Uncategorized

Summary

This workshop at the Internet Governance Forum focused on scaling next-generation digital infrastructure to enable greater data agency and create a fairer data economy. The discussion was organized by Project Liberty Institute and centered around their Fair Data Economy Task Force recommendations, which propose redistributing economic power from centralized platforms to individuals and communities.

The panelists presented concrete examples of alternative digital infrastructures already operating at scale. Sujith Nair from FIDE described the Beckn Protocol, which enables interoperability in India’s digital commerce through an open network serving millions of users, including taxi drivers and small businesses who can retain control over their data and pricing. Wes Biggs explained how the Decentralized Social Networking Protocol (DSNP) creates universal social graphs and identity systems that allow users to port their data between applications without being locked into single platforms.

A key theme emerged around the importance of demonstrating tangible value to users rather than expecting them to understand technical concepts like interoperability or decentralization. The speakers emphasized that successful adoption requires meeting people where they are and building on existing social structures and relationships. Sujith Nair illustrated this with examples from India’s digital infrastructure projects, such as embedding QR codes in textbooks to create educational portals that teachers and students could easily access.

The discussion also addressed governance challenges and the need for inclusive participation in designing these systems. Wendy Seltzer highlighted the importance of participatory design that includes diverse perspectives and lived experiences, not just technical expertise. Jean-Bertrand Azapmo from the African Union emphasized that governments alone cannot build the necessary infrastructure and that multi-stakeholder partnerships with private sector investment are essential, particularly given that many countries spend more on debt payments than they can invest in digital infrastructure.

The conversation concluded with recognition that scaling these alternative infrastructures requires systemic change across four areas: entrepreneurship and new business models, next-generation digital infrastructure, policy innovation, and strategic capital allocation. The panelists agreed that this represents a multi-trillion dollar opportunity that could significantly contribute to sustainable development goals while ensuring digital sovereignty and data agency for individuals and communities worldwide.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Fair Data Economy and Alternative Digital Infrastructure**: The discussion centered on moving away from centralized platform-based models toward decentralized protocols that give users agency over their data. Examples included DSNP (Decentralized Social Networking Protocol), Beckn Protocol, and other alternatives that redistribute value and control from big tech platforms back to individuals and communities.

– **Scaling Technical Solutions Through User-Centric Design**: A key theme was bridging the gap between technical innovation and user adoption. Speakers emphasized the importance of meeting users where they are rather than expecting them to understand complex technical concepts, with Beckn Protocol’s success in India (200+ million transactions) serving as a prime example of making interoperability valuable to everyday users like taxi drivers and small shop owners.

– **Interoperability as a Core Enabler**: The panelists discussed how interoperability between different protocols and platforms is essential for breaking network effects that keep users locked into centralized systems. This includes technical interoperability as well as governance frameworks that enable cooperation between different stakeholders.

– **Multi-Stakeholder Investment and Systemic Change**: The conversation highlighted that scaling alternative digital infrastructure requires coordinated action across four pillars: entrepreneurship and new business models, next-generation technical infrastructure, policy innovation, and strategic capital allocation. Government investment alone is insufficient, requiring private sector and philanthropic participation.

– **Global Perspective on Digital Infrastructure**: Speakers addressed how digital public infrastructure could unlock 3-13% GDP growth for emerging economies, with particular focus on Africa’s digital transformation strategy and the need for inclusive governance that represents diverse global perspectives and technical sophistication levels.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to explore how alternative digital infrastructures and protocols can be scaled to create a “fair data economy” that gives individuals and communities more control over their data and digital lives, moving beyond the current centralized platform model toward more distributed, interoperable systems.

## Overall Tone:

The tone was consistently optimistic and collaborative throughout, with speakers building on each other’s ideas rather than debating. The conversation maintained a forward-looking, solution-oriented approach, combining technical expertise with practical examples of successful implementations. While acknowledging significant challenges in scaling these alternatives, the overall sentiment was one of possibility and momentum, with concrete examples demonstrating that these concepts are already working at scale in various contexts.

Speakers

– **Sarah Leif**: Project Liberty Institute (moderator/host)

– **Paul Fehlinger**: Project Liberty Institute, Fair Data Economy Task Force coordinator (online participant)

– **Sujith Nair**: CEO and co-founder of FIDE, member of Fair Data Economy Task Force

– **Wes Biggs**: Vice President and Chief Architect of DSNP and Frequency

– **Wendy Seltzer**: DSNP advisor, co-chair of DSNP governance working group

– **Jean-Bertrand Azapmo**: Principal advisor to the African Union Commissioner for Economic Development, Trade, Tourism, Industry and Minerals, member of Fair Data Economy Task Force (online participant)

– **Xianhong Hu**: UNESCO representative (online participant)

– **Audience**:

**Additional speakers:**

– **Veronica**: Youth Pirate Party of Sweden representative

# Scaling Next-Generation Digital Infrastructure for a Fair Data Economy: Workshop Report

## Introduction and Context

This workshop at the Internet Governance Forum, organized by the Project Liberty Institute, examined how next-generation digital infrastructure can be scaled to enable greater data agency and create a fairer data economy. The session featured Sarah Leif from Project Liberty Institute as moderator, alongside panelists Paul Fehlinger (Fair Data Economy Task Force coordinator), Sujith Nair (CEO of FIDE), Wes Biggs (Vice President and Chief Architect of DSNP and Frequency), and Wendy Seltzer (DSNP advisor and governance expert). Online participants included Xianhong Hu from UNESCO and Jean-Bertrand Azapmo from the African Union, though technical difficulties prevented Jean-Bertrand from joining until near the end of the session.

Sarah Leif opened by explaining Project Liberty Institute’s “North Star” of giving people “voice, choice and stake in their digital life,” setting the stage for a discussion focused on practical examples of alternative digital infrastructure that preserves user agency while achieving meaningful scale.

## The Case for Digital Infrastructure Transformation

Paul Fehlinger articulated the fundamental problems with current digital economy models, arguing that existing business models and infrastructure create negative externalities affecting market structures, societies, and democracies. He emphasized the need to “rewire the data economy to build a better ecosystem that works for all actors with people having agency over their data.”

The Fair Data Economy Task Force, whose recommendations were published nine months prior to this workshop, proposes a fundamental redistribution of economic power from centralized platforms to individuals and communities. Fehlinger outlined four key areas requiring coordinated action: entrepreneurship and new business models, next-generation digital infrastructure, policy innovation, and strategic capital allocation.

Sarah Leif reinforced this perspective by highlighting how digital infrastructure design fundamentally affects whether economic power becomes concentrated or distributed, and whether innovation is stifled or encouraged.

## Concrete Examples of Alternative Digital Infrastructure

### The Beckn Protocol: Interoperability in Practice

Sujith Nair presented the Beckn Protocol as a compelling example of how alternative digital infrastructure can achieve scale while preserving user agency. The protocol enables interoperability by allowing consumers and providers to transact without being locked into single platforms, giving users control over their data and revenue streams.

The protocol has processed over 200 million transactions across multiple sectors in India, including transportation, retail, and education. Nair provided practical examples of the impact: taxi drivers who can now control their own pricing and data, and small shop owners who can participate in digital commerce without surrendering control to platform intermediaries.

Particularly noteworthy was Nair’s example of embedding QR codes in textbooks to create educational portals. This approach leveraged existing social infrastructure—the widespread availability of textbooks—rather than attempting to replace existing systems. As Nair explained, “We don’t think about society rising up to the level of technology. It’s the other way. We think about taking technology to the level where the society operates.”

### DSNP: Decentralized Social Networking Infrastructure

Wes Biggs outlined how the Decentralized Social Networking Protocol (DSNP) addresses the limitations of centralized social media platforms. DSNP avoids single points of failure and creates consensus mechanisms where no single entity can override the system.

The protocol provides key capabilities including long-lived identity, attestation features, universal social graphs, and social content that can be ported between applications. Biggs emphasized that DSNP maintains the ability for anonymity and pseudonymity online, allowing users to maintain multiple personas across different communication contexts—a crucial feature for protecting user privacy and autonomy.

## User-Centered Design and Adoption

A central theme throughout the discussion was the importance of designing technology around user needs rather than expecting users to adapt to technical complexity. Sujith Nair articulated this principle clearly, noting that users don’t care about technical terms like “interoperability”—they need to see practical value in their daily lives.

This user-centric approach challenges common assumptions in the decentralized technology community about the need for user education on technical principles. Instead, the speakers advocated for hiding technical complexity while preserving user agency and control.

Wes Biggs supported this perspective by emphasizing the need to “create languages where people can express what usefulness means to them and translate that into technical protocol choices.” Sarah Leif acknowledged the ongoing challenge that most users remain on centralized platforms despite available alternatives, indicating that the scalability problem extends beyond technical capabilities to user experience and value proposition design.

## Governance as a Techno-Social Challenge

Wendy Seltzer introduced crucial perspectives on governance, emphasizing that “building sustainable interoperable systems requires aligning incentives across all ecosystem participants, not just technical solutions.” She advocated for participatory design that recognizes expertise in multiple forms, arguing that lived experience is as important as technological or legal expertise in creating equitable systems.

Seltzer framed the challenge as fundamentally “techno-social,” requiring attention to social and economic incentives alongside technical specifications. This perspective challenges traditional hierarchies in technology development and suggests that genuine inclusion of diverse stakeholders is essential for creating equitable systems.

An interesting point emerged around the sequencing of governance and adoption. Sujith Nair advocated for an adoption-first approach, suggesting that demonstrating value to users should precede formal governance structures, which can then be developed to stabilize successful implementations.

## Investment and Economic Models

Paul Fehlinger highlighted the critical importance of capital mobilization, noting that “nothing works without money” and emphasizing the need to mobilize smart capital across private markets with innovative financing mechanisms. He called for creating centers of gravity for impact-focused entrepreneurship that rethinks value distribution and creates new business models.

When Jean-Bertrand Azapmo was able to join the discussion near the end, he provided context from an African perspective, noting that digital public infrastructure can unlock significant economic value. He cited examples like M-Pesa in Kenya to demonstrate how private sector leadership can drive successful digital infrastructure development, particularly important given the resource constraints facing many governments.

## Technical Implementation and Privacy Considerations

The technical discussion revealed key principles for designing scalable alternative digital infrastructure. Both DSNP and Beckn Protocol demonstrate how interoperability can be achieved while preserving user control and data agency, enabling users to port their data and relationships between applications.

A question from Veronica, representing the Youth Pirate Party of Sweden, raised important concerns about preserving anonymity rights in interconnected systems. The challenge of maintaining separate digital personas across different contexts while enabling interoperability represents an ongoing technical and governance consideration that requires careful balance between connectivity and privacy.

## Regional Perspectives and Implementation

Xianhong Hu from UNESCO raised questions about institutional design, asking whether governments should create new institutions for data agency and stewardship or expand existing data protection authorities. This reflects the broader challenge of balancing data protection with harnessing data’s economic potential.

The discussion suggested that government roles should focus on creating enabling environments rather than direct infrastructure provision, though the specific institutional mechanisms for supporting fair data economy development remain an area requiring further exploration.

## Key Insights and Remaining Challenges

The workshop demonstrated both significant progress in developing alternative digital infrastructure and substantial challenges in scaling these solutions. The concrete examples of Beckn Protocol and DSNP show that interoperable, user-controlled digital infrastructure can work at meaningful scale.

Several implementation challenges remain unresolved, including specific mechanisms for bridging existing alternative solutions, strategies for overcoming network effects that keep users on centralized platforms, and detailed approaches for mobilizing private capital at scale.

The speakers agreed on fundamental principles including the need for user agency, the importance of user-centered design, and the necessity of multi-stakeholder collaboration. However, time constraints prevented full exploration of regional variations and detailed discussion of specific implementation strategies.

## Conclusion

This workshop highlighted the potential for alternative digital infrastructure to create more equitable data economies while demonstrating that such systems can achieve meaningful scale. The emphasis on user-centered design, inclusive governance, and sustainable financing models provides a foundation for continued development of fair data economy solutions.

The examples presented show that success requires meeting users where they are rather than expecting them to understand complex protocols, building on existing social structures rather than replacing them, and creating immediate practical value while preserving long-term user agency. The path forward requires continued collaboration across technical, governance, policy, and financing domains, with particular attention to ensuring that solutions serve real user needs rather than abstract technical ideals.

Sarah Leif: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to all onsite and online participants for this workshop where you’ll hear a great set of speakers. We have both online and onsite today. We will dedicate a few minutes at the end for direct exchanges so you can already get ready and prepare your questions and remarks. Digital infrastructure. This is what we’re here to talk about today. Digital infrastructure underpins the economy of today, but also the economy of tomorrow. From broadband network, data centers, cloud services to protocols and standards that ensure interoperability of tech platform services and system. How digital infrastructure is designed affects the degree to which economic power is concentrated or distributed, how innovation is stifled or encouraged and prosperity is available to the many or to a few. The stakes for digital infrastructure have never been higher. Rapid advances in technologies, in particular, generative AI, are not only transforming the nature of work and everyday life, but also it is redefining the meaning of sovereignty on the individual level, but also for communities and countries across the globe. So making data agency is all the more necessary. And at Project Liberty Institute, we are guided by a North Star, giving people a voice, a choice and stake in their digital life. And a technical solution to allow such a scenario need to be built, scaled, but also, most importantly, adopted. So our common grounds between the IGF theme this year is building, building sustainable and responsible innovation, building digital. trust, resilience, and so on. And the good news today is that we have many builders around the table. Builders of alternative digital infrastructures, of protocols, of business models, of governance approaches. And all of what we are doing, and which you’ll hear about today, resonates with what we call the Fair Data Economy, and particularly the Fair Data Economy Recommendations. They were developed last November by Project Liberty Institute and its impressive task force. So I will now hand it over to my colleague Paul Fellinger to kick off the discussion and tell us more about this concept of a fair data economy. And Paul will be online today.

Paul Fehlinger: Hello, greetings to all of you. Good morning. I wish I could be there in person in Norway on this 20th anniversary Internet Governance Forum. So the Fair Data Economy Task Force is really a foundational initiative for Project Liberty Institute. The task force launched its recommendations about nine months ago at the Project Liberty Summit that took then place in Washington DC. And it followed six months of really intense international multi-stakeholder work. And the Fair Data Economy Task Force is composed of 18 distinguished members, spanning all stakeholder groups, international organizations, governments, innovators, entrepreneurs, investors, builders of technical infrastructure, as well as leading academics, and even Darren Acemoglu, who won last year the Nobel Prize in Economics. In total, the task force spanned members from 10 countries all around the world. And as Sarah said in her opening remarks, the current status quo of the digital economy has negative externalities, on-market structures, on the very fabric of societies and, well, our democracies. And to a large extent, this is linked to the business models and the underpinning infrastructure that enables it on the internet. And the current status quo is not really great for entrepreneurs. It is not really great for people and users of technology. And it’s really not great for majority of investors either. So the question is, how could we rewire the data economy? Can we build a better ecosystem that works for all different actors? And how can we build a better data economy where people have agency over their data that is on firm economic grounds that can scale? So to do this, the task was published its blueprint for innovation and growth across four areas, next generation digital infrastructure as a key enabler, business model innovation and entrepreneurship, policy innovation and capital allocation. And we are very pleased that we have in this distinguished panel that you will get to know in just a second, two members of the Fair Data Economy Task Force. We have with us today Jean-Bertrand Azapmo, who’s the principal advisor to the African Union Commissioner for Economic Development, Trade, Tourism, Industry and Minerals. He should be online, but he is not online yet. So we will see if he can join us momentarily. So I would like to start and give the floor to Sujith Nair Nair, who’s the CEO and co-founder of FIDE. And in many ways, FIDE is implementing already in the market at incredible scale in India, what the Fair Data Economy Task Force has been talking about in its recommendations, which is business model innovation really powered by next generation digital infrastructure. So Sujith Nair, I would like to start with you and give you the floor. Can you tell us a bit more about the back end? And how it embodies this approach of a fair data economy and what is the role of the infrastructure protocol backend in enabling a better data economy?

Sujith Nair: Thank you, Paul. So backend essentially, of course, is an open protocol that embodies interoperability fundamentally. This idea of backend protocol was to an attempt to reimagine how in an online economy we move value, how we put people, communities, and businesses at the center of their own sort of economic, social, commercial lives by giving them agency on how they hold and keep data and share data, but more importantly, translate data into value. So backend protocol does fundamentally allow a transaction, exchange of value, how you express, discover, engage, contract, and fulfill an offtake value between any consumer and a provider. As actors, how do you do that? And it’s an imagination that tries to make a departure from this very incumbent thinking of a platform-based movement of value. In fact, what you see with the platforms and marketplaces as we are seeing today, and it’s a rapid sort of evolution in the last two decades, is a way for both consumers and providers to be necessarily on the same platform managed by one platform intermediary and in the pretext of discovering, sharing goods and services or any form of value on that platform, you have this model of both having to be on the same platform, operated as a closed platform and allowing the value to remain on the platform as a capture of value rather than a free flow of value. So from a fair data economic principles, what Becken protocol does is fundamentally unlock that agency for any consumer and provider. It could be a taxi driver. We have about half a million taxi drivers in India, not necessarily on these big ride-hailing platforms, but use Becken to, A, discover rides and service those rides and keep the entire revenue to themselves. There is no big commissions by the intermediate platforms because there’s no such platform using Becken protocol. It’s an open network where everybody brings their end of the node to this and the drivers also get to have the holdership of their own data. Today when the drivers have to move from one platform to the other, they don’t have access agency to keeping their data, be it their ride reputation or ride history and things like that. Becken protocol allows you to port that data to any other platform and continue from the new platform they’ve opted to be part of. So this ability to retain holdership of data, expressing data and services, goods and services, and ability to discover parties who would like to do transactions business with you and therefore amplify your economic value of the work and the services you offer is essentially a way of thinking with Becken protocol. And that’s how we are trying to bring some of this fair data economic principles making into the fundamental architecture of how we think about value exchange happens in an online economy. Paul, back to you.

Paul Fehlinger: We’re still waiting for Jean Bertrand to join it. I hope he doesn’t have major technical problems to connect, but maybe, Sujith Nair, can I ask you the question, sort of, what for you is the main takeaway and message to the entire ecosystem gathered here at the Internet Governance Forum worldwide, the builders, the investors, the entrepreneurs? the consumers, the policy makers that came out of this intense international multi-stakeholder work that we did together in the Fair Data Economy Task Force. Yeah, sure. I think one of the remarkable outcomes of that effort is how we have seen agreement on some universal principles of how we think a fair data economy of the future should operate, the principles of moving agency to the ends, allowing, like I said, peoples and business to be in the center and not the big platforms, and reimagining the possibilities of how we create value. When we take this departure from having these models of lone heroes as big platforms trying to solve problems for the whole of humanity, but this idea that with these principles you can distribute that ability to solve, distribute that agency, and allow everybody to participate in their own way, retaining their agency and autonomy, for me is something fundamental. And it’s heartening to see there are protocols like the DSNP protocol of Project Liberty, Beckham protocol, all of them aligning to those principles and vision and taking that forward. Of course, it also is a wake-up call to see how we need to do a lot more beyond the formulations of the principles that the task force has put together, but to put them into practice and drive. Civil society, market players, policymakers all come and fundamentally think about this as the core central principles of how we think about the evolution of the online economy and make it contextually relevant to the varying needs and cares of different regions. I’m here in Oslo also to have some conversations around the whole coming opportunity and the challenge of energy transition and what does it mean to to make countries in Africa and India and in Europe sort of build reliable, secure agency and energy independence as an individual, as an economy. And these are some of the conversations which also fundamentally need to bring aspects of fair data principles into the conversation for how we think about future of energy. I mean, I’m trying to make an example out of energy, but the idea is that it’s so fundamental that it cuts across multiple sectors, not just commerce, not just some part of digital payments, but more foundational aspects of our society like access to energy. So I think it’s a very pertinent set of principles that we must consider in all walks of life as we become increasingly digitally native in our lives. Yeah. Thank you, Paul. Thank you so much, Sujith Nairh and all of you at the IGF. You can find the recommendations of the Fair Data Economy Task Force on the website ProjectLiberty.io. And Sujith Nairh, you gave the perfect segue. This is about scaling next generation digital infrastructure for data agency, which is the title of our session today. And with this perfect segue, I want to give it back to Sarah on site in Norway to continue the discussion and introduce us to our next speaker. Thank you very much, Paul.

Sarah Leif: So you mentioned actually, Sujith Nairh, and thank you for that, the DSNP. So I’d like to hand it over to Vice President and Chief Architect of DSNP and Frequency, Wes Biggs. We talked about transparency. We talked about redistributing value. We talked about giving people more power over their data. So it seems that data agency is probably the core component and the common ground that we’re talking about today. And it seems also that data agency is a core architecture principle of the decentralized social. networking protocol. So Wes, could I turn to you and to tell the room here in person and online how technically does the DSNP work? How does it embody this principle of data agency for its almost two million users today?

Wes Biggs: Thanks Sarah and great to see everyone here. As you mentioned I’m a technology architect and contributor to DSNP, consensus seeker perhaps with our diverse set of technologists, academics, civil society advisors working on the protocol. It is a protocol stewarded by the Project Liberty Institute under an open governance model that I think you’ll hear more about. And the origin of DSNP is really the realization, and I think this is very much tied to this fair data economy piece, that the web 2.0 model which did great things for people, connect people in new and fundamental ways, but it was mediated always by centralized platforms. And those platforms have been designed and optimized to extract the value of the network effects that are created in these systems by the participants. So from a fundamental point of view, DSNP is about taking the network effects out of the network and sharing that value between all the stakeholders that are participating. And to do that we start at the very low level, at the protocol level, where we want to talk about not applications but how systems can communicate with one another on a fundamental level. And that means data and the operations on that data and how that flows across connected spaces. We start with DSNP by challenging that simple assertion of the centralized system. And I’ll quote from the specification, to ensure decentralization, a DSMP system must avoid having any single point of failure, and must avoid having any single entity that can override its consensus mechanisms. So we talk about a consensus system, which is a technical term that has evolved very rapidly over the past decade or so. You fit blockchains and other systems within that, public permissionless blockchains, for example, and it creates a system where no single business, company, computer is in charge of the way the system operates. Starting with that fundamental principle, we can build things on top of that. We can build affordances for starting with identity, and identity being something that can be long lived for users of social networking services. It can be human friendly, it doesn’t have to be a cryptographic wallet that everyone has to remember their password for. It can be, however, cryptographically strong with these systems in order to provide control and agency over the data that is then attached and accumulated with this identity over time in the public space. One of the core things that comes quickly after identity is this idea of attestation, the idea of having verified attributes that can be part of one’s identity in the social spaces, and that might be professional credentials, that might be simply proof of your own humanness versus an AI or a bot. These things can go into the protocol, and then we move to more abstract ideas that underpin the social fabric that we’ve seen across lots of different applications, but in unconnected ways. We want to create a universal social graph. that can establish connections that are long lived outside the context of one application that can then be ported and used interoperably between many applications that participate using the same protocol. That social graph can be, you know, your friendships, your connections, your followings on social media, and those are all now relationships that can live on outside the life cycle of any particular application that you use to access your social network. And finally, there are affordances around social content, social media, that we’ve seen across all the varying and often quickly evolving areas of social media as well, so this is not fundamentally just about text or video or anything like that, but a protocol for any of those types of communications that we want to connect our social networks with over time. And really, you know, overall this comes back to this economic principle that we are allowing, with this protocol layer, an innovation of economic models for the applications that participate in the social networking sphere, and that can move away then from a focus that drives toward always an ad tech surveillance model, so there’s value exchange for all the participants involved.

Sarah Leif: Thank you very much, Wes. So, with the example of FIDE, with Backend, with DSNP, and all those protocols, and there are many others that are existing, I’m thinking of the AT protocol and others, these examples exist. They’re in practice, and people can use them. So, many alternative governance models, technical innovation, they’re today available for use. However, it seems that most users are still kind of stuck on the platforms of the centralized digital economy. So let me turn over to Wendy. Wendy, as a DSNP advisor and the co-chair and the chair of the DSNP governance working group, you’ve been thinking about these questions of governance a lot for these last years. I have a more governance and technical question at the same time for you, which is how can we bridge all these solutions that are existing somewhere on the ecosystem, but somewhat not scalable enough to gather enough users? What’s missing today for this solution to truly collaborate better to represent this scalable alternative to a centralized digital economy? Is this something that we’re doing wrong or something that we’re still not doing about this?

