for prosecutions

Mitigating bias in AI models used for content moderation

Suggested Compromises

Using AI for initial detection but maintaining human review for final decisions

Allowing victims to choose how their data is used in reporting/removal processes

Balancing removal of content with preservation of evidence for potential prosecutions

Over the years we have seen that online harms or violence against women, or tech-facilitated gender-based violence, now we have so many names of this, but non-consensual intimate imagery around the world has very different consequences in different jurisdictions. In many part of the world, it kind of limits itself to the online spaces, but in some jurisdictions it turns into offline harm against especially marginalized groups like young women and girls.

speaker

Nighat Dad

reason

This comment highlights the global variability in impacts of NCII abuse, emphasizing how cultural context shapes consequences.

impact

It broadened the discussion to consider cultural and jurisdictional differences, setting the stage for a more nuanced global perspective.

We simply couldn’t be sure that the technology could safeguard people in their time of need adequately enough. I really hope this will change because I think there is huge potential here, and that we can revisit these concepts, but it’s just really imperative that we have trust in the security of such a tool and that it prioritises the safety and wellbeing of users.

speaker

Sophie Mortimer

reason

This comment introduces a critical perspective on the limitations and risks of AI in addressing NCII abuse.

impact

It shifted the conversation to consider the ethical implications and potential drawbacks of AI solutions, balancing the earlier optimism about technology.

I think just labelling something as fake can undermine the experience of individuals because there is a real loss of bodily autonomy and self-worth. It can cause really significant emotional distress. If we only focus on the falseness of an image, an AI system might overlook the broader psychological and social impacts on individuals.

speaker

Sophie Mortimer

reason

This insight challenges the assumption that identifying fake images solves the problem, highlighting the deeper psychological impacts.

impact

It deepened the discussion on the nature of harm in NCII abuse, moving beyond technical solutions to consider emotional and social consequences.

AI systems need to solve for cultural nuance and we know that current models are trained on English and other Western contexts and languages. But I’m also hopeful and optimistic that while we are having these conversations, these conversations will lead to a new generation of AI that will better understand cultural and linguistic nuance.

speaker

Nighat Dad

reason

This comment addresses a critical limitation in current AI systems while expressing optimism for future improvements.

impact

It sparked discussion on the need for more diverse and culturally sensitive AI development, emphasizing the importance of global perspectives.

I think from a stakeholder company’s perspective, we need more dedication, and I support Meta, and I love our friends from all over the world involved with StopNCI.org, but we are at 12 of the biggest platforms in the world engaged with us. We need hundreds, we need thousands of platforms dedicating to this, of advocating for a solution in this space, and then bringing it forward, and definitely more investment to NGOs and researchers across the world battling in this space

speaker

Boris Radanovic

reason

This comment emphasizes the need for broader engagement and investment from platforms and stakeholders to address NCII abuse.

impact

It shifted the discussion towards the need for more comprehensive and collaborative approaches, highlighting the scale of the challenge.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by broadening its scope from technical solutions to encompass cultural, ethical, and psychological dimensions of NCII abuse. They highlighted the complexity of the issue, emphasizing the need for nuanced, culturally sensitive approaches that go beyond simple technological fixes. The discussion evolved to consider the global variability of impacts, the limitations of current AI systems, the psychological depth of harm, and the need for broader stakeholder engagement. This multifaceted exploration led to a more comprehensive understanding of the challenges and potential solutions in combating NCII abuse.

How can AI systems for NCII detection be adapted ethically to fit varying cultural and legal contexts?

speaker

David Wright

explanation

This is important to ensure AI tools are effective and appropriate across different regions and cultures.

What role can AI play in scaling global NCI protection efforts?

speaker

David Wright

explanation

Understanding AI’s potential in this area could help improve and expand protection efforts worldwide.

What ethical principles are essential to ensuring AI tools support victims without compromising user autonomy?

speaker

David Wright

explanation

This is crucial for developing AI tools that help victims while respecting their privacy and agency.

How can we ensure transparency and constant auditing of AI content moderation systems?

speaker

Nighat Dad

explanation

This is important for understanding how well these systems perform and identifying areas for improvement.

How can platforms create easier pathways for users to report NCII content and ensure quick action regardless of the victim’s public status?

speaker

Nighat Dad

explanation

This is crucial for improving victim support and ensuring equal treatment of all users.

How can we address the issue of repeated offenders who find ways to return to platforms after being removed?

speaker

Nighat Dad

explanation

This is important for preventing ongoing abuse and improving platform safety.

How can we improve the collection and handling of evidence in NCII cases to better support prosecutions?

speaker

Sophie Mortimer

explanation

This is crucial for improving legal outcomes and supporting victims seeking justice.

How can we develop a consistent approach to categorizing intimate images for legal purposes?

speaker

Sophie Mortimer

explanation

This could help streamline legal processes and reduce barriers for victims coming forward.

How can we leverage the law to make NCII content less visible, particularly on non-compliant sites?

speaker

Sophie Mortimer

explanation

This is important for reducing the spread of NCII and helping victims move on with their lives.

How can we develop more forward-looking legal frameworks and governance structures to address digital abuse and hold perpetrators accountable?

speaker

Boris Radanovic

explanation

This is crucial for creating effective, long-term solutions to combat NCII and other forms of online abuse.

Summary

This discussion focused on youth-led digital futures, data cooperatives, and the Global Digital Compact (GDC). Participants explored how to engage youth in digital governance and innovation across different global regions. Key challenges identified included lack of funding, limited youth representation in decision-making processes, and the need for better digital literacy and skills development, especially in Africa and Latin America.

Speakers emphasized the importance of recognizing youth as a distinct stakeholder group in internet governance. They discussed the potential of data cooperatives to empower communities and promote equitable data usage, while highlighting barriers such as high costs of data collection and lack of regulatory frameworks. The conversation touched on the unique challenges faced by indigenous communities regarding data protection and access.

The Global Digital Compact was presented as a timely initiative to address digital inequalities and promote inclusive participation. Participants stressed the need for grassroots-level implementation and harmonization between global and regional efforts. The discussion also covered the importance of adapting education systems to prepare youth for the digital economy and future of work.

Speakers shared various initiatives and best practices for youth engagement, including school outreach programs and local innovation projects. They emphasized the need for continuous efforts to involve younger generations in digital governance discussions and to make these topics more accessible and relevant to youth. The discussion concluded with a call for more opportunities for youth to develop their own innovations and technologies, particularly in marginalized communities.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– The need for data cooperatives and digital governance frameworks that prioritize youth leadership and participation

– Challenges in funding and resourcing youth-led digital initiatives

– The importance of including youth as a distinct stakeholder group in internet governance

– Implementation of the Global Digital Compact and its potential impact on digital inclusion

– Barriers to youth participation such as lack of digital skills and access in some regions

The overall purpose of the discussion was to explore how youth can be more effectively engaged in digital governance and data/digital cooperative initiatives, particularly in the context of the Global Digital Compact.

The tone of the discussion was largely constructive and solution-oriented, with speakers offering insights from different regional perspectives. There was a sense of urgency around the need to better include youth voices, but also optimism about youth-led initiatives already underway. The tone became more action-oriented towards the end as speakers discussed concrete steps to improve youth participation.

Speakers

– Dana Cramer: Leader of Youth IGF Canada, 2024 Internet Society Youth Ambassador

– Natalie Tercova: Representative of IGF Czechia, member of ALAG within ICANN, researcher

– Denise Leal: Latin American Caribbean representative in the youth coalition

– Tabitha Wangechi: Online participant

– Turra Daniele: Youth IGF Italy, online moderator

– James Amate: Speaker from Ghana

– Keith Andere: African Civil Society Group, IGFR leader for Kenya Youth IGF

– Vlad Ivanets: Internet Society Youth Ambassador, session organizer

Additional speakers:

– Gael Van Weyenbergh: Session organizer

– Sienna: Audience member from United States

– Lina: Audience member, works with Council on Tech and Social Cohesion

– Aaron: Rapporteur (mentioned but did not speak)

Youth-Led Digital Futures: Exploring Data Cooperatives and the Global Digital Compact

This comprehensive discussion brought together youth leaders and representatives from various global regions to explore critical issues surrounding youth engagement in digital governance, data cooperatives, and the implementation of the Global Digital Compact (GDC). The session was structured around introductions of speakers, followed by focused blocks of questions addressing different aspects of digital futures.

Key Themes and Discussion Points:

1. Data Cooperatives and Digital Innovation

Dana Cramer introduced the concept of data cooperatives as a model for empowering communities and promoting equitable data usage. Data cooperatives were described as member-owned, member-controlled organizations that collect, process, and share data for the benefit of their members and communities.

James Amate, from Ghana, highlighted the challenges in implementing data cooperatives, particularly in developing regions. He emphasized the high costs associated with data collection and the need for community support, advocating for an open data model where stakeholders have a vested interest in data quality and production.

Denise Leal, representing Latin America and the Caribbean, stressed the importance of considering traditional communities in data regulations. She shared an example of a successful initiative from Brazil called the Local Innovation Agent programme, which implements innovation at the local level. Leal also highlighted the significance of community networks in bridging digital divides.

Tabitha Wangechi, an online participant, emphasized the need for fair compensation models for data collection, stating, “We need real data from real people, bringing members together, pulling data together, defining these revenue models that work for us, that make people trust that they can give their data and be compensated.”

2. Youth Engagement in Digital Governance

A central theme of the discussion was the importance of recognizing youth as a distinct stakeholder group in internet governance. Keith Andere, representing the African Civil Society Group, emphasized the need to institutionalize youth engagement beyond individual initiatives. He cited the African IGF’s efforts to ensure youth have a dedicated seat as stakeholders, highlighting the importance of sustained representation.

Andere also pointed out the mismatch between university education and job market needs in Africa, calling for more relevant digital skills training.

Natalia Tercova, from IGF Czechia, stressed the need for robust educational frameworks on digital literacy. She argued that current curricula, from elementary to university levels, lack comprehensive digital skills training, including media literacy and programming. Tercova suggested engaging youth through schools and workshops to increase participation in digital governance discussions.

The discussion also touched on the challenges of maintaining youth engagement as participants age out of initiatives. Speakers emphasized the need for continuously involving younger generations and developing sustainable models for youth participation.

3. Global Digital Compact and Regional Approaches

Vlad Ivanets, an Internet Society Youth Ambassador, initiated the discussion on the Global Digital Compact (GDC), presenting it as a timely initiative to address digital inequalities and promote inclusive participation. Speakers emphasized the need for careful implementation, particularly at the grassroots level.

Keith Andere stressed the importance of harmonization between UN initiatives and regional bodies like the African Union. He argued for a balance between innovation and regulation for emerging technologies, particularly in the African context.

Ivanets highlighted the opportunity for the African region to be active in the digital economy. This sentiment was echoed by other speakers who emphasized the need for regional approaches to digital governance within global frameworks.

4. Challenges and Opportunities

Throughout the discussion, several key challenges were identified:

– Lack of funding and resources for youth-led digital initiatives

– Limited youth representation in decision-making processes

– Need for better digital literacy and skills development, especially in Africa and Latin America

– High costs of data collection and lack of regulatory frameworks for data cooperatives

– Balancing innovation with regulation for emerging technologies

– Outdated employment laws that don’t protect digital-era workers

Despite these challenges, speakers also highlighted opportunities and potential solutions:

– Engaging youth directly through schools and local initiatives

– Developing more inclusive funding models for youth-led digital initiatives

– Implementing technological education to enable innovation among youth and marginalized groups

– Creating regional data cooperatives that balance local needs with broader policy frameworks

– Developing hybrid models of youth engagement that combine institutional support with grassroots initiatives

Audience Questions and Closing Remarks

The session concluded with audience questions addressing topics such as:

– Strategies for reducing duplication of efforts in data collection and solution development

– Practical implementation of data cooperatives for non-tech-savvy individuals

– Understanding funder priorities for supporting data cooperatives

– Ensuring grassroots-level input in the Global Digital Compact stakeholder consultation process

In her closing remarks, Denise Leal emphasized the importance of involving teens and marginalized groups in innovation and technology development, calling for more opportunities for youth to develop their own solutions.

Conclusion

The discussion highlighted the complex and multifaceted nature of youth engagement in digital governance, data cooperatives, and the implementation of the Global Digital Compact. It underscored the need for continued dialogue, action, and innovative approaches to address the challenges and opportunities in this rapidly evolving field, with a particular focus on developing regions and marginalized communities.

Dana Cramer: introductions from each speaker. We will then move into an overview of digital or data cooperatives and what they are. They are a new policy innovation idea. So we’ll be exploring that. Then we’ll begin working through the questions I just read, but as blocks, as in these different separated blocks, we’ll then invite a room participation for feedback so that we can have that ongoing conversation throughout this session. To that, I’m going to give the mic over to Natalie to introduce yourself.

Natalie Tercova: Thank you so much, Dana. I hope everyone can hear me well. Thank you so much. So my name is Natalia Tercheva. I am here as the representative of the IGF Czechia, but I also work as a member of ALAG within ICANN and I’m a researcher as part of my day job. And recently I’ve been following some of the youth initiative, not only in my region, but also global ones, fostering some forms of events or cooperation through workshops and events. So I hope that today we can all share some of our insights, maybe challenges we were facing and what next steps we can all take to improve these forms of initiatives and gathering to empower the youth as equal stakeholders in the internet governance ecosystem. Thank you for having me. Thank you very much.

Dana Cramer: Denise, we’ll flip over to you online if you wouldn’t mind giving an introduction of yourself.

Denise Leal: Hello everyone. I hope everyone is okay and hearing me well.

Dana Cramer: We can hear you.

Denise Leal: Thank you. I am happy for being here today, sharing a little bit about youth-led digital futures. This discussion is going to be very interesting and we are going to not only talk about youth and digital innovation, but also marginalized people, global south. And I am very excited because of these thematics. I am the Latin American Caribbean representative in the youth coalition and I… Hope to share a little bit about these topics and I hope you enjoy it.

Dana Cramer: Thank you very much. And we especially thank you for battling time zones to be with us here this morning, but I think it’s quite late for you over there right now. Wonderful. Tabitha, would you like to introduce yourself. I think that as we wait for some participation. Daniele, you’re not a speaker, you’re an online moderator, but would you like to say hi just so that our room understands your role in this session.

Turra Daniele: Hi everybody. This is Daniele Tura from Youth IGF Italy. I’ll be moderating the sessions today. So even if you are here on site or online wherever you’re connecting from, please feel free to use the chat so that we can better engage if you have any thoughts, comments or questions. I’ll be here to make those inputs heard here on the panel. Thank you.

Dana Cramer: Thank you very much. And we also have our organizers. I’d like to recognize Vlad who’s on the stage.

Vlad Ivanets: Yeah, it works. My name is Vlad Ivanets. I’m this year Internet Society Youth Ambassador and actually I was working on preparation of this session. We actually planned to cover some important issues with the emergence of the Global Digital Compact, which is a big thing I think and everyone is talking about this on this event and I hope we will be able to cover some perspectives that it brings with it, but also we have a few more topics to focus on and I hope that our speakers will be able to cover them as well.

Dana Cramer: Wonderful. Thank you very much and I just want to recognize Gail as our organizer for this session and our rapporteur which is Aaron to the end if you want to give a wave Aaron just as rapporteur. Wonderful. So, thank you so much. So, we’re going to start with our data cooperatives or digital cooperative section. And I’ll be introducing that. Again, my name is Dana Kramer. I am from Canada. I lead an organization called Youth IGF Canada and I’m a 2024 Internet Society Youth Ambassador as well as my purpose for being here this week. So, data cooperatives are a type of data intermediary that leverages the longstanding cooperative model to manage data for the benefit of its members who are both data producers and stakeholders. Rooted in democratic governance, collective ownership, and fiduciary accountability, data cooperatives empower individuals and communities to enhance privacy by ensuring the data usage aligns with member-defined rules, to improve insight and foresight capabilities, enabling a larger pool of stakeholders to innovate with shared data resources, foster equitable data usage, ensuring fair distribution of value among members, and unleash a new wave of innovation by creating transparent data flows that can be leveraged for research, development, and societal good. So, data cooperatives are more of an idea. They are not widely in practice. However, some historical parallels and relevance to these cooperative models include trade unions and cooperative banks. So, during the industrial era, these institutions redistributed power and resources, creating more equitable systems. Data cooperatives today, similarly in the digital economy, these cooperatives balance individual and collective interests, addressing the monopolistic tendencies of centralized platforms and the pitfalls of tokenized economies that we do tend to see as an issue of concentration within network effects. So, by aligning with different types of cooperative alliance principles, including democratic member control and concern for community, data cooperatives provide a resilient framework for addressing digital inequalities. And this brings us to the first question that we will address today as a panel. Oh, and we have James online. So James, if you wouldn’t mind un-muting yourself so you can give an introduction as our final speaker for this panel.

James Amate: Hi. Thank you very much. Took me some time to set up. I am James Amate. I am speaking from Ghana. I am joining this session where we operate on a more, let’s say, open data, open governance level. But I’m speaking in my personal capacity by using that experience to bring a new perspective to this conversation. So I do hope that we do have a very nice conversation around global digital compacts and then data competence. Thank you.

Dana Cramer: Thank you. Thank you very much. So we’ll be starting with our first question, which is, what governance frameworks are needed to support the successful propagation of youth-initiated digital or data cooperatives across various global contexts? And how can global institutions champion these initiatives? So some sub-questions that we’ll be working through as we explore this broad policy question will begin with, where do you think youth are building up digital networks in your respective region? And Natalie, I’ll start with you as our in-person speaker.

Natalie Tercova: Thank you so much, Dana. So for the context, as I mentioned, I’m here representing the IGF in Czech Republic, which is looking at… in Central Europe. So of course in my region we are facing some very specific issues and challenges that might not have been the same in other regions and in other countries. And currently the main topic for what we see is the issue of digital divide but not on the first level which might be the access or the access to technologies in terms of laptops, devices, but also to be connected when it comes to Wi-Fi connection and Internet coverage. But more focusing on the lack of skills when it comes to the effective usage of technologies. We currently lack some robust frameworks when it comes to education, educating young people in terms of media literacy, digital literacy, championing skills such as programming and so forth. These things are not yet embedded within the curricula through the educational system from elementary, spanning universities, schools. And this is something that we currently see as a big challenge that we have to overcome in a way. Because only thanks to this then we can see the youth initiatives specifically in the area of Internet governance and in digital, let’s say in the digital discussions in general, really thrive and make a difference. So this would be currently the biggest challenge we are seeing. However, there is a big emphasis on making this happen. There are already some initiatives from companies, companies that are operating on a global level, but also those who emerged directly in the Czech Republic, trying to champion the skills in young people, trying to offer them some forms of fellowships and programs. The education system is not offering these forms of solutions. So we can see that they are trying to learn, they are trying to improve this. However, we still miss some form of a robust framework to make this happen. This would be probably my opening. statement to this. Thank you.

Dana Cramer: Wonderful, thank you. I think what I’m hearing from you is the importance of organization and a recognition of multi stakeholders coming together to really champion these so that it can become more institutionalized. And to that, I will ask Denise, in your region, what are some examples of global institutions championing youth initiatives? So building off what Natalie was saying of that importance, what do you see in your area for how this is actually playing out?

Denise Leal: Okay, perfect. So it’s very interesting when we bring the topic of data across Latin America, specifically because we need to improve a lot. We do have the legislation and well, we are signatories for the treats that brings these discussions but we don’t consider the specific traditional communities when we start to discuss the regulations. So the biggest improvement that we would need to work with would be how we consider traditional knowledge and the data that comes from these communities in terms of natural resources and genetic data and how we do protect and consider the sovereignty of these groups. Because in reality, we are not really we are not in fact considering their sovereignty in terms of data here in Latin America and Caribbean region. We need to improve this but as a good topic to our discussion, not only a call to action, I would like to say that in terms of innovation, we do have some work on it across Latin America and Caribbean. I can say about a program from Brazil called Local Innovation Agent, who works bringing innovation and implementing it in a local level, which I think is very interesting and impactful. Well, I have a lot to say about the topic, but to start, I think these two discussions could be interesting. The local innovation is important and this specific program is implemented by government and private sector together, so it can really have a impact on different people. And the interesting part of it is that it works with people who doesn’t know in ESG and data framework and data collection, and we start to teach them through this project. So I will stop here because I think it’s just a small talk right now, and then I will speak more on these topics. Thank you.

Dana Cramer: Thank you very much, Denise. That’s wonderful. James, what types of opportunities do you think other stakeholder groups can help build up digital or data cooperatives in your region specifically? So we get kind of that starting with Europe, moving to Latin America, and then hearing the African perspective as well. Or you’re muted right now. You need to unmute. Happens to all of us.

James Amate: All right, so thank you very much for that question. I’m going to speak from the African perspective. So in Africa, the data gap is very wide. So there’s a huge discrepancy between the data we need, the data we collect. and then the data we are allowed to share, right. Now there’s challenges in collecting the data that makes it difficult to share or there’s always these very rigid frameworks about how data is collected, how data is shared. Now I come from a community background where we do a lot of community-led initiatives. So for example, I sometimes contribute to Wikipedia and in that space, it’s a community-driven approach where members of the community come together to collect data on specific topics. It’s the same with the OpenStreetMap Foundation and the OpenStreetMap community where we are constantly contributing to a particular data source. Now we need to be able to understand what the data harmonization processes are, how do we collect the data, how do we validate the data and also where is it going to be stored and who has access to it. Because I do a lot of open data, I strongly advocate for an open data and open governance model where everybody has a stake in the data because the more people have a stake, the more we are likely to increase the quality of the data we produce and then the more useful the data becomes to everybody. Because when we take a look at my work with the OpenStreetMap community, we can see that the data we collect has various advantages and uses for humanitarian organizations, inversion, flood detection and we also do a lot of of disaster response with that data. So you could see that because the community came together to produce that data, it becomes more meaningful and people are more passionate about it. So I personally advocate for an open data model where you have a stake in the data and the quality of producers. Thank you.

Dana Cramer: Thanks for really highlighting that importance to ownership of data, as well as the peer production model. And with a very concrete example with Wikipedia as well. Keith, thank you for making it here today. I’m not sure if you would like to introduce yourself and potentially discuss how digital and data cooperatives are working in your region and being championed by youth. Keith, are you able to hear me on the headset? Okay. As we continue to sort out a few technical difficulties, the digital and data cooperatives have been the first block that we’ve had to really think more on a theoretical level for these youth-led futures. And we’d like to invite the audience for any questions and Gail will be able to run the mic around the room to help ensure that we have, again, that peer production in how we understand too. So if you have a question or would like to provide any form of intervention that can help formulate our report, we ask you to raise your hand so that we can get a microphone to you.

Audience: Thank you for this. My name is Lina, and I work with the Council on Tech and Social Cohesion. And my question is, what actually needs to change? Is there a policy or is there a way for cooperatives to come into existence? Like, is there a barrier that you need to overcome? Because the idea itself clearly has value.

Dana Cramer: Thank you very much for your question. Kies, I’m not sure if you would like to start that off, as well, to introduce yourself for the panel, so you can get that conversation rolling.

Keith Andere: Thanks so much. Sincere apologies, one, that I came late. I forgot my badge, so I had to go and look for another one. And then when I got in, I think I tuned to Channel 1, and I was looking and feeling lost, because there was another sound that seemed like it was off. But nonetheless, I’m happy to be here. Thank you so much for accommodating me and for the organizers putting this together. My name is Keith Andere from Kenya African Civil Society Group, an IGFR leader for Kenya Youth IGF. And so very pleased to be here today and to contribute to the discussions that are very pertinent, especially for us from Global South. Because now this speaks to, one, I come from a continent where it is believed to be the most youthful continent. And so the issues of data, the issues of digital future, the issue of privacy are things that are very dear to the youthful population from Africa. And I believe, you know, not only just to the Global South, but to the rest of the world. And so, as I said, I’m happy to take up the questions and contribute. Thank you.

Dana Cramer: Thank you very much. So for our first question from Lina, what types of policy or business models will need to change to allow for data and digital cooperatives to potentially flourish in our online environment?