Wendy Seltzer: Thank you very much, Sarah, and thank you to our hosts and everyone here. I think it’s tempting to answer your question with the universal computer science answer. Take a hard problem, add another layer of abstraction, and you have the answer. So among all of the existing protocols and places where people are today, you could say add another layer above of an interchange layer, add standards for data exchange among them, import and export of data, make regulation to enforce the availability of those. You might get there, and there’s promising work in standards development for interoperability. There’s promising work from regulators thinking about how to make platforms provide for their end-users, for the individuals, the ability to take their own data and have control of where they express it. And there’s work in cooperation frameworks, governance frameworks, to think about what would it take to give people confidence that when they took their data from one platform to another, they would be able to preserve the terms they wanted for that and not just be turning it over to different terms of control by another proprietary system. And yet, I think we need to look at this as a techno-social challenge, that it’s not just a matter of building interoperable tech and the people will come and the solutions will come out of that. It’s also a matter of figuring out how we as society and as builders of ecosystems will align the incentives so that there are stable configurations that preserve interoperability. And one of the values of these multi-stakeholder dialogues is as opportunities to find solutions that serve the needs of the various participants in the ecosystem. It’s not enough for the end-users to be supplicants to businesses saying, please, please give us our data. they should also be able to present themselves as as customers, as collaboratives, as communities on equal footing to say we bring value to the ecosystem by our participation there and we will only bring it on terms where we have the privacy that we expect, the autonomy to enforce terms of our choosing and it it’s easier to say that than to do that it requires organizing it requires cooperation and and you know it’s it’s not as easy for for individuals as simply taking an app that’s offered to them in the App Store and for free advertising supported and saying go ahead but it’s a matter of building toward a more empowering experience long term. So I think in the you know in the work that DSNP is doing in the work that others are doing to help build sort of empowered end-user participation in in governance to find cooperation and collaboration to find cooperation experiences that recognize the value of commercial incentives the value of individual autonomy, the value of non-commercial and social interchange, the value, the interests of government participation, the interests of technical and scientific development. And we can work toward frameworks that have a longer term sustainable interoperable data interchange.

Sarah Leif: So interoperability is also a big part of the response towards scaling those digital infrastructure that we’re talking about, especially because network effects are really strong out there. And they’re probably one of the main reasons why we’re not able today to bring most users into a technical solution that protects better their data, better their privacy, and so on. So Sujith Nairh, to what extent is this component of interoperability particularly important for you to beat the network effect? You’ve been talking about already millions of users on Beckon. How do you work with that kind of component on top of data agency?

Sujith Nair: Yes, and Sarah, if you allow me to sort of use the remarks from Wes to sort of build on as a way to answer your question on interoperability. And I think some very interesting remarks from Wes on the idea of this natural tendency, this urge for us to think about this abstracting and creating protocols and putting this sort of very elaborate formal governance structures around that idea of a tech protocol idea. And it’s one thing, therefore, to sort of bake interoperability as a principle into the technical designs. but to the point that Wes is in, and I fully echo with that. When we started the Beckham Protocol effort as a foundation about five years ago, we had this urge to sort of build this protocol, build a global community around governance of the protocol, and then talk about, and then think about seeing, okay, how do we make this, put this in work, and let people see value? But one of the sort of the early sort of, when I retrospectively think about right now, wise things we could do is to not wait for the governance and the protocol to actually take off. We actually put the idea of interoperability in the hands of people. It’s very remarkable that in the very early years of Beckham, you don’t normally expect taxi drivers to talk about protocols. But when they see that, when I got a call, literally got a call from a few of the taxi drivers in the city of Bangalore from the unions, and saying, we understand the protocol because we live the problem. We live the problem of not having this power of interoperability to amplify agency because we are stuck in these big walled gardens of ride-hailing platforms, and they onboard us as partners, but now they treat us like as if they are a boss and go through what they have to make us go through. I think then they said that for me, the value of Beckham Protocol was to give me that sense of control about where I want to be, how I make myself discoverable as a taxi driver to a rider in the city and offer my own terms of price and be fair in that process, and then let my own ability to serve the customer with the ride be the reason why I get recognized for more rides and build trust as a service provider. And that idea of that value, discovering that value with this principles of interoperability, for me would be the first significant step we should think about. And the interoperability… for me has to be seen as value in the eyes of those beholders, right, whether it’s taxi drivers. Today, we moved on, we kind of expanded that ability to perceive value with this idea from taxi drivers to about 200,000 small mom-and-pop shops in India. It’s operating in 1,000 cities. We have about close to 1 million SKUs available from goods and services available on one big, massive, interoperable open network of commerce in India called ONDC, Open Network for Digital Commerce. I think of it like India’s own commerce, open internet, and not a platform. And every day, we see conversations around how it is unlocking value for people whom it matters. We have a small list of artisans able to ship products to customers thousands of miles away at a very low cost of the things we talk about, customer acquisition, customer transaction servicing, and able to therefore expand their business. And we are able to do that to find a girl child in the remote part of India, find scholarship, just to be taking an exam, online exam, finding scholarship through the same network, discovering financing support, opportunity to find jobs. So, one of the things about interoperability is to think about how we can straddle value in multiple layers and let users see value. Most often, the perception of value comes from the exact service they operate and they get stuck in these apps. But you need to put interoperability as a core value manifestation in the ads. You work from the value backwards to why interoperability is a way to unlock that vis-a-vis the other closed platforms. So, that’s one of the things. And we have realized that by driving adoption. more than formalizing governance. We were able to achieve a lot more articulation for why interoperability is useful. And now, given that we have a fairly reasonable scaled adoption in India, we have done over 200 million transactions on this protocol. We now realize that it can now stabilize, protect those investments that users and the user platforms are making onto this protocol. And to stabilize that and give it a more consistent evolution, we are now formalizing some of the governance structures around it. So adoption preceding governance, value enablement and value articulation and visibility is one of the things we think about how interoperability has to reach the people. Sometimes otherwise we just keep losing this conversation in a more techno and a policy circles, but how does it matter in the hands of people is something that I think is a very important aspect of how we talk about interoperability and demonstrate interoperability.

Sarah Leif: So that’s very interesting because we often hear that in all those technical alternative spaces, especially the decentralized web community, the open source community, often the technical aspiration and assumption are sometimes disaligned with what users are actually expecting. Many people from that community are often expecting also users to have a certain level of technical ability and to understand things that is part of their language only. And so there’s often this obstacle to scalability. So you touched on this and you showed exactly that all of these technical terms are actually translating into usefulness in the daily life. And you could go back on this, but I would like to hear also Wes on this specific part. How do we go beyond those obstacles? of technically assuming people have a certain level or ability to understand technically what is a decentralized social graph, for instance, in the case of DSNP, or what is even interoperability? How do we demonstrate the value to them? I think Becken has done a great job at this. What is the perspective of DSNP on that front?

Wes Biggs: Yeah, it’s a great question. I think Sujith Nairh made that point really articulately, that people are not wowed by these terms. You go out in the street and say, do you want interoperability? Do you want a data agency? That’s not top of mind. Perhaps to me, because I’m a technologist, but not everyone is thinking about the usefulness of the internet in those terms. I think it’s interesting to look at how these alternatives have evolved as well, and in the social media and social networking space, things like the AT Protocol and Blue Sky, the Mastodon and Fediverse community. Many alternative models have been pioneered by essentially marginalized communities that have had strong needs for safe spaces unmediated by centralized controllers. There’s almost a natural suspicion of interoperability in some of these spaces as needing to give something up, because historically, that’s been the case. It’s been a choice between reach and scale of this big room idea of social media on one hand, and then data agency and control and the ability to express oneself authentically on the other. That’s also a very constraining way of thinking about a choice of communication modes. That’s created challenges of interoperability and bridging across both the protocols, but also the content communities, the spheres of content that we think about when we interrogate the internet. we are we’re good at navigating that spectrum as human beings in our real life so we’re used to having spaces of all different sorts of sizes that we can participate in you know from a family space to a classroom to our towns and communities and you know public public speaking and spaces as well so you know I think there’s a real challenge when we think about you know these technical affordances and how how do we take them mainstream and I don’t mean that in simply just creating one big space but how do we create a way to connect this social graph that underpins things like DSMP and and utilize that in a very useful way across the many spheres that I participate in and you participate in so if an empowering protocol can give access to all these levels of control and details and so on you think about this very complicated machine and and how do everyday internet users then operate that machine that’s you don’t want to you want to meet people you know where they are and where their understanding of how they can extract the usefulness from these platforms can be and I think there’s several ways to do that obviously you need that underlying underlying you know kind of protocol and governance layer that’s going to protect that ability but I think strong defaults and nudges at the intersection of the user experience and the protocol are very important there you need to create an environment that kind of naturally fits the way people are used to interacting and communicating and and I think there’s a real opportunity there as we move forward in the agendic AI era to help translate these human needs and the ability for humans to express how they want to participate in these spaces and translate those into the technical choices that are embodied in these protocols so I think it’s about creating languages where where people can express what usefulness means to them and have that you know embodied and expressed as it goes down the stack to the protocol level.

Sarah Leif: I’m very interesting about one thing and I’ll hand it over to Paul after this but I would like to ask the three of you especially if you have different opinion that might be interesting. Do you think in an ideal world that users should know about all this technicalities and about the protocols and know we’re very excited about all these things here because we’re basically internet nerds or is it completely fine if they don’t know anything about it but yet they have the transparency maybe to have a look if they’re interested in it. Is there like a strong vision that you have on the level of technical savviness that your users would need to have to use the protocol?

Sujith Nair: I think if I can speak for everybody here I don’t think there’s a difference in the view but I think I would like to bring certain nuances from my own experience as to how does that translate into a real executable you know action on ground to sort of allay those concerns we have with this old technical aspects, fine aspects of interoperability and putting it to work. I think one of the principles and I speak not just about our efforts with backend protocol which has been a five-year effort as a foundation FIDE we’ve been working on across 15-20 different sectors using the value of interoperable peer-to-peer transaction protocol that backend is but I also speak from the experience that we have garnered over the last 15 years of doing some population scale open interoperable infrastructure designs in a country like India touching a billion people through multiple times five so six different transformation projects we had our friends talking about in the other panel a few minutes ago and I think what one of the principles we have learned from that is very very important is A, interoperability is a very natural tool to solve for complexity at a population scale. You know, how do you distribute that ability to solve and allow people to come up with their own contextually relevant cares and solutions to fulfill that care needs interoperability. But to make that happen, we don’t think about society rising up to the level of technology. It’s the other way. We think about taking technology to the level where the society operates. And I’ll give you a few quick examples of how we have manifested that. You know, during the COVID time, of course, all the public-aided schools did not have digital infrastructure to get students back to schooling, whether it’s from the confines of their home during the pandemic. And it was very natural, like with a typical, you know, Valley startup or a Bangalore tech startup to think of, well, let’s build this cool app and get everybody online and get into these online screens. But one of the ways we thought differently about how technology made society is to ask this question about what is already abundant in the society around which we can think of technology. And it was very obvious for us to know that what is abundant are the textbooks. It’s been there for generations. It’s something that everybody keeps and carries. It’s a key sort of a medium of interaction between the pupil and the teacher. And the pupil and the teacher is the relationship, that societal relationship of trust that comes with pupil and teacher is abundant. So why don’t we use that abundance and think of technology around it? So instead of building this big app, what we have done is to create a very, very simple, interoperable QR code, you know, with a digitally signed QR code and plant it in the textbooks. Think of this as a digital portal from that area of abundance, from that area where the agency is already available for the students and the teachers. And what was remarkable is that, you know, to this portal, of course, we could bring them access to a whole other lot of content and teaching mechanisms and methods and learning, whether it’s from Khan Academy or any other such tools, who it allowed market to also participate on that portal rather than trying to do their creating say siloed platforms. They came to that QR code enabled infrastructure for them to offer more learning content. And just to complete this anecdotal example, what was truly remarkable in that experience is we started seeing the scans not happening during the day, during the schooling hours, but in the nights. And we are seeing those scans in the night because we discovered that for the first time, the teachers who are generally incapacitated and lack motivation to prepare for their classes were actually scanning content themselves to access to new contents, new pedagogy styles from other teachers from the community and actually use that to teach better. And it immediately allowed for it to be a teacher capacity building tool. Same infrastructure, but we could see unforeseen value. And that’s where we thought technology is meeting the society and not the other way. And I can give you many more such examples we have discovered. India could have gone the credit card way for the scale that it is. It could have done another 60 million, this big clunky POS machines as a way to drive electronic payments for safety, security and creating your data exhaust for your own agency. But we did not go for this big clunky machines. We started printing QR codes and said, what is the abundance here? The abundance is everybody’s going to have a mobile phone in India and India has 900 million smartphones. So we said, rather than making this complicated technology go at scale, we make the scale with technology itself work at scale, not scale what works. And we put this QR codes and you put mobile phones in today with UPI, which is the other example of a protocol that we built in India before back in does about 18 billion transactions per month. We did that. We got there in eight years. So this way of thinking about putting technology at the where you can meet the society already is how we should think about technology design in the first place. And we believe in this principle of not scaling what works. like scaling an Uber for the rest of the world to actually think like internet of what works at scale and then manifest value in areas where there is enough societal abundance of trust and relationships and use that to harness technology to unlock more value. So these are some of the things about, like I said, a little nuance and long winding answer, Sarah, but thank you for giving me this opportunity.

Sarah Leif: No worries. I’m also super happy to see that Jean-Bertrand has joined us online and you already start mentioning examples about functioning at scale digital infrastructure that brings value to citizens. So I’ll hand it over to Paul to hand it over to Jean-Bertrand.

Paul Fehlinger: Thank you. And Jean-Bertrand, I’m very happy that you can connect. Can you hear us correctly? We don’t see your video feed yet. If you can unmute and just tell us if you’re. Maybe we give Jean-Bertrand just a few more moments so that he can talk from the perspective of the African Union Commission about this, how to scale next generation digital infrastructure for more data agency. I wanted to, I love the discussion about how to create incentives. Jean-Bertrand, are you there?

Jean-Bertrand Azapmo: Wonderful. I hope my video will also pick up. We can hear you well. We see your virtual background. We don’t see you yet. Okay. Perhaps give me a few more minutes. I may switch the device. Okay. Let me try and fix my video. Yeah. Sorry for that.

Paul Fehlinger: No problem at all. We hope Jean-Bertrand can join us. This is part of the beauty of remote participation. So I was really fascinated listening to the remarks about the incentives. You talked a lot about the user incentives and the design, user-centric design of technology, which I believe is so important. I want to share a bit of this ecosystem, this systemic thinking approach that emerged from the Fair Data Economy Task Force. Because the core question was as well the same that we discuss here of how can we scale this new approach, this next generation approach to a digital economy. And the answer is on firm economic grounds. And for this to work, we need not only product market fit in the design of things, but we need to really think systemic. And the systemic sort of actions reside on four pillars that I mentioned in the beginning. And I just want to dig a bit deeper because I think it’s very important to visualize this almost like a system with small clock wheels that have to be turned almost at the same time. There’s not a re-sequencing of one after the other. All has to happen at the same time for this to work, is what the Fair Data Economy Task Force said. The first thing is on entrepreneurship and new business models. What is right now still missing a bit in the world is centers of gravity for impact-focused entrepreneurship that rethinks the value distribution that gives birth to new, very innovative business models that blend economic growth with data agency. So we really need to think about how to create those new centers of gravity of entrepreneurship to innovate at the business level. the business model level. We talked a lot about next generation digital infrastructure and here again it’s very important to probably, this is what the Fair Data Task Force told us, to think about it like a foundational step. So there are digital ID systems, there are data architecture pieces and very important protocols like DSMP, like Beck and like others to enable the widespread adoption and drive this mainstream impact. And in addition at the same time we also need policy innovation and frameworks because what is needed is the regulatory enabling environment. So what we need is forward-thinking policies that one, safeguard data ownership, that give, defer the right to data agency to users or also businesses, corporate actors, while stimulating innovation and competition to create really a high-performing digital economy that has a sort of leveling the playing field to allow new market entrants with new ideas that really have this product market fit and correspond to this desire of users for better technology with powerful and scalable business models that allow them to really reach mainstream adoption. And the last piece of the puzzle is something that especially at the Internet Governance Forum is not a topic that is talked about a lot, which is a shame because it’s very important, which is strategic capital allocation. Nothing works without money. So we really need to find ways to mobilize smart capital across private markets. There’s also a part of public investment especially on digital infrastructure projects the government has to play a part, but how do we also mobilize private market capital, venture capital and other forms of capital to scale high potential fair data economy ventures and enabling technologies at the infrastructure level. And how do we complement this by more innovative financing mechanisms? So, I really invite all of us to think about it in a systemic way. And with this, I want to see if Jean-Bertrand… Fantastic, we see you. So, without further ado, I want to hand it over to Jean-Bertrand with the question of what are your key takeaways as a member of the Fair Data Economy Task Force from this effort? And what role does digital infrastructure and data agency play on the African continent and for your digital strategy in Africa? Jean-Bertrand, can you hear us?

Jean-Bertrand Azapmo: Hello, yes, I hear you. Yes, I think everything is almost perfect now. Hello, can you hear me?

Paul Fehlinger: Perfectly.

Jean-Bertrand Azapmo: Can you also see me?

Paul Fehlinger: Yes, we can, Jean-Bertrand.

Jean-Bertrand Azapmo: Yes, sincerest apologies. I think I messed up the time zones. You know, I travel from at least to South Africa for this G20 meetings and I completely got lost in the middle of these various time zones. But I really want to thank you, Paul, and thanks to the Project Liberty Institute for organizing this session on such an important topic at the 2025 Internet Governance Forum. It was indeed a privilege to serve as a member of the Fair Data Economy Task Force established and facilitated by the Project Liberty Institute. on Fair Data Economy, alongside, as we all know, 17 other distinguished task force members with great minds, including Professor Teron, who, as most of you know, is one of the 2024 Nobel Economic Prize recipients. And we were given the chance, the unique opportunity, to really reflect on how to create the conditions to unlock the multi-trillion dollar opportunity that the digital landscape represents, actually. And you will agree with me that with the acceleration of AI economy, which basically relies and builds on the same public digital infrastructure, you will agree that it was actually a very forward-looking exercise that was initiated by the Project Liberty Institute back then. So, really, thanks, Paul, and thanks, Bell, you know, all the great mind behind this project. Now, there were some, there are some very important recommendations in the work we did, and most of which actually resonate with the digital transformation strategy for Africa that we are championing at the level of the African Union. And it’s also part, there are some elements of it in the AI for Africa that South Africa is championing as part of its G20 presidency. So, everything is coming together. And the key question, there are some key questions, you know. The first one is the recognition of the gaps that we are still experiencing five years into 2030, which is the target date for the sustainable development goals. There is the recognition of the fact that digital public infrastructure carries an immense potential that could really help unlock some of the economic growth that we need to be able to achieve the SDGs. There are some estimates but let me just give you this one from Harvard University. It says that digital public infrastructure can unlock value equivalent to 3 to 13 percent GDP with an average improvement which means additional 6 percent improvement for emerging economy. Now, just to put it into perspective, Africa needs 7 percent, 7 to 10 percent of economic growth over a period of 30 to 40 years to achieve emerging market status. So, if we were to, you know, implement to invest and be able to reap the benefits of public digital infrastructure, you can see that we will be able to reach those targets in a very short period of time because if you accumulate 13 and 6, you’re basically at 19. If you make an average of it, you’ve got what you need to be able to unlock the immense opportunity that, you know, the digital landscape offers and now the digital economy. Now, the issue is our government cannot do this alone because we are also living in an era where close to 3 billion people or 3.3 billion people to be very specific according to Antart, live in countries that spend more on debt interest payment. So, they therefore do not have the resources to be able to invest in digital public infrastructure. This is the dilemma. We know what digital public infrastructure will help achieve, but the government are constrained. What does that mean? It means a new approach is needed. This is where multi-stakeholderism really holds a great potential. And looking at multi-stakeholderism, it’s not really based on, you know, just some philanthropic. No, it’s based on self-enlightened interest. It is to say the businesses themselves, they stand to benefit from investing in digital public infrastructure, because it will then help unlock all these potential that we are talking about. And the private sector will be the first beneficiary. So we are actually saying in the context of the digital transformation strategy for Africa, in the context of the AI initiative for Africa, let us invest massively in digital public infrastructure because of the immense potential that it holds, but also because it will help create a win-win situation for all the stakeholders. The businesses, they need to continue growing. And the only way to grow is to invest in those places that are lagging behind. So what is the alternative? The alternative is a fragmented world. The New York Times Magazine released an article that clearly shows that AI is creating a two-phase world, the half and the no half. So the question is, do we want to continue entertaining it? I think the platforms like the Internet Governance Forum actually provide an opportunity to reflect on what needs to be done, building on the work that the organizations, institutions like Project Liberty Institute are doing, and say, let’s choose the right answer. Let’s not aim for, you know, a divided world where we have people sitting at the periphery of the system and people, you know, that are moving at a regular pace. The consequence will be continued growing nationalism that we are witnessing because there would be a lot of people that are disenfranchised and this is not happening only in the developing world or in the least the most impoverished countries. No, these gaps are also in some of the developed countries. So there is really a need to focus on delivering a digital public infrastructure that works for everyone, that is sustainable, that is inclusive and that can really help the world move towards achieving the SDG, at least getting closer because, you know, today it’s very clear with 17% of the SDG on target there is very little we can do, but at least if we do the right thing we can close the gap a little bit and then going forward we will be able to do more. So let me stop here for now, Paul, and looking forward to either the next round of interventions or, you know, contributing to other aspects of the discussions. Thank you and sincerest apologies once again for the mess up, yeah.

Paul Fehlinger: Very happy that you could connect, Jean-Bertrand. I hand it over back to Sarah Leif in Norway. Thank you very much, Jean-Bertrand. I

Sarah Leif: think you made it clear that scalability won’t be achieved without substantial investment and I wish we could talk about investment much more and we would need probably another session dedicated only to this, but that’s a substantial and a key component of also the scalability of digital infrastructure. But you also mentioned something that interests me is that it needs to work for After Wendy’s response, I’ll open the floor to everybody in person, and we’ll start with the first question online after Wendy. So, Wendy, over to you.

Wendy Seltzer: Thank you, and I’ll try to keep it short so that we can get to those questions, even though it’s a deep and challenging question, because I think we reach for the essence of participatory design and governance, and to be building with the participation of those who are affected by the systems and ecosystems. And as was referenced earlier, we have people who are at all levels of technological sophistication, all levels of engagement with the technology, those who are designers and builders, those who are users, those who are not yet users because they don’t have access to the technology, and finding ways to include all of those perspectives and give people real options for participation and not just the semblance of inclusion. It’s a real challenge. And so I think, you know, what we can try to do is to work progressively and to ensure that, you know, the structures that we’re constructing are as inclusive as we can make them to represent the experiences of participants from all walks of life. It’s important in participatory design to recognize that expertise can take a variety of forms and that lived experience of a particular background is as important as technological expertise or legal expertise to making an equitable techno-social construction that works for people. But we also recognize we can’t do everything at once. And so building a sense of temporary-ness in the early stages, recognizing that while we can try to do the best we can at inclusive governance, when people come and say they are not yet represented, being open to hearing from them and expanding to be more inclusive is important. I think the… where there are, you know, resource inequities and imbalances. We need to start by being conscious of that and taking extra steps that what we’re designing isn’t just, you know, enshrining an existing balance of power but making space for those who don’t have, you know, the same economic advantage right now. And that’s not just an altruistic perspective. You know, it’s, you know, if we’re really talking about how we grow the data economy, it’s looking to people who will be participants if given opportunities. And, you know, those have to be real opportunities. It’s not just the opportunity to be a consumer, but the opportunity to share ideas, to be entrepreneurs, to be social entrepreneurs, and to participate in governance. So those are some of the principles that I put in place and, you know, we’re working in places like the DSNP governance frameworks to put those into action and I hope we’ll have opportunity to engage more on that in questions and answers.

Sarah Leif: Wonderful. Thank you. Thank you, Wendy, for those final insights. So I’d like to ask Xianhong from UNESCO to ask her question. She is online and then we’ll take your question in person. We’ll take them together and then we’ll ask the panel to respond to it as well as you, Jean-Bertrand, if you’re still with us. So Xianhong, the floor is yours. Thank you, Sarah. And

Xianhong Hu: thank you, Paul. Actually, congratulations for having successfully raised this important aspect on the data economy, which I didn’t see much debates at IDF, because we’re talking about the data governance from more political angles. So that’s really such a value added to the entire IDF. And as you know, we are here working with other governments. So what strikes me is that what do the panelists think that this can imply or the implications for the governments? What should they do? I mean, in face of this, such a multi-trillion dollar data economy for sustainable development prospect, but also facing so many risks and challenges. And what should we do for governments? Because in the past years, in my work, I’ve been promoting maybe a more conservative approach that data protection, protecting rights, privacy, but maybe we didn’t put equal attention on the harnessing the potential of data. But now the data is new opportunities for any country to want to prosper in the digital age. And at the institutional level, I mean, the capacity building, I mean, the new approach, as you just touched upon, what do we should do? Because to my knowledge, we had already having maybe 120 countries who have created their data protection authority. If we want to make sure the government cannot miss this opportunity, can put in place the right framework and regulation or policy strategy to encourage this digital infrastructure development and the economy, can we recommend them to create new institutions for the kind of data agency or data stewardship? Or should we also encourage the existing data authority to expand, enhance their capacity to cope with the challenge of the data economy? That’s my question for you. Also, I appreciate the panelists in terms of geographic diversity. If you can share more about the regional perspective, that would be also useful for me. I imagine that the situation and the challenges in Asia and Africa, Latin America, might be quite different stories. So thank you. I really look forward to learning more from you. Thank you.

Sarah Leif: Thank you, Xianhong. So we have very government-oriented questions for the panel. Could you please introduce yourself and then ask your question? And then the panel can take Xianhong’s question and your questions. Yes, thank you.

Audience: My name is Veronica. I am with the Youth Pirate Party of Sweden. And I have a question that’s not very governmental, more a philosophical question about the future of social networking. I and my party recognize the wills of many people to want to remain anonymous online. And I wonder with the advent of this, for example, DSNP, the future of an interconnected internet where, for example, your workplace may use the same account as your political opinions on a different social network. Is there any plans to go forward to recognize the right for people to want to remain anonymous on this new internet? Thank you.

Sarah Leif: Thank you very much, Veronica. Thank you, Xianhong. So two questions, two very different yet complementary questions, I believe, one technical and one philosophical and one more governmental. To the panel, you can go ahead knowing that you have three minutes left to respond to all of this. Who would like to go first?

Wes Biggs: I’ll go first to address Veronica’s question. And from a DSMP perspective, I think it’s important to maintain that ability to have anonymity or pseudonymity online and not not just in in kind of a social communication space, but in all aspects of how we engage online in in a digital economy as well so I think there are affordances within the DSMP protocol and many others to do that to not be bound to a single identity to be able to have multiple personas across different aspects of what we do and I think it’s also important to distinguish that from say a governmental identity, which I think is appropriate for certain uses, but not necessarily for all the spheres of communication that people want to participate in

Sarah Leif: Maybe Jean-Bertrand for the governmental question if you want to take that one

Jean-Bertrand Azapmo: Can you hear me? Yes Yes Well, thank you so very much for those comments and questions. What is very clear, like I said, is that there is only that much the government can do, but there is what they can do. For instance, what we are doing in Africa, we are laying the foundation, the legal foundation for you know, digital public infrastructure to expand and for the digital economy to thrive. For instance, we had the what is known as the Malabo Convention on data protection, which was there. Of course, it needs to be updated and to take into consideration the evolving environment. We recently, as last year, our heads of state adopted the AFCFDA African Continental Free Trade Area the other elements of what would be considered as a conducive enabling environment. You know, in some instances for digital public infrastructure, you need even physical infrastructure itself. So, the government needs to put in place other legislations, ancillary legislations that are needed. There are also instances where it’s just to guarantee, you know, the investment to provide the necessary guarantees for investment to step in and deploy the resources that are needed. But what is very clear is that whether governments in some places can do it or not, we still see the opportunity for philanthropics, for the private sector to step in. And this is on account of, you know, the huge opportunities that are there and that they stand to harness if they were to invest. Now, if you just take digital public infrastructure as a road, you know, all of us, we use roads every day without Realizing That Someone Builded It, It’s Only When It’s Not There That All Of A Sudden We Realize That Oh It’s Actually Critical. So I Think In Areas In Sectors Like Minerals There Are Examples Of You Know Public Private Partnership To Build Public Infrastructure This Can Be Replicated In The Digital In The Data Economy. We Have Like I Said Private Sector That Have Gone Alone Or Solo To Do It. The M-Pesa Revolution In Kenya For Instance It Was All Private Sector Led.

Sarah Leif: I’m Sorry Jean-Bertrand, I’m Very Sorry We’re Out Of Time. There Was Also A Question Online That We Didn’t Manage To Respond To. So This Just Prove Also All The More How This Conversation Is Important And How It Needs To Include Everybody In The Discussion. So I Wanted To Thank You All So Much Because We Have To Leave The Room For The Next Session Unfortunately. But We Can Definitely Continue This Discussion. As We Mentioned You Can Go On ProjectLiberty.io And You Can Find The Fair Data Economy Recommendation. You Can Also Find Our Recent Digital Infrastructure For Data Agency Report. And Later Today At 2pm For Those In Person We Will Have A Closed Door Session To Continue And Deep Dive On Those Discussions. So If There Is Anybody Interested In Joining Please Come To Us And We Will Make That Happen. And In The Meantime Please Join Me In Thanking This Wonderful Panel Today And Thank You All.

Agreement points

Current digital economy model is fundamentally flawed and needs transformation

Speakers

– Paul Fehlinger
– Sarah Leif
– Sujith Nair

Arguments

Current digital economy has negative externalities on market structures, societies, and democracies due to existing business models and infrastructure

Digital infrastructure design affects whether economic power is concentrated or distributed, and whether innovation is stifled or encouraged

Beckn protocol enables interoperability by allowing consumers and providers to transact without being locked into single platforms, giving users control over their data and revenue

Summary

All speakers agree that the current centralized platform-based digital economy creates harmful concentrations of power and negative impacts on society, requiring a fundamental shift toward more distributed, user-controlled systems.

Topics

Economic | Infrastructure | Sociocultural

User agency and data control are fundamental principles for fair digital economy

Speakers

– Paul Fehlinger
– Sujith Nair
– Wes Biggs
– Wendy Seltzer

Arguments

Need to rewire the data economy to build a better ecosystem that works for all actors with people having agency over their data

Beckn protocol enables interoperability by allowing consumers and providers to transact without being locked into single platforms, giving users control over their data and revenue

DSNP provides affordances for long-lived identity, attestation, universal social graph, and social content that can be ported between applications

Building sustainable interoperable systems requires aligning incentives across all ecosystem participants, not just technical solutions

Summary

There is strong consensus that giving users control over their data and digital identity is essential for creating a fair data economy, with multiple speakers advocating for protocols that enable data portability and user agency.

Topics

Human rights | Infrastructure | Economic

Technology should be designed around user needs rather than technical complexity

Speakers

– Sujith Nair
– Wes Biggs
– Wendy Seltzer

Arguments

Technology should meet society at its level rather than expecting society to rise to technology’s complexity

Users don’t care about technical terms like ‘interoperability’ – they need to see practical value in their daily lives

Need to create languages where people can express what usefulness means to them and translate that into technical protocol choices

Participatory design must include expertise from lived experience alongside technical expertise to create equitable systems

Summary

All speakers emphasize the importance of user-centered design that prioritizes practical value and accessibility over technical sophistication, recognizing that users need to see tangible benefits rather than understand complex protocols.

Topics

Development | Sociocultural | Infrastructure

Multi-stakeholder collaboration is essential for scaling digital infrastructure

Speakers

– Paul Fehlinger
– Wendy Seltzer
– Jean-Bertrand Azapmo

Arguments

Scaling requires systemic approach across four pillars: entrepreneurship/business models, digital infrastructure, policy innovation, and strategic capital allocation

Building sustainable interoperable systems requires aligning incentives across all ecosystem participants, not just technical solutions

Multi-stakeholderism based on enlightened self-interest can drive investment in digital public infrastructure

Summary

There is consensus that successful scaling of alternative digital infrastructure requires coordinated efforts across multiple stakeholders including government, private sector, and civil society, with aligned incentives rather than relying on any single actor.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Economic | Infrastructure

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers advocate for a pragmatic approach where implementation and value demonstration come before formal governance structures, with examples from developing countries showing successful private sector-led initiatives.

Speakers

– Sujith Nair
– Jean-Bertrand Azapmo

Arguments

Adoption should precede formal governance structures – demonstrating value to users first, then stabilizing with governance frameworks

Examples like M-Pesa in Kenya show private sector can lead digital infrastructure development independently

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Economic | Development

Both emphasize the importance of preserving user privacy and anonymity rights in interconnected digital systems, allowing people to maintain separate digital personas across different contexts.

Speakers

– Wes Biggs
– Audience

Arguments

Protocols should maintain ability for anonymity and pseudonymity online, allowing multiple personas across different communication spheres

Need to recognize and protect the right for people to remain anonymous online in interconnected internet systems

Topics

Human rights | Privacy and data protection | Digital identities

Both speakers see the private sector as a key driver of digital infrastructure development, with business incentives aligned with social impact through new economic models and value distribution approaches.

Speakers

– Paul Fehlinger
– Jean-Bertrand Azapmo

Arguments

Need centers of gravity for impact-focused entrepreneurship that rethinks value distribution and creates new business models

Private sector stands to benefit from investing in digital public infrastructure due to immense economic opportunities

Topics

Economic | Development | Infrastructure

Unexpected consensus

Governance should follow adoption rather than precede it

Speakers

– Sujith Nair
– Wendy Seltzer

Arguments

Adoption should precede formal governance structures – demonstrating value to users first, then stabilizing with governance frameworks

Participatory design must include expertise from lived experience alongside technical expertise to create equitable systems

Explanation

This represents unexpected consensus between a protocol implementer and a governance expert, both agreeing that formal governance structures should be built after demonstrating practical value to users, rather than the traditional approach of establishing governance frameworks first.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development | Sociocultural

Technical complexity should be hidden from users while preserving their agency

Speakers

– Sujith Nair
– Wes Biggs
– Sarah Leif

Arguments

Users don’t care about technical terms like ‘interoperability’ – they need to see practical value in their daily lives

Need to create languages where people can express what usefulness means to them and translate that into technical protocol choices

Most users remain stuck on centralized platforms despite available alternative solutions, indicating scalability issues

Explanation

There’s unexpected consensus among technical implementers that users should not need to understand technical concepts to benefit from them, which challenges the common assumption in decentralized technology communities that user education about technical principles is necessary.

Topics

Infrastructure | Sociocultural | Development

Overall assessment

Summary

The speakers demonstrate remarkably high consensus on fundamental principles including the need for user agency, the flaws of current centralized systems, the importance of user-centered design, and the necessity of multi-stakeholder collaboration. There is also strong agreement on practical approaches like demonstrating value before formalizing governance and hiding technical complexity from users.

Consensus level

Very high consensus with no significant disagreements identified. This strong alignment suggests the fair data economy movement has achieved substantial conceptual unity across different stakeholder groups (technical implementers, governance experts, policy makers, and regional representatives). The implications are positive for coordinated action and scaling efforts, as the main challenge appears to be implementation and adoption rather than fundamental disagreements about direction or principles.

Different viewpoints

Sequencing of governance versus adoption in protocol development

Speakers

– Sujith Nair
– Wendy Seltzer

Arguments

Adoption should precede formal governance structures – demonstrating value to users first, then stabilizing with governance frameworks

Building sustainable interoperable systems requires aligning incentives across all ecosystem participants, not just technical solutions

Summary

Sujith Nair advocates for adoption-first approach where governance follows after demonstrating value, while Wendy Seltzer emphasizes the need for governance frameworks and aligned incentives from the beginning to ensure sustainability

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Economic | Infrastructure

Unexpected differences

Limited disagreement on fundamental approaches despite different regional contexts

Speakers

– Sujith Nair
– Jean-Bertrand Azapmo
– Wes Biggs

Arguments

Technology should meet society at its level rather than expecting society to rise to technology’s complexity

Digital public infrastructure can unlock value equivalent to 3-13% of GDP, which could help Africa achieve necessary economic growth for emerging market status

DSNP challenges centralized systems by avoiding single points of failure and creating consensus mechanisms where no single entity can override the system

Explanation

Despite representing very different regional contexts (India, Africa, global protocol development), speakers showed remarkable alignment on core principles. The lack of significant disagreement between regional approaches was unexpected given the different economic and infrastructure contexts they represent

Topics

Development | Infrastructure | Economic

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion showed strong consensus on fundamental principles with only minor disagreements on implementation approaches, particularly around governance timing and stakeholder coordination strategies

Disagreement level

Very low level of disagreement. The speakers demonstrated remarkable alignment on core principles of data agency, interoperability, and the need for systemic change. The few disagreements were primarily about tactical approaches rather than strategic goals. This high level of consensus suggests either a well-aligned community of practice or potentially indicates that more diverse viewpoints were not represented in the discussion. The implications are positive for advancing the fair data economy agenda, as there appears to be strong foundational agreement among key stakeholders, though broader stakeholder engagement may be needed to surface additional perspectives and potential challenges.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers advocate for a pragmatic approach where implementation and value demonstration come before formal governance structures, with examples from developing countries showing successful private sector-led initiatives.

Speakers

– Sujith Nair
– Jean-Bertrand Azapmo

Arguments

Adoption should precede formal governance structures – demonstrating value to users first, then stabilizing with governance frameworks

Examples like M-Pesa in Kenya show private sector can lead digital infrastructure development independently

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Economic | Development

Both emphasize the importance of preserving user privacy and anonymity rights in interconnected digital systems, allowing people to maintain separate digital personas across different contexts.

Speakers

– Wes Biggs
– Audience

Arguments

Protocols should maintain ability for anonymity and pseudonymity online, allowing multiple personas across different communication spheres

Need to recognize and protect the right for people to remain anonymous online in interconnected internet systems

Topics

Human rights | Privacy and data protection | Digital identities

Both speakers see the private sector as a key driver of digital infrastructure development, with business incentives aligned with social impact through new economic models and value distribution approaches.

Speakers

– Paul Fehlinger
– Jean-Bertrand Azapmo

Arguments

Need centers of gravity for impact-focused entrepreneurship that rethinks value distribution and creates new business models

Private sector stands to benefit from investing in digital public infrastructure due to immense economic opportunities

Topics

Economic | Development | Infrastructure

Key takeaways

The current centralized digital economy creates negative externalities and concentrates power, requiring a shift toward fair data economy principles that give people agency over their data

Technical solutions like Beckn protocol and DSNP demonstrate that interoperable, decentralized alternatives can work at scale – Beckn has processed 200 million transactions in India across multiple sectors

User adoption requires meeting people where they are rather than expecting technical sophistication – technology should adapt to society’s level, not vice versa

Scaling next-generation digital infrastructure requires a systemic approach across four pillars: entrepreneurship/business models, technical infrastructure, policy innovation, and strategic capital allocation

Digital public infrastructure can unlock 3-13% of GDP value, making it crucial for developing economies like Africa to achieve growth targets

Multi-stakeholder collaboration based on enlightened self-interest is essential since governments alone lack resources to invest in digital public infrastructure

Interoperability and data agency must translate into visible daily value for users rather than remaining abstract technical concepts

Participatory governance must include diverse forms of expertise, including lived experience alongside technical knowledge

Resolutions and action items

Continue discussions in a closed-door session at 2pm for interested participants to deep dive on the topics

Refer participants to ProjectLiberty.io for Fair Data Economy Recommendations and Digital Infrastructure for Data Agency Report

Demonstrate adoption before formalizing governance structures – show value to users first, then stabilize with governance frameworks

Create legal foundations and enabling environments for digital public infrastructure development

Develop centers of gravity for impact-focused entrepreneurship that rethinks value distribution

Unresolved issues

How to bridge existing alternative solutions to achieve greater collaboration and scalability beyond individual protocol successes

Whether governments should create new data agency institutions or expand existing data protection authorities to handle data economy opportunities

How to balance data protection with harnessing data’s economic potential across different regional contexts

Specific mechanisms for mobilizing private capital and innovative financing for digital public infrastructure at scale

How to ensure anonymity and pseudonymity rights are preserved in interconnected digital infrastructure systems

Regional differences in challenges and approaches across Asia, Africa, and Latin America were requested but not fully addressed due to time constraints

Suggested compromises

Technology should meet society at its current level rather than expecting users to become technically sophisticated

Balance between providing technical control/agency and creating simple, intuitive user experiences with strong defaults

Combine private sector investment with government enabling frameworks rather than relying solely on either approach

Allow multiple identity personas within protocols to balance connectivity with privacy/anonymity needs

Start with demonstrating practical value to users while building toward more formal governance structures over time

Sometimes otherwise we just keep losing this conversation in a more techno and a policy circles, but how does it matter in the hands of people is something that I think is a very important aspect of how we talk about interoperability and demonstrate interoperability.

Speaker

Sujith Nair

Reason

This comment cuts to the heart of a fundamental disconnect in tech development – the gap between technical capabilities and real-world user value. It challenges the common assumption that technical excellence alone drives adoption and highlights the need for value-first design.

Impact

This shifted the conversation from abstract protocol discussions to concrete user experience considerations. It prompted Sarah to directly address the ‘technical savviness’ question and led to deeper exploration of how to bridge the gap between technical innovation and user adoption.

I think we need to look at this as a techno-social challenge, that it’s not just a matter of building interoperable tech and the people will come and the solutions will come out of that. It’s also a matter of figuring out how we as society and as builders of ecosystems will align the incentives so that there are stable configurations that preserve interoperability.

Speaker

Wendy Seltzer

Reason

This reframes the entire discussion from a purely technical problem to a complex socio-economic challenge. It introduces the critical concept that technology alone cannot solve adoption problems – social and economic incentives must be aligned.

Impact

This comment elevated the discussion beyond technical specifications to systemic thinking about incentive structures. It influenced subsequent speakers to address governance, economic models, and multi-stakeholder approaches rather than just technical features.

We don’t think about society rising up to the level of technology. It’s the other way. We think about taking technology to the level where the society operates… what is abundant are the textbooks… So why don’t we use that abundance and think of technology around it?

Speaker

Sujith Nair

Reason

This fundamentally inverts the traditional tech development paradigm. Instead of expecting users to adapt to technology, it advocates for technology to adapt to existing social structures and behaviors. The textbook/QR code example provides a concrete illustration of this principle in action.

Impact

This comment provided a practical framework for thinking about technology adoption that influenced the entire panel’s perspective on scaling solutions. It demonstrated how successful digital infrastructure can leverage existing social abundance rather than trying to replace it.

Close to 3 billion people or 3.3 billion people… live in countries that spend more on debt interest payment. So, they therefore do not have the resources to be able to invest in digital public infrastructure. This is the dilemma… It means a new approach is needed. This is where multi-stakeholderism really holds a great potential.

Speaker

Jean-Bertrand Azapmo

Reason

This comment introduces stark economic realities that constrain government-led digital infrastructure development, particularly in developing nations. It reframes the scaling challenge from a technical or adoption problem to a fundamental resource allocation and financing challenge.

Impact

This shifted the conversation to acknowledge the critical role of financing and multi-stakeholder approaches in scaling digital infrastructure. It grounded the discussion in real-world economic constraints and highlighted why traditional government-led approaches may be insufficient.

We really need to find ways to mobilize smart capital across private markets… Nothing works without money. So we really need to find ways to mobilize smart capital… And how do we complement this by more innovative financing mechanisms?

Speaker

Paul Fehlinger

Reason

This directly addresses the elephant in the room – that all the technical innovation and governance frameworks are meaningless without adequate funding mechanisms. It challenges the tech community to think beyond building to consider sustainable financing models.

Impact

This comment forced the discussion to confront the economic realities of scaling alternative digital infrastructure. It highlighted that technical solutions need to be coupled with viable business models and investment strategies to achieve meaningful scale.

It’s important in participatory design to recognize that expertise can take a variety of forms and that lived experience of a particular background is as important as technological expertise or legal expertise to making an equitable techno-social construction that works for people.

Speaker

Wendy Seltzer

Reason

This challenges traditional hierarchies of expertise in technology development and advocates for genuine inclusion of diverse perspectives, not just token representation. It suggests that technical expertise alone is insufficient for creating equitable systems.

Impact

This comment reinforced the theme of user-centered design and influenced the discussion toward more inclusive governance models. It provided a framework for thinking about how to genuinely include diverse stakeholders in protocol development and governance.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shifted the discussion from a technology-centric conversation to a holistic examination of the socio-economic challenges of scaling alternative digital infrastructure. The most impactful insights challenged common assumptions in the tech community: that technical excellence drives adoption, that users should adapt to technology rather than vice versa, and that governance and financing are secondary concerns. Sujith Nair’s practical examples from India provided concrete evidence for these alternative approaches, while Wendy Seltzer’s framing of techno-social challenges provided the theoretical foundation. Jean-Bertrand’s economic realities grounded the discussion in global development constraints, and Paul’s emphasis on financing highlighted often-overlooked practical barriers. Together, these comments created a more nuanced understanding of what it actually takes to scale fair data economy solutions – moving beyond protocol specifications to address user value, economic incentives, inclusive governance, and sustainable financing models.

How can we bridge all these solutions that exist in the ecosystem but are not scalable enough to gather enough users? What’s missing today for these solutions to truly collaborate better to represent a scalable alternative to a centralized digital economy?

Speaker

Sarah Leif

Explanation

This addresses the core challenge of scaling alternative digital infrastructure solutions beyond their current limited adoption to compete with centralized platforms.

How do we work with interoperability to beat network effects when most users are still stuck on centralized platforms?

Speaker

Sarah Leif

Explanation

This explores the technical and strategic approaches needed to overcome the powerful network effects that keep users locked into existing centralized platforms.

How do we go beyond the obstacles of technically assuming people have a certain level of ability to understand decentralized technologies? How do we demonstrate value to users who don’t understand technical terms?

Speaker

Sarah Leif

Explanation

This addresses the user experience challenge of making complex decentralized technologies accessible and valuable to non-technical users.

Do you think users should know about all the technicalities and protocols, or is it fine if they don’t know anything about it but have transparency to look if interested? What level of technical savviness should users need?

Speaker

Sarah Leif

Explanation

This philosophical question explores the balance between user empowerment through technical understanding versus seamless user experience that abstracts away complexity.

What are the implications for governments in face of the multi-trillion dollar data economy? What should governments do regarding institutional capacity building and new approaches?

Speaker

Xianhong Hu (UNESCO)

Explanation

This addresses the policy and governance challenges governments face in supporting fair data economy development while protecting citizens’ rights.

Should we recommend governments create new institutions for data agency/stewardship, or encourage existing data protection authorities to expand their capacity?

Speaker

Xianhong Hu (UNESCO)

Explanation

This explores institutional design questions for how governments can best support fair data economy principles through appropriate regulatory structures.

Is there any plan to recognize the right for people to remain anonymous on interconnected networks where workplace and political accounts might be linked?

Speaker

Veronica (Youth Pirate Party of Sweden)

Explanation

This addresses privacy and anonymity concerns in interconnected protocol systems where different aspects of users’ lives might become linked.

How can we mobilize smart capital across private markets and innovative financing mechanisms to scale fair data economy ventures?

Speaker

Paul Fehlinger

Explanation

This addresses the critical funding gap for scaling alternative digital infrastructure and fair data economy solutions.

How can we create centers of gravity for impact-focused entrepreneurship that rethinks value distribution and creates new business models blending economic growth with data agency?

Speaker

Paul Fehlinger

Explanation

This explores the ecosystem development needed to support entrepreneurs building fair data economy solutions.

How do we align incentives so there are stable configurations that preserve interoperability in techno-social systems?

Speaker

Wendy Seltzer

Explanation

This addresses the governance challenge of maintaining interoperability when different stakeholders have competing interests.

Summary

This discussion focused on advancing digital inclusion through improved segmentation of data collection for better and more targeted decision-making. The panel, moderated by Morten Meyerhoff Nielsen from UNU eGov, brought together experts from UNESCO, Research ICT Africa, the Global Digital Inclusion Partnership (GDIP), and CETIC Brazil to address the challenge that about one-third of the world’s population remains excluded from meaningful internet access.

The panelists emphasized that current frameworks for measuring digital inclusion are often supply-oriented, focusing on basic questions like “have you used the internet in the last 12 months” rather than examining the quality and type of digital activities. Guilherme from UNESCO highlighted their Internet Universality Indicators based on five pillars: rights, openness, accessibility, multi-stakeholderism, and cross-cutting elements like gender. Onica from GDIP stressed the importance of understanding gender-specific barriers through both quantitative and qualitative research, noting that national averages often fail to serve women and marginalized communities effectively.

The discussion revealed that segmented data collection helps identify hidden gaps and context-specific barriers that wouldn’t emerge from general surveys. For example, research in South Africa showed that digital centers built for rural women went unused due to safety concerns and incompatible operating hours with women’s daily routines. Fabio from CETIC Brazil shared how their multi-stakeholder approach to data collection, funded through domain name registry profits, allows for continuous monitoring and policy-relevant insights.

Key challenges identified included ensuring data privacy and dignity for marginalized communities, preventing data from reinforcing existing inequalities, and making research sustainable and accessible. The panelists agreed that effective digital inclusion requires moving beyond individual-focused metrics to understand collective and household-level dynamics, while balancing innovation with rigorous traditional methodologies to create actionable insights for policymakers.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Need for Better Data Segmentation**: The panel emphasized moving beyond basic “have you used the internet” metrics to more nuanced segmentation by gender, income levels, geography, education, age, and disability status. This granular data is essential for identifying specific barriers and designing targeted interventions rather than one-size-fits-all solutions.

– **Qualitative vs. Quantitative Approaches**: There was strong consensus that quantitative data alone is insufficient. The discussion highlighted the importance of combining statistical data with qualitative research, policy ethnography, and community engagement to understand the lived experiences and contextual barriers that prevent meaningful digital inclusion.

– **Privacy and Ethical Data Collection**: A significant portion focused on balancing the need for detailed segmentation with privacy protection and dignity of marginalized communities. The panel discussed using anonymized data, local participation in data collection, and decolonized research approaches to build trust and ensure ethical practices.

– **Institutional Models and Sustainability**: The conversation explored different funding and organizational models for sustained data collection, including Brazil’s CETIC model funded by domain registry fees, partnerships with telecommunications companies, and the challenge of making segmented data collection financially sustainable long-term.