Keith Andere: Super, that is a very fantastic question. So I think, and again, my reflections are going to largely come from Africa, at least where I come from. You’ll find that even before we get to the level of data cooperatives and policies, we are still grappling with very basic fundamental policies, of data privacy and data protection. We’re also seeing a lot of gaps in terms of harmonizations between countries, because the policy, for example, in one country is not speaking to the other, and therefore there’s a little of gap. So we see this as a challenge when it comes to things like data flow, where data is hosted, where data is resting in Africa, for example. Now pushing for Agenda 2063, which is anchored on what we are calling the Africa Free Continental Trade Area. So making Africa one trading block. So the opportunity there is the digital economy and the digital businesses, but then these barriers are a hindrance in terms of how do we govern our data? And this data is data that, one, being produced by businesses, two, data that are sitting either from government and these are all manner of data, be it biometric, be it IRS, be it all this manner of data. And so the kind of policies that would unlock this, I think, are more regional policies, as opposed to national policies, so that this creates an even playing ground to ensure that cross-border data flow, ensure that data for citizens who are moving from one country, data portability. is something that we can plug in and we can use, but at the same time ensure that this data from a regional perspective is already harmonized. I think EU and the global North is already doing very well in terms of data harmonization and the policy that are being harmonized from an EU level and the rest, but Africa is lacking behind as far as this harmonization is concerned, but we also need to strengthen and back up this data protection kind of laws with security kind of laws that in, whether transnational crime also is something that can be covered because data is, as they say, is the, you know, the currency is the 21st oil, century oil, you know? So how do we take it as the only asset, you know, that can drive economies to the future? So just to answer the question again, I think the point here is harmonization, not only at a national level, but at regional level, and also how do we support countries that do not have resources to put out this kind of data, be it technical resources, be it financial resources, because that for me is still a big challenge right now. Thank you.

Dana Cramer: No, thank you very much. And I think that teasing out your answer is the importance of regionalism within data and digital cooperatives of recognizing yourself as part of a broader block. And in a current geopolitical competition that’s rising and creating less free trade, where you get such innovative free trade agreements that you see in the European Union as well, now in the African Union, that that could be a disruptor for it. So now resting back in that European element, because we’ve been talking about Europe now suddenly, Natalie, could you also provide input to the speakers or to the panelists question so that we can also have that pluralistic, multi-regional recognition of answering it?

Turra Daniele: And before you answer that, we also have… a question that I would say you are the best person to answer to. And the other question of online is, she wants, she’s an academic researcher, Anjude Alwis, wants to find out if you think there are advantages to harmonize education data and, for example, higher education certificates accreditation, and do that also for other regions, for example, for the African region.

Dana Cramer: Thank you. So combining those two approaches of policy, but also including this educational policy element too within the answer.

Natalie Tercova: Thank you so much. I think it actually makes perfect sense. And I thank so much for the online question, because this is pretty much what I also wanted to touch upon, which brings me back to the fact that as well, I am active as a lecturer at university. And that is why also I see that there are still some gaps also in the understanding how we can actually take back the ownership of our own data. And sometimes people still lack the knowledge what is happening with the data. And also personally, myself, I sometimes don’t know, you know, there are all sorts of terms and conditions. And we can all ask ourselves, honestly, if we actually read them and if we know the consequences, once we say as we accept. And then the problem is also, as my colleague said about the harmonization, that is definitely one thing. But taking a step back, we have to ensure that we understand what it means and where the data goes and what is actually the real barrier between us owning them and knowing where they’re now circulating, who are these parties who have the access to them and what they’re going to do with it. So I believe taking it back to the question on education and raising some form of awareness and maybe creating a framework that would span various levels of education would make perfect sense, because if we are not aware of the consequences and the terms and so forth, then how can we even ensure that everything is in order and everything makes sense, but also why should we even be interested in the first place in this issue if we just don’t understand what it means and what it encompasses. And it is not something secret that currently the data that we all own and we provide, sometimes we just provide it and we don’t know about it and we don’t know how actually important and rich all this information are we are just putting out there, because we just don’t understand the consequences or how some specific third parties are using it to their benefit and sometimes this benefit is very, very big and it’s very pricey so we are putting all these, our specific forms of values out there without actually knowing how they’re gonna be used and how maybe if it would be different and we would be still the owners of them how we can make sure that they are used in a sense that we would be happy about it and we would be encouraged to use it in a different way and then maybe building some form of communities or hubs where these data we agreed to use would be used if it makes any sense, I hope. So thank you so much for these two questions, I hope I touched on both of them in a sense and I agree that education as well here as in other discussions revolving around internet governance and data handling is the most important and crucial one and this is where we should start. Thank you.

Dana Cramer: Thank you for also bringing out that business model perspective of how we need more transparency in how data is used and decomplexifying business models to ensure that we can understand how data is formulated, used and then how that peer production can be mutually beneficial opposed to concentrated. James, I saw you had your hand up earlier, but I’m not sure if Natalie maybe touched on what you were planning to say, which is why it might have gone down or if you would like to speak.

James Amate: Yes, she basically took the thought out of my mouth. But just to add a bit, I think we need to look at data interoperability, touching on the educational question in the chat, because we need data to be able to sync to each other, talk to each other. It should not be difficult for me to take data that’s generated here in Ghana and make it useful in Kenya. But it looks very much like the current state of data harmonization. So even locally, we sometimes have gaps in how we collect data and how data between even government organizations talk to each other. And that is very difficult for us to unify data and then protect it more secure. Because the more data spreads, the more complexity it has. So we need to be able to reduce those complexities to make sure that it’s our probability is prioritized. And then we can be able to build the cooperatives that drive development. I do hope I’ve answered that question.

Dana Cramer: No, thank you. I think that really teases out business models as well for interoperability and needing businesses to work together potentially through enforced memorandum of understanding agreements or enforcement of entering into trade associations with specified goals to allow for more data justice. Denise, I think that you had a comment on this. And I know that you also had some context about how Indigenous governance models can also be reflected into digital and data cooperatives. If you could speak to your planned perspective on that and also adding that in too, please.

Denise Leal: Perfect. Thank you. So when it comes to Indigenous data, there are a lot of questions that we have to answer to make sure that we’re able to build the cooperatives that are going to be able to support the business models that we have in place. And I think that’s something that we need to be able to work on. And I think that’s something that we need to be able to work on. And I think that’s something that we need to be able to work on. thing is that most people don’t really understand, is that some of this data are public in the internet, so you can access it and it doesn’t have regulations that says that you have to take it out of the internet or be careful with it. Just an example, we have all the locations of the indigenous groups on internet and it’s not categorized nor as a sensitive data, neither as a personal data, because it’s the location of the families and the ethnicities, and it’s the specific location of each one, so it’s not the location of a house, but a whole group. So how you can ask for it not to be there, because, well, in which category of data is it considered? It’s not, this is the thing, it’s not considered in any category here in Brazil, and you cannot ask for it. An example of what problem it can lead is the Yanomamis genocides, their locations and information were accessed in the internet, and also other platforms were used to map their activities, and then the people that worked with mining went to these groups, these families, and they have killed, raped and committed other crimes against these families. Well, we can see that the disposition, that the fact that the indigenous data are internet and other spaces, so freely and easily to access really leads to real problems. These are just some examples of problems, but we do have another kind of problems, just like the natural resources data is also available through the DSE. DSIs in internet and it cannot be, it doesn’t have any kind of regulation about it. So how can you really care about the natural resources data because it’s related to history, culture and other aspects of indigenous families and it doesn’t have a way to protect it. So you have, we have many problems related to this kind of data because it is, these data are sensitive, but they are not considered, not even as personal data because they are related to a collective group. So the thing is, the person here in our audience made the question which is very interesting about the, what should we change to allow data cooperatives and what are the regulations related with it. So here we could say that data cooperative could be an answer to indigenous data because if they could regulate and, well, the people managing their data, they could have a data cooperative to manage the natural resources data, for example, but we don’t have regulations enough to support data cooperatives here. So I believe it’s, it would be, data cooperatives could face some problems here in Brazil because we don’t have enough considerations in the law that to have this model of governance and to allow people and groups to manage and to own the, some kind of data. That’s it, what I wanted to, to add to this discussion. I am worried that we need to better improve our regulations to encompass data cooperatives and also to encompass DSIs, data, resources and to consider specific groups and their sensitive data and their specific cases so that we don’t promote exclusion through the law, because we are not promoting inclusion, we are promoting exclusion with our data regulation here in Brazil and also in other countries.

Dana Cramer: Thank you very much, Denise. Before we end this specific block of our workshop, are there any further questions from the floor over here? Gail, if you wouldn’t mind running the mic.

Audience: This is a super interesting topic and definitely one of my favorite workshops so far. Thank you. Sorry, name and obligation. Oh, sorry. My name is Sienna and I’m from the United States and I’m here independently. And my question is for people who don’t really know much about data cooperatives, think you’re average everyday person, how do you get them on board with this? And then what does implementation actually look like with people who aren’t in the tech space or aren’t in this kind of space?

Dana Cramer: Thank you. And then, Daniela, is there a question in the chat that also builds on this to help our panelists combine their answers?

Turra Daniele: There isn’t a specific question about this in the chat. I would just have a short comment on that, even if I’m not technically a speaker. And then I’d like to have maybe Tabitha for a quick comment because she would be interested in giving a comment as well. So I will try to be very brief. So I’ve discussed during these days with Gail about the actual implementation and what kind of shape it could have as a concept. The main incentive for local businesses and civil societies organizations to get into data cooperative could be actively to get digitized, first of all. So the point is, if you do not have the source of data, data cooperatives as a concept kind of fall down. So I believe that the key word in there is, again, digitalization of processes of both businesses, and very also, in a way, normal and traditional businesses, think about constructions, agriculture, everywhere around the world. All of these organizations need to digitalize their processes through ERPs or CRM of any kind. And the key revolution here could be about who’s providing the tools for them to get digitized. And in particular, I’m thinking about the products and the concept of having that data getting managed through an intermediary that could be, for example, an NGO itself, where all the organizations receiving those digitalization products and skills could get a stake in. And then that intermediary that is collectively and cooperatively managed could decide where that data could go, right? So in that sense, think of having, first of all, a digitalization of businesses as step one. Step two could be having a platform that could allow all these organizations to gather outreach or sell their products and services to a larger audience. And the third step is about having that intermediary actively sell or manage that data on behalf of all the members. This is kind of the idea, but first of all, you need a strong implementation of digital processes in all of these organizations. And with cooperatives, we have the chance to do this responsibly. I hope this is clear.

Dana Cramer: And Tabitha, as one of the organizers for the panel, you had some comments you want to weigh in? Okay, so we’ll move on to our next area, closing the block right now for this section, so we can get through each of the policy questions. So our next policy question broadly is, how can current digital governance frameworks be adapted to prioritize youth leadership in decision-making, ensuring effective tracking of funding and resource allocation, and what lessons can be learned from other internet governance spaces involving youth digital leaders? So we have some sub-questions for the panel to also approach, which first and foremost will be, in your youth-led initiatives, how many funds do you need to engage youth? Have you experienced barriers in developing digital governance frameworks due to lack of financial support? And we’ll start online for this with James, if you would be able to unmute yourself to speak to this point.

James Amate: Yes, thank you for the question. I think the cost of data collection is one of the most underestimated parts of building a data cooperative, right? So it’s not just the cost of maybe hosting the data, like infrastructure, it’s the cost around setting up the community. maybe, you know, devices for collecting data, modes of collecting data, duration of collecting data, right? Support for the individuals who collect the data, right? So, all of these things are an important part of, you know, building a data cooperative. Now, most of my work is done around volunteer-led data collection, where volunteers come together to collect data at their spare time on their own time, right? But sometimes, even that, you know, you still need to spend money on, you know, building capacity, right? Building skills on how to properly collect data, how to properly validate the data, and how to properly store the data. So, these costs can sometimes stifle the progress we try to make around these data cooperatives, right? Because it’s the people that are cooperating to build the model. So, if the people are not supported in one way or the other, you know, sometimes in stipends, sometimes, you know, getting internet, right? Because most of these data collection models, you’d have to upload the data online, and we look at things like internet costs, which is one of the very key, should I say, barriers to active participation of community members. So, how do we look at supporting the communities that collect data that we hopefully wish to rely on in the future? And how do we also look to support organizations that are coordinating these communities to be able to do more work.

Dana Cramer: Thank you very much. Natalie if you wouldn’t mind also discussing this because on this element of funds to engage, because you’re in quite a few different digital leadership initiatives and stages and all of this costs money so I know with your robust experience that you could potentially shine some light to it, and kind of build that history of when you work on one initiative. What the cost for that so we can better understand like what James was just discussing about the cost for initiatives that don’t yet exist yet with the digital and data cooperatives.

Natalie Tercova: Thank you so much. Well, it’s no surprise that the issue of money and funds is always the most crucial one when it comes to effectively engaging the youth so I would maybe start by saying that I personally perceive that the biggest issue is that we are not perceived as a specific stakeholder group in many forms. Sometimes there is this categorization that we have government and we have the technical community and then there’s the rest, and the rest is like civil society with academics and with youth, and just personally me coming from the academia sphere and I’m coming from the researcher point of view I, I really don’t think that our insights and our angles to certain topics are in line with those what young people have children or broader, this big bag of civil society so I think that whenever we talk about effectively engaging youth and supporting the initiatives, we should not treat them as this broad civil society, civil society bag, because then whenever we want to highlight certain initiatives and make someone understand that it is really needed to bring them somewhere to bring them as equal stakeholders to debates on the GDC or on other processes or on the topics of digital governments. or just simply being here, getting them here to IGF, having the voice and speaking it is so important not to treat them as just civil society because we have many other representatives already so usually they just don’t receive any forms of support or mentorship or funds because usually there is someone else already taking the spot and it’s usually not that pricey because they probably have their own connections already and this is already this, let’s say, shortcoming when it comes to treating youth initiatives they just basically don’t have the support usually that they need they still need to build these networks and generate some form of support as they go and it’s like a vicious circle so if we would have them here with us or at any other forums and events then it would be probably easier for them to raise up why their voice is important then get some connections and then eventually generate enough support for them to come but if they don’t have this opportunity in the first place then there’s not much we can do about it so usually we struggle with getting them somewhere we always see from the government some options like oh you can actually submit a paper or you can submit a report or like your opinion written somewhere but you never know actually how and if even it is implemented which is of course an issue and another thing is that if you’re not in the room and we all know how this is you are low-key excluded from those discussions that are very important happening outside the rooms we all know this over coffee this is usually where the real work is happening and so if we don’t engage them engage them really where these things are happening they’re losing the equalness in this debate eventually so with this I want to say that I was part of many also youth-focused initiatives in the internet governance ecosystem also when I was starting being interested in all these topics myself spanning from ITU, the European Dialogue on Internet Internet Governance, where I actually met Daniela, and then being part of ICANN’s program when we worked with each other with Dana, planning the NextGen, which supports people who are still also studying in high schools and then having some forms of fellowship on again various levels. We can see that this is a very good praxis coming from the big organizations and initiatives that already understand that they need a new perspectives of young people, because if we keep on talking about the Internet for the future, we should include those who will be living in the future. And I think this is fundamental to understand that there are a specific form of stakeholder group. We need to have them somewhere as equal partners to the discussions. However, if we don’t provide them the opportunity to come, then we are excluding them.

Dana Cramer: No, thank you. I think that perspective of youth as a stakeholder group is so important, especially as we’re heading into WSIS plus 20. Maybe to put in a recommendation for this to update the definition of the multi-stakeholder model as part of WSIS to include youth as a stakeholder group, which wouldn’t be too obtuse considering the technical community wasn’t recognized in that first iteration. And so it wouldn’t be abnormal to request another stakeholder group. But also, as you were saying, that youth initiatives, and they really rest within opportunities for youth as well. We can’t have youth-led initiatives if we don’t also grant youth opportunities and create multiple points where you can be in the room. And as we’re seeing also with WSIS and the GDC, a question of if the GDC’s review is tagged with WSIS in Geneva each year, does that create funding issues to try to get to Switzerland once a year to be part of those conversations? And what does that mean for different stakeholders around the world who do not have the financial resources to do so most prominently youth? of potentially a better venue that travels around the world as we all travel with it. Denise, I know you had some responses as well to this question. And in addition, could you also tell us a bit about your journey into becoming a young digital leader and explain how using digital governance frameworks can benefit from other youth coming through the leadership pipe similar to you?

Denise Leal: Yes, sure. Thank you. So I’ve been part of some youth programs. I started with the Brazilian youth program, then got involved with the youth like IGF, and now I am in the youth coalition. And we can see that these organizations, these youth organizations are strong in their discussions. What we need to be stronger is to be more involved in policymaking processes, I think, not only here, but also worldwide. And I can see on the other hand, in the other side that we already have, we do need to be more involved in policymaking, but we already have some good results of our work in digital governance and related to internet governance and other spaces. And I am really trying to bring the discussion on traditional communities this year. So if I’m speaking about it, I can say that some young people and the younger youth organizations, along with other stakeholders, have achieved a very special thing that I wanted to share here. We have some traditional language in Google Translator and in other platforms, which allows them and other groups to share data from these communities that speak these languages and online informations. And well, This is a result of a work of young people, not only this, but we can see other improvements. We have been proving how the discussions on internet governance works across Latin American Caribbean and we are trying to have a more dynamic way to guide and to lead these discussions so that we can really hear everyone and where and encompasses everyone in the in every aspect that needs to be in the discussions. We do have some local initiatives that are impacting youth and other people’s lives and I can see that the young leaders have worked well and have the knowledge they need, the knowledge to be…

Turra Daniele: Sorry Denise, I think we have some technical issues because we cannot, we can not… Okay, it’s okay now?

Denise Leal: You cannot hear well?

Turra Daniele: No, no, it’s okay.

Denise Leal: It’s okay, all right. Well, anyway, I was almost ending my topic. I just wanted to say that youth leaders have been doing a great work by making the digital governance more inclusive and effective in this aspect. So we do need to keep this work and we’ll keep looking for these groups that are not usually part of the discussions. When we involve these groups and work for them, we are really making a great impact. I can see it here in Latin American Caribbean. This year, if I speak from my experience of youth like IGF, I can say that we had many sessions that brought these discussions and we’ve got a chance to work with people that are working with community networks and this is very important in terms… of the GDC, it should be more there, more considered in the document, but it is in the document, not as much as it should be, but it is, which is a victory, we think. Community networks are also an answer to places where we don’t have access to internet. So here in Latin American Caribbean, we have not only young people, but other groups working with it, but specifically talking about young people, we have an organization like KIST, which is an indigenous organization that works all across Latin America, implementing community network in indigenous places where it’s really far and it’s really difficult to access internet, so they are doing a great job. So we have these examples of youth work and youth involvement in digital governance. So we’ve got to value them, to give support and also to involve them in policymaking because we do have practical work to show and results to show. I wanted to say this, I am feeling that I am giving a lot of cultural actions, but I hope that I gave some good examples to you of what our youth work here in Latin American Caribbean looks like. Thank you.

Gael Van Weyenbergh: Yes, thank you, Denise. That’s very useful indeed. So I want to turn over to you, Keith. What is the situation in Kenya? Can you give us some insight?

Keith Andere: Thanks, Gael. I’ll not only just give the situation in Kenya, but I’ll also touch up in an African situation, having been a youth leader and led up an African youth movement. I think, number one, I agree with what colleagues have said, but most importantly I want to highlight that there’s need to institutionalize youth engagement, because what we’ve seen especially in these digital spaces, I think youth engagement has almost been kind of hand-picking kind of engagement, you know, either because the interest is personal and so the people who come into kind of the spaces are more personalized and not institutionalized kind of, you know, youth engagement. So there isn’t, I haven’t seen much of engaging youth institutions, and youth institutions here are youth networks, youth organizations, especially those who are working at the grassroots level, and they have the aspect and elements of, you know, digital inclusion, digital rights as it. So maybe one aspect that we really need to do is look at how do we support youth networks, how do we support youth organizations themselves to grow the capacity so that they become our change agents, in the sense that there’s continuity. I’ve seen situations where in Kenya, for example, there’s a lot of opportunity to engage young people, but as we grow older other things come in, so we tend to drop off, yeah, either because now I have a young family or now I’ve got another opportunity, I’ve gotten a job, so we tend to drop off and think about advocacy and this kind of engagement. It’s a long-term kind of game, if I was gonna put it that way, and so by the time we realize a very minimal milestone, you know, some of these colleagues who understood the process have already dropped off. I do agree, you know, with what also the colleague said about having youth as a standalone, you know, stakeholder group. I think from an African IGF perspective, this is something that really pushed a few years ago to ensure that youth are considered as a standalone stakeholder group. And what that meant is that, you know, there was a seat of youth as a stakeholder in the mug of the African IGF. But what has happened over the years is, you know, that progressive thinking has been reversed back. And now they’re saying, look, we don’t need a youth seat at the mug, but we can get youthful people into the mug, which I think is detriment to the kind of progress that we already want to see. Then lastly, I think, again, we cannot underscore the issues of resources. And it’s a twofold thing. One, there is a lot of resources to be tapped, but on the flip side, there isn’t any resources that, you know, gets down to the people. And I think one way we can ensure that young people are getting these resources is to also look at the stringent donor expectation of youth organizations. Some of them operate as loose networks. And so by the time, you know, you’re getting some little funds to go and do, you know, something, they want a whole list of things, you know, make sure you have audit for three years, da, da, da, da, da, da, da, da. Yet this is just a coalition of young people who are coming and they’re operating as loose networks. So how do we, in our funding models, look at ways to fund the unfunded and the unfundable so that we include those people who don’t have the usual structure, but they’re actually doing the work at the community level. So I’ll stop here.

Gael Van Weyenbergh: Thank you so much. Thank you, Kees. These are very meaningful points. So yeah, the first one to recap is how can we ensure that, like we heard several times during this event, that the use is not on the menu, but at the table, and that you cannot kick them out of the table. And also how to ensure a sense of continuity. And lastly, you mentioned the question of resources that we all experience every day. And especially last week, two weeks ago, we had an event and we experienced firsthand how to fund these loose networks of organizations. James, is this something you want to react on?

James Amate: Yes, I think the problem we currently have in the multi-stakeholder engagement is differentiating priorities. So each stakeholder has their own priorities when it comes to data cooperatives. Yes, we may align on the vision, but the priority might be different. So you could see that the commitments may wait as time goes on. Now, what I would have loved is to have maybe certain funders of data cooperatives in the building. If there are some, maybe they can tell us their perspective of what they look out for in sponsoring these cooperatives. What’s their mission? What’s their goal? And how can we work together with the grassroots to be able to align properly? Because yes, they have the funds, but we need to be able to align that correctly with the people at the grassroots level, on the youth level, and be able to get the message from the bottom up. Because sometimes it’s very difficult for you to be up there and then have a feel of what it takes to be a leader. you know, at the grassroots level, right? So I think maybe if we can get some funders, some governments, if they’re in the building to help us understand their perspective or what they’re looking out for in joining these cooperatives and how we can better work together.

Turra Daniele: Thank you so much, James and Keith, for your valuable inputs. I think the theme and the topic about opportunities for youth are very important. As we mentioned so, so many times, youth is very hard for youth as a stakeholder group to get actively represented because they do not have the experience, they do not have working experience. Most often they are in a way residual stakeholder group and instead we need more and more opportunities and also independent coalition and initiatives to get them involved. And in terms of opportunities, I would like to let Tabitha Wangeci that is an online participant to give her some time, just an input. Just please be aware of time. We are expected to finish this session in a few minutes and we would like to move to the next item. So please Tabitha, the floor is yours.

Tabitha Wangechi: All right, hi everyone. Thank you so much for the opportunity to speak. I think I’ve been trying to speak for a very long time, but finally I’m able to speak. I actually wanted to point it out, the fact that in Africa, we have very limited access to quality, trusted and reliable data. And that’s why it’s very hard to create this, you know, cooperatives in Africa and even policies. starting from there. For example, I have worked as, let me say, a gig worker, not a member of a cooperative, a data cooperative in Kenya. And at the time, it was foreign led, but it was coming to Kenya to pay us to collect data and submit to them. And at the time, I didn’t know what I was doing. I didn’t know I was getting involved in this business of a data cooperative. So having this conversation and looking back, I see how much data we collected and the amount we were paid. It makes me think that in Africa, we don’t even need policies for data cooperatives. We need updated laws on employment. For example, our employment laws are 20 years old. They don’t address the digital era. They don’t address the plight that workers go through, for example, in digital cooperatives, to be able to gather that data and be paid the amount that you deserve. It’s not clear because we don’t have laws for that. So there’s a huge room for exploitation. And aside from that, let’s not forget that we are in a role with big tech, because they have a lot of our data that they are hoarding. And for us to access it, we need to pay to have it. So this conversation is very timely, because I see data cooperatives as the future for the data markets. It’s going to be big, it’s going to be highly valued. But my question is, as Africa, where are we? Where are we positioning ourselves to be able to capture this moment and not be left behind and be exploited by big tech and the global North? So we need to up our game number one by securing the finances that we need, because it’s actually very expensive. Number one, if you’re establishing a reasonable, a well-established business model in the data world. It’s very expensive, resource extensive. You need people who are educated who can get you data that is quality, reliable. You cannot just gather data from anyone. And also we’re not looking for academic data. Dana, I’m sorry, I know she’s a researcher in the academia. We also need to shy away from that. Avoiding data that is too academic in data cooperatives. We need real data from real people, bringing members together, pulling data together, defining these revenue models that work for us, that make people trust that they can give their data and be compensated. We can build a future where data is easily accessible, reliable, and we can now sell our data for a profit and not just be exploited for data by big tech and not be paid anything. So as Africans, we need to come back home, have the conversation, refine our labor laws, number one, protect our data, and also harmonize data between countries in the continent. I know the African Union has been working very hard on that. So big up to them on that. But still, we have a very long way to go when it comes to building sustainable data cooperatives in Africa. Thank you for the opportunity.

Gael Van Weyenbergh: Thank you, Tabitha. It’s very insightful to have your insights from a first-hand perspective and not only as a theoretical concept. Vlad, you want to add something on this?

Vlad Ivanets: Yeah, I would probably answer Tabitha’s question as well as I would like to raise the talk on Global Digital Compact a bit, because I think that the implementation of this document is really enabling the African region and the South region to be an active part of the digital economy will all live in currently and with its very enthusiastic goal of connecting 2.6 billion people who still remain not connected to the internet by 2030 seems quite doable if the whole world will join this program and if we will have the collaborative work in this regard. So I think this document is big and it is really discussed throughout the forum, throughout the communities and it provides a lot of opportunities for those who are really searching for help, I would say and it really highlights the problems that younger generation is facing right now because we all know that young people who are using the internet, they sometimes have the problems connected with sexual abuse and misinformation and many, many other problems that they are struggling from living in digital cyberspace. I would like to open the floor for the discussion of Global Silk Compact, if I may, because I think we kind of ignored this one and this one is important. I mean, I would invite our speakers to speak on this one. Thank you.

Natalie Tercova: Thank you, Vlad. I am more than happy to kickstart this conversation because one of the core principles we see within the Global Digital Compact is that we want to have inclusive participation. and we want the Internet to be as inclusive, but also to be a trusted space. There’s a lot of discussions within the idea and values within the GDC is to provide a trusted platform for everyone to feel safe online. And from my perspective, the European perspective, and on topics I’ve been working on in the past few years, I’m constantly focusing on children and youth as the end users of the Internet and digital platforms and what types of opportunities but also risks they currently face online. And in the past days here at IGF, I’ve been delivering several talks on the problematics of child sexual abuse materials and all sorts of harmful content that are circulating online. And yet, until today, it is still unclear and it’s not harmonized who should be responsible for, let’s say, hosting these forms of materials online. What happens to those who reshare these things, those who download these things? And there are still so many question marks and real threats in the online environment, not only for youth, but also for other vulnerable groups. And I really hope and wish that through GDC and maybe other frameworks, we can do more for those who are very much at risk of being vulnerable and having their well-being negatively affected due to the limited frameworks or also maybe regulations within the online environment. Because currently, unfortunately, we still cannot say that the online platforms and Internet per se is a space that can be trusted and it can be safe for everyone. So I’m really having high hopes that GDC might be maybe a good start, a good kickstart to having more robust and rigorous frameworks to ensure that we can really one day say that the Internet is here for us, to help us, help us thrive, help us use the opportunities they provide while making us able to… mitigate the risks, and stay safe as much as we can. Keith, maybe if I can do this move, and then put the floor over to you, so you can add up on whatever you have to say to the Global Digital Contact.

Keith Andere: Yeah, sure. Thank you so much. I think the DGDC is a very timely kind of cooperation that has come up, you know, talking about data justice and the inequalities that come with it. But most importantly, what we see as a very progressive aspect also from us, from Africa, is the development and the adoption of the Africa Digital Compact, you know, which then aligns very closely with the Global Digital Compact, but then it speaks to the African, you know, priorities. And I think the biggest question here is the implementation, right? If we don’t figure out how best do we have this implementation, especially in Africa, then we’re going to have a challenge. It speaks about, you know, stakeholder consultation. How do we ensure that the stakeholder consultation, for example, is not a high-level stakeholder consultation, but a very low-level, grassroots kind of consultation, so that we are able to move together, ensuring that nobody is left behind. I mean, in the sense of SDGs leaving no one behind. I think also that we really need that. Again, I speak a lot from an African perspective. We really need to see the harmonization itself between the UN-led process and also the regional INGO, which in our case is the African Union, making sure that we have synergy between these two entities, so that the African Union also owns up this Global Digital Compact, becomes a key player in terms of implementation and making sure that… You know, we are bridging digital divides, ensuring that we have affordable and accessible digital technologies. I think one also of the challenges that Africa is being faced with is skills development and digital literacy. That still remains a huge challenge and the digital literacy comes also with a level of general literacy, right? In Africa, we have a number of young people who are still illiterate. So even though we want to go into the digital literacy and skills development, there’s a lot of skill gaps, skill mismatch. If you go to the education systems, a very unfortunate that many African countries are already, you know, using now and where the future is going in terms of future of work and the skill of the future, there’s a whole mismatch. It’s not new, but universities are also producing half baked people, you know, graduates. So you go to the university, finish your degree, whatever. Learn obsolete things that, you know, there are 20, 30 years ago when I was in a computer science school, the kind of technologies that I was learning, you know, visual basic. And by the time I got, everybody’s looking at me, those are the, boy, is this something for the, you know, past 20 years. So learning again on the market. So I think those was one of key issues. And again, balancing innovation and regulation, especially for emerging technologies is something that from an African point of view, we really need to pay a close attention to because all these emerging technologies, AI, you know, and all of these things that are all coming in, we are quick to sit in a regulation for AI. Let’s try and make sure that there’s, you know, some sense of regulation, but sure that that does not stifle innovation, you know, using AI, of course. to bridge the gaps that we are talking about, either the skills development, either digital literacy, becoming an African, you know, context where we have a lot of indigenous and native languages, how then do we ensure that the data that is in this native and indigenous languages are also recorded, they are kept, they are translated, you know, and vice versa. You know, Wikipedia, for example, I would like to see it in Luya, which is my local dialect, for example, so that I’m able to share this to my grandmother, for example, and she can understand. Because if you look at taking religion, for example, we have Bibles and Quran even that has been translated into the local dialect to make sure that, you know, my grandmother back in the village, even though she cannot read English, but she can read her local dialect and she can understand. So I think these are some issues that we really need to think about. For me, I’m into the implementation. Everything on paper looks good, but how do we go to the ground and implement this?

Dana Cramer: Thank you very much. In our last six minutes, we’ll work through audience questions. And I’d also really like to thank Gail and Vlad for taking over. Unfortunately, I had some food poisoning that came at an opportune moment. Daniele, do we have any questions at all in the chat to address in these final few minutes? No, okay, then we’ll move to audience questions. I think we have, we’ll start with the woman to the side here in these last five minutes, and then we’ll move to Erin afterwards in front.

Audience: Thank you very much. I’ve enjoyed the conversation a lot, a lot of learnings, but I have like two concerns. One, when it comes to data collection, but secondly, integrating youth, like it has repeated from two speakers how, when you have the youth on board, eventually they go out because they get older. And I’m thinking, maybe while we’re looking at challenges, the current challenges that are here, is it not, is it wanted, how do I put it? Does the youth not have a responsibility on pulling other youth while they know that they’re moving out? I think that is something you should also consider because, like I would be very interested to know you as youth, what do you think about that? Because sometimes we tend to think like on governance level, they’re not including us. So what are you guys doing to include the others? By the time you’re done, you have nurtured the other group of actors. And the second aspect, I also learned in data protection. I’m very interested in the topic of data protection. And one of the things I’ve learned is that in technology right now, we are so much pushed to solving problems, but instead of solving the problems and learning about what has been done, we go ahead, we leap ahead and start solving the problems, whether it’s collecting data, whether it’s finding solutions, and you find a lot of duplications. So you have a limitation of resources and you’re duplicating something which is already existent. Like you might find you’re collecting data, which has already been collected somewhere. You are solving a solution, a kind of solution, which has already been solved somewhere. And to be honest, most of the solutions provided by the youth are usually very unique because they sort of represent the youth themselves. I’ve shared an observation on the question. That was mine. I would really like to hear from them. Thank you.

Dana Cramer: Great. Thank you. I think Nathalie wants to start us off with this question, and then we’ll move to one of the online speakers just for a balance between. in the room in person and those virtually.

Natalie Tercova: Yes, thank you so much. I would love to give maybe my perspective on your first question. And I actually had these discussions with many of my colleagues also in the previous days about how we make sure that we are not the most youth in the room and not really representing what let’s say 18 years old want and what challenges they face because it can differ very much if you’re close to your 30s or if you’re 18. And I believe that what can be done and what I’m personally trying to do in my region is to go to schools also at the, let’s say last years of the elementary schools but also high schools and do some forms of workshops or lectures tackling the issues we also deal with in the internet governance fields because saying internet governance in GDC and all these weird abbreviations or shortcuts, it can be very scary. And sometimes young people feel like it doesn’t concern them at all or they just don’t understand what it means. So what I’m trying to do is also always think about the real implication, for instance of the GDC, how it’s gonna affect me as a person or maybe if we have these forms of discussions, how I can benefit as a young person or what about my family or friends or younger siblings, how they can personally be affected about these forms of legislations or generally we hear we are discussing so many real life issues but we have some form of code names for them, more fancy ones sometimes. And we are creating this not very inclusive barriers just because of the language we’re using. So what I would suggest is to go always back from the bottom up approach, go back to the schools, go where the youth is gathering and tell them this is actually your place to shine. We’re actually willing to listen and these all sorts of weird terms and abbreviations, all these actually have some real form, physical form and eventually some outcomes and to try provide some real examples. and through this make them excited about it and hopefully bring them on board. Because as you say, if we don’t have really young people represented, then we are missing the point. And eventually someone who is trying to make sure that they’re at the table will say, oh, well, they’re not interested. So let’s not invite them anymore. So this would be just my insight on this first question you’re asking.

Dana Cramer: Thank you. And then to kind of give our closing comment and answering the question, I want to give the floor to Denise, who I believe has the most largest time zone difference and has really taken time out of her sleeping time. So I want to give the closing remarks to her to also conclude the question.

Denise Leal: Thank you. Well, I think the discussions are pretty interesting here today. We’ve got the chance to hear lots of different opinions and we see that the situation of not only data, but also youth participation in digital governance and innovation is similar, but also different across the world. And bringing this youth perspective from Latin American, Caribbean, and also speaking about teens participation. This year, I was involved in a dialogue about how we could involve teens and people that don’t really have access to innovation and digitalization, how we can involve them in these processes. And I heard an answer that I think that I could bring here that is we have to give the chance to these groups, these teens, and also other youths to develop and to create innovation. So by understanding that our educational system is not the better, the best one that we could have, we are beginning this discussion. to be like effective. We should implement a more technological education that could provide teams from different places and also when it comes to traditional people to give them the opportunity to create their own innovation and their own technology. I believe that this could be an answer, an effective answer to really involve these other groups and to make the discussion of how we can make not only youth, but other marginalized people really involved in the process of the digital governance and how we are developing our innovation and why do you need to be involved in this?

Dana Cramer: Thank you so much, Denise. Unfortunately, we are getting a signal that we have to end and our transcription has also ended with the hour. So I’d like to thank the panelists both in person and online for taking the time today, as well as our tech support team and all the participants, as well as the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for hosting this session in the Internet Governance Forum this week. We hope you have a great rest of your day. Aaron has been collecting much comments for the final report sent to Secretariat in early January. If there are any lasting remarks you would like, please feel free to reach us. You can find our contact information through the IGF by searching our names and affiliations. Thank you so much. Have a great day.

Agreement Points

Need for improved digital literacy education

Natalie Tercova

Keith Andere

Denise Leal

Need for robust educational frameworks on digital literacy

Challenge of skills development and digital literacy in Africa

Need for more technological education to enable innovation

Multiple speakers emphasized the importance of enhancing digital literacy education, from elementary to university levels, to prepare youth for the digital future.

Importance of youth engagement in digital governance

Keith Andere

Natalie Tercova

Denise Leal

Importance of youth as a distinct stakeholder group

Need to institutionalize youth engagement beyond individual initiatives

Importance of going to schools to engage youth directly

Importance of giving youth opportunities to create their own innovations

Speakers agreed on the need to actively involve youth in digital governance processes, recognizing them as a distinct stakeholder group and providing opportunities for their participation and innovation.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers highlighted the financial challenges in supporting youth initiatives and data collection efforts, emphasizing the need for more flexible and supportive funding models.

Keith Andere

James Amate

Need for youth-specific funding models

Challenges of data collection costs and community support

Both speakers emphasized the need for updated regulations to protect vulnerable groups in the digital era, including traditional communities and digital workers.

Denise Leal

Tabitha Wangechi

Importance of considering traditional communities in data regulations

Lack of updated employment laws for digital era workers

Unexpected Consensus

Importance of regional approaches to digital governance

Keith Andere

Denise Leal

Vlad Ivanets

Importance of harmonization between UN and regional bodies like African Union

Importance of considering traditional communities in data regulations

Opportunity for African region to be active in digital economy

Despite coming from different regions, these speakers all emphasized the importance of regional approaches to digital governance, suggesting a broader consensus on the need for localized strategies within global frameworks.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement centered around the need for improved digital literacy education, increased youth engagement in digital governance, and the importance of regional approaches to digital issues.

Consensus level

There was a moderate level of consensus among the speakers on key issues, particularly regarding youth engagement and education. This consensus suggests a strong foundation for developing youth-focused digital governance strategies, but also highlights the need for more specific, actionable plans to address regional differences and implementation challenges.

Different Viewpoints

Approach to youth engagement

Natalie Tercova

Keith Andere

Need for robust educational frameworks on digital literacy

Importance of youth as a distinct stakeholder group

Natalie Tercova emphasizes the need for educational frameworks, while Keith Andere focuses on recognizing youth as a distinct stakeholder group in governance structures.

Focus of data protection efforts

Denise Leal

Tabitha Wangechi

Importance of considering traditional communities in data regulations

Lack of updated employment laws for digital era workers

Denise Leal emphasizes protecting traditional communities’ data, while Tabitha Wangechi focuses on updating employment laws for digital workers.

Unexpected Differences

Approach to data harmonization

James Amate

Keith Andere

Challenges of data collection costs and community support

Importance of harmonization between UN and regional bodies like African Union

While both speakers are from Africa, James focuses on local community-level data harmonization, while Keith emphasizes the need for high-level harmonization between international and regional bodies.

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement revolve around the approach to youth engagement, focus of data protection efforts, and the level at which data harmonization should occur.

difference_level

The level of disagreement is moderate. While speakers generally agree on the importance of youth involvement and data protection, they differ in their specific approaches and priorities. These differences reflect the complexity of implementing digital governance frameworks across diverse regions and contexts.

Partial Agreements

Both speakers agree on the need for sustainable support structures, but Keith focuses on institutionalizing youth engagement, while James emphasizes financial and community support for data collection.

Keith Andere

James Amate

Need to institutionalize youth engagement beyond individual initiatives

Challenges of data collection costs and community support

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers highlighted the financial challenges in supporting youth initiatives and data collection efforts, emphasizing the need for more flexible and supportive funding models.

Keith Andere

James Amate

Need for youth-specific funding models

Challenges of data collection costs and community support

Both speakers emphasized the need for updated regulations to protect vulnerable groups in the digital era, including traditional communities and digital workers.

Denise Leal

Tabitha Wangechi

Importance of considering traditional communities in data regulations

Lack of updated employment laws for digital era workers

Key Takeaways

Data cooperatives are a promising model but face implementation challenges, especially in developing regions

Youth need to be recognized as a distinct stakeholder group in digital governance

There is a need for more robust educational frameworks on digital literacy and skills development

The Global Digital Compact presents opportunities but requires careful implementation, especially at the grassroots level

Balancing innovation and regulation for emerging technologies is crucial, particularly in Africa

Resolutions and Action Items

Engage youth directly through schools and local initiatives to increase participation in digital governance

Work towards harmonizing data protection laws and digital policies across regions

Develop more inclusive funding models for youth-led digital initiatives

Implement technological education to enable innovation among youth and marginalized groups

Unresolved Issues

How to effectively maintain youth engagement in initiatives as participants age out

Addressing the lack of updated employment laws for digital era workers, especially in Africa

How to balance data collection needs with privacy concerns and resource limitations

Strategies for reducing duplication of efforts in data collection and solution development

Suggested Compromises

Develop hybrid models of youth engagement that combine institutional support with grassroots initiatives

Create regional data cooperatives that can balance local needs with broader policy frameworks

Implement tiered approaches to digital literacy education, addressing both basic and advanced skills

We currently lack some robust frameworks when it comes to education, educating young people in terms of media literacy, digital literacy, championing skills such as programming and so forth. These things are not yet embedded within the curricula through the educational system from elementary, spanning universities, schools.

speaker

Natalie Tercova

reason

This comment highlights a critical gap in digital education and skills development, which is fundamental for youth engagement in digital governance.

impact

It shifted the discussion towards the importance of education and skill-building as a foundation for youth participation in digital initiatives.

We need to improve this but as a good topic to our discussion, not only a call to action, I would like to say that in terms of innovation, we do have some work on it across Latin America and Caribbean. I can say about a program from Brazil called Local Innovation Agent, who works bringing innovation and implementing it in a local level, which I think is very interesting and impactful.

speaker

Denise Leal

reason

This comment introduces a concrete example of a successful youth-focused innovation program, providing a practical perspective to the discussion.

impact

It moved the conversation from theoretical challenges to practical solutions and examples of successful initiatives.

I personally advocate for an open data model where you have a stake in the data and the quality of producers.

speaker

James Amate

reason

This comment introduces the concept of open data and stakeholder ownership, which is crucial for data cooperatives.

impact

It broadened the discussion to include considerations of data ownership and quality, emphasizing the importance of community involvement in data production.

I think from an African IGF perspective, this is something that really pushed a few years ago to ensure that youth are considered as a standalone stakeholder group. And what that meant is that, you know, there was a seat of youth as a stakeholder in the mug of the African IGF.

speaker

Keith Andere

reason

This comment highlights the importance of recognizing youth as a distinct stakeholder group in governance structures.

impact

It sparked a discussion about the institutional recognition of youth in decision-making processes and the challenges of maintaining that recognition.

We need real data from real people, bringing members together, pulling data together, defining these revenue models that work for us, that make people trust that they can give their data and be compensated.

speaker

Tabitha Wangechi

reason

This comment emphasizes the need for practical, grassroots-level data collection and the importance of fair compensation models.

impact

It shifted the focus to the practical aspects of implementing data cooperatives and the importance of trust and fair compensation in data collection.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by moving it from theoretical concepts to practical challenges and solutions. They highlighted the importance of education, institutional recognition of youth, and grassroots involvement in data collection and governance. The discussion evolved from identifying problems to exploring concrete examples and potential solutions, emphasizing the need for a multi-faceted approach to youth engagement in digital governance that includes education, policy changes, and practical implementation strategies.

How can data cooperatives be implemented in practice, especially for people who aren’t in the tech space?

speaker

Sienna (audience member)

explanation

This question addresses the practical implementation of data cooperatives for the general public, which is crucial for widespread adoption.

What are funders looking for when sponsoring data cooperatives?

speaker

James Amate

explanation

Understanding funder priorities could help align grassroots efforts with available funding opportunities.

How can Africa position itself to capture the future of data markets and not be left behind or exploited by big tech and the global North?

speaker

Tabitha Wangechi

explanation

This question addresses the need for strategic positioning of African countries in the emerging data economy.

How can we ensure that stakeholder consultation for the Global Digital Compact includes grassroots-level input?

speaker

Keith Andere

explanation

This is important to ensure that the Global Digital Compact reflects the needs of all stakeholders, including those at the grassroots level.

How can we balance innovation and regulation for emerging technologies in Africa?

speaker

Keith Andere

explanation

This question addresses the need to foster innovation while also ensuring appropriate regulation in the African context.

How can youth initiatives ensure continuity and involve younger participants as current youth leaders age out?

speaker

Audience member (unnamed)

explanation

This question addresses the sustainability of youth initiatives and the need for ongoing engagement of new young participants.

How can we avoid duplication of efforts in data collection and problem-solving, especially among youth initiatives?

speaker

Audience member (unnamed)

explanation

This question highlights the need for better coordination and knowledge sharing among youth initiatives to maximize limited resources.

Summary

This discussion focused on Network Operator Groups (NOGs) and their role in maintaining internet infrastructure. Speakers from various regional NOGs shared insights on the evolution, challenges, and future of these organizations. NOGs were described as volunteer-driven communities where competing companies collaborate to solve technical problems and ensure internet stability.

The discussion highlighted the importance of NOGs in keeping the internet running smoothly, despite their low public profile. Speakers emphasized the need for NOGs to adapt to changing needs, with examples from SANOG and MENOG on how they’ve evolved over time. Challenges faced by newer NOGs in countries like Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Maldives were explored, including political instability and lack of resources.

Sustainability emerged as a key concern, with speakers suggesting strategies such as starting small, focusing on community building, and gradually developing leadership within the group. The importance of making NOG meetings enjoyable and accessible was stressed to encourage participation.

A significant point raised was the disconnect between network operators and policymakers. Speakers advocated for increased NOG involvement in policy discussions at forums like IGF, WSIS+20, and Global Digital Compact. They emphasized the need for NOGs to educate policymakers about technical realities while also becoming more aware of policy implications.

The discussion concluded with calls for elevating the status of NOGs, bridging the gap between technical and policy communities, and ensuring the next generation of professionals becomes involved in NOGs. Overall, the session highlighted the critical yet often overlooked role of NOGs in maintaining a stable, open, and interoperable global internet.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– The role and importance of Network Operator Groups (NOGs) in maintaining internet infrastructure and fostering collaboration between technical experts

– Challenges in establishing and sustaining NOGs, especially in developing regions

– The need to evolve NOGs to meet changing community needs and engage with policy discussions

– The disconnect between technical operators and policymakers, and how to bridge that gap

– Ways to increase NOG participation in internet governance forums and policy development

The overall purpose of the discussion was to raise awareness about NOGs, their critical role in internet operations, and how to strengthen and sustain them going forward. There was a particular focus on highlighting NOG activities in developing regions and exploring how NOGs can have more influence in policy discussions.

The tone of the discussion was largely collaborative and forward-looking. Speakers shared experiences openly and offered constructive suggestions. There was a sense of urgency around the need to elevate the status of NOGs and ensure their voices are heard in policy forums. The tone became more action-oriented towards the end as participants discussed concrete next steps.