– **From Data to Policy Action**: The panel addressed the critical gap between collecting good data and translating it into effective policy interventions. They emphasized the need for capacity building among policymakers, accountability frameworks, and ensuring that data insights actually reach and benefit the communities being studied.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to explore how improved segmentation of data collection can advance digital inclusion by enabling better-targeted decision-making. The panel sought to identify best practices for collecting, analyzing, and utilizing granular data to address the digital divide more effectively, while ensuring ethical approaches that respect marginalized communities.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a collaborative and constructive tone throughout, with panelists building on each other’s insights rather than debating. The tone was professional yet passionate, reflecting the participants’ deep commitment to digital inclusion. There was a notable shift toward more cautionary and nuanced thinking as the conversation progressed, particularly around privacy concerns and the potential for data to reinforce existing inequalities. The panel became increasingly focused on practical implementation challenges and sustainability concerns as the discussion evolved.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Morten Meyerhoff Nielsen** – Moderator from UNU eGov (United Nations University eGovernance programme)

– **Guilherme Canela De Souza Godoi** – From UNESCO’s Information for All Program (IFAP)

– **Pria Chetty** – From Research ICT Africa, lawyer with expertise in data collection and digital inclusion research

– **Onica Makwakwa** – From Global Digital Inclusion Partnership/Program (GDIP), works on gender-focused digital inclusion research

– **Fabio Senne** – From CETIC Brazil (Brazilian Internet Steering Committee’s Center for Studies on Information and Communication Technologies), focuses on digital inclusion data and statistics

– **Carmen Ferri** – Online moderator from Global Digital Inclusion Program

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

**Additional speakers:**

– **Kiho Oshima** – Master’s student at University of Bremen in Germany, studying digital media and society

# Advancing Digital Inclusion Through Improved Data Segmentation: A Comprehensive Panel Discussion Report

## Introduction and Context

This panel discussion, moderated by Morten Meyerhoff Nielsen from the United Nations University eGovernance programme (UNU eGov), brought together leading experts to address one of the most pressing challenges in digital development: how to advance digital inclusion through improved segmentation of data collection for better and more targeted decision-making. With approximately one-third of the world’s population remaining excluded from meaningful internet access, the discussion focused on moving beyond traditional binary connectivity measures to develop more nuanced approaches to understanding and addressing digital divides.

The panel featured distinguished speakers from key international organisations: Guilherme Canela De Souza Godoi from UNESCO’s Information for All Program (IFAP), Pria Chetty from Research ICT Africa, Onica Makwakwa from the Global Digital Inclusion Partnership (GDIP), and Fabio Senne from CETIC Brazil. Carmen Ferri served as online moderator, facilitating questions from virtual participants. It should be noted that Guilherme left early in the session, so later discussions primarily involved the remaining three panelists.

## Current Limitations of Digital Inclusion Measurement

### The Inadequacy of Basic Connectivity Metrics

The discussion began with a fundamental critique of existing digital inclusion measurement frameworks. Morten established the central problem by highlighting that current frameworks are predominantly supply-oriented, focusing on basic questions such as “have you used the internet in the last 12 months” rather than examining the quality and type of digital activities that constitute meaningful connectivity.

Fabio Senne provided compelling evidence of this measurement gap through Brazil’s experience. While Brazil reports 90% basic internet access, their meaningful connectivity indicators reveal a starkly different reality: only 22% of the total population meets the criteria for meaningful connectivity when factors such as device availability, connection quality, affordability, and digital skills are considered. This dramatic difference between surface-level statistics and deeper analysis became a cornerstone of the discussion, demonstrating how conventional metrics can mask significant inequalities.

### The Problem with National Averages

Onica Makwakwa articulated a particularly powerful critique of aggregate data approaches, stating that “national averages are just simply not serving women. They are not serving everyone else as well.” She provided concrete examples from South Africa, explaining that any affordability analysis conducted without stratifying income quantiles would produce over-inflated outcomes that fail to represent those at the bottom of income distributions, noting that more than half of the population lives on less than half of the gross national income.

This observation highlighted how statistical methodology itself can perpetuate inequality by masking the experiences of the most vulnerable populations. The critique extended beyond simple statistical concerns to fundamental questions about whose experiences are made visible or invisible through data collection choices.

## Institutional Models and Frameworks

### UNESCO’s Comprehensive Approach

Guilherme Canela De Souza Godoi presented UNESCO’s work through three main areas. First, the Internet Universality Indicators based on five pillars: rights, openness, accessibility, multi-stakeholderism, and cross-cutting elements including gender. Second, mandatory monitoring exercises that provide member states with evidence-based frameworks for policy development. Third, guidance documents that help countries implement comprehensive digital inclusion measurement approaches.

The UNESCO framework represents an attempt to standardise comprehensive digital inclusion measurement while maintaining flexibility for local contexts, moving beyond simple connectivity measures to encompass the broader ecosystem of factors that enable meaningful digital participation.

### Brazil’s Multi-Stakeholder Model

Fabio Senne described CETIC Brazil’s innovative institutional model, which uses a multi-stakeholder approach with expert groups to define measurement priorities and adjust data production to meet decision-maker demands. Significantly, this model is funded through domain name registry profits, providing sustainable financing that enables continuous monitoring and policy-relevant insights.

The Brazilian model demonstrates how institutional design can support comprehensive data collection by creating stable funding mechanisms and ensuring that research priorities align with policy needs. Fabio also mentioned their C-MAT system for testing broadband quality in Brazilian schools, providing real-time connectivity quality monitoring.

### International Recognition and Coordination

Fabio noted that the G20 has recognised the need for segmented monitoring beyond basic connectivity, mentioning reports produced during both Brazilian and South African presidencies that require disaggregation by demographic, economic, and geographic variables. This international recognition suggests growing consensus among major economies about the limitations of traditional connectivity metrics.

## The Case for Segmented Data Collection

### Gender-Disaggregated Analysis

The panel devoted considerable attention to gender-specific barriers that emerge only through segmented data collection. Onica shared research findings showing that while overall figures might suggest minimal gender gaps in basic internet access, segmented analysis reveals significant disparities. Fabio mentioned that Brazil shows a 10% gap between women and men in meaningful connectivity despite similar basic access rates.

More importantly, segmented data collection reveals gender-specific barriers that regular surveys miss entirely. These include affordability constraints that disproportionately affect women, safety concerns about accessing digital services, and monitoring by family members that restricts women’s digital autonomy. Onica provided a striking example of digital centres built for rural women that went unused because they failed to account for women’s daily schedules and safety concerns about walking to the centres.

### Geographic and Socioeconomic Segmentation

The discussion revealed sophisticated thinking about geographic classification that moves beyond simple rural-urban binaries. Onica noted that peri-urban populations often experience challenges similar to rural communities due to urban inequality, requiring more nuanced geographic classification systems.

Fabio added that geographic disaggregation within cities reveals unexpected patterns, providing an example from São Paulo where they found neighborhoods with high connectivity but low socioeconomic status, challenging assumptions about urban digital inclusion. Perhaps most surprisingly, Fabio revealed that most disconnected people are actually located in urban areas due to population concentration, fundamentally challenging conventional wisdom about where digital exclusion occurs.

### Revealing Hidden Barriers Through Qualitative Approaches

The speakers consistently emphasised that quantitative data alone is insufficient for understanding digital inclusion challenges. Onica advocated for qualitative approaches and policy ethnography to surface hidden gaps and context-specific barriers that quantitative surveys cannot capture. Pria described Research ICT Africa’s after-access research, which combines quantitative and qualitative methods to understand usage patterns, digital literacy levels, and trust issues that affect meaningful connectivity.

These qualitative approaches reveal barriers that would never emerge from standard surveys, such as cultural norms around technology use, intergenerational dynamics affecting device access, and community-specific safety concerns that influence digital participation.

## From Individual to Collective Approaches

### Rethinking the Unit of Analysis

Fabio Senne introduced a significant shift by arguing that digital inclusion should be viewed as collective rather than individual challenges. He noted that most research interviews one individual and tries to think about digital inclusion as an individual characteristic, but “most of the problems are collective problems.”

CETIC Brazil has begun calculating ratios of people per device and examining what percentage of household income is required for device access, thinking of “the household as a collective of people rather than individual.” This approach reveals important dynamics like device-sharing patterns and income allocation decisions that individual-focused measures miss entirely.

### Community Networks and Collective Solutions

The collective approach extends beyond households to consider community networks, schools, and libraries as digital inclusion infrastructure. Onica provided an example of successful collective intervention: a tablet per household programme in Uganda that successfully empowered female-led households, with unexpected benefits for children’s education. This example demonstrated how household-level interventions can create ripple effects that benefit multiple family members.

## Methodological Innovation and Alternative Data Sources

### Combining Traditional and Innovative Approaches

The panel explored various approaches to methodological innovation while maintaining rigorous standards. Fabio advocated for combining surveys with geospatial data and other sources, highlighting the potential of citizen-generated data and satellite data as complementary sources that can be combined with traditional surveys.

However, the speakers consistently emphasised the importance of balancing innovation with traditional rigorous methodologies. Pria warned that there are “high levels of interest in the data, but not always in the process to collect the data,” highlighting the risk that methodological shortcuts could undermine data quality and community participation.

### Leveraging Existing Data Infrastructure

Onica identified national census data as an underutilised resource that could include digital-related questions with proper engagement of census bureaus. This approach could leverage existing, well-funded data collection infrastructure that occurs regularly across countries, potentially reducing the burden and cost of separate digital inclusion surveys.

The speakers also discussed the potential for partnerships with telecommunications operators, who hold valuable segmented data that could support policy decisions through partnerships with regulators. However, these partnerships raise questions about data governance and ensuring that commercial interests align with public good objectives.

## Ethical Considerations and Community Participation

### Privacy and Dignity Concerns

A significant portion of the discussion focused on balancing the need for detailed segmentation with privacy protection and dignity of marginalised communities. Carmen Ferri posed a critical question: “How can we ensure that the segmented data collection respects the privacy and dignity of marginalised communities?”

Pria explained that while anonymised data collection for policy purposes typically falls outside personal data protection regulations, it should still follow ethical standards. She advocated for local participation in data collection to address privacy concerns and ensure willing participation from communities. However, she also expressed caution about data aggregation, noting the potential for “massive harm” when data is brought together inappropriately.

### Decolonised Research Approaches

Onica strongly advocated for decolonised approaches to data collection, emphasising the importance of working with local partners rather than having external researchers study communities. She provided a striking critique of problematic research narratives, specifically mentioning studies that compare mobile phone ownership to toothbrush ownership in ways that expose “the ignorance of the researcher themselves” by failing to recognise alternative approaches to dental health.

This critique highlighted how researchers’ cultural blind spots can lead to problematic narratives about the communities they study. Onica consistently emphasised that communities should be involved in leading data collection processes rather than being passive subjects of external research.

### Preventing Data Misuse

Kiho Oshima, a master’s student from the University of Bremen, raised important questions about preventing segmented data from being used to reinforce marginalisation. This concern reflects the fundamental tension between needing data about vulnerable populations to help them while simultaneously protecting them from potential harms.

Onica provided a concrete example of this risk, describing how South Africa’s COVID-19 tracking app led to people receiving political SMS messages, demonstrating how well-intentioned data collection can be misused. The speakers acknowledged this tension but emphasised that ongoing vigilance and community participation in data governance are essential.

## Sustainability and Implementation Challenges

### Funding and Incentive Structures

Pria identified sustainability as a critical challenge, noting the disconnect between high levels of interest in data and limited willingness to invest in rigorous collection processes. She warned that without building compelling incentive structures for private sector participation, “this work will not be sustainable, because it will be replaced by quicker technical measures that don’t necessarily have the rigour attached to it.”

The discussion explored various funding models, with Brazil’s domain registry funding serving as one successful example of sustainable financing. However, most countries lack similar dedicated funding mechanisms, creating ongoing challenges for maintaining comprehensive data collection efforts.

### Building Private Sector Partnerships

Despite typical concerns about private sector data control, there was consensus that partnerships with private sector entities, particularly telecommunications companies, are essential for sustainable and comprehensive data collection. However, building these partnerships requires creating compelling incentive structures that align commercial interests with public good objectives.

## Key Areas of Agreement and Ongoing Tensions

### Methodological Consensus

The speakers demonstrated strong consensus on fundamental methodological issues. All agreed that traditional binary connectivity measures are insufficient and that comprehensive segmented data collection is essential. There was strong alignment on the importance of qualitative approaches and local context in data collection, with consistent emphasis that quantitative data alone cannot capture the complexity of digital inclusion challenges.

### Approaches to Data Integration

The main area of tension emerged around data aggregation and sharing approaches. Pria expressed strong caution about bringing data together, warning about the potential for “massive harm” and vulnerabilities in data lakes, emphasising the need for deliberate and well-intentioned processes with robust accountability mechanisms.

In contrast, Onica advocated more optimistically for mapping and coordinating existing data sources, focusing on the practical benefits of reducing survey burden and improving research efficiency. This disagreement reflects different risk tolerances and approaches to data coordination.

## Practical Recommendations and Next Steps

### Immediate Actions

Morten noted that the panel discussion would be summarised and shared online, with panellists having the opportunity to comment on the draft. Participants were encouraged to reach out to panellists and their organisations for further questions and collaboration.

### Methodological Innovations

The speakers suggested several practical approaches: using layered data approaches where national-level data provides ‘heat maps’ to identify problem areas before diving deeper with contextual analysis; combining multiple data sources rather than relying on single collection methods; and engaging with national census bureaus to include digital-related questions.

### Governance and Ethics

The discussion pointed toward applying data protection standards to non-personal data as a precautionary measure, even when not legally required. There was emphasis on creating data mapping exercises within countries to coordinate existing data sources rather than centralising all data in one location.

## Conclusion

This comprehensive panel discussion revealed both the urgent need for and the significant challenges involved in advancing digital inclusion through improved data segmentation. The speakers demonstrated remarkable consensus on the inadequacy of current measurement approaches and the necessity of moving toward more nuanced, community-participatory, and ethically grounded data collection methods.

The discussion successfully challenged fundamental assumptions about how digital inclusion should be measured and understood, from questioning the value of national averages to advocating for collective rather than individual approaches to analysis. The speakers provided compelling evidence that current frameworks mask significant inequalities and fail to capture the lived experiences of marginalised communities.

However, the discussion also revealed the complexity of implementing better approaches. Questions about sustainability, privacy protection, preventing data misuse, and balancing innovation with rigour remain ongoing challenges. The tension between the need for detailed segmentation and the protection of vulnerable communities represents a continuing challenge that requires sustained attention and innovation.

The panel’s emphasis on decolonised approaches, community participation, and collective solutions suggests that the field is moving toward more equitable and effective approaches to addressing digital divides. However, translating these insights into sustainable, scalable, and ethically sound data collection systems remains the critical challenge for advancing digital inclusion in practice.

Morten Meyerhoff Nielsen: So, welcome everybody. My name is Morten. I’m from UNU eGov. I’ll be moderating the next 19 minutes. We’re just going to wait a couple of minutes because we see that the coffee breaks are still on. But then we’ll line up. Just a little bit of household. We’ll have an online moderator, so please don’t hesitate to put questions or observations into the chat. And Carmen, our colleague, will chime in when she’s prompted with highlighting some of the questions and observations that we can then discuss in this panel. We will have a couple of rounds of discussion. We will start with the panel, obviously, but we’ll subsequently open up the floor both here in Lilleström and online. Okay. some more people coming in, but let’s get cracking. So again, welcome to this open forum. We’ll be looking at ways to advance digital inclusion through improved segmentation of data collection for better and more targeted decision-making. We have a number of excellent panelists, two of which unfortunately will not join us. Helani from Lina Asia is unfortunately stuck somewhere in space because of issues with flights over the Middle East and Waleed Hamdi from the African Union’s Information Systems Department unfortunately has similar challenges with getting from A to B due to some Middle Eastern conflict issues. So they sent their sincere apologies, but they will be commenting on the report and the feedback of this session after the fact. We have an excellent panel otherwise. We have from the far left, we have Guilherme, he’s from UNESCO. Then we have Pria, she’s from Research ICT Africa. We have Onica from the Global Digital Inclusion in Partnership, or is it program? GDIP. GDIP. And then we have also Fabio from CETIC Brazil. My name is Morten, I’ll be basically facilitating. Now, a couple of things that I’d like to start to set the scene. I think we all agree the internet is not new. It’s been around since the previous millennium even, but really took off in the late 1990s, early 2000s. That said, about a third of the world’s population is not yet meaningfully included in the World Wide Web or the opportunities of such. Now, we see that there’s some segmentation differences on that. We see that generally in the Global South. low-income households, rural areas, seniors, people who are in unique situations or have physical disabilities or even gender segmentation are factors in relation to that, and we’ll dive into that. Similarly, we see that most frameworks promoting digital inclusion tend to recognize the problem but not really measuring it. We see a little bit of a hen and an egg situation that in communities that have the biggest potential community of excluded people are the ones that have the weakest data. This is particularly emerging economies, low-income countries in particular. We also see that these frameworks are often looking at annual assessment cycles. We’ve had some earlier workshops this week already with examples of how to increase that segmentation or those cycles to be more active in terms of giving quicker snapshots for decision makers to target the initiatives. But what they have in common is that they’re still very much supply orientated, as in have you used the internet in the last 12 months, yes or no, limited focus on the type of activities, the type of demands that we’re looking for in terms of gauging the inclusion or the degree of people’s use of digital opportunities. So again, without this knowledge, how can we as decision makers from the public sector, the private sector, from civil society or research community propose more targeted initiatives that meaningfully aim to include those who are not yet included? If we don’t know who they are, where they live or their features, how can we develop policy initiatives or charity initiatives or technical initiatives or capacity initiatives to get them included? So this is some of the elements that we are looking at. We will have an active discussion on this in the coming hour or so. But let’s get cracking with some questions to the panel. Guilherme, from the IFAP program at UNESCO, you are developing a set of data segments to monitor not just digital inclusion or exclusion, but also other things. How do UNESCO promote that as a global standard? And what are the type of things that you find is really interesting to compare across different national contexts or socio-economic contexts from your perspective? And do you have an example of how that has led to better policy initiatives?

Guilherme Canela De Souza Godoi: Thank you, Martin. I’m very glad to be here, first and foremost, because I do think these dynamic coalitions under the umbrella of IGF is also a sort of multilateral policy concrete tool for these kind of interactions. If you see the members of these coalitions, some of them are the speakers here, but many others that are not in this room necessarily, they provide different pieces to this puzzle. Therefore, these kind of discussions and also the concrete outputs that this can generate are already something very relevant for this. But on your concrete question, the Information for All Program is an intergovernmental program under the umbrella of the broader UNESCO governing bodies. And, of course, what the program does is to leverage the different aspects of the multilateral policy that is approved by our different governing bodies, our member states. So I could speak here a lot on different elements that could help to respond to your question. Let me take two or three minutes. . So, let’s start with three examples that are in a way complementary. So, the first one that’s probably more well-known is the Internet universality indicators. Something that was approved many years ago by all UNESCO member states have been refined in different moments. I guess Fabio will speak about that. So, this is a concrete set of indicators based on these five pillars, rights, openness, accessibility, multi-stakeholderism, and the acts are very several cross-cutting elements, gender, children, and so on. And so, this is a concrete set of indicators proposed and validated by a multi-lateral organization like UNESCO, but does not necessarily mean that UNESCO needs to apply it. What we are offering is something that then the different actors can use, either if they are governments and they want to use that to prepare and produce better policies, evidence-based, or if they are a civil society that wants to hold governments accountable, to tell them, you are not doing what yourselves are saying for, like, UNESCO in Paris, or in the UN in New York, or Geneva, and so on, and then, in some cases, we are inviting them to apply it. So, this is a concrete set of indicators, and we are using this set of indicators that are provided by our member states to help with the implementation. But the first thing is this, comprehensive set of indicators. I’m using the example of the ROM-X, but there are several other things connected with meaningful connectivity, sorry, for the redundancy, for example, the RAMs, the readiness assessment methodology for the information, the recommendation of the IGFs that are completed in Oslo, but I don’t want to put it as it is. There is this very important historic issue of the RIVE convention connecting all of these issues with a diversity of cultural expression. So, this is one type of logic. The other type, I will use the title is contact resolution strategy, basically. is when we have mandatory monitoring with our member states based on the things they have approved. So, for example, there is a 2003 recommendation on the multilingualism on the cyberspace. We know that multilingualism is also a critical element of meaningful connectivity. So, this recommendation, every four years, the member states need to report back to UNESCO what they are doing. So, it’s not a concrete data set per se, but what we collect from this mandatory exercise can become that and then be used by the different stakeholders as they see. For example, right now we are in the middle of the international decade of indigenous languages. This kind of data we collect through the 2003 recommendation or the World Atlas of Languages, etc., are fundamental for that. There are other recommendations like that. For example, there is one on documental heritage. So, all the issues of preserving digital heritage, every four years, the member states also need to report back on that. And then finally, there is the guidance related to this need to keep monitoring and evaluating and producing, for example, risk assessments and so on. More recently, UNESCO launched this document that I’m sure several of you heard about that is the Guidelines for the Governance of Digital Platforms. That document is suggesting concrete ways for the different stakeholders to produce risk assessments, to look into what’s happening in the digital ecosystem from that perspective of protecting and promoting freedom of expression. So, in a nutshell, and I finish, we have a concrete set of indicators, we have the mandatory monitoring exercises, and we have this guidance for them. I could keep speaking here on different ways that this impacted reality, but I must say that in the the 40 countries that already have implemented their own acts, several of them used this to change legislation, to then fulfill the gaps that were identified by the application of these kind of indicators, for example. The last thing I want to say to all of you is good news and bad news. The bad news is that I need to leave because I need to open another session. The good news is that this will offer more time for more intelligent people than myself to discuss with you. But thank you very much.

Morten Meyerhoff Nielsen: Thank you, Guilherme. And thank you for warning us before we started. Fully understandable that you’re going to be hectic. I’ll take the opportunity to quickly jump to another angle. And that’s for you, Onica. So from the perspective of the GDIP, how can segmented data, particularly related to gender and things like affordability, safety and trust concerns, digital literacy, but also classical literacy, how can we be better at that? And what are you doing at the GDIP in order to promote that segmentation of data collection for better and more targeted decisions? Yeah, good question.

Onica Makwakwa: Thank you very much for that. And good day to everyone here and online. You know, our premier research that we’ve done in this area is the Connected Resilience Report that looks at gendered experiences of women through meaningful connectivity, taking an approach of both quantitative research as well as qualitative and doing some policy ethnography as well to really understand what’s happening with women. This segmented framework actually became a powerful tool for us to be able to detect and address very gender-specific barriers that women are experiencing through meaningful connectivity, such as affordability. and many others. So, I would like to start by saying that we have seen a lot of connectivity, safety concerns, as well as digital literacy issues that came up quite strongly in that report. And, you know, ensuring that the programs that are then implemented truly focus on women and digital technologies are targeting the needs that women have identified to effectively address the inequities that women have identified. And the second area for us that the segmentation actually has shown importance in is that it helps us to surface hidden gaps that we may not have otherwise been fully aware of, especially the qualitative approach. I think it’s helped us really, truly understand what the hidden gaps may be. So, I would like to start by saying that we have seen a lot of connectivity issues, as well as monitoring and surveillance of women’s activities online by, sometimes, family members. That’s something that, when you just do a regular survey, asking people, are you online, are you not online, all you would find out is that, no, I’m not online, but not really understanding what are the drivers behind that. You know, it could be affordability, it could be safety, and more and more, it could be, you know, the accessibility of women, and, you know, what are the other hidden factors that influence their access, as well as being able to identify some very context-specific barriers. You know, we tend to classify, for example, women as, you know, just that one monolithic group, you know, or even urban and rural, but what we are learning also is that there’s an opportunity for women to be able to have access to information, to be able to communicate with their families and those who are offline. But including the ones that are connected, there is a difference in how they are connected. being able to have a segmented approach in understanding the classifications around age, gender, income, rural, peri-urban, you know, we tend to do this rural urban, but peri-urban populations will tend to actually look closer to the experiences of rural communities because of resources and urban inequality that exists, especially when you look at a country like South Africa is a really good example where within the urban sector you can’t just take the population as is, right? And then one other one that I want to highlight is, you know, being able to tailor interventions and resources. You can’t do that without having very specific, you know, information from that particular population. National averages are just simply not serving women. They are not serving everyone else as well. And I’ll give you an example from South Africa in particular where we continue to be the most unequal society with more than half of the population living on less than half of this GNI. So anything around affordability that you are going to do in South Africa without stratifying the income quantiles, you are always going to get an over-inflated outcome that does not fully represent those who are at the bottom of the income quantiles. And women also tend to be very much over-represented in those lower levels of income. You know, so in order for us to be able to recommend gender-specific and gender-responsive policy interventions, it’s important for them to be informed by lived experiences of women. And that segmentation helps us with that. That leads me to a follow-up question if we have a bit of extra time. Have you got any good examples of where either your program has been able to do better recommendations for policymakers or where policymakers have made better decisions, more targeted, pinpointing initiatives based on better segmented data for gender, for instance, or affordability in that context? Yes, certainly. So, one of the things that we did with the Connected Resilience Report is to introduce a method that we termed policy ethnography, where we actually also brought policymakers together to understand how they make decisions and what informs them. So, one particular country, and please allow me to withhold the name of the country, had gone out to build these digital centers in rural areas because women did not have their own personal devices at home and they did not have a way to connect. So, the idea was that these digital centers that were actually funded through the Universal Service and Access Funds would enable women to be able to have access to connectivity. And over time, they realized that women were just simply not going to these centers. And it was actually through assisting them to do stakeholder consultations and to meet with women and be informed by women that we learned several things. One was that the hours that the center was available for just did not work for the women in that community who have to wake up very early, fetch wood, take care of children, get children to school, come back from the market before kids come back from school. But also, the other issue was the issue of safety, for them to then walk in a direction that is not as well populated by people that they would feel comfortable walking past, for them to be able to utilize the center. So, it had very little to do with, you know, You know, whether they have the skills or interest or any of that, it was really predicated around their own safety and their own lived experience navigating that community that had not been factored into this huge investment of building the centers with the aim and purpose of women being able to use the centers to access. So we’ve got quite a few of similar examples in our reports as well that just really shows how when you design for women and with women at the center, you have to actually design with them informing you so that they are part of that solution.