Speakers

– Rajnesh Singh: Moderator, from APNIC Foundation

– Rupesh Shrestha: Representative from SANOG (South Asian Network Operators Group)

– Osama Al-Dosary: Representative from MENOG (Middle East Network Operators Group)

– Vahan Hovsepyan: Representative from RIPE NCC (Regional Internet Registry)

– Mohibullah Utmankhil: Coordinator of Afghanistan Network Operators Group

– Harisa Shahid: Representative from Pakistan, described as “next generation” in the industry

– Niuma Faiz: Representative from Maldives

Additional speakers:

– Mery Henrica: Representative from Timor-Leste Network Operators Group (TLNOG)

– Karma Donnen Wangdi: Co-chair of Bhutan Network Operators Group (BTNOG)

Network Operator Groups (NOGs) and Their Role in Internet Infrastructure

This comprehensive discussion focused on the critical role of Network Operator Groups (NOGs) in maintaining internet infrastructure and fostering collaboration among technical experts. The session was structured into three segments: NOG ecosystem, NOG practitioners, and sustainability and future of NOGs. Representatives from various regional NOGs shared insights on the evolution, challenges, and future of these organizations.

1. The Importance and Function of NOGs

NOGs were described as volunteer-driven communities where competing companies collaborate to solve technical problems and ensure internet stability. These groups play a crucial yet often unrecognized role in maintaining a stable, open, and interoperable global internet.

Speakers provided examples of how NOGs contribute to internet development and capacity building in their regions, including:

– Promoting IPv6 deployment

– Establishing internet exchanges

– Offering technical training and knowledge sharing

2. Evolution and Adaptation of NOGs

The discussion revealed how NOGs have evolved over time to meet changing community needs. Rupesh Shrestha shared SANOG’s journey: “We started as a knowledge sharing platform, initially, with a conference aligned with one of the IT conferences that was happening in Nepal. And then we moved on to make SANOG as a more training platform as well.” He also highlighted SANOG’s future plans, including a focus on gender equality and a fellowship program to support participation from underrepresented regions.

Osama Al-Dosary discussed MENOG’s development, emphasizing the importance of starting small and keeping meetings informal and fun. This approach has helped MENOG grow and adapt to the needs of its community.

3. Challenges in Establishing and Sustaining NOGs

Several challenges were identified in establishing and sustaining NOGs, particularly in developing regions:

– Reliance on volunteers, leading to sustainability concerns

– Political instability hindering NOG development and activities (e.g., Afghanistan)

– Lack of awareness about NOGs among technical communities (e.g., Maldives)

– Difficulty in bringing together fragmented communities of network professionals (e.g., Pakistan)

Osama Al-Dosary highlighted a critical issue: “Very often, NOGs fail. Very often fail, meaning that they disappear and dissipate over time. And the key reason is that very often NOGs are dependent on volunteers.”

4. Bridging the Gap Between Technical and Policy Communities

A significant point of discussion was the disconnect between network operators and policymakers. Rupesh Shrestha described this as a “0 degrees to 180 degrees” gap between the technical community and the governance community. Speakers agreed on the importance of NOGs having a voice in policy forums like IGF, WSIS+20, and Global Digital Compact.

Approaches to bridging this gap included:

– Direct participation in global forums (Vahan Hovsepyan)

– Simplifying policy concepts for technical professionals (Osama Al-Dosary)

– Using ‘interpreters’ to bridge the gap between technical and policy communities (Rupesh Shrestha)

5. Future Directions and Sustainability

The discussion concluded with a focus on ensuring the future sustainability and relevance of NOGs. Key points included:

– Encouraging next-generation participation: Harisa Shahid emphasized the importance of involving younger professionals to become future leaders.

– Adapting to changing needs: Speakers agreed on the need for NOGs to continually evolve their services and focus to remain relevant.

– Increasing visibility: There was consensus on the need to improve branding and outreach to increase NOG recognition.

– Sustainable funding models: The need for more sustainable funding models, especially for regional NOGs, was discussed.

– Emphasizing human connections: Speakers highlighted the importance of socializing and building relationships at NOG meetings.

– Integrating with regional IGFs: A suggestion was made to make NOG discussions a regular part of regional Internet Governance Forums.

Conclusion

The discussion highlighted the critical role of NOGs in maintaining internet infrastructure while emphasizing the need for adaptation, policy engagement, and sustainability. The session concluded with a call to action from the moderator, Rajnesh Singh, emphasizing the importance of “action, not words” in moving forward.

The overall tone was collaborative and forward-looking, with a clear emphasis on the continued importance of NOGs in the global internet ecosystem. As NOGs continue to evolve, their ability to bridge technical expertise with policy considerations will be crucial in shaping the future of the internet.

Rajnath Singh: All right, good morning, and welcome to workshop number 223, Communities of Practice, NOGs Driving the Local Internet. We have a small gathering here this morning. I guess it’s too early. Some have started leaving, but that’s okay. Just to give you a quick overview, we’re not using any presentations or slide decks. It’s all interventions by our esteemed speakers. I’m hoping we stick to the time, and I’m also hoping we can get some interaction from the audience. And hopefully the room fills up a little bit more as the day goes on. So first of all, I’m Raj Singh from the APNIC Foundation. Most of our speakers are in the room here today, except for one, Mohib Ullah, who’s joining us from Afghanistan, I believe. The way we’re doing this session is divided into three segments. First, we’ll cover a little bit about the NOG ecosystem, then we’ll go and hear from NOG practitioners who are out there on the ground setting up NOGs. And then to wrap it up, we’ll talk about sustainability and the future for NOGs. Now, if you don’t know what NOGs are, NOGs are network operator groups. And I thought I’d start a little bit with my own experience with NOGs. Back in the day when I was doing startups, I was asked by one of my team members to go to a meeting in Singapore. I had no idea what it was. He said, it’s like a NOG meeting. I had no idea what NOG meant. So when I arrived at the meetings, he introduced me around, APNIC meeting, by the way. And my first question was, and I started to understand a little bit how NOGs work, why is it that people from competing companies are collaborating and discussing and trying to fix problems together? Because from a business perspective, it didn’t make sense to me. Why would I collaborate with them? my competitors, right? It took me a while to understand why that was the case. And today, of course, I’m a big supporter of the NOG ecosystem, as Rupesh will allude to. So the key thing there is that NOGs, they may come from different companies and different organizations. They may be competing with each other at the business level, but they work together to solve problems, to address issues, to ensure that the internet keeps on operating the way it needs to operate. It’s stable, it’s secure, it’s resilient, it’s robust. And therein, the NOG groups perform a very important function in the internet ecosystem. The problem, however, is that hardly anyone knows about NOGs and us, right? NOGs are basically those that work in the background. They keep things running, they collaborate, they coordinate, but the outside world never really knows you, right? Even when things go wrong, they go to the ISPs or retail providers or whoever they may be. There’ll be lots of social media chatter that, you know, this is not working, internet’s down, speed is slow. But behind the scenes, it’s the NOG operators, you know, people from NOGs who work in these companies who try and make sure that those things don’t happen. So I believe this is the first time the Internet Governance Forum has actually had a session on NOGs. That, I thought, was quite amusing in the manner of speaking, because if it’s the Internet Governance Forum, the internet basically depends on NOGs to keep things up and running. And we’ve never brought up these issues at an IGF, you know, in the 20, what, nearly 20 years that it’s been around. So I’m glad that we’re doing this session. And at least it’s on the agenda, you know, we have some online participants. And, you know, we’ll have some outputs out of this, which I hope can be shared with the wider community. So to start off, we’ll talk a little bit about the NOG ecosystem. So I’ve asked a couple of my speakers a question each on what their experience has been in setting up NOGs and being involved with them. I’ll get each speaker, you know, as I turn to you, please just introduce yourself in two sentences. Let’s not do long bios. And then, if you could answer the question that I put to you. So I’ll start off with Rupesh. Rupesh, in many respects, SANOG, the South Asian NOG, is one of the more mature NOGs in the Asia Pacific region, with more than 20 years of history. Can you share some thoughts on that 20 plus year journey, and in particular, how SANOG has contributed to the South Asian technical community, which keeps the internet up and running, not just in the region, but outside it as well?

Rupesh Shrestha: Thank you, Raj. Thank you very much. Raj, as you mentioned, this is probably the first time that the NOG has been part of this IGF program, and I’m really very thankful to the APNIC Foundation for facilitating this and bringing us together with the governance side of the internet. As Raj mentioned, the NOG people are working in the background to keep the internet stable, secure, as well as kind of open, but we work in a stealth mode for the governance team, right? So, SANOG, we started in 2003 through the initiative of a few people, like Gaurab Razapad there, and then Dr. Phyllis Smith and Champika, and then a few other people. And later on, other people started joining the movement. We started as a knowledge sharing platform, initially, with a conference aligned with one of the IT conferences that was happening in Nepal. And then we moved on to make the SANOG as a more training platform as well. So, over the period, I mean, if I have to break down this 23 years of journey of SANOG, we would basically, on a broader way, we just break it down into three different parts. The initial movement was like some of the people were like very enthusiastic people coming together to share their knowledge, share their experience, and get along, and getting that satisfaction and motivation of being with the team of good technical people who are thriving to keep internet secure and then resilient, as well as getting the knowledge transferred to the new generation. And I always say during the SANOG events that a lot of people who were trained by SANOG in the earlier days are now in various leadership positions and are the key members of this internet community. Initially, it was basically a training program, workshops that we used to do. Since 2003, we’ve done, we’ve trained probably around 3500 people. Hardcore training, right? So five days of hands-on training on how you should work on the internet. And when we started in 2003, it was more of a static routing days, right? So you give a command in the router saying, oh, send this network, subnet, to this network, and it’s more static. And we started this through the SANOG, we started training on the OSP, BGV, and then things of that sort, and then gradually moved to DNSSEC and security, and then now more on the automation side of the network as well. The initial journey was towards like training this, making the SANOG as a workshop, a training platform, where a lot of people were trained. And at the same time, we were also providing fellowship to more deserving candidates, and then those fellow people who’ve got the fellowship has come back to the SANOG as a trainer now. So they’re more of the senior trainer for SANOG community, and then it’s all done through the volunteer way, we don’t pay to the trainers. It’s all the volunteer trainers that come to the community and share their experiences, share their hand, just as SANOG initially gave them a hand to start their career. Then, the second phase of SANOG, we started to think that, okay, probably the SANOG being a regional network operators group in these various countries, we do two events, we’ve been doing two events every year in different cities of South Asia, in Kathmandu, Bhutan, Thimphu, Paro, Mumbai, or Kolkata. or Dhaka, Colombo and various places. So we realized that, okay, maybe we should not only do this event on an international basis, we should also carry the localized part of the content. And we started to encourage the local content providers, local providers to come up with their challenges. And then we built onto the process and then thought process of creating this local NOGs. And we started supporting the creation and then handling of the local NOGs, where in 2014, the BD NOG started in Bangladesh and 2016 NP NOG started in Nepal. And now that we have all the NOGs in different countries now so all the South Asian countries have their own local NOGs. And that’s like very, very interesting to see that. We’ve covered SANOG in six different countries and then it’s very interesting and very happy to see AFNOG. I was part of the opening ceremony in AFNOG last week and then I’m happy to see MNNOG also coming up. So through this initiative, we plan to cover all the regions, countries and happy to see that the local NOGs are carrying the content and carrying the thought process that SANOG initially covered. And it’s more on the localized basis, right? So SANOG will come as a regional platform but the local NOGs can, through their local language communication, through their local needs, will come up with their local, to address the local challenges. For example, in Nepal, they came up with the optical fiber training which was the local need at that time. And then that curriculum is nowhere found. So they developed their own curriculum, started the training and then there was like catered to their own community’s requirement. Similarly in Bhutan, same thing happened. I think Afghanistan, the last AFNOG was in local language. I was very happy to see that. Sri Lanka is doing it in the local language. NPNOG is just did the last event partially in a hybrid mode with the Nepali language as well as English language. So the second part of SANOG’s journey over this last 20 plus years, 23 years to be more specific has been, first phase was more of a community building. Second phase focused on the local NOG creation. And we are at the brink of starting our third phase, which I’ll talk later on, what next for SANOG. Now that all the countries have their own local NOGs, that we are going to move to the next phase. Also through the SANOG movement, we’ve been able to create and then do the training or to start the journey of various internet exchanges as well. And this movement was contributed by a lot of people. Raj was part of the community which contributed to SANOG. Aftab was there, Jichen from Bhutan, and a lot of people, a lot of people. So we were a part of this to make the SANOG a NOG community, a strong community. And it’s like completely, I mean, it’s a very selfless job. You know, I mean, like Raj talked about like why competing organization will come together and then showcase their challenges or success stories or the difficulties that they’re facing in the business. It’s more of a family, you know? You come to a family’s environment where you feel free to share your challenges. You feel free to share your successes so that the bonding becomes bigger for the greater interest of internet in overall, right? So we are more of a, well, SANOG is basically, I mean, as initially Raj also mentioned, I also mentioned we are like working on a background like a guardian of a South Asian galaxy, but a lot of people do not realize that and in the governance side of that. Maybe my five minutes is up. So probably I’ll continue in the later part of this. Thank you, Rupesh.

Rajnath Singh: So guardians of the South Asian galaxy. So that could stick, eh? Osama, so the Middle East NOG has been around for… over 15 years, I believe, you have evolved in that time, of course, to meet community needs. So that’s another important aspect of NOG, that you need to meet the community’s needs. Could you share some thoughts on the Meenak journey and how it has helped contribute to internet development in the Middle East, which itself, of course, has been rapid in these 15 odd years?

Osama Al-Dosary : So kind of similar to SANOG, actually, I attended the SANOG No. 4, and I really enjoyed the experience there. And for me, it was a new experience in terms of how people came together and were able to help each other, and also how valuable the sessions were, because they were from people that actually have real hands-on experience, as opposed to the typical training you may get from vendors, where it’s just professional trainers, without respect to them, but they don’t have the operational background to explain the challenges that people may face, or you may face on a daily basis. And that was very enlightening. And similar to SANOG, we were actually founded initially, led by Dr. Philip Smith, I think this was 2007, and a couple of other local members, including Fahad and Shiaoun. And I was part of that team, part of the program committee from that initial meeting. And we kept on going, and it was mostly in the beginning, it was mostly grassroots efforts, and the effort to kind of gain more awareness of MENAG and more awareness of the challenges and the importance of focusing on internet operations, to make sure that the internet operates and continues, and trying to reach out to not only the community, but also to the, let’s say, executives and telecom operators, and also to reach out to government, the regulators, and so forth, to kind of raise their awareness of the different issues, and also things similar to, for example, the need to roll out IPv6, or get their support to kind of roll out IPv6. And that was kind of the initial phase that we went through in the beginning. And part of the success is also, you know, part of the local successes that we had in the region, for example, is in Saudi Arabia, the regulator actually took upon themselves to kind of promote IPv6, and we’re kind of, the adoption of IPv6 in Saudi Arabia was one of the best, not only in the region, but globally. And that was kind of the early phase. Later on, we went through some other changes in MENAG, and the RIPE NCC kind of took a more bigger role in the leadership of the NCC, Dr. Philip Smith had to step away a little bit, and we, it took a kind of different role, not the kind of same level as it did, but it took like a higher role of engaging governments more, and trying to raise more awareness on a government level, and also conducting, we continue to conduct the trainings that we did. So we had a similar format in terms of, we had hands-on workshops, and we were actually modeled after SANOG, so very similar format in terms of, we had hands-on training workshops, whether on IPv6, whether on DNS, DNSSEC, security, and then we would have, we used to have tutorials, one day full of tutorials, and then we would have another day, we’d have two days of plenary sessions, where we would accept submissions from a region and globally to present in the conference. And then after that, we kind of, we had to roll back a little bit, so we’re not, we weren’t doing twice a year as we first started, initially started, but then we started doing once a year, and we’ve been continuing on the once a year format since then, and I’m happy to say that I think it’s going very well. We had a recent meeting in Oman just a few weeks ago.

Rajnath Singh: Right, thanks Osama. Thanks for that overview of how you’ve developed MINOG, and you know, again, the key thing between both MINOG and SANOG is it’s about community, right? You’re building a community of practice, and people are there to help each other, rather than, you know, compete. The competition comes later, right? Okay, if I can turn to Vahan, who is of course with RIPE NCC. Vahan, RIPE NCC is one of the five regional internet registries, and the RIPE region itself of course covers multiple sub-regions. As RIR, you enjoy a higher level view of how the internet has been developing at the technical level, and you work with multiple stakeholders to ensure that internet remains open, available, and accessible. Could you share some thoughts on what you see from a RIR perspective, and in particular, what are some of the challenges that the network operator community faces?

Vahan Hovsepyan: Okay, good. Yeah, nice. So actually, NOCs are one of the priority groups in the RIPE technical community, and we do support the creation and the activities of NOCs in our service region with many, many, many instruments, sharing, and this is not only financial. We do share in many cases also our personal, let’s say, history of cooperation, or even history of creation of the NOCs. I was, I had the personal experience prior to joining RIPE NCC, I was the creator of Armenian Association of Operators that has initiated first Armenian NOC, and that is why I have my own personal, let’s say, history of things happening, why, and understanding why NOC should happen, and what it can bring to the community. But I can share here some experience we had with many NOCs, and what issues they have, and what kind of opportunities they have, and some uniqueness of work with them in these regions. So, so far, I have participated in, well, participated in kind of creation and supported them of Georgian, Armenian, and Kazakhstan NOC, and the interesting thing with Kazakhstan NOC is that it is not even an event, but it is a community. So, sometimes we have some similarities with IGF, you know, we have the IGF as an event, but this is kind of not an event, this is a process, this is a procedure of internet governance, and this is also a process of network operators to discuss their issues, and not to discuss it once a year or twice a year. but also have the platform where they can discuss the current issues and get the current answer. So Kazakhstan NOC started from the Telegram chat group. And they have decided to go to the NOC kind of year after they have started very proactive communication via Telegram. And not only Kazakhstan network operators gathered there, but also some operators from neighboring countries, from Russia, from other places, and myself as well. So what they do, they do this very proactive communication on current issues each day. They have hundreds of messages each day in this Telegram group. And they started communicating at the conference with the government itself. And this was already a second step of their development. The third step of their development was that the state has recognized them as an organized group. And they have advised them to come and asked them to come to the advisory group under the ministry. And one of their initiators is already in the public council at the ministry. And third step they had is the creation of association, a legal body. And they have created now the association of legal bodies that has also an ability to legally support these processes. What we do with them and how it can be also beneficial for other multi-stakeholder community to cooperate with them. Okay, we do also this, we try to do at least these trainings because there is a gathering of network operators. It’s a good place to go and deliver their prior to the event or after the event, the trainings that can be beneficial for this technical community. What is quite interesting, they are not only discussing now the technical questions. They are not now discussing only the how they can operate the internet, but they now also discuss all the questions that can be interested for the operators. Should it be commercial, marketing, sales, all these questions. And as it was mentioned here, it is not a place for competition there. They are quite free to share their experience. They are quite free to share their advices, how they can do with this or that product. And it creates quite a unique environment where they can openly talk about their problems, even the state that is called to be very close. It goes there and take participation in these discussions. How it can be also helpful to others. We see a lot of our counterparts also working with technical community. So should it be ISOC with their programs to support community? Should it be state or multi-stakeholder other bodies like we have, for example, the IT also providing some conferences and sites on how they can develop the internet or support to develop the internet and standards, etc. So they are also coming sometimes to these meetings. And this is as we see for IXPs, for NOCs, for policy players, this is also can be also a future place for them to grow and represent their questions to the state and have this negotiation with the state immediately and not to wait for, I don’t know, four months or a year to have the NOC gathering. We are closely cooperating with them and supporting them, not only for the creation of or for the organization of event itself, but also in the development of that. And I guess the brightest example of this combined cooperation or successful cooperation can be Minoc where my colleague, you might know him, is quite widely engaged and our manager Hisham was playing quite a significant role. I have participated at two Minocs. They are brilliant and they are bringing all the questions that are very actual for the community, for the development of community. And this can be also the place where you can understand these issues of the community and bring it to the upper level, like to regional level or to the international level. That’s what is maybe missed sometimes for the discussions at IJF, where we can bring what we have discussed

Rajnath Singh: at Minoc. Thank you. Thank you, Vahan. So, what we heard from those three speakers is how the NOC ecosystem has been evolving, at least in the wider Asian part of the region and, of course, the European side as well. Needless to say, the NOC community plays a very important role and I think I’m hoping it will continue to do so. Thank you. Thank you very much, Vahan. In the following segments or in the last segment today, we can talk a little bit about how we can raise that voice in other fora as well. One good thing to hear from Vahan and Osama both was the fact that governments are also interested in the work of the NOCs. I think that’s not equal across the world. I think it depends on the economy or the region or the sub-region. I think maybe we could do a little bit more work there as well. So, we’re doing very well for time. Thank you to my speakers for listening to me, being on time. I absolutely am impressed. Thank you. I’ve got a few minutes allocated for some questions and answers. I wanted to make this interactive and not just have a series of talks by our speakers. So, why don’t we first go to my good friend, Kahil, if we have anyone online with any questions or comments? Oh, no comments thus far. Okay, all right, fine. So, we can turn to the room itself. Anyone in the room would like to ask a question, have a comment? Mary, yes, please. Please take a mic so that, yeah. If you could also introduce yourself very quickly. Maybe it’s off.

Audience: Hello, everyone. I’m Mary from Timor-Leste. Sorry, I’m a little bit nervous because this is my first time to attend an international discussion like this. In the room, I also want to say that Timor-Leste also has a NOC this year. So, we just started this year and we got the support from the APNIC and the initiative we started the NOC is from the APNIC staff. So, we are very happy to be here. This year, we started the NOC with three days for workshop for internet routing basic and then for conference one day and we got a sponsor from the international company also and from APNIC and then we got support also from our government that facilitated us with the with the building to held a conference, held a workshop. So, here I want to ask to the SANOG, what’s your input for our TLNOC? We just started. So, maybe SANOG may have more experience with the NOC. So, maybe you can share or you can give us the idea or a suggestion to the TLNOC. Thank you.

Rajnath Singh: So, in fact, the next segment talks about how new NOCs are starting up. So, our three colleagues from Maldives, Afghanistan and Pakistan are going to cover a little bit of that but Rakesh, maybe you can share some brief comments. Yeah, thank you. Thank you, Mary,

Rupesh Shrestha: for the question. Basically, when you start a new NOC, what as a SANOG through our experience, what I would like to recommend is focus on two things. One, understand what the local community requires from this community, right? So, local requirement has to be clearly spelled out before you start to listen to the outside world. Second part of the responsibility for a TLNOC would be to get the success stories and the scenarios from the outside world. For example, when the IPv6 deployment was required, SANOG was part of it to provide training to its community and then get the regional people, regional engineers ready to get the deployment of IPv6. When the wave came for internet exchange, SANOG was helping the community to get the knowledge transferred to establishing the internet exchange, the BGP and all those things. The DNA set, right? So, now the RPKI or low implementation and all those things. So, focus on two things. Understand what the local community wants or the requires and help facilitate through the outside world or through the local resources itself. Second, whatever is happening worldwide in terms of making the internet more secure and resilient and then stable, get those things processed to the community through whatever internet foundation or whatever help we can get from the outside world. SANOG will be happy to extend our resources for the upcoming NONs as well. So, we would be happy to get those things facilitated as well. So, just focus on those two things. Apart from that, there will be a lot of challenges. Funding will be challenges and getting the papers, presentations, there will be so many other challenges. But just try to focus on these two key areas for the success and stability of getting the operations rolled for the benefit of the community.