Morten Meyerhoff Nielsen: Excellent. We’ve spoken a bit about the South African context in the last example, so we’ll move to another country that has similar challenges in some ways and similar success stories. But Fabio, CETIC Brazil is increasingly segmenting their data for the Brazilian context. We’re talking about different types of segmentation already, but what are the ones that you’re finding particularly useful for decision makers in Brazil, both at local but also at the regional state or federal level? And is there a difference between the type of segments that those decision makers need in order to do better policy?

Fabio Senne: Thank you, Morten. Thank you very much for the invitation, it’s a pleasure to be with partners in this discussion. Before answering to your question, I think it’s interesting, Omnica just was very comprehensive in making the case of the advantages of having this type of information. I’d like just to describe a little bit the institutional model that we have in Brazil that I think is useful, and I think other governments are having this as a reference, because CETIC is a non-profit. So, we have a model that is based on NIC.PR, which is a non-profit organization that is funded by the .PR domain name registry. So, we have a model that the authority for the .PR, the NIC.PR, is responsible for the service, the public interest services, and this allows us to have a specific center, which is the TIC.BR, focused on producing this type of data and sharing it with policymakers. So, I think first of all, this strategy is allowing us to have the continuity of surveys and other types of research and to make the case of the relevance of this for the government and the society as a whole. And another thing that is in our DNA that I think is very relevant is that we are not only multi-stakeholder in the process of the organization, but we are also multi-stakeholder when we do research. So, every time, and I think this is a useful thing for other experiences, every time you will start an investigation and start a new survey, we invite what we call a group of experts around a multi-stakeholder group of people who will first define what to measure, what are the topics that we need to measure, what are the demand for data that we have in the government, in the private sector, in the other sectors. So, this is useful because we can adjust the data production to the demand of the decision makers, and this is very useful to us. And just to mention that this type of agreement has growing relevance among governments, we have been participating in this. So, we have been in the G20 processes for the past two years, so last year we had the Brazilian presidency of the G20, and we supported, along with ITU, a report that G20 launched, this report that was just connecting the idea of meaningful connectivity and the need for segmented monitoring. So, just to mention, in this report we argued that we cannot only use two axes, but we need to understand connection quality, availability for use, affordability, device, digital skills, and safety and security, so also in the G20 members recognizing that there are a lot of other dimensions that need to be monitored, and more importantly, that these data need to be disaggregated by demographic variables such as age, gender, household size, and others, economic variables like income, employment, status, and others, and geographic disaggregation, because you know that countries are not, are also, the digital inequalities is also expressed in the territory, and you can find differences between, so in this, in this year, in 2025, we also, along with Research ICT Africa, we supported another paper on this discussion on the G20 South African presidency, and stressing a little bit more about the funding issues, how you can, we need also to guarantee that countries have funds to do this type of research. So, we can discuss more after the…

Morten Meyerhoff Nielsen: I think it’s a very interesting… It was just to say that this institutional and consultative part is very important for… I think it’s a very interesting, CETEC Brazil is a very interesting funding model. And it’s a little bit of a sidetrack from the discussion, and we can maybe come back to it. But we see that often telco licensing and the auctioning leads to a logical profit maximization attempt from the government, particularly the Ministry of Finance. And I used to work for the Danish Ministry of Finance, so I have to put that disclaimer in. But it tends to often result in slower rollout of next generation technology. Then after the license is secured, the telcos will want to make a profit. This is logical, but they will then sacrifice either the rollout of that technology or underserve less attractive areas in remote areas, rural communities, urban communities that are not seen as profitable, or the price is transferred to the customer, which is in fact, yes, helping the government to profit maximize, but kills other government objectives and targets for digital inclusion, affordability and reliability. So there’s some interesting elements, and the Universal Access Fund is often seen as an ability to try and then reinvest the profits from the license into that, like in CETIC’s case for research, or in Tanzania, where it’s then to fix gaps in the infrastructure in remote areas or increase the volume of hotspots or free Wi-Fi hotspots, etc., with all the pros and cons they have. So there’s some interesting elements around that, but will data really help us in that regard?

Fabio Senne: That is maybe more of an open question. So a little bit of a sidetrack, but what are the type of tricks you have at CETIC in terms to nuance the data collection? Is there alternative sources, rather than just one? in the classical, we go and collect, we do surveys, etc. Are there any tricks to the trade, so to speak, from your perspective and your experience that could help increase the segmentation? Yes, I think, of course, methodological innovation can do a lot in this type of exercise. It’s not, surveys cannot take care of everything. So we are trying to mix methods, to integrate more geospatial data and other sources of data to combine with surveys. I can give a few examples. For instance, in the field of connectivity in schools, and NIC.br has a system that is called C-MAT, which is a system for a software that you install anywhere you want to test the quality of the broadband of this organization or household or so on. And in agreement with the Ministry of Education, we put this, we installed this software in more than the 70,000 schools in the country, having real time data on the quality of the connectivity. And we can cross this with the survey data that CETIC has also on the what teachers are doing in the same schools and so on. So here’s an example of you can combine different sources of information to provide more granular information. Another example that I like in terms of geographical disaggregation that I think is interesting. We did some, we tend to think that the urban areas are always well connected, but this is not the case. If you take the number of disconnected, for instance, most of them are in urban areas, very close to because the population is also concentrated in these areas. So, we had one study that we did a few years ago, that we could disaggregate, combining different sources of data. The city of São Paulo, which is the largest city in Brazil, we could disaggregate the data, combining socio-demographical and digital inequalities data. And then, for instance, we understood that one particular neighborhood in the city tends to be very high connectivity, but low level of socio-economic status. What’s happening there? So, we can refine more. And we discovered that because there was a road passing through, close to this area, across to different other sources, there was a very, there are a lot of young people living in this area, and young couples, and we could track the differences that we have

Morten Meyerhoff Nielsen: in this particular area because of the data. So, having this type of data, of course, you can lead to policies that are more attached and focused on different perspectives. Just to close the first round before we open up to the floor, also online. So, Priya, at Research ICT Africa, you’re also working with segmented data, obviously. But what are some of the examples that, again, you find particularly useful for your research, but also for policy recommendation that your center is doing on a regular basis? And, again, how does that become helpful in identifying these location or community-specific or user group-specific digital divides? Are they, again, around gender? Is it around income quartiles? Is it education? and all, what do you see from your perspective? Yeah, thank you very much, and thank you for the opportunity to be on this panel.

Pria Chetty: For us, this work is core to our organization, and so we’ve been running for a number of years our after-access research, where we’ve prioritized segmented data. So we collect data directly from individuals and households, and we ask them very specific questions. And I think our findings really reinforce what Onica mentioned about the value of qualitative analysis and what Fabia mentioned about those insights that come from when you are uniquely able to combine the data. But we ask questions around their access. Do you have a smartphone, computer, broadband at home, or affordability? And then we also ask questions about their usage patterns. So what do they use the internet for? Is it social media, work, education, health, government services? And I think this is to combat some of the assumptions that we make about who’s using what. We also ask questions about their preferred platforms. And then we ask questions about the level of digital literacy and skills that we’re dealing with. And so, you know, what are they able to do? And can they send emails, use online banking? And then some questions around trust. And I think it also reveals very, very specific nuances. And then, you know, I think when it comes to the question of barriers, this is where that contextual information really, really becomes valuable. So we ask questions about, you know, why don’t you use the internet anymore? And is it because you don’t have a need for it? Is it about safety concerns? And then, of course, in our data, we have that valuable demographic segmentation. So that’s by gender, age, income level, education, location. Anika mentioned to include the peri-urban category in there, but also disability status and language as well. So this allows us to draw out very specific insights. And the work that we’ve been doing is now absorbed globally into UN reports by the ITU, OECD, and so on. And then more regionally to define indicators that are set for specific targets. So it’s now producing, I think, for the continent, these insights that can never go away. So inputs into the ecosystem that just have to be longstanding. So at the very minimum, we can confirm that data costs are a primary barrier, but we can do that in a granular way. So in South Africa, 70% of our respondents cited affordability issues. When compared to Uganda, it was 61% that cited affordability. And we’ve got now some contrasts between the different countries. But then we also pull out these additional… traditional barriers, and one of them could be even just the lack of perceived need for some of the services that are on offer. And now we can get quite contextual about the association between what’s on offer and the demand. The digital literacy gaps at a granular level, barriers such as electricity access, privacy concerns. And it brings out, I suppose, the multidimensional element that comes from these contextual nuances that isn’t just about the segmentation, in fact, but in fact, these multidimensional qualities and these insights importantly need to inform very specific recommendations. So I suppose the segmentation and the approach and the methodology, that’s a big learning, but then how to present this information in a way in which it can be absorbed and utilized effectively. So we know that education and income, as Onica mentioned, are key drivers of digital access and use. But it means that we need targeted policies to address these. And our recommendations themselves need to be nuanced as to how this will actually take place and who would be the custodians of those kinds of efforts. So it broadens, in fact, our policy engagement audience. So while it’s not strictly, I suppose, data samples, I think there’s also that value, as Onica mentioned, in understanding the lived experiences, particularly in our context where we’re seeing this huge variation. We also need to understand attitudes across the ages and across the different segments, cultural barriers, specific use cases that draw particular people in. And then also what they consider trusted community channels. And are we exploiting that to the extent that we can? We know that cultural and linguistic barriers in schools with Internet connectivity place additional constraints. So while we might have focused on getting schools connected, are we really seeing some of those linguistic barriers and those cultural barriers that are preventing children from being able to meaningfully leverage online services? And we also know that digital exclusion… is now coming out of this data, and I suppose it’s longitudinal value, is compounded when these factors intersect. And I suppose that’s one of the challenges we take into this conversation, and I hope we return to the funding conversation because that’s an important one. But as we progress and as we get more adaptive in this space, I think we need to be able to deal with this data in a way in which we appreciate the value of the intersectional data that’s coming out and the range of inequalities that we’re seeing and how they intersect, especially for women, as Onica mentioned. But now we also know that there are intersections between drivers and barriers. So, for instance, young people in informal settlements access the internet through shared phones because they might be hungry for job

Morten Meyerhoff Nielsen: content or maybe to access bursaries, but they’re also accessing it at much higher costs. And what do we do with that information? So, I suppose, without sounding like a data geek, the data is very telling, but I suppose the challenge for us is what do we do with the data? What I hear, and correct me if I’m wrong, from all of you, including Gillian, and also reflects a little bit of the discussion we have internally at the office, is you can look at data in different levels. The national level data will be basically a heat map, the classical data. Have you used it for X, Y, Z? What’s your feature? What’s your user profile on a high level? Gives us a heat map that then allows us to say, oh, here we don’t have to worry. Everything is bright green. Here there’s something going on, but let’s wait and see. But here’s something flashing red. We need to dive into that, and based on that heat map, you know, okay, it seems to be around a socioeconomic fragment in this geographical region that has these such and others. We look at the context and see what is it really going on. But it means that we can target our decision-maker. So we layer our data and we dive in where we see the red lights flashing sort of speak, but where everything is green, we don’t have to worry. Is that correctly sort of pulled out on sort of the logic in terms of the data segmentation when it comes to the granularity, or did I misunderstand you a little bit? Any thoughts? I would say, Morten, maybe to challenge it, that it’s a

Pria Chetty: dynamic space. And so I would also exercise caution around the green. And as you mentioned, I think when you started the session, you said there’s value in the timing. And at the moment, the cycles, they’re long. And so how long does the green stay green? And what are the variations impacting the green? I mean, we’ve learned lessons coming out of the pandemic. So, you know, you’ve got, yeah, so we have to be cautious with the green. Oh, yeah, for sure. Yeah. I think at best, the segmentation just really allows us to be able to monitor, you know, what’s happening, but also to begin to think about frameworks of accountability, right? Because a lot of these divides happen within the context of a slew of policies that are there to drive inclusion, you know, whether we are doing it using the universal service and access funds, or we have broadband policies that actually are very explicit about closing the digital divides. But, you know, I think that this segmentation really helps us to be able to monitor, are we truly being effective? Are we being targeted in this? And what is the accountability framework after 20 years of this? Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I think it’s really important to have a broadband policy that says this, and yet the results on the ground look starkly different from that. It’s not a silver bullet, you know, I think as we were talking also about just how do we fund this data collection, I was just thinking about just sort of an underutilized resource that exists in data collection right now, but it’s underutilized because it requires a lot of transformation, and that is national census data. You know, every 10 years, with no fail, most countries find money to collect national census data, but how many of us have engaged with the national census bureaus to get them to transform their line of questioning, to begin to collect even digital-related data? We’re successful with Mozambique, but then once that happens, you have another challenge, so you’ve collected all this incredible data about use of digital technologies within the country, then what? That’s another resource to invest in analyzing the data and being able to make sure that it truly is utilized to inform intervention strategies, to inform policymaking, so it’s a continuous cycle, I think it’s one of those where we have to continue to work while chewing

Morten Meyerhoff Nielsen: gum at the same time. I’m smiling because I was studying in the UK back in 1999-2000, and I was counted twice for the census back then because I happened to have been on two different addresses when they came knocking on the door, and I wasn’t actually formally registered as living in the UK at the time, so, you know, there’s also a bit of data clearance, and being Danish, we haven’t actually had a census for, I think, 50 years because we don’t need to do it. Our population registry is 99.9% proof. So, they do a sampling and they do a direct survey out with all these things on an annual basis. So, again, different context means that your data methodology and your data collection may vary. And I think that’s a key thing. But I agree that censuses can be one tool, but again, it’s a snapshot every 10 years, and the data is already outdated the next day because things change, as you’re saying. Anyway, Fabio, before we open up to and ask Carmen for any reflections online and then to the audience here, any thoughts?

Fabio Senne: No, yes, I agree with this discussion of the cycle. It’s interesting because if you take, there’s a very strong correlation between the GDP of countries and the availability of statistics on digital matters. And, of course, you can ask, is it because the statistics help countries to develop or, on the other side, because they are developed, they have money to fund the statistics? I think it’s both. And what Onica was saying that I think is very key to us is sometimes with more segmentation you can make the green area very not green. And one example is the discussion on meaningful connectivity in Brazil. Because we had, if you take our general figures, we are about to complete 90% of the population having online services or any connection to the internet. So, you can say that we are, the country is in a green line that we only have 10% disconnected. But when you go to the, when you include devices and availability of the connection and affordability and skills and other things, our figure is much worse. We only have 22% of the total population that we consider in our indicator with meaningful connectivity. So, including these hidden gaps, this also works for gender. So, if you take an overall picture, there’s not much difference, there’s not significant difference between women and men in terms of basic access to the Internet. But when we go to the indicators of meaningful connectivity, we see a 10% gap in the country in comparison of women and men in terms of meaningful connectivity. So, this closure in these gaps, I think it’s very important for this type of research. But of course, the connection with good data and good policy is not immediate. So, we understood this in CETIC, so that’s why we do also capacity building along with UNU and other partners. We do capacity building for civil servants and other strategies because we know that it’s not sufficient to have good data and the policies will get better immediately. So, you need to invest also in this connection.

Morten Meyerhoff Nielsen: I think there’s some interesting observations over the years on also statistical feedback that points in different directions. For instance, I think it was about 10 years ago, we were looking at second generation digital divides from a strategical perspective, sort of econometrics and statistical analysis. And in sub-Saharan Africa, there were more people with access to the Internet than access to reliable electricity. And electricity is a precondition for charging your device and your router. So, you know, what does that mean? You need to dive into the context and see how many people have alternative access to electricity. But it’s also quite a positive signal about how inventive people can be in order to have access to electricity. in order to assure they get access to something where they see a perceived value, which is something that we talked about earlier. Anyway, I’d like to just hand over to Carmen, who’s our online moderator. She’s also from the Global Digital Inclusion Program. And Carmen, is there any observations or questions from the online audience that you’d like to bring to our attention? I think Carmen is saying something, but it’s not coming up on the audio. Could we maybe turn up the sound for Carmen online? Hi. Can you hear me now? Yes. Okay, great. Sorry about that.

Carmen Ferri: So, we have one question in the chat, which is, how can we ensure that the segmented data collection respects the privacy and dignity of marginalized communities? Anyone from the panel that’d like to tackle that one?

Pria Chetty: And in the meantime, if there’s any questions for the audience, please raise your hand. So, maybe everyone’s looking at me because they know that I’m a lawyer. But let me start with that. I think that, I mean, there’s many facets to this, and they aren’t just the legal regulatory aspects. And so, at the very outset, I suppose, in defining the data that you’re collecting and understanding the value of the segmentation, it doesn’t necessarily include personally identifiable information. And so, in some ways, you are freed from the data protection legislation or the privacy legislation to the extent that you are not collecting personally identifiable information. So, I think that’s the first cautionary. The element that’s beyond just the legal and regulatory elements and the concerns around privacy and the perceptions around privacy… and the willingness to participate in this. I think our methodological learning has been the value of having local participation in the collection of the data. And so what you need is also buy-in for the process, and I suppose to distinguish good data from bad data, that you’ve got a willing data provider that is willing to give you the data that you need. And so by using local researchers who are able to also deal with language gaps, understand maybe the concerns of the community in participating on such a survey, you’re likely to address not just the privacy concerns

Onica Makwakwa: but the overall concerns about participation in the data collection itself. I would actually also say, just stepping away a little bit from even regulatory and legal issues, I think ethics, coming from a continent that for the most part we feel overly searched, there’s sort of this gaze on Africa in general around our way of living and all of that. It’s really important to make sure that we are working with local partners and not coming in from a global organization to study these people. We’ve got a history and a baggage that comes with that very approach, and so maybe also just assuming a decolonized approach towards collecting the data so that people consent, people understand also how we are going to utilize this data, and you bring them along so that they are part of the program as well and understand why you are collecting the data. I would like to give you an example about the number of people who are connected to the internet vis-à-vis the number of people with electricity. Because I think one of the studies that raised a huge gasp was one that compared to the number of people with mobile phones and toothbrushes. And it’s those type of narratives that, you know, when we step back and look at them, like, what exactly are you trying to argue, you know, in comparing number of mobile phones and number of toothbrushes? Because if anything, it actually exposed the ignorance of the researcher themselves, because there’s other ways of keeping dental health that’s not just only a Western toothbrush and toothpaste kind of methodology, right? So local context is not just kind of coming in and having taken me out for coffee and having a conversation with me over coffee, but it’s also really about allowing me to also within the community lead some of that collecting of research. So we’re not just kind of swooping in and, you know, having the consultants that we have, but, you know, empowering local communities also to be part of that data collection process

Fabio Senne: as well. Okay. Yeah, no, just, I think those questions are discussed a lot in the data community debates we have. UN has a UN data forum, which is a space where those types of topics are discussed. And it’s interesting because there are some trends related to what my colleagues just said. For instance, there is a concept of citizen generated data, which is now trendy in a lot of contexts where in specific contexts, you can have the citizens involved in the process of generating data with more quality, less costs, and so on. So this is a trend. So, one discussion that I think is relevant for this is that when, with the spread of mobile connections and increasing the number of internet users and digital platforms, there was a general expectation, especially among governments, that the problems of data will be solved because everybody is connected to some device and there will be traces, we know where people go, what they do online, and we have plenty of data, in a data-fied society, we have plenty of data, we don’t need monitoring or surveys anymore because the problem is solved. And now the data communities, there’s a pushback in the discussion, okay, we need complementary sources of data, sometimes we did not solve yet the thing of the digital platforms, much of the data are private and not shared for policy purposes, so there’s a discussion on how to access those types of data. Now you have satellites that provide other types of very interesting data and can be combined, so I think the data community is now in a process of, okay, we need to combine different sources to get the better solutions from cities and generate the data to more technological tools that can provide the best information you can for policymaking. I just want to double check, is there anyone in the audience that have any observations or questions that they would like to highlight? If so, please feel free. I see no one moving. Yes, please come up to the microphone. And please introduce yourself.

Morten Meyerhoff Nielsen: Thank you.

Audience: Hi, I’m Kiho Oshima and I’m a master’s student in the University of Bremen in Germany and I’m studying digital media and society. And I was wondering, you mentioned about privacy of citizens and how do you see the consent to the use of data for citizens, so especially those who are marginalized systematically, like maybe there are people who of course would not like to share their data because of the sensitivity, and also there are cases like those data are used to profile them and expect criminals or something like that, and that’s used in a way that reinforces marginalizations again. how maybe would you consider like including digital rights education and also providing like opt-in and opt-out options so that they know that not only their rights but also how to exercise their rights or would that be too big scale or to implement or something like that? And another thing is yeah so how do we prevent the use of segmented data to be interpreted or used in the way that could reinforce? So when we use data how do you prevent and

Morten Meyerhoff Nielsen: those kind of use in a way that would reinforce marginalization? Yes I would like to. Excellent questions I think particularly we can start with the privacy but I particularly like the sort of how do we use data so we don’t reinforce insisting patterns of exclusion for instance is really really interesting. Anyone want to? No I think these are very good questions

Fabio Senne: from the perspective of privacy we have a very interesting survey that we did with individuals in Brazil asking them about what they perceive about their privacy online and data protection and so on. This survey is very interesting because from one side there’s a growing concern among citizens about how the data are collected and uses. The main topic in the case of Brazil is face facial recognition for instance or when there are this type of data collection is considered the more the one that they are more concerned and also health data so health data is ultra sensitive and people feel worried about those two particular types of sensitive data. But it’s also interesting that still there is not much literacy on understanding how digital platforms collect data from people. So, there’s more concern regarding, for instance, financial frauds or something that has to do with payments. Then, when you go to a social media and put your photos, there’s not much understanding of how this model of data collection works. But when it comes to financial data and frauds, they are more concerned because it’s very objective. Very, very interesting. If we’re looking at addressing or collecting data to address the digital divide, do we need that level of that type of personal data as in what have I paid for, what is my health data? No, no. We do not, do we? Yes, I think there are two different. Traditionally, typically, in the data for policies collection, you have anonymized data even for survey or for administrative. You know, for instance, in Denmark, you know that you have so sophisticated administrative data that you even don’t need to ask people things because you have… It becomes a political risk assessment whether or not we want to use it. And there’s a discussion, there are different solutions, whether in some countries you cannot ask for ethnicity issues because there is concern of this can… So, each society will have different solutions. I can speak about the case of Brazil. There is not a distrust, a necessary distrust. When you provide information to the government, for instance, we have a very important social income program that is national, and to be in this program the government needs to know where the poor people are, so there is this trust in some cases you have to provide data. It is also the case of public health, so public health data can ensure that you are focusing on the right person. But there are some discussions on what type of data needs to be collected. Because that is a very interesting topic for discussion on access to actual opportunities through technology,

Morten Meyerhoff Nielsen: access to banking services online, access to the benefit of shopping online, government services online. And that is a very interesting element. I like that question because I think it is important for us, especially in platforms like this, to continue to raise awareness about this as a major concern for digital consumers in particular.