Osama Al-Dosary : Thanks, Rupesh. I’d like to add. So, it may differ a little bit from my colleague here. I would actually recommend that you start simple and focus on the community. So, the people that are involved, just try to have this in a way that’s very simple, that doesn’t cost anything, be very frugal and maybe start very small. Somehow, getting together, maybe it could be just getting together over a meal and then maybe talking about one topic. You don’t have to make it very big from the beginning. You can reach the stage where it’s big, but initially, you should focus on the community aspect and focus on the technology and the operational aspect. So, the people that are interested in NONs, the best people that are interested in NONs are the people that are very interested in technology and operating technology. So, have that as the core goal of the group. So, when you gather together, you gather in a more social manner and talk about these different issues and then maybe you can start by having discussions on certain points. You don’t have to have something very formal or anything like you don’t have to try to rent out a location to set up something. Just have it as a normal, like a simple discussion. So, you create a very simple structure. We get together once a week, once a month, it’s like that and some regular cadence and then you, it could be over a meal, talk and then you may have something simple as like, okay, for the next 30 minutes, we’re going to talk about or the next 20 minutes, we’re going to talk about one topic or if someone has something to share, please share it and then when you start doing that over time, then you can start doing something a bit more formal. If someone has, let’s say, a topic they want to present, you know, maybe get to a point where they actually prepare a presentation. So, very often, people in our communities, the technical people, people that run routers and switches and DNS and so forth, they’re very, very uncomfortable presenting. So if you tell them, can you make a presentation about this and talk to people, that is very scary. It’s extremely scary. But if you start in a very casual fashion, OK, please tell us about this topic or can you share this experience without any presentation, just have it very informal, very casual. And then over time, you can start to make it more structured. When the team gets bigger to the stage where you can’t have a normal conversation like this, then at that point, it becomes very obvious that people need to actually put some slides together, like have something more formal to do. But I would recommend avoid cost, avoid incurring any additional cost in the beginning. Because the more cost you have in the beginning, the more difficult it can be to maintain. So for example, if you get used to getting funds from Sanhok or whatever other organization, or let’s say one of the companies come sponsor you, and then you get used to doing that, if that fund is not available, then it becomes difficult to actually manage your group. So that would be my recommendations, is start small, start casual, social, and then gradually build up the engagement.

Rajnath Singh: I think that’s some useful advice there. Yeah, Van, I’ll just come to you in one more.

Vahan Hovsepyan: Yep. Yeah, small one, really a small one. So it is on, yeah. Don’t forget about the human basis of all of us. This is about socializing, yes, but this is about fun and the event should be attractive to everybody. So if you have a fund there, well, it should be interesting. It should be interesting and not very full of technical details, et cetera, but with also human conversation, really fun, attractiveness. Don’t think much about money itself. So either RIPE NCC or IPNIC or IPNIC Foundation will help you or ISO. Okay, that is not an issue, but to create a unique environment where they have a fund, where they have an opportunity to talk and express themselves. And if it is interesting, they will come.

Rajnath Singh: So for those who may be unaware, Timor-Leste is one of the newest sovereign countries in the world. It’s based in Southeast Asia. It’s a small country and we’ve been doing a lot of work trying to support them over the last several years. I had a question at the back there, perhaps. Can someone run a mic? Thanks.

Audience: Yeah. Hi, can you hear me? I’m Karma from Bhutan. I just have a few comments with regard to the NOC. I’m also one of the co-chair of the Bhutan Beta Group. We established in 2014. And since then we have had over 11 BGNOC events every year. For the last 10, 11 years. My question is on the sustainability part and it’s just a comment, basically. The NOCs, like the few speakers have already mentioned, drives on the volunteerism, right? And there are only group of volunteers that come forward, organize these meetings, but also at the same time deliver trainings, help the community with the training, specific requirements within the country, within the region. And these volunteers are basically, they volunteer. So we get a fund. So what we do is we heavily rely on the sponsorship, not just from the international, but from the local as well. And I think we have a great opportunity here right now for all these NOCs, IGF, ISOC, country-specific chapters to co-exist, basically. And each of the players has an opportunity to complement each other to achieve the outcome, the goals of the respective IGF, ISOC, or the NOCs. And also with regard to the, now with NOCs coming up more prominently for the last five, six years, the way the regional NOCs approach this whole new community building, capacity building, the whole regional NOCs has to change. And I’m very much looking forward to hear from Rupesh Day on what would be the next step for the salon. This is very important so that there is no duplication in efforts and we grow together. Just a comment. Thank you.

Rajnath Singh: Thank you. I am a big believer in no duplication. So, and indeed the last segment is about sustainability. So we’ll cover that a little bit later. So we’ll go to the next part of the session today, which is actually hearing from NOC practitioners. It just so happens we had a nice segue. We had from Timor-Leste and Bhutan before we hear from the other three economists. So I’ve ended up with five economists, which is a good thing. Let me first turn to Mohibullah from Afghanistan. Mohibullah, Afghanistan is one of the newer NOGs, NOG efforts in the region, and you have had your fair share of challenges in many dimensions. Can you share some insights on what you have had to do to set up a NOG and the challenges you have faced?

Mohibullah Utmankhil: Thank you, Raj. Am I audible?

Rajnath Singh: Yes, you are.

Mohibullah Utmankhil: Okay, that’s good. Good morning, everyone. I’m Mohibullah Utman Khair. I’m the coordinator of the Afghanistan Network Operators Group, and currently I’m based in Germany. I just wanted to say that as well. Let me give some context about Afghanistan before addressing your questions, Raj. We are a landlocked country located at the crossroads of the South and Central Asia. Despite the rich history, we have faced challenges in the past 50 years, including political instability, infrastructure gaps, and economic constraints. All of which have impacted the development of the country and also the Internet ecosystem. So, though the Internet penetration has been improving over the years, from almost no connectivity in the early 2000s to having an internal fiber ring in the country and five to six national-level telecommunication service providers and around 60 to 70 network operators all over the country at the moment. Although we don’t have direct access to the subsea cables, however, we have fiber connections to almost all of the neighbor countries. And despite all of these, there is still much work to be done, particularly in addressing infrastructure gaps and capacity building and digital divide. AFNOG was conceptualized as a response to these challenges. So the idea for establishing a network operators group in Afghanistan began back in 2018 during discussions with regional leaders. leaders, including Dr. Philip Smith and APNIC engineers at the SANOG meeting in Kolkata, India. And the goal was to create a platform for Afghan network operators to collaborate, share experience and also learn from original and global best practices. One of the tasks back then we wanted to work on was to have an instance of the DNS root server hosted in Afghanistan. And I had the honor of leading the SANOG establishment back then and discussions and also following the communication between about the DNS root server instance with the Ministry of Communication and IT at those days. However, turning that vision into reality was not easy and we were not able to follow up things during the COVID pandemic and later the political situation changed in Afghanistan, which made things worse and we were not able to stick to our plans. Later in 2022, when I was living in Pakistan, I was also one of the fellows of the APNIC Foundation’s Afghanistan project, which is a capacity building program and now it’s extended to digital leap South Asia and included other countries. The idea of having SANOG in Afghanistan was raised in our mailing list by Mr. Omar Ansari and I’m glad that I was given the opportunity to follow up on the idea of having a SANOG in Afghanistan again. And from 2023 that we officially launched Afghanistan Network Operators Group, we recently had our second AFNOG meeting in December this year and it was organized remotely for two days and we had around seven sessions and panel discussions. with around 60 participants. So of course, we are a young community and there are still many things that needs to be done to make the community more inclusive and stable. And at the moment, some of the key challenges that we are dealing with is, for example, the community engagement is a challenge for us, bringing together a fragmented community of network professionals and experts is a challenge. Sometimes, especially when over the past four years, majority of the experts and leaders left the country and reaching out to them in different regions with different time zone and bringing them together in discussions with local experts inside Afghanistan is a challenge that we are dealing with. In addition, due to the lack of pre-existing collaborative culture, getting stakeholders to actively participate and sharing knowledge has also been a challenge. So though we have seen progress through last two years to consistent outreach and engagement efforts, but there’s still, there are other things needs to be done in this specific task. And other challenge is the political situation in the country. Sometimes we find it challenging to actively engage local experts who are inside Afghanistan in our community discussions. And since the situation is complicated and they don’t wanna risk their positions and it’s understandable for us. And as a community, we also prefer sometimes to be adaptive and they do join our webinars and communications, but they prefer to have their co-operations in the background and not actively. And another challenge is the political situation. capacity building. We also have training and skill development programs to address the technical expertise gap within the local community. We organize monthly webinars and discussions while our priority is to have local presenters and panelists, which is sometimes a challenge to have their engagement. I mean, despite all of these challenges so far, the journey has been rewarding. We have learned that collaboration is key, not just within the country, but regionally and also globally. Organizations like APNIC Foundation, APNIC RIPE, and South Asian Network Operators Group have been invaluable partners so far, and I’m thankful today. Thank you

Rajnath Singh: very much. Thank you, Mohibullah. And of course, thank you for also plugging the work of the APNIC Foundation and how we’ve been helping build capacity. Of course, Afghanistan, as you heard, has its own challenges. Mohibullah is sitting in Germany trying to coordinate and organize Afghanistan. We have some of our colleagues from Afghanistan here in the room today as well. And, you know, in another session, I mentioned that, you know, whenever conflict or political issues happen, media and the world pays attention for a little bit of a while, and then they move on to something else, right? The problem still remains in Afghanistan, though, so I think, you know, there’s still a lot more to be done. Okay, I’ll turn to Harisa now from Pakistan. Harisa, Pakistan has a vibrant technical community, and I’ve been a frequent visitor, but the NOG group also has had its challenges through the years. However, in more recent times, there’s been a flurry of activity locally. As part of the newer generation in the industry, how do you see what NOGs do and what has your experience been? So, Harisa is one of our next generation leaders, I can say. So, I was keen to hear what she would contribute to this discussion. And, you know, the voice of the next generation, I think, is equally important, not just the old-timers like myself and Rupesh and Osama and Vahan. So, Harisa, please. Thank you

Harisa Shahid: so much, Raj. Am I on? Yes, yes, you are. Okay, that’s great. First of all, thank you so much for like bringing this up and having this discussion. And as you said, indeed, Pakistan is a vibrant community of multi-talented people and has a huge technical spectrum. But the weakest challenge in this chain has been observed the inter-organizational collaboration. As you said that I have been a part of the next generation, like I was not involved as much in the previous years. But from the time since I have been involved in the Pakistan NOG and have discussion with the people there. So, I’ve like come to know that the organizational collaboration has been the main challenge. And it starts from the ISPs with the last. So, but it needs the discussion to it needs the people for us like us to come and discuss these issues. If I talk about the earlier times, I believe that in the earlier times, the meetups were being organized by some, like the government entities or the government technical wing to bring up the stakeholders and the interested parties to collaborate and gather and discuss the issues. But the organizational interaction or the collaboration has been the weak point, because maybe they were not being being able as Sama and Sama said that the technical people are very shy to discuss to come up and to discuss the issues. So, maybe that that could be the reason or maybe they don’t want to like to share their hidden trade secrets, which can be understandable, but which is truly, truly understandable. But in those events, now, if I talk about recent times with the help of organizations like APNIC and other organizations, new ways of engaging these technical experts, these organizations have been put into play. And talking about nowadays, industry has a positive outlook towards these meetups and isn’t shy to discuss the discuss the technology or present any issues. And with, if Vahan both said that the events and we should start from the smaller steps, and it for the technical experts to discuss and engage freely, it should be like it should be a have to have something fun. So, social events have been observed to be have the board attendance and we utilize those events to come up and discuss the technological aspects of the issues. And in these events, the people gather and discuss these technical expertise, any technological issues. And if the discussion is not more, continue later on to to have like to have the troubleshooting, knowledge sharing and technological discussions. If I talk particularly, if I talk about the Pakistan NOG, Pakistan NOG is not like running in in the way like typical NOGs are right now, but baby steps are being taken to to to have a strong base before it is launched nationwide, and, and becomes one stop for collaboration and knowledge sharing expertise.

Rajnath Singh: So yeah, that’s all I think. Thank you. So I think one key message I’m getting here is that, you know, first, let’s learn how to crawl, then walk, then we run, right. And then after we start running, we can start to sprint. Yeah. The other bit, of course, that resonated for me in just a few contributions, including what Vahan said earlier was that, you know, we are building network connections, but it’s humans doing right. So we need that human connection to make those network connections work as well. So that social interaction and human beings by nature, they like interaction and socializing, right. So, right. So let’s go to Numa from the Maldives. I had a very interesting chat with her earlier in the week. So I’m keen to hear what else what other insights she will share with the wider group today. So the Maldives NOG is also in the early formation stages, Numa. You have recently also held a number of activities, including a local IGF. How difficult or easy for that matter, has it been to try and bring the community together? And what are some of the challenges going forward? And of course, some of you may be aware of the Maldives has also had its political challenges in recent times, right? So, Numa, thanks.

Niuma Faiz: Thank you. Thank you, APNIC, for this opportunity. As Raj mentioned, we just had this year’s IGF in Maldives on October, and the initial NOG discussions were kick-started during the IGF this year, with the assistance from APNIC as well. We brought together people from ISPs, public-private sector and network operators as well, to come up and we organized, with the help of APNIC, we organized an introductory session to this community, technical people, just to introduce them to the community just to introduce what NOG is, because when we reached out to the community, what we found out was most of them are not actually familiar with the concept of NOG itself. First, we are taking very baby steps just to let them know what NOG is about, and what kind of support is in the community, and what is a community, what is missing out in the digital age. So, we are at the start of formation of MPNOG, and I would say the kind of challenges that we have… Okay. Am I audible now? Okay. So… Okay. So, we have identified that in Maldives, there is a skill gap, especially we have a huge need of building capacity within the country in terms of network security, or even in network operators as well. So, in order to build the capacity, we need resources to conduct professional trainings as well. So, in order to build the capacity, we need human resources as educators as well. So, to fill in that gap, I think organizations such as APANIC, CENOG, and as we have received comments from most of the NOG operators in the community, I think we need to work together and collaborate to fill in these resource gaps. And the other approach that we are looking in MPNOG establishment is we have established local community organizations such as Women in Tech who are very actively engaged in the community, who are working with network operators and government and public sectors who have a very good connection with the local community, technical sector, as well as the government and public sectors. So, organizations such as Women in Tech, civil society organizations, and MBICF will be a very good help to bring these multi-sectorial communities together and start this kind of conversation. So, we are trying to, as Osamu also mentioned, we are trying to start the discussions and works of MPNOG in a very small scale because, as we all know, the technical communities are not very open. They like to have close group discussions. In order to come up with a very comfort discussion and to start with the initial discussions, we need to have fun activities, close group discussions, maybe just a coffee meetup will help because they need to come together and start to work as a community to bring in these benefits. And also, I think the other challenge that in a country like Maldives would have is because we are scattered in different islands, the resources, if we need to conduct workshops or trainings, the logistics and the cost that would be a bit expensive. We need to bring in people from different islands, the travel expenses, these kind of things are going to be there. So, I think an approach that we think is very effective in Maldives, as a friend from Bhutan also mentioned, to partner with the local ISPs and partner organizations who can support as sponsors to support these kind of initiatives within the Maldives. So, I think with the formation of MPNOG, it will bring in a lot of new discussions and positive aspects in the technical community and internet provision because currently, we do not have such an ecosystem in the Maldives. So, if you bring them all together to bring about a change, not only in the capacity building in terms of policy formulation, regulatory aspects and to push the government to establish and provide more capacity building because we are going to move towards a more digital future and new emerging technologies are going to come. So, if you want to catch up with the technological advancement, we need to be ready to work together and collaborate. This is not going to happen with a single body working towards. We need to work towards a common goal to address the challenges that we all face together. So, I think the NOG formulation would be a very positive thing for Maldives and we look forward to work together with APNIC, APNIC Foundation and SANOG and all the NOG communities in the region. Thank you so much.

Rajnath Singh: Thank you, Neema. So, what we’ve heard in the past two segments is, of course, what NOGs are, how they have evolved over time and we’ve heard from some of the newest NOGs that are trying to establish themselves in the region and in some countries which have also gone through some upheavals recently. So, it’s not an easy task and I think any support we can provide. So, I do appreciate Rupesh saying that, you know, even though Timor-Leste is not in South Asia, they’re happy to provide whatever support they can and I’m pretty sure other NOG and regional groups have a similar sort of attitude towards this and it’s all about helping others to ensure that the global internet itself keeps on functioning the way it should, right? So, let’s not forget what we are here for is an open global internet, right? And one that is interoperable. Okay, so we’ve got just under half an hour. left. The third segment is sustainability in the future for NOGs. Some of those questions have actually already been raised and some have slightly been answered, some slightly haven’t been. I know we’ve got a few comments online as well but I’ll just first go to Rupesh, Osama and Vahan with a couple of questions and then after that we’ll see what we have on the online comments and then we’ll go to the floor, have a bit of discussion. So Rupesh, Osama, Vahan, if I can ask whatever interventions you make now if you can make it a bit short so we can get into a wider discussion with people in the room and online. Rupesh, most NOGs are largely volunteer-driven as we’ve already heard yet fulfill an important role to ensure internet infrastructure keeps running. I know Sinog has recently been looking at its own future and you and I have had some discussions on that in the past as well. Can you share some thoughts on the challenges and the future and maybe also address some things that our friend from Bhutan brought up? Thank you Raz,

Rupesh Shrestha: thank you again. Yes, we’ve had a fair bit of challenges in over the period and as I said initially, the Sinog’s journey we’ve tried to divide in the phases, phase manner. The initial phase was successfully executed and like we have a good community of people with trained people attending the Sinog and as Omar said I mean he was part of Sinog and a lot of other people were part of Sinog and got some background to start this thing. And then second part, local NOGs have already been started. Now the third part, I’ll come to that as well, the third phase we had a long discussion, long meeting regarding what Sinog should be doing and I thank you Karima for bringing that as well. So I’ll talk about that, we are yet to come up with the formal report for that but probably this would be the platform that I’ll be sharing some of the information outcome of that meeting. Just before I start that part, I mean let me also add a small thing about how Sinog is helping. I think last October we did Sinog in Lamma, Pakistan and PKNOG was a part as a co-host and a lot of PKNOG including Harisha was part of the Sinog and the PKNOG event and that gave them a kind of initiative to come onto the floor and I agree with Osama and Van as well that the NOG starts on a probably on the tea table or coffee table or coffee talk right or online. You don’t need to have that expensive thing to start with and that’s how the journey starts. One of the initiatives that through SANO we’re also trying to do is we’re trying to reduce the cost of trying to help the NOCs to reduce their cost. We’re facilitating the different NOCs in South Asia with the streaming devices, streaming equipment, so that they don’t have to pay for the expensive audio-video system to the streaming system, including camera, streaming mixer, and everything. So we’re going to give that away to all the NOCs so that they can reduce their cost in terms of their operation. So that’s what we are trying to start. Now the future of SANO, I have put a few points because I have not prepared the report for that. Over the period, as I said, we’ve been doing two events every year. Now with all the local NOCs coming up, and we’re covering in the different countries of South Asia, we’ve decided that we’ll just do one event every year, and we’ll be more focusing on the conference and tutorial part only. We’ll be more supporting as an umbrella organization for all the local NOCs for the workshop part of it, wherein we will not be conducting the workshop, but we will be doing the train-the-trainer program for all the trainers who will be training in the local NOCs. So the SANO will be doing the training program for the trainers of the local NOCs so that we can add the value to their own skill part of it. So that’s one thing that we’ve decided to do. Also on the second part of it, through SANO, we will be more focusing on the challenge that we-one of the challenges that it’s getting more difficult to organize SANO as an event. So I know that I can understand the challenge of the local NOC, but the SANO being the regional platform, a lot of funding and support is needed. The sponsorships in the past has been more of the technical people from the different organizations would contribute to us the sponsorship, but nowadays the thing’s becoming more tighter and tighter for the organizations. They would want-they want more visibility on their branding, sales, and all these things. So we are kind of like very volunteer-driven, very open platform kind of an organization, not supporting any vendor-based presentations or vendor-based system. It’s getting very difficult for us to organize that. So in view of that, we are going to do a couple of other things as well. So we are going to improve our branding. We’re going to improve our outreach. As Varun said, in South Asia, it’s a very sensitive issue to reach out to the government, right? So being-maybe the country-wise you can do that, but as a regional organization, you cannot intervene and influence or communicate with the-to the government of every country. So maybe indirectly, we have some strategies around that. So we will reach out to different media, government, and then we’ll build our branding and marketing activities. That’s something we will be, again, working on. So we’re also changing on the organization structures, right? So we had a lot of advisors, core committee was there from different parts. So our core committee now onwards from 2025 would be-will constitute a representative from all the NOCs, one individual from all the NOCs. So that will form a core committee of SANOG. And they determine how the SANOG should be moving forward, right? So based on the regional requirements. So that’s basically how we are going to proceed further. The next event, probably, we’re planning to finalize the date, which probably Karma Jamyang and the team in BTNOG will also be working on. So we’ll be doing one event in Bhutan, the next one, will mostly be a conference and tutorial event, whereby the workshop will be done by the BTNOG team, and we’ll be facilitating on that. So the SANOG’s role as a regional going forward for at least for the next five years will be more towards even further strengthening and empowering the local NOCs, helping them to grow even to the higher level. And also like building the brand of SANOG as a more of a regional conference similar to like BTC or Apricot or Nano of that sort. So we’re aiming for a higher branding platform, branding visibility. But that is the something that we are doing to help the local NOCs, right? So the whole strategy that we built, we had a meeting last month, thanks to APNIC Foundation for supporting us to have that meeting successfully conducted. And we did that and had very, very good feedbacks. I cannot go through all the pointers, but some of the major bulleted pointers in terms of organizing structures, and in terms of like branding, in terms of how we are still being part of the SANOG and how SANOG will be structured going forward, is something that I just wanted to give as a highlighted point for the future of SANOG. Thank you.

Rajnath Singh: Thanks, Rupesh. I’m glad to hear the progress that’s been made. Of course, I’ve been constantly asking what next? What next? Where to next? And I’m glad to hear that you’ve actually addressed some of the issues that have been existing. I want to point out something here. Just because you’ve done something for 20 years doesn’t mean you keep on doing it, right? And the internet itself has evolved. And I’m really glad to hear that SANOG is now going to evolve itself. It’s going to see how it can better serve the wider community. And if an organization doesn’t do that, then I think there’s something really wrong. You haven’t moved the needle. You haven’t really made the impact. What I’m hearing from SANOG here is that I think they have made the impact, and now they’re going to see what is the next part in their evolution and how they can continue supporting the internet in the region. How are we doing for time? Okay, 20 minutes. Osamah, some thoughts from you, from ENOG? What are the key factors for sustaining ENOG, or indeed, if you want to make some other comments that you may have heard, please feel free to do so.

Osama Al-Dosary : So in terms of sustainability, when we’re talking about NOGs, I think regional NOG is very different than a local NOG. Can you hear me? Yeah. Yeah. I think it’s very different. Regional NOGs are very different than local NOGs. And I think the real value comes from local NOGs. It’s more important than regional NOGs in my opinion. And sustainability is a challenging question. It’s not something that can easily, you know, be maintained. Very often, NOGs fail. Very often fail, meaning that they disappear and dissipate over time. And the key thing is that, or the key reason is that very often NOGs are dependent on volunteers. And when volunteers, for some reason, they change roles, they progress, they go somewhere else, or they, you know, it could be for many reasons, they move away, then that kind of weakens the NOG and causes it to kind of dissipate. So what I would recommend in terms of sustainability, if we’re talking about the local NOGs, is that I think the ones that are leading right now, right, the ones that are leading right now, they need to kind of keep that sustainability in mind. And that sustainability can be achieved, I think, in a couple of ways. One, what we discussed about earlier, which is trying to be as frugal as possible, and not to be very dependent on sponsorships or enormous kind of funding needed. But the other aspect is trying to develop the people that are joining the NOGs and participating to play a greater role over time. So, very, very often, NOGs are led by one person. So the one person is active, they set up the meetings and people come, and they’re happy to come and join. But in terms of participating and organizing, or leading, sometimes people are shy to do that. So, over time, once you’ve established a level of rapport with your people, with the community that you have, you need to reach out to them and say, I need help. I need more people to step up and take a more active role in the organizing. And that’s, I think, very important that you need to create, once you have that rapport and that comfort with your community, you need to start to kind of ask for more commitments to the group. And always maintaining fun, obviously, not making it something that’s unenjoyable, but you need to kind of create that community. And it can be something simple, right? So one person is responsible for finding the location where we meet. The other person is responsible for, let’s say, finding, you know, reaching out to the different members to find out who’s going to talk about a topic, or managing the topics. The other person is responsible for the scheduling and coordination. Simple things like that. So, once you start to create that kind of team-level commitment, over time, that helps maintain that sustainability. Because if one person, for some reason, is the initial leader that started driving the meetings, for some reason needs to step away, or needs to move on, or anything like that happens, then over time, you have others that can step forward. And so you need to always be aware of the people that seem very eager to help, very eager to participate, to always encourage them, encourage their participation, encourage their help. So if you see someone always attending and always eager, ask them if they can actually do more. Can you help me with that? And then also, over time, once you get bigger, once you get more active, volunteering is always, you know, challenging and can also always be challenging to manage. So if you’re leading and you find that you’re doing most of the work, right, and yet you still have a large activity going on, but you’re doing most of the work, don’t be afraid to say, guys, you know, I’m a bit overloaded. Can someone help me with this? Or during the meetings that you have, ask, okay, so this is a great suggestion. Who can do this? Don’t take everything on yourself. Try to find people that will help out. And you’ll find people that will help out, but you need to speak out. You need to kind of encourage that, encourage that participation. And when you see, and once you get to a stage where, let’s say there’s a committee for that NOG, and the committee, each one has work to do, has roles, whether it’s reviewing programs, whether it’s finding people to speak or finding sponsors, you need to, you know, kind of a little bit, although they’re volunteers, you need to a little bit, you know, point out, okay, I really need your commitment. We’re suffering here, maybe not in a group setting, but maybe on an individual level saying, hey, I really need your help. We’re kind of slow. Can you guys, you know, you know, step up a little bit. So that will be my two cents on this topic in terms of sustainability.