Onica Makwakwa: I think it is an indication of the trust deficit that exists even amongst all of the stakeholders and even an entity like IGF, for example. One example I will give is during COVID-19, most countries adopted COVID-19 tracking apps where you were encouraged to download something on your phone. I just know that for a lot of people in my country personally, we have learned that after we signed up for something related to COVID-19, we started receiving SMSs from a particular political party for the next local election campaigns that happened immediately after COVID-19. So, there really is that bridge of data privacy, right? But what I also want to encourage us as digital rights advocates is that when it comes to data, the offline and the online should not be any different. All of us probably, I don’t think it happened here in Norway, but in most countries, when we visit and you check it at a hotel, including in your own country, the receptionist takes your passport and makes a photocopy of it, and you leave and leave that photocopy of your passport behind when you check out, right? You know, let’s ask this question around data privacy and safety even in these offline instances where a security officer at a building asks for a copy of your passport or your ID number and all of that. All of those are interrelated and they’re not just unique to data, and I think we’ll make better progress in educating people around also protecting themselves in terms of their data. But as far as the data collected for research, GDIP as well uses anonymized data, so there’s really no way to be able to track who or what, but certainly from an exclusion and location point of view, certain communities could come out as vulnerable, right? And I think we need to be honest and open to exploring some of that. You know, the challenge, though, is that if you don’t count it, then it really doesn’t exist and no one has the opportunity to actually address some of these gaps. Priya, you’ve been indicating you have something to say here, so I’ll let you continue on this track. Yes. This is so close to, I suppose, the work that excites me the most, and it’s in the data

Pria Chetty: for good space, and I think your question really, for me, triggered this question about data for good or data for bad and, you know, how do we manage that? And so, you know, we said that this kind of data might fall outside of the data protection kind of regulatory space, but I want to say that even for non-personal data, there is no reason why we can’t. can’t exercise some of those standards that we would apply to personal data. And so, you know, if you’re collecting personal data, you are limited by the purpose for which you collected it, and you need to use it within those confines of why you collected it. You’ve got to uphold certain security standards. You’ve got to exercise a level of restraint and collect only what you need. And so there are valid principles that can be taken into how we do this kind of work, because I, you know, to Fabio’s point about the technology running away from us and citizen-generated data, we have to get very serious about, you know, not just personal data protection, but the protection of data sets, even the aggregated ones, because there are those harms attached to it, and there are those opportunities also linked to it. And so something that we’re working on is just trying to understand, you know, in the way that the data sets are compiled and made available and the value that sits in them, who actually gets value from it? And what about the citizen and the communities that have contributed their data? To what extent can they also then have access to it? So one of the questions we can ask ourselves is that, you know, have we meaningfully engaged with the community when we receive the results to, you know, to talk, to have a conversation with them about what this means and the decision set that they have to improve their digital inclusion, you know, characterization? And so do we take that data back to them, and do we allow them to use it? There may be budding entrepreneurs in the communities, and, you know, once they have access to this data, to know who’s connected and using what, maybe there are, you know, some level of enterprise that can emerge locally. There are many cases like this where we have to force ourselves to think about, you know, when we have the data, what do we do with it? And have we created a pathway to go back to the community and back to the citizen and make sure some of those benefits sit there? I think Annika and Fabio mentioned in some ways that the digital inclusion problem globally in the development world is big business. And so, in some ways, you know, we’ve got a willing buyer for this kind of data. But I think that doesn’t excuse us from the freedom to say,

Audience: how can we use this data responsibly, but also to get value locally from the data. It was actually a very… Do you have a follow-up? It’s really intriguing to me that to balance approaching marginalized groups, and to do that, we need to use the data. But at the same time, they need to be protected because they are marginalized at the same time. And I think I’m really intrigued to see this balance, and how it will be realized, or maybe it’s really difficult. Because even for me, looking at terms and conditions, I would skip or I would not read every sentence. But I also think that those designs can be improved. So, it’s really user-friendly. And I would just see in one site that, okay, this I would want to say yes, but this no. Also for the cookies.

Morten Meyerhoff Nielsen: It’s interesting. It comes back to that layering of data, I think. And there was an interesting example here in Norway a couple of years ago, where the journalists at the national broadcasters went and bought data from the World Wide Web, marketing data from social media, from the banks, etc. And they could basically layer it, and they identified a Ministry of Defense employer to his local commute from his home, his place of work, who he was married to, where his kids get to school, when he dropped off the kids and when the wife dropped off the kids. And it was really interesting in terms of that anonymized data, but when you have a specific objective in mind and you start layering, they could actually identify it. and many others. So, how do we identify those types of patterns from this individual? I mean, it was obviously a journalistic investigation, but it raises some concern even around anonymized data. But how do we take and build that into some of these sort of regional and global frameworks? How much data do we need also to compare ourselves? Country to country or region to region, city to city? So, how do we do that? And how do we do that in a way that we can make sure that the data we have are really key in order to ensure that we get as many people online so they can enjoy the opportunities of the World Wide Web and similar while minimizing the negative impacts of the data collection? Onica?

Onica Makwakwa: I would add to that, I mean, I think this brings us back to for my ears around open data, right? So, I think the question is, how do we leverage open data for a community? So, they may be looking at, you know, beyond access in terms of digital skills, but I might be interested in something closely related to that, maybe women specifically, but they’ve desegregated their data. They’ve collected the data. I think the other question is, how do we leverage existing data sets amongst the people who are in the digital world, and how do we do that in a way that’s, you know, we’ve

Morten Meyerhoff Nielsen: got this fragmentation of desegregation of populations and all these factors so that not everyone has to collect the same data from the same group of people as well? It’s a very interesting challenge. We had this discussion with our colleagues in Brazil when we were doing a study on youth and young adults, so the under-18-year-olds and the young-adults were defined as size 12-year-olds and other under-again It’s 15 to 18 year olds. So, you know, there was some data variation and we see the same actually in some internal research We’re doing on the digital gender divide where even if there is data collection by research teams They they segmented they do excellent work excellent data collection But they forgot to use the same age groups as for instance the National Statistical Data Agency Which means that it makes it data work and the data analysis more time-consuming or less impactful because there were some small mistakes or small missed Opportunities in alignment of data from different sources. So are there some some some national regional or even global sort of Standards or rules of thumb that you would recommend when it comes to segmentation

Fabio Senne: We’ve talked about age and income levels. We’ve talked about activities online Are there any ones that you think are almost like universal that you would would recommend that you look at? What I can comment is that I agree there are different levels of data that that you can And with etc. We try to do both. So For one side, there is a global discussion on minimal standards of data there is the the UN partnership on measuring STT for development with set meaningful rules for And and because of that we can compare data from Brazil and other countries. So we more or less follow this This this international standards and there are debates on What to measure and how to measure including a list of Disaggregations. I’ve also mentioned the G20 case where there are also recommendations for disaggregating the meaningful connectivity data. So, this is at a global level. But, what I think is important is that, different from the past, when we normally have all the data from one country concentrated in one national institute of statistics or institution. Nowadays, there is an ecosystem of data. The data is not only in public settings, but also in civil society, in the private sector. And, coordinating these efforts, I think it’s key. And, also within governance, sometimes we have silos that don’t talk to each other. So, educational data is not linked to financial data and you cannot cross this type of thing. So, more or less, we believe that this is a discussion on an ecosystem that manages data that is not only public, but public and private. It’s key for making solutions. And, of course, the data that one municipality wants for planning urban mobility is totally different from a national ministry of education planning. So, this type of granularity will come depending on the policy need you have.

Morten Meyerhoff Nielsen: Freya, Onica Makwakwa?

Pria Chetty: It’s very clear from the discussion we’re having today that, even though it’s not broad-based, the segmentation work is reaching a particular level of sophistication and maturity. But, as Onica Makwakwa mentioned, we’re not comparing notes. And so, the opportunity, if there was any kind of regional collaboration or there was an initiative at a global level, is to bring the key players together to understand the different methodologies. And, UNESCO has set up some tools and indicator sets that can be leveraged. But, what is it that has come from this qualitative work and from these unique combinations that we mentioned and these intersections that also add to those frameworks that exist? And, how can we develop it so that the data is more reliable and more accessible? I think what we’re being challenged to do as an organization now is make the data more accessible to people who have questions that we never conceived of. And, I think, to also anticipate that they aren’t researchers and they aren’t policy experts, but they will have data. very unique requirements from the data set and how can you create something that is accessible and allows them to use that data in ways that you haven’t conceived of. So imagining that it’s going beyond this community and it’s being used in new ways because that’s what we’re seeing now that we can’t really identify how the data will be used but we want to make it accessible for uses that we didn’t conceive of. I want to exercise, yeah, I suppose some caution I would say in bringing the data together. I think it needs to be very deliberate and very well intentioned because there’s the potential and propensity there for massive harm if the data is, you know, brought together in ways that we lose that element of control or accountability for why we initially brought it and put the data together. And there’s so many examples where, you know, data lakes have gone badly and introduces just a range of vulnerabilities. So it isn’t, I’m not

Morten Meyerhoff Nielsen: sharing an excitement to bring all the data together without thinking through very carefully what is the process that we use and how do we get a little more adaptive, I suppose, in the way that we… We hear some very interesting reflections also from policymakers and civil servants including in regions like East Africa where you have these massive drives for data lakes but without having a data classification scheme that says this is data that you can easily rely on because it’s high quality. This is not as high quality because that defines how will I interpret the results.

Onica Makwakwa: Just one of the exercises we did in Ghana several years ago and that was to create a data and research working group where they mainly focused on kind of mapping where existing ICT data was within the country, so that as researchers, they kind of talk to each other, they know who has what data and what frequency, you know, how frequent is that data updated, including some level of success at bringing some of the operators, the mobile operators, in place. They are obviously also sitting with tons of data that we may or may not find useful, right? But it wasn’t about bringing all the data in one place, but just really having a sense of a mapping of, you know, who has what data and, you know, being able to also negotiate some openness for researchers who may be interested in doing research and looking at particular issues to be able to know, you know, where they can rely on. It also reduces the size of household surveys that you have to do when you realize that you don’t need 40 questions because this particular

Morten Meyerhoff Nielsen: operator, you know, the three operators within the country can tick off maybe 10 of those. I’m loving that because it was actually the topic of some recommendations CETIC and UNUEGOV did in a G20 policy brief last year under the Brazilian presidency, as in, in 155 countries you must present legal identity in order to get a mobile phone or internet connection. Is there ways and models that we can use that and the telco licensing for the telco providers to provide us a snapshot on gender, on age groups, on basic elements that are anonymized to the telco regulator so they get that snapshot but then also provide certain usage data like on certain types of IP addresses like online commerce, banking, again, so you get that data in snapshots but anonymized. to create sort of the initial heat maps, lower the burden of data collection that then allows you to also dive into the context of the green flashing lights but it gives, it’s a new model and and with the telco regulators you can potentially create those type of partnerships by making it part of the operational responsibility to provide certain types of data so decision makers can address the digital divide and spend more time on on diving into the specific challenges in the context rather than these blanket decisions. So they are some potential models at play there. I would just checking the audience to see if there’s another set of questions before I raise the last question to the audience. I’ve seen online, there’s no more questions online but if you were gonna do one recommendations that you would ideally like to see happen in the segmentation of data collection to address the digital divide, to make those better decisions, what would that one recommendation be for the next 12 months?

Fabio Senne: Well I can start, this is a very difficult question but I think there’s one thing that we kind of discussed but I would like to reinforce is that for a long time that’s because we do mostly surveys or they interview one individual so we try to think about digital inclusion as an individual characteristic. So you take gender and age and all these factors and you think we are talking about individuals but most of the problems are collectives, collective problems. So there’s lots of discussion on community networks, how how communities can build innovative models for digital inclusion. Schools are also important in this debate. In Brazil, we have libraries as one of the most spread public infrastructure that also need to be engaged. So, I do think that, try to think more in collective measures or collective exercise to understand better the situation. One small example, in this meaningful connectivity study, apart from having one indicator, does the household have a computer, which is a traditional indicator that everybody measures. We decided to calculate, okay, but if the household has one person and one computer, you are okay, but if you have one computer and ten people living there fighting from the same device, what will be the quality of the use? So, we decided to calculate a ratio of people per device, or you can do this with income, what’s the percentage of the income of the device. So, this type of thing thinks the household as a collective of people rather than individual. So, I think facing the collective challenges is useful for policy in digital inclusion.

Morten Meyerhoff Nielsen: I won’t answer the question, but I’ll just pick up on what you just said around looking at household v. individual.

Onica Makwakwa: And that’s because we actually did an evaluation of a model, a subsidy model of one tablet per household in Uganda, which was very successful. They focused mainly on female-led households, used USF funds to actually… provide a tablet per household. And very interesting stories, please do look it up on our website, on how that actually helped to empower, you know, the least suspected subject for that intervention. And, you know, even though the focus was mainly with the women in the households, it’s the children who actually benefited the most, and it’s education that was highly impacted by that initiative. So, I really like that notion that, you know, it’s really important for us to also just sort of look at communities the way they are organized.

Morten Meyerhoff Nielsen: I mean, there was some interesting discussions between the ITU and the Arab regions technical working group for statistics, where actually the recommendations from the Arab group on the definition of a household got changed by ITU, because it wasn’t, it was based on a traditional nuclear family, you know, global north concept, and not on multi-generational or alternative household structures that you see all over the world, even in the global north. So, it was really, really interesting in that regard. But I’m taking away the time from Priya to either address the same question, or come up with an actionable suggestion for the

Pria Chetty: next 12 months. Yeah, maybe I suppose, maybe put differently, what is the question that keeps me up at night for this kind of work? And I would say it’s about the sustainability of the work, and the adaptation maybe of methodologies, and how we do it. And, I mean, it takes a long time, and it’s quite costly, and to do it well, you’ve got to really have the local participation, and so on. So, how do we build on the current methodologies, and how do we make it more sustainable? And how do we make sure that there’s continued interest in the process to get this data, because there’s high levels of interest in the data, but not always in the process to collect the data. And linked to that sustainability question for me is, then, what is the compelling way? in which we approach the sharing and exchange of data. And as you spoke about the opportunity with the telecoms firms, I would say to you the biggest challenge, because they would probably be doing that analysis already and have all that kind of segmentation there. They have different reasons for it. But to get them to share it as data for good, how do we present a compelling case to them? How do we build those incentive structures? And if we don’t figure that out, I feel that this work will not be sustainable, because it will be replaced by quicker technical measures that don’t necessarily have the rigour attached to it. So yes, we’ve got to balance innovation with some of the traditional methodologies. We’ve got to adapt it. But how are we going to do that to make sure we don’t ever lose these insights?

Morten Meyerhoff Nielsen: Thank you. Just to try and summarise a little bit on the key takeaways that I’ve seen is that there’s a general consensus that we need better segmented data around gender, income levels, location, education and so forth. But there’s also a recognition that will only get us so far. To address the digital divide, we need to then go down and analyse the contextual, which becomes, to paraphrase Onica Makwakwa, is more of a qualitative assessment. It is not a statistical empirical assessment. And there’s also, I think, more or less a consensus on the panel and with the audience that, yes, we need to balance this sort of anonymisation with privacy when we start layering data across different elements. And then lastly, that there are some opportunities for different types of partnerships for data collection, both with the private sector, and many others. We have been working with a number of partners, particularly telcos, but also with local communities and getting them involved in driving the decisions in order to also target the more tailored initiatives that will include them and give them the opportunities for being digitally included and benefit from that. And we’ll also focus on that. We’ve also now managed to offer an effect things in multiple styles with combination divides in there that doesn’t just go by genetic or income level but are cross-cutting – I forgot what you called it, Pria. Inter odpowiagonal, both on the divide and the inclusion. And we’ve now managed to offer a combination of both of those styles. We have a lot of information on there and details. We will be summarising the discussion of this panel and provide it online in the next couple of weeks. Obviously, the panellists will have a chance to also comment on that draft. But we’ll be sharing that. In the meantime, don’t hesitate to reach out to any of us or to our organisations if you have further questions. We hope that still, in the near future, more discussion of airline logistics can take place. Thank you very much, and enjoy the next couple of days of IGF. Thank you. .

Agreement points

Need for segmented data collection beyond basic connectivity metrics

Speakers

– Guilherme Canela De Souza Godoi
– Fabio Senne
– Onica Makwakwa
– Pria Chetty
– Morten Meyerhoff Nielsen

Arguments

UNESCO provides comprehensive indicator sets like Internet Universality Indicators based on five pillars (rights, openness, accessibility, multi-stakeholderism) that member states can use for evidence-based policies

G20 has recognized the need for segmented monitoring beyond basic connectivity, requiring disaggregation by demographic, economic, and geographic variables

Meaningful connectivity indicators show much lower inclusion rates than basic access statistics – Brazil has 90% basic internet access but only 22% meaningful connectivity

Segmented data collection reveals gender-specific barriers like affordability, safety concerns, and monitoring by family members that regular surveys miss

Research ICT Africa’s after-access research combines quantitative and qualitative methods to understand usage patterns, digital literacy levels, and trust issues

Current frameworks are supply-oriented, focusing on basic usage rather than meaningful connectivity and demand-side activities

Summary

All speakers agree that traditional binary connectivity measures (connected/not connected) are insufficient and that comprehensive segmented data collection is essential to understand the true nature of digital inclusion and exclusion

Topics

Development | Digital access

Importance of qualitative approaches and local context in data collection

Speakers

– Onica Makwakwa
– Pria Chetty
– Fabio Senne

Arguments

Qualitative approaches and policy ethnography help surface hidden gaps and context-specific barriers that quantitative data alone cannot capture

Digital centers built for rural women failed because they didn’t account for women’s daily schedules and safety concerns when walking to centers

Local participation in data collection addresses privacy concerns and ensures willing participation from communities

Geographic disaggregation within cities reveals unexpected patterns, such as high connectivity but low socioeconomic status in specific neighborhoods

Summary

Speakers consistently emphasize that quantitative data alone is insufficient and that qualitative methods with strong local participation are essential to understand the real barriers and contexts affecting digital inclusion

Topics

Development | Human rights principles

Need for multi-stakeholder and collaborative approaches to data collection

Speakers

– Guilherme Canela De Souza Godoi
– Fabio Senne
– Onica Makwakwa
– Pria Chetty

Arguments

Brazil’s CETIC model uses multi-stakeholder approach with expert groups to define what to measure, adjusting data production to decision-maker demands

Modern data ecosystems span public, private, and civil society sectors, requiring coordination rather than relying solely on national statistics institutes

Mapping existing data sources within countries reduces survey burden and helps researchers know what data is available from different stakeholders

Data collection sustainability requires building incentive structures for private sector participation and making compelling cases for data sharing

Summary

All speakers agree that effective data collection requires collaboration across sectors and stakeholders, moving beyond traditional single-institution approaches to leverage diverse data sources and expertise

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

Recognition of collective rather than individual nature of digital inclusion challenges

Speakers

– Fabio Senne
– Onica Makwakwa

Arguments

Digital inclusion should be viewed as collective rather than individual challenges, considering community networks, schools, and libraries as infrastructure

Household-level analysis reveals important dynamics like device-sharing ratios and income allocation that individual-focused measures miss

One tablet per household programs in Uganda successfully empowered female-led households, with unexpected benefits for children’s education

Communities should be involved in leading data collection processes rather than being passive subjects of external research

Summary

Speakers agree that digital inclusion is fundamentally a collective challenge requiring community-level solutions and household-level analysis rather than focusing solely on individual characteristics

Topics

Development | Infrastructure

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize the critical importance of gender-disaggregated data and the inadequacy of national averages for understanding women’s experiences with digital technologies, particularly in highly unequal societies

Speakers

– Onica Makwakwa
– Pria Chetty

Arguments

Segmented data collection reveals gender-specific barriers like affordability, safety concerns, and monitoring by family members that regular surveys miss

National averages fail to serve women and marginalized groups, particularly in highly unequal societies like South Africa where income stratification is essential

Research ICT Africa’s after-access research combines quantitative and qualitative methods to understand usage patterns, digital literacy levels, and trust issues

Topics

Gender rights online | Development

Both speakers advocate for methodological innovation that combines traditional surveys with new data sources and technologies, while recognizing the sustainability challenges of comprehensive data collection

Speakers

– Fabio Senne
– Pria Chetty

Arguments

Methodological innovation should combine surveys with geospatial data and other sources, such as real-time connectivity quality monitoring in schools

Citizen-generated data and satellite data provide complementary sources that can be combined with traditional surveys

Data collection sustainability requires building incentive structures for private sector participation and making compelling cases for data sharing

Topics

Development | Infrastructure

Both speakers emphasize the ethical dimensions of data collection, advocating for decolonized approaches that prioritize local participation and community leadership in research processes

Speakers

– Onica Makwakwa
– Pria Chetty

Arguments

Decolonized approaches to data collection are essential, working with local partners rather than external researchers studying communities

Local participation in data collection addresses privacy concerns and ensures willing participation from communities

Anonymized data collection for policy purposes typically falls outside personal data protection regulations but should still follow ethical standards

Topics

Human rights principles | Privacy and data protection

Unexpected consensus

Private sector data partnerships as essential for sustainability

Speakers

– Fabio Senne
– Pria Chetty
– Morten Meyerhoff Nielsen
– Onica Makwakwa

Arguments

Citizen-generated data and satellite data provide complementary sources that can be combined with traditional surveys

Data collection sustainability requires building incentive structures for private sector participation and making compelling cases for data sharing

Telecoms operators hold valuable segmented data that could support policy decisions through partnerships with regulators

Mapping existing data sources within countries reduces survey burden and helps researchers know what data is available from different stakeholders

Explanation

Despite typical concerns about private sector data control and privacy, there was unexpected consensus that partnerships with private sector entities, particularly telecoms, are essential for sustainable and comprehensive data collection. This represents a pragmatic recognition that traditional survey methods alone are insufficient and costly.

Topics

Development | Economic

Limitations of urban-rural binary classifications

Speakers

– Onica Makwakwa
– Fabio Senne

Arguments

Peri-urban populations often experience challenges similar to rural communities due to urban inequality, requiring more nuanced geographic classification beyond rural-urban

Most disconnected people are actually in urban areas due to population concentration, challenging assumptions about urban connectivity

Geographic disaggregation within cities reveals unexpected patterns, such as high connectivity but low socioeconomic status in specific neighborhoods

Explanation

There was unexpected consensus that traditional rural-urban classifications are inadequate for understanding digital divides. This challenges conventional wisdom about where digital exclusion occurs and suggests more nuanced geographic analysis is needed.

Topics

Development | Infrastructure

Overall assessment

Summary

The speakers demonstrated remarkably high consensus on fundamental issues around digital inclusion data collection, including the need for segmented data beyond basic connectivity, the importance of qualitative and local approaches, multi-stakeholder collaboration, and viewing digital inclusion as collective challenges. There was also unexpected agreement on pragmatic issues like private sector partnerships and the limitations of traditional geographic classifications.

Consensus level

Very high consensus with strong alignment on both methodological approaches and policy implications. This suggests a mature field where practitioners have converged on best practices through experience, creating a solid foundation for advancing digital inclusion measurement and policy interventions globally.

Different viewpoints

Data aggregation and sharing approaches

Speakers

– Pria Chetty
– Onica Makwakwa

Arguments

Data collection sustainability requires building incentive structures for private sector participation and making compelling cases for data sharing

Mapping existing data sources within countries reduces survey burden and helps researchers know what data is available from different stakeholders

Summary

Pria Chetty expressed caution about bringing data together due to potential for massive harm and vulnerabilities in data lakes, while Onica Makwakwa advocated for mapping and coordinating existing data sources. Pria emphasized the need for deliberate and well-intentioned processes with accountability, whereas Onica focused on practical coordination benefits.

Topics

Development | Privacy and data protection

Unexpected differences

Risk tolerance for data integration

Speakers

– Pria Chetty
– Onica Makwakwa

Arguments

Data collection sustainability requires building incentive structures for private sector participation and making compelling cases for data sharing

Mapping existing data sources within countries reduces survey burden and helps researchers know what data is available from different stakeholders

Explanation

This disagreement was unexpected because both speakers are from organizations focused on digital inclusion research and might be expected to have similar approaches to data coordination. Pria’s strong caution about data lakes and integration risks contrasted with Onica’s more optimistic view of data mapping and coordination benefits.

Topics

Development | Privacy and data protection

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion showed remarkable consensus among speakers on the need for better segmented data collection, the importance of qualitative approaches, and the value of local community involvement. The main area of disagreement was around data integration approaches, with differing views on risk tolerance and coordination strategies.

Disagreement level

Very low level of disagreement. The speakers largely complemented each other’s perspectives rather than conflicting. This high level of consensus suggests a mature field where practitioners have converged on core principles, but may indicate a need for more diverse perspectives to challenge existing approaches and drive innovation in digital inclusion data collection methodologies.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize the critical importance of gender-disaggregated data and the inadequacy of national averages for understanding women’s experiences with digital technologies, particularly in highly unequal societies

Speakers

– Onica Makwakwa
– Pria Chetty

Arguments

Segmented data collection reveals gender-specific barriers like affordability, safety concerns, and monitoring by family members that regular surveys miss

National averages fail to serve women and marginalized groups, particularly in highly unequal societies like South Africa where income stratification is essential

Research ICT Africa’s after-access research combines quantitative and qualitative methods to understand usage patterns, digital literacy levels, and trust issues

Topics

Gender rights online | Development

Both speakers advocate for methodological innovation that combines traditional surveys with new data sources and technologies, while recognizing the sustainability challenges of comprehensive data collection

Speakers

– Fabio Senne
– Pria Chetty

Arguments

Methodological innovation should combine surveys with geospatial data and other sources, such as real-time connectivity quality monitoring in schools

Citizen-generated data and satellite data provide complementary sources that can be combined with traditional surveys

Data collection sustainability requires building incentive structures for private sector participation and making compelling cases for data sharing

Topics

Development | Infrastructure

Both speakers emphasize the ethical dimensions of data collection, advocating for decolonized approaches that prioritize local participation and community leadership in research processes

Speakers

– Onica Makwakwa
– Pria Chetty

Arguments

Decolonized approaches to data collection are essential, working with local partners rather than external researchers studying communities

Local participation in data collection addresses privacy concerns and ensures willing participation from communities

Anonymized data collection for policy purposes typically falls outside personal data protection regulations but should still follow ethical standards

Topics

Human rights principles | Privacy and data protection

Key takeaways

Better segmented data collection is essential for addressing digital divides, requiring disaggregation by gender, income, location, education, age, and other demographic variables rather than relying on national averages

Qualitative research and policy ethnography are crucial for understanding hidden barriers and context-specific challenges that quantitative surveys alone cannot capture

Meaningful connectivity indicators reveal much lower digital inclusion rates than basic access statistics – highlighting the gap between having internet access and being able to use it effectively

Current digital inclusion frameworks are predominantly supply-oriented, focusing on basic usage rather than demand-side activities and quality of digital engagement

Local community participation in data collection is essential for addressing privacy concerns, ensuring cultural sensitivity, and obtaining reliable data from marginalized populations

Digital inclusion should be viewed as a collective challenge requiring household and community-level analysis rather than purely individual metrics

Data privacy and ethical considerations must be balanced with the need for segmented data, requiring anonymization, consent mechanisms, and decolonized research approaches

Alternative data sources including telecoms data, census information, geospatial data, and citizen-generated data can complement traditional surveys and reduce collection burden

Resolutions and action items

Panel discussion results will be summarized and shared online within the next couple of weeks, with panelists having opportunity to comment on the draft

Participants encouraged to reach out to panelists and their organizations for further questions and collaboration

Implicit commitment to continue developing segmented data collection methodologies and sharing best practices among organizations represented

Unresolved issues

How to ensure long-term sustainability and funding for comprehensive segmented data collection efforts, particularly in developing countries

How to create compelling incentive structures for private sector (especially telecoms) to share data for public good while maintaining commercial interests

How to prevent segmented data from being used to reinforce existing patterns of marginalization and exclusion

How to balance the need for detailed segmentation with privacy protection, particularly when layering multiple data sources

How to standardize segmentation categories globally while maintaining relevance to local contexts and needs

How to make segmented data more accessible to non-researchers and enable uses that weren’t originally conceived by data collectors

How to coordinate data collection across the ecosystem of public, private, and civil society actors to avoid duplication and gaps

How to adapt methodologies to be more sustainable and cost-effective while maintaining rigor and local participation

Suggested compromises

Using layered data approach where national-level data provides ‘heat maps’ to identify problem areas, then diving deeper with contextual analysis only where red flags appear

Combining multiple data sources (surveys, administrative data, telecoms data, satellite data) rather than relying on single collection methods

Applying data protection standards to non-personal data as a precautionary measure, even when not legally required

Engaging with national census bureaus to include digital-related questions rather than conducting separate comprehensive surveys

Creating data mapping exercises within countries to coordinate existing data sources rather than centralizing all data in one location

Focusing on anonymized, aggregated data for policy purposes while maintaining individual privacy protections

Balancing innovation in data collection methods with traditional rigorous methodologies to ensure reliability

Using household-level indicators alongside individual metrics to capture collective aspects of digital inclusion

But when you go to the, when you include devices and availability of the connection and affordability and skills and other things, our figure is much worse. We only have 22% of the total population that we consider in our indicator with meaningful connectivity… if you take an overall picture, there’s not much difference, there’s not significant difference between women and men in terms of basic access to the Internet. But when we go to the indicators of meaningful connectivity, we see a 10% gap in the country in comparison of women and men in terms of meaningful connectivity.

Speaker

Fabio Senne

Reason

This comment fundamentally challenges the conventional understanding of digital inclusion by revealing the stark difference between basic connectivity statistics and meaningful connectivity. It demonstrates how surface-level data can be misleading and mask significant inequalities.

Impact

This shifted the discussion from focusing on simple access metrics to understanding the complexity of digital inclusion. It reinforced the panel’s central argument about the need for segmented data and influenced subsequent discussions about the limitations of national averages and the importance of looking beyond basic connectivity measures.

National averages are just simply not serving women. They are not serving everyone else as well… anything around affordability that you are going to do in South Africa without stratifying the income quantiles, you are always going to get an over-inflated outcome that does not fully represent those who are at the bottom of the income quantiles.

Speaker

Onica Makwakwa

Reason

This comment powerfully articulates why aggregate data fails marginalized communities and provides a concrete example of how statistical methodology can perpetuate inequality by masking the experiences of the most vulnerable populations.

Impact

This comment became a cornerstone argument for the entire discussion, establishing the fundamental problem with current data collection approaches. It led to deeper exploration of intersectionality and influenced the conversation about policy ethnography and community-centered research approaches.

I think for a long time that’s because we do mostly surveys or they interview one individual so we try to think about digital inclusion as an individual characteristic… but most of the problems are collectives, collective problems… We decided to calculate a ratio of people per device, or you can do this with income, what’s the percentage of the income of the device. So, this type of thing thinks the household as a collective of people rather than individual.

Speaker

Fabio Senne

Reason

This comment introduces a paradigm shift from individual-focused to collective-focused analysis of digital inclusion, challenging the fundamental assumptions underlying most digital divide research and policy interventions.

Impact

This reframed the entire approach to data collection and analysis, leading to discussions about household dynamics, community networks, and collective solutions. It influenced Onica’s follow-up about successful household-based interventions and changed how participants thought about designing both research and policy interventions.

It’s those type of narratives that, you know, when we step back and look at them, like, what exactly are you trying to argue, you know, in comparing number of mobile phones and number of toothbrushes? Because if anything, it actually exposed the ignorance of the researcher themselves, because there’s other ways of keeping dental health that’s not just only a Western toothbrush and toothpaste kind of methodology.

Speaker

Onica Makwakwa

Reason

This comment brilliantly exposes the colonial and culturally biased assumptions embedded in development research, using a specific example to illustrate how researchers’ cultural blind spots can lead to problematic narratives about communities they study.

Impact

This comment elevated the discussion to address power dynamics, colonial legacies, and cultural sensitivity in research. It reinforced the importance of local participation and decolonized approaches, influencing the subsequent conversation about ethics, community engagement, and the need for local researchers to lead data collection processes.

How can we ensure that the segmented data collection respects the privacy and dignity of marginalized communities?

Speaker

Carmen Ferri (online moderator)

Reason

This question introduced a critical tension at the heart of the discussion – the need to collect detailed data about vulnerable populations while simultaneously protecting them from potential harm through that same data collection.

Impact

This question fundamentally shifted the discussion from technical and methodological considerations to ethical ones, sparking a rich conversation about privacy, consent, power dynamics, and the potential for data to reinforce marginalization. It led to discussions about decolonized research approaches and the balance between data utility and community protection.

There’s high levels of interest in the data, but not always in the process to collect the data… How do we build those incentive structures? And if we don’t figure that out, I feel that this work will not be sustainable, because it will be replaced by quicker technical measures that don’t necessarily have the rigour attached to it.

Speaker

Pria Chetty

Reason

This comment identifies a fundamental sustainability challenge in the field – the disconnect between demand for insights and willingness to invest in rigorous data collection processes, highlighting the risk of losing methodological rigor for convenience.

Impact

This comment brought the discussion full circle to practical implementation challenges and long-term sustainability. It influenced the final recommendations and highlighted the need for innovative partnerships and funding models, connecting back to earlier discussions about telco partnerships and alternative data sources.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shaped the discussion by progressively deepening and complicating the conversation about digital inclusion data. The discussion evolved from technical considerations about data segmentation to profound questions about methodology, ethics, power dynamics, and sustainability. Fabio’s insights about meaningful connectivity versus basic access established the empirical foundation for why current approaches are inadequate. Onica’s comments about national averages and cultural bias elevated the conversation to address systemic inequalities and colonial legacies in research. The privacy question introduced crucial ethical dimensions, while Pria’s sustainability concerns brought practical implementation challenges into focus. Together, these comments transformed what could have been a technical discussion about data collection into a nuanced exploration of how research methodology intersects with social justice, cultural sensitivity, and long-term impact. The comments built upon each other to create a comprehensive critique of current approaches while pointing toward more equitable and sustainable alternatives.

How can we ensure that the segmented data collection respects the privacy and dignity of marginalized communities?

Speaker

Online audience member (via Carmen Ferri)

Explanation

This addresses the critical balance between collecting necessary data to address digital divides while protecting vulnerable populations from potential harm or exploitation through data collection processes.

How can we prevent the use of segmented data to be interpreted or used in ways that could reinforce marginalization?

Speaker

Kiho Oshima (University of Bremen student)

Explanation

This highlights the risk that data intended to help marginalized communities could inadvertently be used to profile or further discriminate against them, requiring careful consideration of data governance and usage protocols.

How do we balance approaching marginalized groups with data collection needs while protecting them because they are marginalized?

Speaker

Kiho Oshima (University of Bremen student)

Explanation

This explores the fundamental tension between needing data about vulnerable populations to help them while simultaneously protecting them from potential harms of data collection and usage.

How can we build compelling incentive structures for private sector data sharing, particularly with telecommunications firms?

Speaker

Pria Chetty

Explanation

This addresses the sustainability challenge of data collection by exploring how to motivate private companies to share valuable data for public good purposes, which could significantly improve data availability and reduce collection costs.

How can we make segmented data collection more sustainable and adapt methodologies for long-term viability?

Speaker

Pria Chetty

Explanation

This focuses on the practical challenge of maintaining high-quality, locally-participatory data collection processes over time, given their high costs and resource requirements.

How can we leverage open data for communities and reduce fragmentation of data collection efforts?

Speaker

Onica Makwakwa

Explanation

This explores opportunities to maximize the utility of existing datasets and avoid duplicative data collection efforts while ensuring communities can benefit from and access relevant data about themselves.

How can we engage with national census bureaus to transform their data collection to include digital-related questions?

Speaker

Onica Makwakwa

Explanation

This identifies an underutilized opportunity to incorporate digital inclusion metrics into existing, well-funded national data collection infrastructure that occurs regularly across countries.

How can we develop regional collaboration frameworks to compare methodologies and improve data reliability and accessibility?

Speaker

Pria Chetty

Explanation

This addresses the need for coordination among organizations doing similar work to share best practices, standardize approaches where appropriate, and make data more accessible to diverse users with varying technical expertise.

How can we create data mapping exercises to identify existing ICT data sources within countries?

Speaker

Onica Makwakwa

Explanation

This suggests a systematic approach to cataloging available data sources, including from mobile operators and other private entities, to reduce survey burden and improve research efficiency.

How can we develop collective measures for digital inclusion rather than focusing solely on individual characteristics?

Speaker

Fabio Senne

Explanation

This challenges the traditional approach of measuring digital inclusion at the individual level and suggests exploring household, community, and collective indicators that better reflect how digital access and use actually occurs in practice.

Summary

This Day Zero session at the Internet Governance Forum focused on preparing internet infrastructure to support tomorrow’s digital economy, featuring speakers from regulatory bodies, technical organizations, and international development agencies. The discussion emphasized that robust internet infrastructure is a strategic necessity rather than a luxury, requiring collaboration across multiple stakeholder groups.

Norway’s representative highlighted their comprehensive approach, including 99.1% broadband coverage at 100+ Mbps, extensive 5G deployment, enhanced cybersecurity regulations aligned with EU directives, and infrastructure resilience through multiple autonomous transmission networks. Croatia’s regulator discussed the importance of balancing economic efficiency with security resilience, noting the challenge of justifying investments in redundant infrastructure that may only be needed during emergencies. The session emphasized agile regulation that supports innovation while maintaining security and trust.

Technical experts from ICANN and the Number Resource Organization stressed the critical role of multi-stakeholder collaboration in maintaining internet stability. They highlighted the importance of routing security through technologies like RPKI (Resource Public Key Infrastructure), which adds cryptographic verification to internet routing but remains underadopted globally. Smart Africa’s representative showcased continental initiatives like the One African Network project, which aims to eliminate roaming charges across 11 countries and demonstrates successful multi-stakeholder cooperation.

The UNDP presented their Digital Professional Development initiative for the Arab region, addressing the fact that 30% of the region remains unconnected. Their approach focuses on three pillars: promoting IPv6 adoption, supporting Internet Exchange Points (IXPs) for sustainable connectivity, and implementing RPKI for security. Throughout the discussion, speakers consistently emphasized that capacity building, education for general users, and long-term partnerships between governments, private sector, and technical communities are essential for creating resilient internet infrastructure that can support emerging technologies like AI and IoT while bridging the digital divide.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Infrastructure Investment and Connectivity Goals**: Discussion of national broadband strategies, with Norway achieving 99.1% household coverage at 100+ Mbps and targeting universal gigabit access by 2030, while addressing the challenge that 30% of the Arab region (100+ million people) remains unconnected to the internet.

– **Cybersecurity and Regulatory Frameworks**: Examination of comprehensive security approaches including alignment with EU directives (NIS2, Cyber Resilience Act), implementation of sectoral CERT coordination models, and the balance between economic efficiency and national security resilience requirements.

– **Technical Security Standards and Best Practices**: Focus on routing security through RPKI (Resource Public Key Infrastructure) adoption, with current statistics showing 50-60% prefix coverage but less than 25% of networks fully protected, plus discussion of emerging privacy technologies like encrypted DNS and encrypted client hello.

– **Multi-stakeholder Collaboration Models**: Emphasis on partnerships between governments, regulators, private sector, and technical communities, with examples including Smart Africa’s One African Network project spanning 11 countries and various capacity building initiatives across regions.

– **Capacity Building and Digital Skills Development**: Recognition of the need for both basic digital literacy for general users and specialized technical expertise for network operators, with organizations running hundreds of workshops and training programs to address regional-specific needs.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to address how internet infrastructure can be prepared to support tomorrow’s digital economy, focusing on the strategic necessity of technical preparedness rather than treating it as a luxury. The session sought to explore connectivity, security, and policy frameworks needed to create robust internet ecosystems globally.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a consistently professional and collaborative tone throughout. Speakers demonstrated expertise while acknowledging challenges, and there was a strong emphasis on partnership and shared responsibility. The tone remained constructive and forward-looking, with participants sharing concrete examples and actionable recommendations. Technical difficulties with some remote participants briefly interrupted the flow but didn’t detract from the overall positive and solution-oriented atmosphere.

Speakers

– **Chafic Chaya** – Regional Manager for Public Policy and Government Affairs for the RIPE NCC for the Middle East region, Session moderator

– **Frank Stien** – Representative from Norway’s regulator (Norwegian Communication Authority, NKOM), National CERT background

– **Sofia Silva Berenguer** – Representative from the NRO (Number Resource Organization), coordinates activities of the five RIRs

– **Adiel Akplogan** – Representative from ICANN

– **Rodrigue Guiguembde** – Representative from Smart Africa

– **Zdravko Jukic** – Representative from Croatia’s regulator, currently at BEREC (Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications), member of Cyber Security and Resilience Working Group

– **Dany Wazen** – Online moderator from Jordan, handles UNDP activities in the region

– **Vinicius Fortuna** – Works at Google Jigsaw on internet access, resilience and privacy

– **Audience** – Unidentified audience member asking questions

Additional speakers:

– **Danny Wazin** – Mentioned as online moderator colleague from Jordan (appears to be the same person as Dany Wazen, possibly different spelling)

– **Ilka** – Mentioned as session reporter

# Preparing Internet Infrastructure for Tomorrow’s Digital Economy: A Comprehensive Discussion Report

## Executive Summary

This Day Zero session at the Internet Governance Forum brought together representatives from regulatory bodies, technical organisations, and international development agencies to examine how internet infrastructure can be prepared to support tomorrow’s digital economy. The session was moderated by Chafic Chaya and featured speakers from Norway’s telecommunications regulator (NKOM), Croatia’s regulatory authority, ICANN, the Number Resource Organisation, Smart Africa, and UNDP.

Technical connectivity issues affected several online speakers throughout the session, highlighting the practical challenges of global digital participation. Despite these difficulties, the discussion covered key themes including national regulatory approaches, cybersecurity frameworks, routing security challenges, multi-stakeholder collaboration models, and capacity building initiatives. The session concluded with concrete next steps, including a new partnership between UNDP and RIPE NCC focused on IPv6 adoption, Internet Exchange Points (IXPs), and RPKI implementation in the Arab region.

## National Regulatory Approaches

### Norway’s Infrastructure Strategy

Frank Stien from Norway’s telecommunications regulator (NKOM) presented Norway’s comprehensive approach to digital infrastructure development. He reported that Norway has achieved 99.1% household broadband coverage at speeds exceeding 100 Mbps, with 96.2% having access to gigabit speeds. The country aims for universal gigabit access by 2030, supported by 85% geographic coverage with 4G and 5G networks built on extensive fibre infrastructure.

Stien emphasized that Norway’s cybersecurity approach includes sectoral CERTs across 15 different sectors, all coordinated by the national NCSC. He noted that densely populated areas require at least three independent transmission networks to ensure critical redundancy, and highlighted how national roaming capabilities combining all operational network parts can maintain connectivity during emergencies.

### European Regulatory Coordination

Zdravko Jukic from Croatia’s regulatory authority discussed the European perspective on balancing economic efficiency with security resilience. He articulated a fundamental challenge in infrastructure planning: while regulators typically avoid duplication for economic reasons, resilience requires building connections that may only be used during emergencies—investments that are not economically justified by themselves but are essential for national security.

Jukic highlighted Croatia’s work with BEREC (Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications), noting that the organization renamed its working group to emphasize resilience. He mentioned Croatia’s early transposition of the EU’s NIS2 directive and the use of the 5G toolbox as an example of flexible European cooperation that provides common standards while allowing national customization.

## Technical Security and Routing Challenges

### RPKI Implementation Gaps

Sofia Silva Berenguer from the Number Resource Organisation addressed critical gaps in routing security, specifically regarding RPKI (Resource Public Key Infrastructure) implementation. Despite RPKI technology being available for over a decade, she reported that while 50-60% of prefix origin pairs are covered by route origin authorizations, less than 25% of networks implement full protection.

Silva Berenguer emphasized that RPKI adds cryptographic verification to BGP announcements, providing essential protection against route hijacking. She noted that implementation gaps often exist between technical teams who understand RPKI’s importance and decision-makers who control budgets and priorities. She also promoted the MANRS initiative as a reputation-based approach to improving routing security.

### DNS Privacy Concerns

Vinicius Fortuna raised concerns about DNS privacy, emphasizing the need to promote encrypted DNS and encrypted client hello technologies. He highlighted serious privacy vulnerabilities where domain names leak in plain text even with HTTPS encryption, creating detailed profiles of user behavior that can be analyzed by AI systems.

## Multi-stakeholder Collaboration and Regional Initiatives

### Continental Approaches

Rodrigue Guiguembde from Smart Africa described the organization’s work representing 40 countries and 1.6 billion people working toward a single digital market vision. He highlighted the success of the One African Network project, which has eliminated roaming charges across 11 countries, demonstrating concrete results from multi-stakeholder collaboration.

Guiguembde emphasized that no single actor can build African digital infrastructure alone due to the complexity of challenges including connectivity gaps, regulatory fragmentation, climate imperatives, and security risks. Smart Africa’s approach includes developing sovereign and green data centers that integrate environmental standards with connectivity goals.

### Global Technical Coordination

Adiel Akplogan from ICANN emphasized that the multi-stakeholder model has been critical for DNS stability over 40 years. He provided a crucial framework for understanding implementation challenges, describing the internet as “a global network made of small independent networks that are connected and operated at the local level.”

Akplogan noted that ICANN conducts over 200 workshops annually with regional focus and ongoing operational support, recognizing that partnership approaches are necessary to reach areas that single organizations cannot cover effectively.

## Development Initiatives and Capacity Building

### UNDP Regional Programs

Danny Wazen from UNDP, participating online from Jordan and serving as online moderator, presented new initiatives addressing digital infrastructure gaps in the Arab region. He reported that 30% of the Arab region’s population—representing over 100 million people—remains unconnected to the internet.

To address this gap, UNDP announced the launch of a Digital Professional Development initiative focusing on three critical pillars: promoting IPv6 adoption, supporting Internet Exchange Points (IXPs) for sustainable connectivity, and implementing RPKI for enhanced security. This initiative includes a new partnership with RIPE NCC for awareness campaigns and capacity building specifically in the Arab region.

### Skills Development Approaches

The discussion revealed different perspectives on appropriate knowledge levels for various stakeholders. Jukic argued that the general population needs basic cybersecurity awareness rather than expert-level technical knowledge, noting that simple practices can resolve 90% of security issues for typical users.

Stien offered a complementary view, emphasizing that broad foundational knowledge combined with specialized expertise through collaboration is essential. He noted the importance of understanding internet fundamentals to identify weak links in complex systems while acknowledging that no individual can understand everything.

## Session Challenges and Q&A Highlights

### Technical Connectivity Issues

The session experienced significant technical difficulties with online speakers, including Sofia Silva Berenguer, Adiel Akplogan, and Rodrigue Guiguembde. These connectivity challenges ironically highlighted the practical importance of the infrastructure resilience being discussed, though moderator Chafic Chaya managed to maintain session flow despite the technical problems.

### Audience Engagement

During the Q&A session, audience members raised important questions about IoT infrastructure management and ensuring that digital transformation projects reach remote areas rather than concentrating on urban centers. An audience member highlighted challenges facing rural communities including poor infrastructure, high data costs, and lack of access to digital devices.

Questions were also raised about appropriate digital skills levels for different populations and the methodology for balancing economic viability for operators with national security requirements for network resilience.

## Key Outcomes and Next Steps

### Concrete Partnerships

The most significant concrete outcome was the announcement of a new partnership between UNDP and RIPE NCC focused on addressing routing security and infrastructure development in the Arab region. This partnership will focus specifically on IPv6 adoption, IXP development, and RPKI implementation through awareness campaigns and capacity building.

### Ongoing Initiatives

Smart Africa committed to continuing expansion of the One African Network beyond its current 11 countries to eliminate roaming charges across the continent. ICANN will continue its extensive workshop program with enhanced regional focus, while the promotion of MANRS and other routing security best practices will continue through regional support.

### Final Speaker Recommendations

In their concluding one-minute summaries, speakers emphasized several key priorities:

– Frank Stien stressed the importance of redundancy and resilience in critical infrastructure planning

– Zdravko Jukic highlighted the need for balanced approaches to economic efficiency and security requirements

– Sofia Silva Berenguer emphasized urgent action on routing security implementation

– Rodrigue Guiguembde called for continued multi-stakeholder collaboration at continental scale

– Danny Wazen outlined the three-pillar approach of the new UNDP initiative

## Conclusion

Despite technical connectivity challenges that affected the session flow, this discussion demonstrated both the complexity of preparing internet infrastructure for tomorrow’s digital economy and the potential for concrete multi-stakeholder collaboration. The session moved beyond problem identification to establish specific partnerships and initiatives, particularly the UNDP-RIPE NCC collaboration focused on the Arab region.

The diversity of perspectives—from national regulators implementing comprehensive frameworks to development organizations addressing digital divides—highlighted common challenges across different contexts while providing practical examples of successful approaches. The emphasis on IPv6, IXPs, and RPKI as foundational technical priorities, combined with the recognition that no single actor can address complex infrastructure challenges alone, provides a framework for continued cooperation.

The session’s practical focus on balancing economic efficiency with security resilience, regional customization of global standards, and multi-level capacity building offers concrete approaches for addressing digital infrastructure development challenges. The partnerships and initiatives established provide mechanisms for sustained progress toward resilient, inclusive internet infrastructure capable of supporting sustainable digital development globally.

Chafic Chaya: On behalf of RIPE NCC and our esteemed speakers, I would like to welcome you to this Day Zero session, Preparing Your Internet to Power the Digital Economy of Tomorrow. My name is Shafiq Shaya, I am the Regional Manager for Public Policy and Government Affairs for the RIPE NCC for the Middle East region, and I will be joined by my colleague Danny Wazin as online moderator from Jordan. Today this session will seek to unpack a critical but often under-emphasized question. How can we ensure that the internet infrastructure is robust enough to support the digital ambition of tomorrow? So the discussion today will be grounded in the belief that technical preparedness is not a luxury but is a strategic necessity. We will discuss connectivity, routing security, IPv6, IXPs, RPKI, collaborative policy framework, capacity building, all these issues that create a robust internet ecosystem. Without any further ado, so please let me introduce and welcome our speakers online and on-site. We have Mr. Frank Steen from Norway. We have Ms. Sofia Silva Berenguer from the NRO. We have Mr. Adiel Aplogon from ICANN. We have Mr. Rodrigue Guagamboide from Smart Africa. And we have Mr. Stravaco Stravic from Croatia. Once again, welcome and thank you for my colleague Ilka who will be the reporter of this session. So I will begin with Mr. Frank, good morning and thanks for hosting the IJF in Norway. My first question for you is how Norway today is addressing the scalability and the security of the internet infrastructure. And we know that you are coming from the regulator from Norway. So we’d like to have your insights to kick off this discussion today.