Rajnath Singh: Thanks Osama. Vahan, one thing I guess we haven’t, I think it’s been alluded to, but we haven’t really discussed yet and I think we should do it now. I often see a disconnect between the work of network operators and policy and regulatory interventions that a government may make. Often such interventions do not consider wider implications. Can you share your thinking around that? be a key consideration you would ask policy makers to take into account. And, of course, an added question there, and I’ve noticed a few comments online as well, is about, you know, how do we contribute to discussions like this at IGF? This is the first time an IGF has talked about NOGs, which is bizarre. And then you’ve got things like GDC and WSIS plus 20 and others as

Vahan Hovsepyan: well. So, Vahan? Exactly. And I wanted just to talk about that. Well, why we are here. We have talked about how to initiate or stimulate people to come to the NOGs, but we don’t talk about how NOGs can be engaged, how their voice can be casted in similar events in the WSIS plus 20, in Global Compact, at IGF, etc. And here is a really huge gap. Because they have their own problems. They have their issues of interconnection, of peering, of working with this or that state regulatory, of getting the access, and all this. But they think that this WSIS plus 20 Global Compact is very far away in Saudi Arabia, somewhere that we have never visited or never heard of, maybe. But no, we should be very detailed with them, so they can understand if they don’t participate, if they don’t cast their votes, if they don’t think about that, this might be very painful for them. Not only fruitful for the future development of the internet, but if they don’t participate, if they don’t share their concerns for many, many things, it can be also painful for the internet, it can be painful for them. Because when you don’t participate in the policy, the policy is still participating with you. So that is the main idea. And what we are going to do with that, we are already organizing the NOC sessions and tribe meetings. We are going there and trying to discuss with them these global policy issues. Because they know quite well, much better than we, how to get engaged with their local regulator or ministry itself. But we know better how to deal with these global issues. But we need also their voice, we need also their concerns. So this mechanism should work to both phases. We should and we are requested to provide this information to them, so they can understand what is this global development. And they should tell us what they are thinking. And maybe we should think now how to enable their voices to come there and to represent it there. Thank you.

Osama Al-Dosary : Thank you, Vahan. Osama, you speak. Can I add to that? I think that’s very important what Vahan said. And also, I think sometimes the idea of, if you talk to an engineer, a NOC engineer, and say, hey, I need you to help in policy development. That sounds scary. That sounds like, okay, that’s really too high level, right? So it may not be something that they’re motivated to do because they don’t really feel the impact. But we need to kind of simplify the concept. It’s not, when we’re talking about policy development, we’re not talking necessarily, yeah, it could be something legislative, but we’re really talking about something simpler that may affect you. And we need to also encourage the awareness. So these engineers or the NOC or the NOG members may not necessarily be the people that will develop the policy, but they are the people that need to educate the people that will develop the policy. So the people that might be involved in developing a policy, they need to listen to the NOGs and these technical people. And the other side of it, the technical people need to be a bit more open and reach out and try to educate those that are involved so that they have a full awareness of the challenges and the issues that we’re taking. Yeah, I think that’s a good point. Yeah, Rupesh, just a quick one.

Vahan Hovsepyan: Just a small addition. There are two approaches to sell some product. One is just to make this very attractive so a person can go and wants to go and buy it. Second approach is to show the person that without this product, it will be very painful for him to leave. So in that case, he will buy this product with any price. And the product here is the NOG.

Rupesh Shrestha: Thank you for bringing up this issue. Yes, I mean, right now. The idea for the governance team is looking at this zero degree and then the technical team is looking at the 180 degree so there’s not coming together there has to be a breeze between these two kind of interpretation of what technique technology can impact the policy and what policy can impact the, these people do not understand each other. So, again, I thank you very much to rather than the opening foundation for having knowledge session in this idea, and then I believe that we need to have some kind of outcome out of that, in terms of like how can we cooperate with each other. And then, just as I said we need to kind of an interpreter and I believe. But I’m over here is also a right person he’s a lawyer by profession, and also a very good advocate in the in the governance side and somebody who understand the technology and whatever we had some issues in Nepal, in terms of a technology or any kind of it be learning comes across. He’s the person who facilitates the meeting and we all of us to give him the technical input on part of that. So maybe people like him would also have to breathe this kind of gap between what the technical people is looking for, and what the governance people are looking for just to give you a brief difference of this thing. The first time I attended every court. I was all suited like this. So, maybe a tie as well sorry with a tie and everything and then I once I entered the record venue, everyone’s wearing like short torn jeans and then like the, the t shirts. I was a kind of a different person in different universe. And had I come over here with the t shirt and then half shirt, I would have been a different person in different universe. So this is the kind of a difference that we have in two different universe and that has to be an interpreter who. I was the most ugliest guy over there. Like somebody who was like really formal and it’s like different. I’m a very smart over here with the suit and all, but not in that community probably. But things are changing, but this is just an outlook that I just wanted to give. Also, one more thing I forgot to mention earlier. Sanhok has been providing fellowship for a very, very long time. We’ve so far given like around 400 fellowship so far. And recently we’ve, last five, 10 years, we’ve started to focus on more gender equality as well and giving like a 40 to 50% fellowship to female participants also. So that’s something that I forgot to mention earlier. And that’s, thanks Raz for mentioning that as well.

Rajnath Singh: Thank you. So, you know, you talked about zero and 180 degrees. The problem is if someone said 90 degrees, both fall off, right? Any online comments that we need to, I know we’ve got just five minutes left. So anything that strikes, catches your attention there?

Audience: There are a few, two questions, but one comment. So do you want to take the questions one by one or read all of them? Last one is the comment. Maybe read the comment. First we will go with the comment. Yeah. And I think the policy one we’ve already covered. Okay, sure. Yes. Fahad Khan from APNOC says, being the lead volunteer for the APNOC, sorry, for the PKNOC, they take care of me from the session, especially the pinpointing of keeping the meetups and online sessions simple, and less dependent on financial factors by Osama. Another one is to keep it humane and fun as much as possible. Thanks to Bahan for this. Hopefully PKNOC will flourish with our contributions in near future. So.

Rajnath Singh: So that was Fahad, right? That was Fahad Khan, yes. He’s done part of my job for me. So we have one takeaway from the session already. Thank you, Fahad.

Audience: Thank you. So here is a simple question, like how we can ensure more passionate in the structure of the engagement of NOGs to the public policy discussions and IGF?

Rajnath Singh: Okay, so that’s the one maybe we can end with, and it’s, you know, we’ve just got a few minutes left. So I think, so this is my suggestion to the people in the room and people online. You know, I think we have to elevate the status of NOGs and what they actually mean. But I think, you know, we’ve all been working in the background behind the scenes, but we also see that there’s potential things happening on the internet, which could, you know, which have implications on your work, right? Which makes your work much more difficult. Maybe this was a good first step. You know, maybe we should make this a regular thing at the regional IGFs as well. But I think it’s not just the IGFs, right? There are other policy fora where we need, NOGs need to have a voice, right? Some in the UN system, some in the ITU system, and some are completely outside of our typical internet technical community ecosystem, where these discussions need to be raised as well. So maybe that’s something we could consider as we, you know, see what the outcomes of this session are. We’ve got like three minutes left. Can I ask all my speakers for just a one sentence round off, you know, what is your key takeaway and or key suggestion for the future? Where do we go from here? So can I start with you, Vahan?

Vahan Hovsepyan: I think in a nearest future, in one or two years, we’ll have a lot of challenges, a lot for the internet, for the development of new digital society. And we need to have the consolidation. We need to have the consolidation of all the systems that we have in the world. We need to have the consolidation of all the systems need to have the consolidation of all our counterparts from technical community, but we also need an understanding from other counterparts coming from other parties. And that is what we should work. That is why we should empower NOCs, IXPs, other units of technical, let’s say unions and associations. And that is why we should find the ways to bring them the information about current processes and find the ways to get their feedbacks and cast their words to these instances, let’s say.

Rajnath Singh: Thank you. Osama?

Osama Al-Dosary : I would say the key takeaway from my perspective is it’s important to talk to people and understand their experiences and try to put yourself in their shoes. And this could be whether we’re talking on a NOG level where one engineer is talking to another engineer, trying to understand their perspective, their challenges, or it could be when we’re talking on a different level, when we’re talking a policymaker needs to put their selves in the shoes of someone else, of an engineer or people running the internet and they need to talk to them, they need to reach out to them and vice versa. Those engineers need to reach out to others. So I think that’s my key takeaway is simply put, talk to people and try to understand them, understand what they’re going.

Rajnath Singh: Mukesh?

Rupesh Shrestha: Yeah, I think I think that it’s been a very fruitful discussion today. Something that I wanted to say that the digital channel being a regional platform in Oregon. So we need to help. We need to go deep down to the local knobs and then maybe further down from there to help the root people in the area to be to help themselves to build that. Stable internet across the internet internet is not just run by one, one country or one person but it has to be stable across the region, or across the globe to make, make it work. And that’s what Sano is doing and I think we know another partners across the world are also doing, they’re going in the right direction, the good good takeaway from this is the helping the local North, as well as having the more closer relationship with the governance and government people. And maybe not only like having this not meeting in every reason, regional as well as the internet governance meetings but also like how the governance IGF and other API GF can also you and for that matter or any donor agencies can help that not regional as well as local enough in terms of having their, their voices heard, and how the technology should evolve, and how the policy should, what kind of a policy should be shaped up for for the betterment of the internet.

Rajnath Singh: Thank you very much. Thanks for pressure I’ll give the last word to her research the next generation. What’s your key takeaway and vision for the future.

Harisa Shahid: I believe that the key takeaway for me being the next generation is that the next generation should really come up because, and if I see in the, in the north, especially, there are more professional and the professional what experience. So I believe that the next generation who is struggling with the early, early career professionals should really come up and get advantage of having a discussion with those professionals, and like, and have their place so that they can be the leaders of tomorrow.

Rajnath Singh: Thank you. Well, I think we’re just on time I’m being told that we need to basically shut the session down so thank you to all my speakers, thank you for all of you being here. Thank you for the audience participation and and the support team who helped us. Thank you. So current as a way forward and, you know, one thing very clear for me as a message was that you know we need to bring you know the unsung heroes of the other logs right and I think we need to elevate their status, and we’ll see what. how we can do that going forward. We need to be a part of those policy discussions, but I do agree with Rupesh, there are two ends of the spectrum really, and he’s given a very visual description of how things actually are. So I think we need to find that bridge in the middle somehow. And the APNIC Foundation, of course, is here to help and facilitate, but we can’t do it alone. We will be looking to our colleagues from across the regions and maybe we’ll make something out of it going forward. So once again, thank you very much for being here with us. Stay connected. And our organizational slogan these days is action, not words. And that’s what we did here today. Thank you. Yeah. Can we have a quick picture of the speakers in the front, please? You want to have one now on screen? Yes, yes, yes. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you very much. Thank you both. Great, great work. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. you you you you you you you you you you

Agreement Points

Importance of NOGs in maintaining internet infrastructure

Rajnesh Singh

Rupesh Shrestha

Osama Al-Dosary

Mohibullah Utmankhil

NOGs keep internet infrastructure running smoothly behind the scenes

NOGs provide a platform for competing companies to collaborate on technical issues

NOGs contribute to internet development and capacity building in their regions

NOGs play a crucial role in addressing local technical challenges

Speakers agree that NOGs are essential for maintaining and developing internet infrastructure, providing a platform for collaboration and addressing technical challenges at both regional and local levels.

Need for NOGs to adapt and evolve

Rupesh Shrestha

Osama Al-Dosary

Vahan Hovsepyan

NOGs need to adapt to changing community needs over time

Importance of starting small and focusing on community building

Need for NOGs to engage more in public policy discussions

Speakers agree that NOGs must evolve to meet changing community needs, focus on building strong communities, and engage more in policy discussions to remain relevant and effective.

Similar Viewpoints

These speakers emphasize the need to bridge the gap between technical and policy communities, highlighting the importance of NOGs participating in policy discussions and educating policymakers about technical realities.

Vahan Hovsepyan

Rajnesh Singh

Rupesh Shrestha

Disconnect between network operators’ work and policy/regulatory interventions

Need for NOGs to have a voice in policy forums like IGF and ITU

Role of NOGs in educating policymakers about technical challenges

These speakers highlight common challenges in establishing and sustaining NOGs, including reliance on volunteers, lack of awareness, and difficulties in community engagement.

Osama Al-Dosary

Niuma Faiz

Harisa Shahid

Sustainability issues due to reliance on volunteers

Lack of awareness about NOGs among technical communities

Difficulty in bringing together fragmented communities of network professionals

Unexpected Consensus

Importance of social and fun aspects in NOG activities

Osama Al-Dosary

Vahan Hovsepyan

Importance of starting small and focusing on community building

Need for NOGs to engage more in public policy discussions

While discussing different aspects of NOGs, both speakers unexpectedly emphasized the importance of making NOG activities social and enjoyable, suggesting that this approach can lead to better engagement and sustainability.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement include the crucial role of NOGs in maintaining internet infrastructure, the need for NOGs to adapt and evolve, and the importance of bridging the gap between technical and policy communities.

Consensus level

There is a high level of consensus among speakers on the importance and challenges of NOGs. This consensus implies a shared understanding of the critical role NOGs play in internet governance and the need for their continued development and adaptation to remain effective in a changing digital landscape.

Different Viewpoints

Approach to starting and sustaining NOGs

Rupesh Shrestha

Osama Al-Dosary

NOGs need to adapt to changing community needs over time

Importance of starting small and focusing on community building

Rupesh Shrestha emphasizes adapting to changing needs and focusing on regional conferences, while Osama Al-Dosary advocates for starting small and informal to build community.

Unexpected Differences

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement revolve around the approach to establishing and sustaining NOGs, and the methods for engaging NOGs in policy discussions.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among the speakers is relatively low. Most speakers agree on the importance of NOGs and the need for their involvement in policy discussions. The differences mainly lie in the specific strategies and approaches to achieve these goals. These minor disagreements actually contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of the challenges and potential solutions for NOGs, rather than hindering progress on the topic.

Partial Agreements

All speakers agree on the need for NOGs to engage in policy discussions, but they differ in their approaches. Vahan emphasizes direct participation in global forums, Osama suggests simplifying policy concepts for technical professionals, and Rupesh proposes using ‘interpreters’ to bridge the gap.

Vahan Hovsepyan

Osama Al-Dosary

Rupesh Shrestha

Need for NOGs to engage more in public policy discussions

Importance of simplifying policy concepts for technical professionals

Role of NOGs in educating policymakers about technical challenges

Similar Viewpoints

These speakers emphasize the need to bridge the gap between technical and policy communities, highlighting the importance of NOGs participating in policy discussions and educating policymakers about technical realities.

Vahan Hovsepyan

Rajnesh Singh

Rupesh Shrestha

Disconnect between network operators’ work and policy/regulatory interventions

Need for NOGs to have a voice in policy forums like IGF and ITU

Role of NOGs in educating policymakers about technical challenges

These speakers highlight common challenges in establishing and sustaining NOGs, including reliance on volunteers, lack of awareness, and difficulties in community engagement.

Osama Al-Dosary

Niuma Faiz

Harisa Shahid

Sustainability issues due to reliance on volunteers

Lack of awareness about NOGs among technical communities

Difficulty in bringing together fragmented communities of network professionals

Key Takeaways

Network Operator Groups (NOGs) play a crucial but often unrecognized role in keeping internet infrastructure running smoothly

NOGs face challenges in sustainability, community engagement, and adapting to evolving needs

There is a significant disconnect between the technical work of NOGs and policy/regulatory interventions

NOGs need to have a stronger voice in policy forums and internet governance discussions

Starting small, focusing on community building, and encouraging next-generation participation are important for NOG success

Resolutions and Action Items

Consider making NOG discussions a regular part of regional IGFs and other policy forums

SANOG to focus on empowering local NOGs and act as an umbrella organization

SANOG to conduct train-the-trainer programs for local NOG trainers

NOGs to work on improving branding and outreach to increase visibility

Unresolved Issues

How to effectively bridge the gap between technical and policy communities

Sustainable funding models for NOGs, especially regional ones

How to increase NOG participation in global internet governance discussions

Strategies for NOGs to influence policy without becoming overly political

Suggested Compromises

NOGs to simplify policy concepts for technical professionals to encourage their participation in policy discussions

Policy makers to actively seek input from NOGs and technical communities when developing internet-related policies

Regional NOGs to focus more on conferences and tutorials while supporting local NOGs for hands-on workshops

NOGs are basically those that work in the background. They keep things running, they collaborate, they coordinate, but the outside world never really knows you, right?

speaker

Rajnesh Singh

reason

This comment highlights the critical but often unrecognized role of NOGs in maintaining internet infrastructure, setting the stage for the importance of the discussion.

impact

It framed the entire conversation around the need to elevate the status and recognition of NOGs in the broader internet governance ecosystem.

We started as a knowledge sharing platform, initially, with a conference aligned with one of the IT conferences that was happening in Nepal. And then we moved on to make the SANOG as a more training platform as well.

speaker

Rupesh Shrestha

reason

This provides insight into the evolution of NOGs from informal knowledge sharing to more structured training platforms, showing their adaptability and growing importance.

impact

It led to further discussion on the developmental stages of NOGs and how they adapt to meet community needs over time.

Very often, NOGs fail. Very often fail, meaning that they disappear and dissipate over time. And the key reason is that very often NOGs are dependent on volunteers.

speaker

Osama Al-Dosary

reason

This comment brings attention to a critical challenge in sustaining NOGs, highlighting the vulnerability of volunteer-based organizations.

impact

It shifted the conversation towards discussing sustainability strategies and the need for more structured support for NOGs.

We need to have the consolidation of all our counterparts from technical community, but we also need an understanding from other counterparts coming from other parties.

speaker

Vahan Hovsepyan

reason

This comment emphasizes the need for collaboration not just within the technical community but also with policymakers and other stakeholders.

impact

It broadened the discussion to include the importance of NOGs engaging with policy discussions and other internet governance forums.

The next generation should really come up because, and if I see in the, in the north, especially, there are more professional and the professional what experience. So I believe that the next generation who is struggling with the early, early career professionals should really come up and get advantage of having a discussion with those professionals, and like, and have their place so that they can be the leaders of tomorrow.

speaker

Harisa Shahid

reason

This comment brings a fresh perspective on the importance of involving younger professionals in NOGs for future sustainability and leadership.

impact

It introduced the topic of generational transition and the need for mentorship within NOGs, adding a new dimension to the sustainability discussion.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by highlighting the critical but often unrecognized role of NOGs, their evolution and challenges, the need for sustainability strategies, the importance of engaging with broader policy discussions, and the necessity of involving younger professionals. The conversation progressed from defining NOGs and their history to addressing current challenges and future directions, emphasizing the need for greater recognition, sustainability, and engagement with both policy makers and the next generation of professionals.

How can NOGs be more engaged and have their voices heard in global policy discussions like IGF, WSIS+20, and Global Digital Compact?

speaker

Vahan Hovsepyan

explanation

This is important to ensure technical perspectives are considered in policy decisions that affect internet operations.

How can we bridge the gap between technical network operators and policymakers?

speaker

Rupesh Shrestha

explanation

There is a disconnect between these groups that needs to be addressed for more effective internet governance.

How can NOGs ensure sustainability and continuity when they are largely volunteer-driven?

speaker

Osama Al-Dosary

explanation

Sustainability is crucial for NOGs to continue fulfilling their important role in maintaining internet infrastructure.

How can regional NOGs like SANOG evolve to better support local NOGs while maintaining their relevance?

speaker

Rupesh Shrestha

explanation

As local NOGs develop, regional NOGs need to adapt their role and structure to remain effective.

How can NOGs attract and engage more young professionals and next-generation leaders?

speaker

Harisa Shahid

explanation

Engaging the next generation is crucial for the long-term sustainability and evolution of NOGs.

How can NOGs in developing countries or regions with political challenges (like Afghanistan) overcome unique obstacles to their establishment and growth?

speaker

Mohibullah Utmankhil

explanation

Understanding and addressing these challenges is important for ensuring global internet stability and inclusivity.

How can NOGs better collaborate with other stakeholders like civil society organizations, government bodies, and the private sector?

speaker

Niuma Faiz

explanation

Multi-stakeholder collaboration is key for addressing complex internet governance issues.

Summary

This discussion focused on secure IoT practices, data governance, and emerging technologies in the Internet of Things (IoT) ecosystem. The session began with an overview of current IoT security developments, highlighting the U.S. Cyber Trustmark program and efforts towards international harmonization of IoT labeling schemes. Participants emphasized the importance of consumer awareness and education regarding IoT security.

The conversation then shifted to IoT data governance and privacy concerns. Experts stressed the need for robust policies balancing innovation with privacy protection, acknowledging the challenges of managing vast amounts of data generated by IoT devices. The discussion touched on the complexities of data categorization, cross-border data flows, and the potential risks of data colonialism.

Emerging technologies, particularly quantum computing and artificial intelligence (AI), were identified as critical factors shaping the future of IoT governance. The importance of implementing post-quantum cryptography (PQC) solutions to future-proof IoT systems against potential quantum threats was highlighted. Participants also explored the interconnected nature of AI and IoT, noting the need for a holistic approach to their development and regulation.

Throughout the session, speakers emphasized the importance of international cooperation, standardization, and multistakeholder engagement in addressing IoT challenges. The discussion concluded by acknowledging the rapid pace of technological advancement and the need for flexible, forward-thinking approaches to IoT governance that can adapt to future developments.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– IoT security labeling and certification programs being developed in different countries

– Data governance and privacy challenges related to IoT devices and systems

– Impact of emerging technologies like quantum computing and AI on IoT security and governance

– Need for international cooperation and harmonization of IoT standards and regulations

– Importance of considering societal impacts and ethical implications of IoT technologies

The overall purpose of the discussion was to explore current developments and future challenges in IoT security, data governance, and emerging technologies. The speakers aimed to share insights on global efforts to improve IoT security through labeling programs, address data privacy concerns, and prepare for impacts of quantum computing and AI.

The tone of the discussion was largely informative and collaborative, with speakers sharing updates on initiatives in their respective areas. There was a sense of urgency around the need to address IoT security and privacy issues, balanced with optimism about ongoing efforts. The tone became more speculative and forward-looking when discussing future impacts of quantum computing and AI on IoT governance.

Speakers

– Maarten Botterman: Moderator

– Jonathan Cave: Alan Turing Institute and Warwick University

– Wout de Natris: Coordinator of the Internet Standards Security and Safety Coalition (IS3C)

– Renee Roland: Special Counsel at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)

– Nicolas Fiumarelli: Chair of IS3C Working Group 1 on IoT security by design, Co-founder of IoT CyberSEC Latin American and Caribbean

– Jimson Olufuye: Chair of the Adversity Council of the Africa City Alliance

– Wisdom Donkor: Director for Africa Open Data and Internet Research Foundation

– Martin Koyabe: GFC Africa

– Elif Kiesow Cortez: Chair of IS3C Working Group 9 on emerging technologies

Additional speakers:

– Audience

IoT Security, Data Governance, and Emerging Technologies: A Comprehensive Discussion

This summary provides an overview of a discussion on secure IoT practices, data governance, and emerging technologies in the Internet of Things (IoT) ecosystem. The session brought together experts from various fields to explore current developments, challenges, and future implications of IoT governance.

US Cyber Trust Mark and IoT Security Initiatives

The discussion began with Renee Roland, Special Counsel at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introducing the US Cyber Trust Mark program for IoT devices. This voluntary initiative aims to provide consumers with clear information about the security features of IoT products. Roland explained that UL Solutions and other Cybersecurity Label Administrators (CLAs) will be responsible for testing and certifying devices under this program.

Nicolas Fiumarelli, Chair of IS3C Working Group 1 on IoT security by design, discussed the work being done by IS3C on IoT security. He emphasized the importance of security by design principles and the need for consumer education regarding IoT security labels. Fiumarelli also mentioned an upcoming workshop focusing on IoT security, RPKI, and post-quantum encryption.

Data Governance and Privacy Challenges in IoT

Jonathan Cave from the Alan Turing Institute and Warwick University highlighted the complexity of IoT data governance. He emphasized that IoT devices generate various types of data beyond personal information, including environmental and operational data. Cave pointed out that IoT systems are often self-documenting, creating metadata about their own operation and environment. This characteristic poses unique challenges for data governance and privacy frameworks.

Cave also raised concerns about the difficulties of obtaining meaningful consent for data collection in IoT environments, given the pervasive and often invisible nature of these devices. He noted that data generated by IoT devices frequently crosses categories, blurring the lines between personal, environmental, and other types of information.

In the chat, Cave further elaborated on the risks of “data colonialism” in developing countries, where data generated by IoT devices might be exploited by external entities without adequate local control or benefit. He also highlighted the challenges of mutual recognition in regulations across different jurisdictions.

IS3C and AFNIC Collaboration on IoT and Post-Quantum Cryptography

Elif Kiesow Cortez, Chair of IS3C Working Group 9 on emerging technologies, discussed a collaboration project between IS3C and AFNIC focusing on IoT and post-quantum cryptography. This initiative aims to address the potential vulnerabilities of current encryption methods in the face of future quantum computing capabilities.

Emerging Technologies and Their Impact on IoT

The discussion then turned to the impact of emerging technologies, particularly quantum computing and artificial intelligence (AI), on IoT security and governance. Kiesow Cortez emphasized the importance of implementing post-quantum cryptography (PQC) solutions to future-proof IoT systems against potential quantum threats. She explained that current classical encryption algorithms, such as RSA, are vulnerable to attacks from powerful quantum computers, which, while not yet existent, pose a credible future threat.

Jonathan Cave introduced an intriguing perspective on the relationship between AI and IoT, noting that the lines between these technologies are increasingly blurring. He pointed out that smart devices not only make decisions but also learn from their environment and users, meaning that the device and its algorithms may be significantly different in use than when they left the factory. This observation led to a discussion about the challenges of regulating rapidly evolving technologies and the need for flexible, adaptive governance frameworks.

Regulatory Challenges in IoT

Renee Roland concluded the discussion by highlighting the challenges of regulating medical devices and other equipment in the IoT space. She emphasized the need for a balanced approach that ensures security without stifling innovation or impeding the benefits that IoT technologies can bring to various sectors.

Throughout the session, speakers emphasized the importance of international cooperation, standardization, and multistakeholder engagement in addressing IoT challenges. The discussion revealed the complexity of creating unified global standards for IoT governance and security, highlighting the need for continued dialogue, research, and collaboration to address the evolving landscape of IoT technologies and their societal impacts.

Maarten Botterman: Hello. Do you hear me? Five. I hear myself.

Jonathan Cave: I hear you.

Maarten Botterman: I can hear you. Good. Good morning, everybody. Welcome to the joint session by the Dynamic Coalition on IoT and IS3C. This morning, we’re going to focus on secure IoT practices for resilient and secure IoT by design. IoT has been on the agenda of the IGF since 2008, and more and more work is done. At that time, there were more people online than devices. This is definitely the other way around today, and increased importance to also the use of IoT devices and networks and services in our environments has become true. Hence, also, the criticality of making sure it’s more secure than before because we rely on it more than before. So, very short introduction because we only have an hour. Global good practice for IoT, so finding a multi-stakeholder view on what that means, what that entails. In very short, it comes down to Internet of Things good practice principle that we believe that Internet of Things good practice aims at developing IoT systems, products, and services, taking ethical considerations into account from the outset. Legal is obvious. Ethical hasn’t always been that obvious. Both in the development, deployment, and use phases of the life cycle, thus to find the ethical, sustainable way ahead, using IoT to create a free, secure, and enabling rights-based environment with a minimal future we want for us and our future generations. So, this is where we’re working towards, and we’re very happy to work with IS3C who has also done some work in the past, and we’ve done some work together before. I’m asking Wout de Natris, coordinator from IS3C, to shortly introduce the IoT activities of IS3C.

Wout de Natris: Thank you, Maarten. My name is Wout de Natris, and I’m, as I said, the coordinator of the Internet Standards Security and Safety Coalition. We work in a few fields, and I’m not going to go into them, but I will mention that you understand how broad our work is. We do security by design on IoT. We do education and skills in the tertiary cybersecurity sector, procurement for governments, data governance. We created tools, and we’re going to do things on post-quantum encryption in combination with IoT, and that is what Nicolas Fiumarelli, our working group one chair, and hopefully Elif Iso-Cortes, our working group nine chair, will be talking about. And we do that all with one specific goal, is making the Internet more secure by design to make sure that security-related, second-generation Internet standards are adopted by the industry to make us all more secure and safer. Thank you for the opportunity to introduce, Maarten.

Maarten Botterman: Thank you, Wout, and thank you for assisting also for online moderation. Online questions are very welcome. We will only have an hour, so what we decided to do is to have three topics that we’re going to talk about. The first topic is, so what are the current IoT security developments? A mini-panel focused on that. A second one on data governance related to IoT. IoT is creating an enormous wealth of data, and they’re dealt with in different ways how to do it well, also in context to privacy. And then, last but not least, we also talk about emerging technologies and the impact on IoT governance. Without further ado, I’d love to introduce to you a lady who’s at the core of these activities in the U.S., Renee Rowland from the FCC, who’s been overseeing this work there and has been seeing that the U.S. has created some standards, and now also has the pleasure and honor of starting to exchange experiences with countries other than the U.S. on mutual recognition and things like that. Renee, very welcome. After you, Nicolas from Rally will speak, and then we’ll have space for some questions. Renee, thank you for getting up at this amazing early hour for you.

Renée Roland: Excellent. Thank you. Thank you for having me. And please let me know if my volume is high enough.

Maarten Botterman: It’s high enough.

Renée Roland: Okay, good. Renee Rowland, Special Counsel at the Federal Communications Commission here in the United States. And as you said, I am leading the implementation of the Internet of Things Cyber Labeling Program, the U.S. Cyber Trustmark. The Federal Communications Commission has established rules laying out the foundation and the framework for a voluntary cybersecurity program for wireless consumer IoT products. That happened in March of this year, and then in September, those rules became effective. Under this qualifying consumer smart IoT products, we’ll have a cyber label that’s going to include the new U.S. Cyber Trustmark that indicates to consumers that the product meets critical minimum cybersecurity standards. Now, the IoT products for our program include an IoT device and any additional product components, for example, a backend or gateway or mobile app that are necessary to use the IoT device beyond basic operational features. The device is a product that is also capable of intentionally emitting radio frequency energy, as that is under our jurisdiction, and also capable of having at least one transducer for interacting directly with the physical world. So a sensor, for example, or an actuator, and at least one network interface for interfacing with the digital world, so an Ethernet or Wi-Fi or Bluetooth. So smartwatches, for example, smart light bulbs, baby monitors, et cetera, are included under our program. Now, while the product is defined as including data communication links to external components, it does not include external components or any external third-party components that are outside of the manufacturer’s control. Under our program, the commission is the program owner and will be supported by a lead administrator, who we recently announced a couple weeks ago as UL Solutions. They will be responsible for collaborating with stakeholders and with making a number of recommendations, most notably regarding standards and testings. We will also have cybersecurity label administrators that we call CLAs, responsible for the day-to-day management of the program, including accepting and reviewing and approving or denying the use of the trademark. We also just recently announced the selection of 10 CLAs for the program. And finally, we have part of the program, our cyber labs, that are going to be responsible for testing products to ensure manufacturers meet the program’s requirements to use the label. Now, the products will display the U.S. Cyber Trust mark and a QR code, and that QR code will direct the consumer to a decentralized public available registry. That registry will link to additional information that’s consumer-friendly about the securability of the product, such as how to change the default password, how to configure the device securely, et cetera. Excluded from our program are medical devices, motor vehicles, and there are a number of provisions that we have that address national security threats. NIST’s core baseline is 8425, serves as the basis of our IoT along with the NIST 8259 series of reports that provide guidance for designing securable IoT products. Finally, the program recognizes that international harmonization of cybersecurity standards really brings an immense value to manufacturers. In that regard, we really have been meeting with a number of different countries over the past several months, learning about their respective labeling programs. We do have an arrangement with the EU to commit to achieving mutual recognition of our plans, and we’re in the process of doing comparative analysis of our plans. We’ve been working closely with NIST in that respect on comparisons. Singapore has also been very eager to begin comparative analysis of our plans once our standards and scope are in place. As you may know, we have a cybersecurity labeling scheme for smart consumer products and have already stood up. They’re benchmarked up against the European Standards Organization and have some mutual recognition agreements with Finland and Germany. We have also met with a number of other countries, including Australia, Canada, Israel, India, Japan, Korea, New Zealand, and the U.K. And we expect once our standards are in place to move as expeditiously as we can on development. developing a mutual recognition of the SDC’s IOT label, a recognition of international labels, and we look forward to continuing that dialogue. I’m happy to answer questions with respect to next steps, but we’ll mention that we have kicked off a 90-day engagement stakeholder period that will begin in earnest after the holidays, during which time the lead administrator, in collaboration with the CLAs and other stakeholders, will submit recommendations to us, most notably the recommendations on developing technical standards and procedures for our program. Thank you.

Maarten Botterman: Thank you, Renee. Thanks for that excellent layout. Two quick questions. One, is the public comment period, is that the public one, or is that restricted to certain bodies?

Renée Roland: The 90-day stakeholder engagement process has not yet had sort of an official, official start because of the holidays. We expect it to start in January, and we are working with the lead administrator right now on how we will ensure that there is a diversity of stakeholders engaged, but we will also be putting out the recommendations from the lead administrator to the public so the public has an opportunity to comment on them.

Maarten Botterman: Thank you very much. And the other one is, you mentioned a lot of multilateral contacts. Is there also harmonization, or how do you call it, looking at the IEEE work on this area, et cetera, the global standards models?

Renée Roland: Yeah, I think part of our coordination with NIST is to sort of start off the process with the EU, understanding that they’re going to be working with the CRA, and then coming up with a process so that we can develop a mutual recognition with the other countries as well. So I think we’re trying to be as flexible as possible, keeping in mind.

Maarten Botterman: Thank you very much for this. For now, move on to Niklas. Niklas, you have been overseeing a lot of work on this for IS3C. What is your latest view and your input? Where are we and what’s next?

Nicolas Fiumarelli: Thank you so much, Martin. Good morning and afternoon, everyone. For the ones on site and online, my name is Niklas Amarelli, a chair of the DCIS3C, working group one on IoT security by design, and also the co-founder of IoT CyberSEC, Latin American and Caribbean. As mentioned by Vaud, at IS3C, our mission is to ensure security becomes integrated into every IoT device design and lifecycle. In 2022, our report from the Dynamic Coalition Saving the World from an Insecure IoT analyzing policies from 18 countries, identifying 442 best practices across four key areas that were data privacy, secure updates, user empowerment, and operational resilience, all about IoT, right? Despite this, some gaps remain, particularly in regions lacking enforceable policies, you know, and global standards are some kind of fragmented. On the topic of… These are gaining a global recognition as a key mechanism for addressing IoT security challenges. These schemes by design aim to inform consumers about the security features of IoT products, thereby empowering them in some manner to make more informed decisions while driving manufacturers to prioritize secure by design principles. At our research at IS3C, we have underscored this critical role of labeling schemes in bridging the gap between consumers and manufacturers. But however, the implementation of the schemes remains uneven globally, right? While regions like Europe, Asia Pacific, and USA have made significant strides, other regions, particularly in the global South, in American Caribbean, we still face challenges in adopting and enforcing such mechanisms. In our report, we have analyzed some of the global labeling initiatives. One of them is the Singapore Cybersecurity Labeling Scheme, or CLS, as mentioned by Rene. Singapore has pioneered, we think, one of the most comprehensive labeling schemes available globally. They use a tiered approach, rating devices on a four-level scale based on the security features. Devices must meet rigorous benchmarks as well, such as secure software updates and unique authentication protocols. Another one is the Finland Cybersecurity Labeling Initiative. Parency and trust by mandating independent, third-party testing for these IoT devices, ensuring in some manner that the manufacturers provide a clear and more verifiable security claims, thereby fostering maybe a culture of accountability and trust. Another one is the United States Cyber Trust Mark, as mentioned by Rene. The FCC recently launched this labeling program, highlighting operational resilience. Also, aligning with the update in NIST, under layer 8.425a, the initiative represents a mature step towards standardizing this minimum IoT standards in the North American market. Just to mention another one, because in our report we analyzed several regulatory document and policy documents talking about IoT security specifically. So the other one is the Korea Regulatory Framework that takes a multi-layered approach. It’s a technical perspective offering detailed requirements on how to address diverse stakeholder needs. Also, this provides examples such as protocols and device illustrations that other standards does not provide are more like high-level. This is more like practical. We found not only clarifies on the complex regulatory language, but also accelerating the compliance and implementation. So despite these advancements, we think that challenges remain. Was very great to hear Rene on advancing our harmonization issues, as you mentioned, because in our report in 2022, we were recognizing that the lack of this harmonized global standard sometimes create inconsistencies. And this limit the reach and impact of the labeling programs. Additionally, consumer awareness about labeling schemes remains low in many regions, as I have mentioned. So this is why this cyber labs approach that Rene mentioned are so desired in the industry. So from our report, we have a number of IS3C recommendations, specifically on labeling. One is that these voluntary frameworks, while valuable, sometimes fail to achieve widespread adoption, as I already said. So the IS3C recommends that the governments to introduce mandatory labeling policies to ensure more consistent implementation. Then on the labels, they should not only reflect a device current security state, but also thinking in the future, like they need commitments. That is very important for us, such as ongoing updates and details on the end of life consideration, because IoT devices and the state of the art of security, also in the light of the quantum advancement, is always changing. And finally, robust consumer education campaigns. We think that that was one of our recommendations from the report that we identified, and this is a future work that IS3C is focusing on, that the labeling skills can only succeed if consumer understands and value them. So how the consumers will understand this? So governments and industry stakeholders, we think it must invest in public awareness, right? The initiatives to reach this knowledge gap. So adopting these measures, we think that we can transform the labeling into a more powerful fostering trust, costability, security in all the IoT ecosystem. Thank you.

Maarten Botterman: Thank you very much, Nico. And having witnessed the work of IS3C from very closely, one of the things that strikes me is that when this work was, much of it was done a year ago, how much has happened since? And Renee’s presence here is a very clear testimony of that. And the collaboration in particular from individual initiatives, so individual country initiatives coming to what is beginning to be harmonized today. So Renee, also very much thanks for your work in there. And as you pointed out, up and beyond the labeling, which is useful to inform consumers, they still need to know how to deal with it. And very much appreciate that input. Any questions in the room? Please. Please introduce yourself, Jimmy.

Jimson Olufuye: Thank you very much. My name is Jameson Olufoye, Chair of the Adversity Council of the Africa City Alliance. I run a company, cyber security focus organization. So this is a very, very important panel, and I really appreciate the presentations. You raise concern about harmonization and about relating with the stakeholders, the customers, the users. And so my question is, why are we not going through, say ISO, International Standard Organization, we know that encompasses all standard. Well, why can’t we get into them at first so that we can streamline the process going forward? Thank you.

Maarten Botterman: Thank you for that. And I’ll ask Renee to come with an answer on that. While saying that one of the reasons why we try to come to a common understanding of global good practice is that it would be to inspire around the world and to provide a common line. And in the ideal world, there’s interaction between the understanding that we develop here at IGF and the initiatives that are rapidly developing around the world, both in the international standard institutions as in the countries. A few on this, please.

Renée Roland: Yeah, I think that’s right. I mean, I think that, you know, you have countries like Singapore that had started obviously before the United States have started and they have, you know, the four-tier system. And then in terms of our system, we determined the best system for us was to have a system that is not a tiered system. You either get the label or you do not get the label. There is no tiering. And there are some other obvious differences between out there in the scheme that the United States has determined to come up with. So I think that that’s part of the problem is just the difference in timing in terms of when these programs have initiated. But I think the goal is ultimately to be able to have some sort of either mutual recognition or otherwise harmonization of the programs going forward. And I think that’s the intent of the countries, at least that we have spoken with.

Maarten Botterman: Yes, thank you very much. Last remark from Wout.

Wout de Natris: Wout, this is RICC to come back to your question on the harmonization of the sort of the official. But my experience is from the past three years that I’m working in the four years in RICC is that internet standards are made by people who represent the internet. So in the IETF, the Internet Engineering Task Force. And that is totally separate from the institutions like ISO or NEN that you have. And they don’t do these internet standards. But the internet standards is what makes the internet work. And I have one example where it failed. I understand that the European Commission had a group of people that had to decide to officially recognize IP version six or DNSSEC or something like that. After King, they just decided to stop because they couldn’t agree whether that was the right standard or not. But it’s what made the internet work. It’s not about recognizing it officially. It is about making sure that you understand that it’s just there, it’s not going to change. So you have to start working with it and not recognize it because there’s no need to recognize it anymore. It is the standard. And that’s with IOT more or less the same is my opinion. Thank you.

Maarten Botterman: So I think the natural evolution of this has standards that are not only available to the countries who have to be front runners like Singapore, US, EU, but that this would be shared with the world. And as Rene expressed clearly, it’s the intent. So for the sake of time, I’d like to move on to the next part. We’re exactly on time. So thank you for the speakers and the questions. This is a first step into the work of the way of the work to come, but I think we’re on track and your question was right on. So with that, we move on to IOT data governance and privacy. I would like to invite Jonathan Cave from the Alan Turing Institute and Warwick University to address the data governance issues that relate to IOT, acknowledging that many live data related to persons are collected 24 seven and through analysis may be even relatable to people and AI will strengthen that process as well. But Jonathan, please your opening remarks here.

Jonathan Cave: Thank you very much, Martin. And thank you everyone for attending this in whatever time zone you happen to be in. Just to begin, I wanted to note that both the resilience and the security and indeed the functionality of the Internet of Things depend on how the Internet of Things is used in the awareness that people have of them. They also depend on a range of different participants, obviously designers, but all intermediates that link them in between. And one of the things that flows between them and enables them to decide who does what or one of the attributes are the data that are collected. The Internet of Things like many other things in the internet is self-documenting. It collects data as it goes along and these data can be retained and processed and used to provide and protect all the things we want from the Internet of Things, which include privacy and security. But it’s worth noting that privacy as we normally understand it nowadays is data privacy referring to personal data. That it’s really only the tip of the iceberg. However, that tip of the iceberg has been used to create legal and regulatory structures that may get in the way of some of the ways we come to understand and use data. One obvious example is proprietary data or data that can be shared. They’re not private to the individual, but they’re useful in sharing in smaller groups and they link people together through networks of trust, what lawyers might call privity. And so it’s important to governance, not simply to project into the Internet of Things, things that came from a world of individuals whose individual privacy was being protected. The second point relating to that is that data privacy is only a part of the privacy we want individuals to have. If we want individuals and indeed devices to be able to act on the basis of the information that they receive, they have to have a certain responsibility attached to them. Now with individuals, we do that through mechanisms like consent and awareness. So in other words, we ask people to consent to the collection and processing of their data. But as Martin mentioned, many of the data on which the Internet, not data that are asked for, to which people can give informed consent, they are simply collected in the process of people going about their normal interactions. And that applies not just to the people, but to the different devices in the Internet of Things that receive data and take actions. And these things are only imperfectly observed and their implications may not be fully understood. Now, another thing that happens in this world is that when people interact with the Internet of Things, they receive devices as well as supplying data to them. The data they receive from them, the prompts, for example, and query responses and so on, change the understanding and change the behavior of those people. So it’s not necessarily correct to say that all people in all parts of the world have the same degree of sovereignty and understanding or should be made responsible in the same way as the others. So the final point about this is that many of these devices are becoming smart devices. Smart devices, among other things, they not only take decisions, but they learn and learn from the people around them. And that change means that the device itself and certainly the algorithms within the device are different when they are in use than they were when they left the factory. So the putting the responsibility on designers and saying we must correct these things by design may miss the most essential element, which is you may have an algorithm that is perfectly innocuous, but based on what it learns, it can wind up making decisions about which people might have concerns and which they might want to be able to monitor, if not exactly control. This is algorithmic collusion in the case of pricing algorithms, although that’s a slightly different issue. But it is true that some of the players here, the manufacturers, the platforms, and so on, have special responsibilities. The final thing I want to mention is that these data that are collected will be retained and used. And through the longitudinal study of these data, the repositories that are created, we can come to understand many of these complex phenomena that the law at present and regulation are inadequate to deal with. But part of that generations will come forward. And one of the kind of meat and potatoes data governance issues is the fact that new generations of devices are entering the Internet of Things all the time. And with these new generations come new protocols for storing those data. So they may not be understandable or accessible by later generations. And they may not function properly when fed with data collected by later generations of devices. So the formats, the level at which these things are retained and access to long-term repositories may be very important. And the conclusion of that is that many of the rules that we have on the privacy and proprietary nature of these state way of having an Internet of Things that is capable of retaining enough data to be able to understand the problems that it may create or to be able to back away from or modify the standards and methods that it use when things cease to be a problem. Okay, those are my remarks.

Renée Roland: Jim, I can’t hear you.

Jonathan Cave: No, no sound from the room here either.

Maarten Botterman: In the room they’re waiting, working on it. In the room we can hear me, but can you hear me online now?

Jonathan Cave: Yes, we can, although you’re slightly reduced.

Maarten Botterman: Slightly what?

Jonathan Cave: Quieter than you were before.

Maarten Botterman: Quieter than I was before, oh, that’s exceptional for me. The technical team has been doing wonders over the week and learning every step how to interact with this setup and the room. Thank you for that. So, and yesterday in this room we also talked about the consciousness of equipment that can be on the ability of the users that they’re serving. So to adapt to, for instance, kids or elderly in the way they interact. So I think that relates to the point you just made too.

Jonathan Cave: I think just one small comment on that, and that awareness also includes whether or not about what their devices are collecting from them. And it is quite possible that the population of users may fragment into people who basically don’t trust having data collected in ways and used in ways that they know they don’t understand and people who become unaware of the collection that’s taking place so that as with smart speakers and so on, they sort of fade into the background and you take them for granted the same way as you do any of the other things that we use normally. So I think that splitting in the population may have concerns, particularly in terms of privacy.

Maarten Botterman: Thank you very much. I appreciate it. On this, Nicolas, the work of IC3C on IoT as it relates to privacy, please.

Nicolas Fiumarelli: Yes, as well. Because you know IoT ecosystems generate these vast amounts of data and often personal and sensitive that can be managed responsibly. So this requires more robust policies, as mentioned, that balance the innovation with the privacy. And as Jonathan emphasized, in data governance and categories of data, it’s not appropriate to treat them all the same. Each category requires tailored security measures to address a specific characteristic and risk. I would also like to highlight something that Jonathan raised about that it’s not only about the user using devices, right? But also there are thing-to-thing. It means devices communicating and actuators interoperating between them. So different areas as well. Some of the recent developments in IoT data governance, EUCRA, that emphasizes the lifecycle security mandating that manufacturers as well address vulnerabilities throughout the device operational life. We also have seen the NIST providing a specific recommendation for secure consumer-grade routers, a critical component of these IoT ecosystems. And also, why not to highlight the work of the thing-to-thing research group, the IRTF, the Internet Research Task Force, that is focusing more on exploring these advanced technologies as also raised by Jonathan. Because new generation of devices, are there protocols and architectures for this seamless communication and this interoperation among the IoT devices, as stated in their website, the thing-to-thing research group, the mission of this group is to identify and address these challenges and opportunities related to device-to-device communication and related ecosystems. So it’s really about the user. This is very important for policymakers. We also need to mention that this cannot be left behind. The Global Digital Compact is fostering international cooperation to harmonize these data governance standards, particularly for the IoT devices that operate across borders in the Internet. In our report in 2022 and 2023 on the I3C, we revealed significant gaps in IoT data governance, particularly in regions, again, in the South, lacking these enforceable privacy laws. Many countries relied on voluntary guidelines. What are our recommendations, the I3C recommendations? We want the government to adopt holistic privacy laws that address IoT-specific challenges, such as data encryption, access controls, minimization of data exposures, different things that are also about lifecycle data protection, about user empowerment mechanisms, and finally, this global standardization, right, because we have different working groups and protocols. At the IETF, I can mention, you can explore the IETF website, and harmonizing these data governance standards is essential for us to have consistent protection across these jurisdictions. This may be required, as I mentioned, the Global Digital Compact is multilateral cooperation and alignment more with the frameworks like the GDPR, right, but now with more advanced technology. So, to translate these recommendations into action, the I3C is always emphasizing the role of the multistakeholder collaboration, government, industry leaders, the civil society must work all together to create these policies that are both enforceable in some manner and adaptable to emerging technologies. So, it’s not just about connectivity, it’s maybe about trust. We need to deal with that, and embedding these strong governance and privacy measures into the IOT landscape, we can create this future where the technology serves the humanity without compromising our security, and I’m looking forward to questions on critical issues here.

Maarten Botterman: Thank you on this. I don’t see questions in the room still, right? So, Jimmy, very quickly.

Jimson Olufuye: You know, you’re talking about smart regulation. The data is going to be huge, so what do you recommend? What’s the period for data to be stored, two years, three years, five years for ISP and all those in charge of data storage, and then secondly, will you consider the NetMundia guidelines for multistakeholder engagement, because you mentioned in…

Maarten Botterman: Please introduce yourself.

Wisdom Donkor: Yeah, my name is Wisdom Donkor, the director for Africa Open Data and Internet Research Foundation. I just want to understand the difference between AI and IOT. Now, we realize that, let me say, in Africa, government are beginning to regulate or initiate that process to regulate AI, so I want to know the difference, is IOT AI or AI IOT?

Maarten Botterman: I appreciate that question, but for the sake of time, we’ll discuss that outside of the meeting, but a quick response on Jimmy’s question, and Wisdom, very happy to talk further.

Nicolas Fiumarelli: Yes, I will address your question about the digital cooperation mechanisms, NetMundial, for promoting this digital inclusion, IOT is almost most related with AI, but not like the same, because we are talking about constrained devices. For me, the most important part here is that, as different from the ICT technologies, when you have more computational power, these IOT devices are restricted, are constrained in terms of energy, in terms of batteries, so they are a different approach. That is why we differentiate from the ICTs, but advancing global cooperation, this is something that is important for the nation to have these global challenges, as well as what we do with cybersecurity for the ICT, or misinformation, or digital fragmentation, these huge IOT devices that will be millions and millions of devices need to be addressed, so this also aligns with the digital transformation we are seeing at the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, so at the end, it’s all about harmonization, digital cooperation, and also, you know, these devices are promoting, we have other problems that are addressed globally, such as the climate change, we are talking about health and education with these devices, so at the end, we need to have a more holistic approach to understand how to have a global picture of all of this.

Maarten Botterman: So, I’m sorry, Martin, but we have 15 minutes left, so very quickly, but then we move on. Tapping doesn’t help, switching on does.

Martin Koyabe: Martin Kayabe, GFC Africa. The question that I wanted to raise is not actually a question, it’s something that we need to emphasize. There are two areas that are very difficult. One is the way IOTs operate, especially when you look at the ecosystem, which is isolated, so for example, the decentralization of the IOT ecosystem brings with it some challenges, especially when it comes to manufacturing, the equipment, and also the geopolitics of equipment as we know it very well, so there will be some specific parts of the world that will develop very many tools and very many equipment that are not allowed to be in some specific parts of the world as well. The other thing also is that we need to emphasize on regulation, because regulation is one of the most difficult. IOTs are in isolation, they are in specific jurisdictions across borders, and how do we make sure that we harmonize that regulation, because it’s different, and even if we do anything as far as global settings are concerned, regulation will always have a different impact. difference. And that is something that we really need to look at, because if we don’t look at regulation, then how do we actually have users using it, monitoring and so forth. Thank you.

Maarten Botterman: Okay, I’ll park that. It’s very true. It’s true for IoT governance, it’s true for AI governance, and it’s essential issues. Rene touched upon a little bit on it. What drives the positive there is that there is an international recognition that mutual recognition will help, because things come across borders all the time, whether it’s data or even devices. So that is the positive stimulants. And yes, we have different actors with different incentives in the world. Very much recognized. I just wanted to really also open the floor for the next one, which is IoT governance and emerging technologies, with a focus on quantum, the impact of quantum and AI. It’s about the thinking ahead of the issues that we’ll be facing tomorrow or a couple of years from now. And for that, very happy to have Elif Kizilkortes online, who is also with the IS3C as chair of the working group. Elif, please, the floor is yours.

Elif Kiesow Cortez: Thank you, Martin. And I will just jump right into the subject. So today we know that the security community highlights that the post-quantum cryptography, or PQC, is very important for maintaining data security and data privacy as quantum computing capabilities advance. Research shows that our current classical encryption algorithms, like RSA, is vulnerable to attacks from powerful quantum computers, which do not yet exist, but remain a credible threat for the future. PQC provides a set of cryptographic techniques and algorithms that are designed specifically to ensure long-term protection of sensitive information and also secure communication channels. And implementing PQC solutions now allows organizations to future-proof their security measures against potential quantum threats over the coming decade, preventing possible data breaches and national security risks. Governments and standards bodies like NIST are actively promoting PQC standards, emphasizing… Sorry?

Maarten Botterman: Excellent, you were gone for 10 seconds, but you’re back because you were cracking before. You’re clearly speaking now. Thank you. Please continue.

Elif Kiesow Cortez: Okay, so I would not know where it broke. So I was explaining the importance of implementing PQC solutions so that the organizations proofing their security. This is both for data breaches and also for national security risks. And governments and important organizations like NIST, they are actively promoting PQC standards to be adopted and emphasizing the urgent need for this widespread adoption across the industries, also to safeguard against the emerging quantum computing threat. And today, of course, we are also very happy to announce a new project of our dynamic coalition. This will be for the DC-IS3C. We will be collaborating with AFNIC from France on a new project that is very relevant to this session. We will work on a collaboration between the Working Group 1, that is on IoT security, as well as Working Group 9 on emerging technologies. Our research will have two different areas to focus, one dedicated to the societal impacts of IoT, and the second one on those of post quantum cryptography. And we will be providing a brief combined analysis of these domains as well. In this research, we will make sure to include a multidimensional look for this. And we will be looking at impact on societal, legal, economic and environmental levels. And we will be also including policy recommendations both at the state level and organization level. Next year in IGF 2025, we will be also enabling stakeholder engagement on these issues through a common workshop that will be promoting dialogue on societal implications as well as future directions. And we will be finalizing the combined report that will be looking at both IoT security and PQC, where we will be also exploring some cross-cutting themes like digital transformation and future-proofing against emerging threats. And we will include references to international cooperation and economic competitiveness aspects within the broader context of global cybersecurity efforts. This project will be conducted and concluded within the next six months. So please reach out to Wout, who is in the room, if you would like to hear more on this, or if you would like to work with us on similar projects in the future too. Thank you, Martijn.

Maarten Botterman: Thank you, Elif, for that. I think this is also capacity building and awareness raising around the world is important. So everybody gets involved, or at least all cultures are understood when moving ahead in this area. So the global dialogue is crucial in these areas, I think. There’s a broad recognition that and we talked about the data from different generations, Jonathan raised that, that they may also have different levels of encryption that may be affected by quantum computing, the power of those. So standing ready for that is, as Elif raised, we need to look to moving forward. The other element is very much related also to AI. AI is not a global concept. AI is very much about how you apply it in your region for your purpose. And that can only happen if you know how to do it. So even if the device measures temperature or whatever, what you want to do with that may be different whether you’re in Africa or in the North Pole, for instance. Just one of the examples. So really looking on how you ensure that you can adopt what we learn on AI, what we develop in IoT, and help to what in the end matters, impact on the people in your region is something that clearly need to be considered moving forward. Therefore, also, I think both at all stakeholder levels, governments, how to stimulate the development industry, how to see the opportunities, how to be able to grasp the opportunities, technical community to support this, whether it’s focused on the internet or on the car industry, and the users in the end of what do we really want to be involved in how this progresses. Jonathan, anything to add?

Jonathan Cave: A couple of very tiny points. Thank you very much, Adolf. That’s really provocative. Among the things that may be of concern, and you’re probably already thinking about them, but they have implications beyond that specific initiative, are the proliferation aspect, that is quantum computing becomes cheaper and more ubiquitously available. The nature of the problems and the nature of the solutions themselves may change. For example, with a decentralization, as opposed to a concentration on platforms that can see what’s going on and respond to it. And that movement of intelligence from the edge to the center or from the center to the edge should probably change a lot of the ways we think about these things from a regulatory point of view. Another one is the domino thing, because that is a killer application at the moment, which is strong cryptography and very smart ways of breaking cryptography. But the use of quantum computing probably goes beyond that to a greater complexity of how the IoT will function. And with that complexity come types of behavior, emergent types of behavior that we’ll need to think about not just from a security, but from a safety perspective. And even to be able to detect these things may require a different kind of thinking than thinking about how systems operate to do by the people who use them. And the last part of that is that this in the security world, we tend to think about things in terms of attackers and defenders. Obviously, the multi stakeholderism of the implications of quantum computing goes far beyond that. And a lot of the things that we worry about or place our hope in don’t come from a kind of zero sum perspective, but involve the interaction of many, many people. So the game theorists should get a look into. But thank you. That was really provocative.

Maarten Botterman: Thank you for that. So thinking of the future, any questions in the room? Nicholas, please. Your microphone is gone.

Nicolas Fiumarelli: No, just to highlight that comment with the subject of the quantum, because you know, as IoT becomes more foundational to smart cities, we are seeing healthcare devices, critical infrastructure, having IoT sensors. So implementing quantum resistant standards is like future proof. You know, these systems are against emerging threats. So for those interested, just one hour from now in workshop room nine, we will have hosting an interesting workshop on the topic of the critical important that is on secure routing, internet resilience, it’s called advancing IoT security, RPKI, and post-quantum encryption. So we’ll dive into this intersection of post-quantum encryption, IoT, and routing security, right into that session as well.

Maarten Botterman: Thank you very much. Bart, please.

Wout de Natris: Yes, there are some interesting comments that Jonathan made in the chat, so do we want to read them, Martin, or do we leave it there as it is?

Maarten Botterman: Please summarize.

Wout de Natris: It’s a lot, so I will try.

Maarten Botterman: Shall we ask Jonathan, because he’s online, otherwise.

Wout de Natris: There is another option that Jonathan, please make your, a few of your points that you’ve made in the chat that we have one or two minutes left that you can use for that.

Jonathan Cave: Thank you, Bart. I’ll just summarize them. If people want to come back to me on the mic. Hello?

Maarten Botterman: They can be here, corrects only.

Jonathan Cave: All right, well, I’m hearing you.

Maarten Botterman: Technical support. Please give me your thumbs up if it should work.

Jonathan Cave: Is that any better?

Maarten Botterman: Yes, it’s better. Thank you.

Jonathan Cave: So the first one was the data may cross categories. One of the things here is that, for example, automobile sensors have nothing to do with the operation of the car. They can reveal the driver’s political preferences, their gender, etc., etc., etc., and this crosses regulatory boundaries and therefore is a separate thing that we may need to think about. In relation to the supply of technologies, particularly to developing countries, the issue of data colonialism should be mentioned, where people from developed countries give devices to developing countries which help them, but also siphon data out of them, and they can use those developing countries as almost as labyrinths to harvest their data, and an equitable sharing of those data and equitable control of how those data are used will be very important. The trust network is obviously very important, but also the trustworthiness of the data. When it’s human data, we worry a lot about disinformation, misinformation, malinformation. The same thing is true with devices, but may be much harder to detect. Devices can spoofer off, they do. To the devices and the people behind them, or the IoT and AI element of it, if the AI is the brain, the IoT are the eyes, the ears, and the hands. And just as it’s hard to think about a mind without thinking about the senses and capabilities of the person, the distinction between AI and IoT, particularly when the devices themselves may have some degree of what we used to call ambient intelligence, but where the intelligence of the system comes through the interaction of all of these devices, we may want to be careful about whether we retain that distinction. Oh, and a final thing on mutual recognition is a good thing. We have it in free trade agreements and things like that. It can be very helpful, but it can also be very harmful. Mutual recognition can be a backdoor for bypassing the regulations of countries and for denying the people in those countries access to information that they may need. And this is particularly true between high-tech and low-tech countries. And we’re seeing it already in the world, that if you accept devices and services on the grounds of mutual recognition, there has to be some degree of verification before the trust that lies behind that mutual recognition can be fully implemented. Great, thanks.

Maarten Botterman: Thank you. Thank you again for being here with me in this ugly hour. Your final takeaways.

Renée Roland: I did want to talk a little bit about regulations and some of the challenges that we have. Certainly as I mentioned at the commission and under our program medical devices are not included. So I think that’s something that we should consider in terms of flexibility in the future. Other. I think that part of the issue is there are already regulations. By other agencies, right. For for equipment. Automobile equipment and then medical devices. So there’s a whole other stream of work that is going on with the regulations and, and some of the inconsistencies that there may there, there may be or overlap that there may be. So I think that’s a different stream of, of work that, that we’re also doing. And part of it, the commission.

Maarten Botterman: Thank you so much.

Elif Kiesow Cortez: I will just echo I think Renee’s comments and saying that all of those issues that we are seeing about standardization will be now also applicable to the PQC space. So I think we will be seeing a lot of movement there too. Thank you.

Maarten Botterman: Yes. Thank you. And it’s time. So we run off this session. Even if you talk to them, we started with labeling and certification. We can also see that, that evolves throughout the international process of, of mutual recognition throughout the multi-stakeholder input. That emerges over time and adoption. Across the world. If we keep it sharp. It’s a kind of reflection on what’s happening. There’s many things moving and let’s try to keep that clear for all of us so we can move together. One of the other evolutions that may be is that. In the labeling. So it’s likely that to evolve as well. And overall, I think I’m really happy with the understanding that we got all the systems, but we also got the data and let’s not forget that. And last but not least. So let’s think ahead because what we’ve seen over the last year, how quickly things move. We will see towards the future. My expectation. It will be maybe not what we expect, but we will move very fast. So let’s stay on the ball, stay on the ball together and move this together. So thank you all very much for your inputs, your thoughtful comments and questions. And we look forward to publishing the report and, and from there, this is for us a step in the process and a good step. Thanks to all of you. Sorry. This is the end of the session. Thank you for all your help technical section.

Renée Roland: Thank you.

Jonathan Cave: Thanks.

Agreement Points

Importance of IoT security labeling and certification

Renee Roland

Nicolas Fiumarelli

Maarten Botterman

US Cyber Trust Mark program for IoT devices

Global labeling initiatives like Singapore’s CLS

Need for harmonization of labeling standards

Speakers agreed on the importance of implementing IoT security labeling schemes and the need for international harmonization of these standards.

Need for comprehensive IoT data governance

Nicolas Fiumarelli

Jonathan Cave

Need for holistic privacy laws addressing IoT challenges

Complexity of IoT data types beyond personal data

Speakers emphasized the need for comprehensive data governance frameworks that address the unique challenges posed by IoT devices and data types.

Importance of addressing emerging technologies in IoT governance

Nicolas Fiumarelli

Elif Kiesow Cortez

Jonathan Cave

Need to future-proof IoT systems against quantum threats

Importance of post-quantum cryptography for IoT security

Blurring lines between AI and IoT technologies

Speakers agreed on the importance of considering emerging technologies, particularly quantum computing and AI, in IoT governance frameworks.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the need for a more nuanced understanding of IoT data and the importance of educating users about the complexities of IoT ecosystems.

Nicolas Fiumarelli

Jonathan Cave

Importance of consumer education on labels

Complexity of IoT data types beyond personal data

Both speakers highlighted the challenges associated with cross-border data flows and the potential for inequitable data practices, particularly affecting developing countries.

Martin Koyabe

Jonathan Cave

Challenges with cross-border data flows and jurisdictions

Risks of data colonialism in developing countries

Unexpected Consensus

Integration of AI and IoT in regulatory frameworks

Jonathan Cave

Nicolas Fiumarelli

Blurring lines between AI and IoT technologies

Need to future-proof IoT systems against quantum threats

While coming from different perspectives, both speakers unexpectedly converged on the need to consider the integration of AI and IoT in future regulatory frameworks, highlighting the interconnected nature of emerging technologies.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement included the importance of IoT security labeling, comprehensive data governance, and addressing emerging technologies in IoT governance. Speakers also shared concerns about cross-border data flows and the need for user education.

Consensus level

There was a moderate to high level of consensus among the speakers on key issues. This consensus suggests a growing recognition of the complex challenges in IoT governance and the need for collaborative, multistakeholder approaches to address them effectively. The implications of this consensus point towards potential international cooperation on IoT standards and governance frameworks, but also highlight the need for flexible approaches that can adapt to rapidly evolving technologies and diverse regional contexts.

Different Viewpoints

Voluntary vs. Mandatory Labeling Schemes

Renee Roland

Nicolas Fiumarelli

US Cyber Trust Mark program for IoT devices

Global labeling initiatives like Singapore’s CLS

Renee Roland presented the US Cyber Trust Mark as a voluntary program, while Nicolas Fiumarelli emphasized the need for mandatory labeling policies to ensure consistent implementation.

Unexpected Differences

Approach to International Standardization

Renee Roland

Jonathan Cave

US Cyber Trust Mark program for IoT devices

Risks of data colonialism in developing countries

While Roland focused on mutual recognition of labeling schemes between countries, Cave unexpectedly raised concerns about data colonialism and the need for equitable data sharing, highlighting potential conflicts in international standardization efforts.

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement centered around the implementation of labeling schemes (voluntary vs. mandatory), the scope of data governance (personal data vs. broader data types), and the approach to international standardization.

difference_level

The level of disagreement was moderate. While speakers generally agreed on the importance of IoT security and data governance, they differed in their approaches and emphasis on specific issues. These differences highlight the complexity of creating unified global standards for IoT governance and security, potentially leading to challenges in implementing consistent international policies.

Partial Agreements

Both speakers agreed on the need for comprehensive data governance, but differed in their approach. Fiumarelli advocated for holistic privacy laws, while Cave emphasized the need to consider various data types beyond personal data.

Nicolas Fiumarelli

Jonathan Cave

Need for holistic privacy laws addressing IoT challenges

Complexity of IoT data types beyond personal data

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the need for a more nuanced understanding of IoT data and the importance of educating users about the complexities of IoT ecosystems.

Nicolas Fiumarelli

Jonathan Cave

Importance of consumer education on labels

Complexity of IoT data types beyond personal data

Both speakers highlighted the challenges associated with cross-border data flows and the potential for inequitable data practices, particularly affecting developing countries.

Martin Koyabe

Jonathan Cave

Challenges with cross-border data flows and jurisdictions

Risks of data colonialism in developing countries

Key Takeaways

Resolutions and Action Items

Unresolved Issues

Suggested Compromises

The Internet of Things like many other things in the internet is self-documenting. It collects data as it goes along and these data can be retained and processed and used to provide and protect all the things we want from the Internet of Things, which include privacy and security.

speaker

Jonathan Cave

reason

This comment introduces the important idea that IoT devices inherently generate data, which can be used both for functionality and security purposes. It challenges the typical view of data collection as solely a privacy concern.

impact

This shifted the discussion to consider the dual nature of IoT data – as both a potential privacy risk and a security asset. It led to further exploration of data governance issues.

Smart devices, among other things, they not only take decisions, but they learn and learn from the people around them. And that change means that the device itself and certainly the algorithms within the device are different when they are in use than they were when they left the factory.

speaker

Jonathan Cave

reason

This insight highlights the evolving nature of IoT devices and their algorithms, challenging the notion that security can be fully addressed at the design stage.

impact

This comment deepened the conversation by introducing the complexity of securing devices that change over time. It led to discussion of lifecycle security and the need for ongoing updates and monitoring.

The FCC recently launched this labeling program, highlighting operational resilience. Also, aligning with the update in NIST, under layer 8.425a, the initiative represents a mature step towards standardizing this minimum IoT standards in the North American market.

speaker

Nicolas Fiumarelli

reason

This comment provides concrete information about regulatory developments, showing how standards are being implemented in practice.

impact

This shifted the discussion towards more practical considerations of how IoT security standards are being implemented and harmonized across different regions.

Research shows that our current classical encryption algorithms, like RSA, is vulnerable to attacks from powerful quantum computers, which do not yet exist, but remain a credible threat for the future. PQC provides a set of cryptographic techniques and algorithms that are designed specifically to ensure long-term protection of sensitive information and also secure communication channels.

speaker

Elif Kiesow Cortez

reason

This comment introduces the critical issue of quantum computing threats to current encryption methods, highlighting a future challenge for IoT security.

impact

This comment shifted the discussion towards future challenges and the need for proactive measures in IoT security. It led to further discussion about post-quantum cryptography and its implications for IoT.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by broadening its scope from current IoT security practices to future challenges and complexities. They highlighted the multifaceted nature of IoT security, encompassing data governance, evolving device capabilities, standardization efforts, and emerging technological threats. The discussion evolved from addressing immediate security concerns to considering long-term, proactive approaches to IoT security in a rapidly changing technological landscape.

How can we achieve harmonization of IoT security standards globally?

speaker

Jimson Olufuye

explanation

Harmonization is crucial for ensuring consistent IoT security across different jurisdictions and reducing fragmentation of standards.

What is the appropriate retention period for IoT-generated data?

speaker

Jimson Olufuye

explanation

Determining an appropriate data retention period is important for balancing data utility with privacy and security concerns.

How can we effectively implement the NetMundial guidelines for multistakeholder engagement in IoT governance?

speaker

Jimson Olufuye

explanation

Ensuring inclusive multistakeholder participation is crucial for developing fair and effective IoT governance frameworks.

What are the key differences between AI and IoT, particularly in the context of regulation?

speaker

Wisdom Donkor

explanation

Understanding the distinctions and overlaps between AI and IoT is important for developing appropriate regulatory frameworks.

How can we address the challenges of regulating IoT devices that operate across borders?

speaker

Martin Koyabe

explanation

The decentralized nature of IoT ecosystems poses unique challenges for regulation and governance across different jurisdictions.

How can we ensure equitable sharing and control of data collected from IoT devices in developing countries?

speaker

Jonathan Cave

explanation

Addressing potential ‘data colonialism’ is crucial for ensuring fair benefits and control over IoT-generated data in developing nations.

How can we verify the trustworthiness of data generated by IoT devices?

speaker

Jonathan Cave

explanation

Ensuring data integrity and detecting potential misinformation or manipulation in IoT-generated data is crucial for the reliability of IoT systems.

How should regulations adapt to include medical IoT devices?

speaker

Renee Roland

explanation

Medical IoT devices present unique challenges and risks that may require specific regulatory approaches.