Frank Stien: Thank you Tjafik. Welcome to Norway everyone. Today we discuss a very critical topic, preparing our internet infrastructure for tomorrow’s digital economy. Norway recognizes that a robust digital infrastructure, both fixed and cellular, is crucial for leveraging emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence, the internet of things and digital services. Firstly, Norway is significantly investing in providing broadband internet to everyone. Today Norway provides at least 100 megabit per second broadband coverage to 99.1% of households with gigabit coverage reaching 96.2%. The ambition is that everyone shall have access to gigabit infrastructure by 2030. 85% of our geographic area has 4G or 5G coverage and practically all households have immediate access to 5G or 4G connectivity. Our extensive fiber optic infrastructure complemented by an aggressive 5G rollout ensures high speed. has already said that the Internet of Things is essential to all bandwidth intensive and latency sensitive applications of AI and IoT. Secondly, cyber security remains paramount. Norway’s government has enhanced regulatory frameworks including aligning with the EU’s NIST2 Directive and the new Security Act. Additionally, starting August this year, the revised Radio Equipment Directive will mandate rigorous cyber security standards for IoT devices such as smartphones, smartwatches and connected toys. Requirements should also include robust authentication, secure storage, encryption and secure update mechanisms. The forthcoming Cyber Resilience Act, the CRA, will further strengthen our cyber security landscape, ensuring resilient and trustworthy digital products. Thirdly, infrastructure resilience is key. We work in close collaboration with the major network operators to actively strengthen the transmission networks with enhanced network redundancy and ensuring multiple autonomous nationwide transmission networks. Specifically, emphasis is laid down in ensuring that densely populated areas will be served by at least three independent transmission networks, providing critical redundancy. Mobile operators are encouraged to diversify their traffic across these networks, significantly boosting reliability. Moreover, proactive spectrum management is crucial in mitigating wireless interference, particularly as IoT adoption expands and our society is increasingly becoming more dependent on it. on wireless communication services both from land and satellite. By effectively detecting and removing unauthorized devices and signal jammers, the spectrum in Norway maintains clean and dependable wireless communications. And finally, regarding AI regulation, Norway has recently defined clear responsibility among Norwegian Communication Authority, NKOM, Norwegian Digitalization Agency, Digdir and Data Protecting Authority, and this collaboration will ensure effective implementation and oversight of the AI Act, fostering responsible AI integration across sectors. So, in conclusion, Norway’s approach combining ambitious infrastructure expansion, comprehensive cybersecurity regulation and robust network resilience and clear regulatory governance for emerging technologies will position us to strongly to power tomorrow’s digital economy, driving innovation and benefit across our nation. Thank you.

Chafic Chaya: Thank you so much, Mr. Frank. Thanks for those insights and remarks. And yeah, this is a good example of how governments with the different stakeholder groups can work hands on hands. Thank you. We’ll stay with the governments and with the regulator and I’ll go to Mr. Zdravko Jukic from Croatia. So, to chain with the same subject, how can agile regulation support internet development in safeguarding the trust and resilience?

Zdravko Jukic: Yes, thanks. Can you hear me? Yes. Okay, excellent. So, you will hear now another regulatory view on this topic. I’m currently at BEREC. BEREC is the body of European regulators, so all national Regulatory authorities are represented there from the European Union, from the candidate countries and some EEA countries. So in BEREC we have several working groups, one of them is Cyber Security Working Group and we recently changed the name of this group to Cyber Security and Resilience Working Group, just to stress the importance of this issue of the resilience. Because normally when you look at the economy and competition from the regulatory point of view, you look at how to motivate market players to cooperate, not to build the double infrastructures, not to duplicate infrastructure which is the most expensive part of the networks. But when it comes to resilience, there we do exactly the opposite, we try to build some connections that should be used maybe in some emergency situation. So they are not economically, let’s say, justified by itself. So this is a really hot topic that at BEREC, Cyber Security and Resilience Working Group, we will be looking at. We have some really good examples among BEREC members, one of them is Iceland, another one is Norway, of course, who have developed some rules and what we would like to do is to develop some kind of methodology that would be really a set of recommendations on how to balance this issue of what is economically safe for operators to invest and what is safe for a country. Because there are several levels of investment. First one is the investment of the operators. They invest network to be optimally to get the return on their investment as fast as possible to earn a lot of money. And if they lose and Zdravko Jukic Jukic. The European Union is a member state. It is not possible to develop any kind of mandatory requirements or regulations at the European Union level without consensus of all member states. Also, one important point, the NIS2 directive in Croatia has been fully transposed. We were one of the first member states to do that. Also, the 5G toolbox is also a good example of this cooperation at the European level, how to develop something that each member state can apply in its national market, so that you have a solution which is flexible, which is agreed by all, and which can be modified. for national situation. One also important topic is the trusted vendor issue and there as regulatory authorities we can only help other authorities in each member state like national security agencies when they do the assessments of which equipment is safe in the national market. So I think that would be to start our panel all from my side for now. Thanks.

Chafic Chaya: Thank you so much. This is a lot to digest. We know that you are busy with all this regulation and policies and you mentioned a lot of interesting topics and issues. Balance, collaboration, agile regulation. So this will be a good start to see or to chain with other stakeholder group, the technical community, with our colleague Sophia from the number resource organization, the organization which coordinates the joint activity between the five RIRs. Sophia, you are with us. We can’t hear you. Can you speak? Still I can’t hear Sophia. So awaiting to fix this technical issue, I will stay with the technical community but with the ICANN with our colleague Mr. Adiel. So Mr. Adiel, to chain with what Mr. Frank and Mr. Zdravko Jukic mentioned now, what role does ICANN for this collaboration with governments and other stakeholders in fostering connectivity and in encouraging the agile regulation and policies. No sound, please. Control room, we can’t hear Mr. Adiel. Can you speak?

Adiel Akplogan: So, thank you again for the question. So, the short answer first is that the multi-stakeholder model is critical for sustaining for a stable, secure and resilient internet infrastructure globally. For us, we can say that because, as you know, one of the critical missions that ICANN has is to coordinate the unique identifier system globally, including the DNS. And the multi-stakeholder model has been at the center of that coordination. And the DNS has been operating for more than 40 years and it has been stable, sustainable, resilient over those years. Which shows that when we bring different parties, different actors around the table to discuss issues related to those critical infrastructures, it works. The DNS glue those identifiers together, of course, and I can, in its operation, as a facilitator and coordinator of policy related to those identifiers, and the DNS particularly, use the different constituencies it has to identify issues related to the resiliency and the security of the DNS, discuss them and translate them into policy, then that operators implement or follow voluntarily. So we’ve seen that it has helped protect that infrastructure globally. The DNS, we usually explain it or define it as a simple address book, but it’s more complex than that. And not only that, over the 40 past years, the DNS has evolved significantly, adding layer of security, privacy, addressing some abuse channels and challenges. But the multi-stakeholder approach has helped work around those issues. Being from the ITF, where new evolution of the DNS has been developed to be implemented on the base DNS to make it more secure, to add privacy to it. Being from its users’ perspective or registration perspective by tackling abuse, for instance. All those evolutions have been developed through a very wide multi-stakeholder approach. So again, it shows that bringing different parties around complex issues helps build solutions that do not disrupt. the stability of the global infrastructure. That is at the global level. But to go back to the context of the previous intervention, that approach needs also to be translated to the local level in how policies are defined locally, because the same complexities apply at the local level. Although the Internet is a global network, it’s a global network made of small independent networks that are connected and that are operated at the local level. So, applying the same multi-stakeholder approach, ensuring that different parties are impacted by the Internet in general, but its operation specifically, are around the table to think, to share ideas and to look at what are the different aspects of implementing or addressing challenges that can be seen. So we, from ICANN’s perspective, continue to promote that multi-stakeholder approach in how we address those issues, but also how we engage at the local level with different operators to ensure that the DNS and the infrastructure in general, the unique identifier operation, remain stable, secure and resilient.

Chafic Chaya: Thank you, Adiel. Thank you so much for these remarks and for highlighting the importance of the multi-stakeholder in working with governments and regulators to secure the Internet infrastructure. So, I’ll go back to Sofia. Let’s see if we have Sofia back online. Can you hear me, Sofia? Sofia? No. No, we can’t hear you. Okay, let me check online if we are okay. Danny, can you hear me? Dany, can you hear me? I believe we have a problem with our online colleagues. We can’t hear them. I will follow up and check with Mr. Rodrigue, Smart Africa, maybe we are lucky if you can say some words to check the voice. No. No. Okay. So I will go back to my esteemed colleagues here and follow up and change with some discussion with you. I go back to Mr. Frank. So we know that you are coming from the national CERT from Norway. How ECOM CERT is coordinating infrastructure security across public and private sectors?

Frank Stien: In Norway we have a bit strange solutions when it comes to CERTs with national coverage and responsibility. We have sectorial CERTs within something like the 15 most important sectors and they are all coordinated by the national NCSC, the national CERT. The reason we are doing that is that we think that the CERTs need sector specific knowledge and they also need to know the sector and also different sectors are different. So these sectorial CERTs are also very, very different. but at the same time we are cooperating the different sectorial search very closely. One advantage is that we can handle incidents and attacks on a very low level, when we don’t need to extend it outside a certain sector. So this helps with scalability. But when attacks or problems are hitting multiple sectors, they will then work together. And of course it’s also very important that the different sectorial search work together, so we’re doing that online more or less all the time. When critical incidents are happening and we need to escalate, then typically the national search will take lead and get support from these sectorial search with all their knowledge and competence about different sectors. So we think that this combination really helps us to combine the private and the public sectors as well as government, important government functions, and it really enables us to handle sophisticated threat actors and sophisticated threats. So this is how we’re doing it here.

Chafic Chaya: Perfect, thank you. And this is how it should be done in collaboration with, once again, you as a regulator, with the other stakeholder group that you are working with. Going to Croatia. The same question, but I want to just reframe it. Can you give us some examples how this works on the ground?

Zdravko Jukic: One of the examples could be, for example, the situation where you have an emergency situation. Some network is down, like there was a situation with big floods in neighboring Slovenia, I think two years back. And then it was very important to enable national roaming for all subscribers in the country, because then you can combine all the parts of the network that are still operating. And it is crucial, it can be life-saving in such situations. So I think we need to have such mechanisms for emergency situations. It is always that you have to build something for an event that happens very rarely but has a huge impact. And then we need to plan in advance and have good measures and tools to deal with that.

Chafic Chaya: Thank you. We know that the awareness can come from the end users, and then this awareness can be encouraged and can be put by the regulators. Is there any collaboration or any, let’s say, education or webinars with the Croatian population, or with the Croatian community or society?

Zdravko Jukic: Yes, indeed we have a lot of such actions in Croatia together with our partners, with the Croatian Academic Network, with the police, with the Ministry of Interior. And we give courses, really, even from HACOM, from the national regulator, regularly to schools, to primary schools, to secondary schools, and to local governments in different counties. in Croatia because as you said it is very important to to have this broad awareness and not just among experts and people working at the operators and they know it is their work it is their job but also among the general populations and the users of the of the

Chafic Chaya: electronic communications services. Thank you, I will take this and go to Sofia. Sofia, can you hear me now? I can hear you. Okay, perfect, thanks, thank you. So once again, Sofia is from the Number Resource Organization, the organization that coordinates the activities of the five RIRs and my question for Sofia is we are talking about security, about resilience, so what you can tell us on the NRO global collaboration on routing security on RPKI

Sofia Silva Berenguer: and how this works with governments? Thank you, Jafik. So I would like to start by setting the context about why it’s necessary to secure the internet routing before I can introduce what RPKI is. As Adiel mentioned, the internet is a network of networks and BGP, Border Gateway Protocol, is the protocol used by those networks to decide where to send the traffic in order for it to reach its destination and the way that networks learn where other networks are is through BGP announcements. The thing is that this protocol, BGP, was not designed with security in mind so there is a need for a layer of security to be added on top to ensure that the traffic reaches its intended destination and that all the systems in the digital economy of today that rely on the internet can still work. So RPKI, which stands for Resource Public Key Infrastructure, adds that missing BGP piece of security and it does that by allowing that prefix holders issue cryptographically verifiable statements on the route intentions and then that information can be used by the routers that receive BGP announcements to verify whether those announcements are legitimate. And so this allows to stop routing issues and stop that routing is redirected or intercepted. RPKI was standardized more than 10 years ago and it is available through each RIR region in the world. However, many organizations have yet to adopt and deploy this technology. A few weeks ago when I checked statistics around 50 to 60 percent of the unique prefix origin pairs were covered by route origin authorizations that are the objects in RPKI used to for establishing that route intention on the origin of routes. And then the other side of things that is using that information to verify BGP announcements is what we call route origin validation and the statistic as of a few weeks ago was that less than 25 percent of those networks in the internet that we call autonomous systems less than 25 percent were fully protected by route origin validation. So as you can see there’s still room for more adoption of the technology to achieve maximum benefit of it and adoption can be encouraged in different ways. Through support, through reputation based approaches like for example the MANRS initiative some people may have heard of through regulation based approaches like the White House’s roadmap to enhancing routing security. In particular the RIRs are supporting adoption through providing training, technical support and resources. Sofia Berenguer, David Huberman, Rodrigue Guiguembde, Zdravko Jukic Jukic

Chafic Chaya: Sofia Berenguer, David Huberman, Rodrigue Guiguembde, Zdravko Jukic Jukic Sofia Berenguer, David Huberman, Rodrigue Guiguembde, Zdravko Jukic Jukic

Rodrigue Guiguembde: Yes, thank you very much. And thank you so much for this question. Sorry about this disconnection earlier. I think at Smart Africa, we believe that the multi-stakeholder partnership, the foundation for this inclusive digital development in Africa, we trust on it. And the alliance currently brings, as you know, 40 countries, 40 member states, representing 1.6 billion people. 1 billion African citizens, all committing on the same vision to create a single digital market. One of the flagship we have currently I wanted to sort out here is the One African Network. It’s a project which currently includes 11 countries and this initiative is still ongoing. And this initiative aims to eliminate roaming, charge and promote cross-border interconnection. It’s jointly developed by regulator, ministries, telcos and regional economic communities. So this is a real good model on this multi-stakeholder approach. It’s an example on that. We are also developing a program for a sovereign data center and green data center. This is another one we can give in terms of example. Building partnership with private and public sectors and designed to meet environmental standards. These projects of course integrate technical, economical, legal and climate resilience consideration which are crucial for Africa data sovereignty. So this is another example. All this one is just to tell you that we are putting in the center this multi-stakeholder approach. And of course currently for the internet governance parts, because the internet is the base of everything, we are trying to launch initiatives called CAIGA, the Council of Internet Governance Authorities. This council we start to build it since 2024. This is a unique mechanism. We wanted to bring the government, regulators, academia, technical experts and civil society to sort of and to make some action for the

Chafic Chaya: Thank you so much, these are great examples and I will come back to you to ask you about how we can balance between the different levels of advancement in the African countries. But I’ll go to my colleague Danny online. So once again, for our audience on site and online, if you would like to ask any question, please put your question in the chat room or just raise your hand. At the end, we’ll have a Q&A session and we’ll be happy to answer your questions. So Danny, any comments, anything we have online? And I’ll leave it for you. I know that you are handling the UNDP activities in the region and you have announcement or you can share with us your plans that’s related to what we are talking about in this session. For you, Danny.

Dany Wazen: Thank you very much, Shafiq, and it’s a pleasure to be on this very esteemed and very important panel to discuss this topic. I see online we have two insights and one question, which is really important, the first insight brought by Timothy and could be a question to the panel. So asking about would it be good if there is an infrastructure to ensure the communication of the IOTs? So to be able to be managed by the owner of the IOTs itself, it could be great if we can have this option. And another question, which is very much related, what are What are the needed digital skills and what are the essential digital skills in the internet-driven future? So we’re talking about all these perspectives and dimensions on how connectivity can prepare for the future. So what are the skills?

Chafic Chaya: Gentlemen, anyone want to take these questions before I give the floor back to Danny?

Frank Stien: Well, I can start with the last one about the skills. I think we will always need people with broad knowledge. My experience from cyber security, as you already know, it’s important to understand the fundamentals because the internet is really complex and in order to find weak links, when you’re putting up a stable, scalable system, is really to understand how this works. But at the same time, no one will ever be able to understand everything. So I think to have specialists in different areas and make those experts working together will always be very, very important and probably more important than actually a few people knowing very much.

Chafic Chaya: Mr. Zdravko Jukic, please.

Zdravko Jukic: Okay, thanks. Just to continue on this line, so I think not everybody has to be really a cyber security expert and know all the techniques and how to hack computers and systems, but what is needed for the general population, for general users, to know some basics. because what problems we face in Croatia and other European member states and I guess everywhere in the world that people receive simple short message like the old short message service and then the message says this is very important that you type in your credit card number and they do it so some basics should be applied and everybody should understand what it means then we will resolve I don’t know maybe 90% of the cases if a very advanced hacker comes into your system by some backdoor that is another issue that is the issue of this company if they have all the methodologies and all the rules in place if they are taking their business seriously because it can happen we will never have absolute security in any corporation in any company but we have to do our best and try to mitigate as much as we can

Chafic Chaya: well stated I think Adel I can do a lot in capacity building so maybe you can share something on this

Adiel Akplogan: yeah definitely we are pretty much engaged on capacity building I just want to mention as well that there are two challenges in capacity building there is one about the usage of the internet that is a more broader capacity and awareness that is needed for users to know that the same questions that they apply in their real life is also something important to bring into the virtual world because it’s not always clear in the mind of the people that capacity needs to be reinforced and the second is the operational part the operating the network making sure that people who operate the network also develop and gradually increase particularly coming from developing and emerging nation beef up their knowledge and expertise on this complex technology in operation so that to be able It is possible to have security and resilience in mind when operating and designing the network. From ICANN’s perspective, we put a lot of emphasis on that. Last year we have run more than 200 workshop and capacity building activities on technical implementation of best practices around the DNS particularly for registry. It is something that we continue doing and we don’t do it at the global level only. We try to bring in a regional flavor to it because we know that the needs are not the same across all the regions, all the countries, the challenges are not the same. So we try to translate our engagement to focus on the need that we see in each region, in each country. And what we have seen bringing more and more positive effort is to beyond the capacity building also providing support to those who are particularly operating those infrastructures that we think are critical for the overall stability to support them throughout their navigation of implementing those best practices. So it’s key to bridge that gap, but it’s also important to us to take it from different angles, local and user and global.

Chafic Chaya: Thank you. You mentioned a lot of interesting, let’s say, words, regional flavor, local capacity building. I go back to Danny with the UNDP and your initiative, which is the main pillar in your initiative that UNDP is now leading, is capacity building and infrastructure development. Can you give us just some or sum up what you are doing and how you are dealing with what Adil said, regional flavor? Yes, thank you very much. I think we may need a very interesting insight. So in UNDP, we have in the Arab region, we have launched recently a new initiative called Digital Professional Development. And as its name says, it’s how we can harness the power of digitalization to advance the SDGs agenda and the different countries and to accelerate the achievement of the goals. And what is it about? It’s a network of partners with convening partners from government, private sector, public sector, NGOs, academia, experts to come together, brainstorm and put and develop together impactful projects for the Arab region. And under each goal, like what can we do on digitalization? And the connectivity and infrastructure is really a delaying foundation for any digital transformation, we can build the most advanced solutions, but without a secure, safe, inclusive connectivity, we cannot advance. And if we look into our region, the Arab region is one of the least connected among the other regions in the world. And 30% of the Arab region, which means more than 100 million are not connected to the internet. And in order to advance this, we have recently launched two initiatives. One of them we are planning now with RIPE NCC as a partnership. So basically, the initiative is about connectivity for digital inclusion and to address these challenges. We wanted to work on bipartite access. The first one is related to scalability, which means scalable connectivity in order to be more inclusive. Second is allow sustainability for this connectivity through a different approach, and thirdly, is a safe and secure connectivity. For the Pillar 1, we want to promote the adoption of IPv6 with the mobile telecom operator and other internet providers in the countries by conducting awareness capacity building and support the transition of this toward the IPv6. On the second pillar, in terms of sustainability, we want to promote, as we heard from our colleague on the panel, the IXPs and the role of this internet exchange points in order to provide less or lower cost, but also reduce the dependence on international links and make further connectivity, and we are planning to support countries as models in the region between UNDP and RIPAC. And finally, the RPKI, as we’ve heard, the security, which is very much important, and we’re looking through this initiative to engage further with more partners on launching awareness campaigns and doing the capacity building for the security of the connectivity. So basically, this is a project that literally will be impactful for the region to increase the connectivity. Another entry point that we are working on for the connectivity and inclusion, digital inclusion, is a new framework, regulatory framework, that we are designing with different partners, the GSMA, Orido Mobile Telecom Operator, and others. It’s basically how we can give countries a legal framework, digital policies framework, that can support the country advancing on their digital economy by investing or designing policies and regulations for the connectivity and for the data centers and using also the data and AI. So basically these are like two main or two key interventions that we are planning into the Arab region and definitely we’re looking to engage further with partners in order to implement it in different contexts. Thank you Danny, thank you so much for this insight. Yes just I want to highlight here that there are some countries in the Middle East and African region that they don’t have yet the basic infrastructure. While here we are discussing AI and Internet of Things and the cloud computing, we still have countries without basic infrastructure and that’s why we are working with the UNDP to just make these countries join the developing countries. So we still have 10 minutes, I see that we have a question but I will give for each speaker one minute to just recap and give me one priority based on the discussion that we have during this session. So Mr. Frank your final remark for one minute please.

Frank Stien: Yes I probably should say something about regulation but my heart is in cyber security. So I think we have addressed for a couple of years the need for intelligence and information sharing among peers and among people across borders and I think we have a way to go in that field. It’s improving, everything goes better but I think I think still there is lots of work to do to cooperate and share information and intelligence, so that would be my point.

Chafic Chaya: Thank you. Mr. Radiel?

Adiel Akplogan: Yeah, I think I will highlight the fact that having a multi-stakeholder approach, bringing different parties around the table to discuss this complex issue, are important. Not only at the global level, and I will put the emphasis on that, we need to translate those into regional and local level in designing each aspect of regulation or technical design that will impact the global stability of the Internet. Capacity building is key. Best practices are also very important. Framing them in a way that people can actually implement them is another key. Sophia mentioned manners. There is also another one for the DNS, which is kindness, which tries to bring those best practices in the framework that can easily be implemented, that will help small operators that don’t have the same resources as a bigger one to look at everything and decide what to do. They can have a simple and easy entry point. The third point I want to highlight is the partnership. Beyond the multi-stakeholder approach, partnership between different players is key in helping advance those. We hear about the UNDP and the RIPE NCC partnership. ICANN has the Coalition for Digital Africa, which is also a very broad framework for partnership for the Africa region. Our partnership with UNESCO and IDN and so on and so forth are a way to actually mutualize our resources to make sure that what we are preaching and what we are advancing reaches an area that one organization alone cannot reach. Let’s continue strengthening this multi-stakeholder approach, and I think we will all contribute to a stable, resilient and stable Internet globally.

Chafic Chaya: Thank you so much. I believe we will have some takeaways from what you said now, but I will give the mic to Mr. Zdravko Jukic.

Zdravko Jukic: Yes, from our discussions it seems like this education for general population and users and capacity building for everyone seems to be very, very important. For us regulators, I would like to stress again, we will be very busy now in the coming days and months with this resilience issue and how to build more resilient networks, how to develop this, what I mentioned, methodology which will enable all national regulators to apply some rules to have more resilient, redundant networks in the end. And also what we can expect, some more discussions at the European level on the issue of trusted vendors, something similar to what we had with the 5G toolbox. So development of some technical and strategic measures, agreeing those measures at the union level, and then each member state would apply them according to the national situations and national judgments and geopolitical situation. So I think that’s all. Thanks.

Chafic Chaya: Thank you. So it’s a collaboration between stakeholders and regulators and collaboration amongst regulators themselves. Sofia, I’ll give you the one minute for you.

Sofia Silva Berenguer: Thank you. I guess from my side, what I would suggest prioritizing is the implementation of best practices. For example, in the space of routing security, to join a program like MANUS, to engage with the RIR for your region and seek support. Also, there’s lots of good documents in the space of IETF documenting best practices. We call them BCP, best common practice documents, because what we’ve heard is that sometimes, although technical people may be very convinced of the importance of technologies like RPKI, it’s hard to convince non-technical decision makers or even commercial sectors, commercial areas within some organizations, because the benefits may not be evident, may not be immediate. So, there is a need, and as the other panelists mentioned, for more capacity building, for more awareness raising. So, yeah, any efforts in that space that will help bridge that gap between very technical content and not so technical content that will allow decision makers to understand the importance of implementing best practices.

Chafic Chaya: Thank you, Sofia. Mr. Rodrigue?

Rodrigue Guiguembde: Yes, thank you very much. We have a lot of things to say, but last year we didn’t. Okay, one minute, sorry. I think that as we are looking for the future, one thing is clear, I think. No single actor can build African digital infrastructure alone. The complexity of the challenge we are facing, connectivity gaps, regulatory fragmentation, climate imperative, and endless risk, require a united, agile, and inclusive approach. This is very important. At Smart Africa, we are committed to turning vision into action by aligning government, the private sector, developing partners, and communities around concrete, high-impact solutions. Whether it is true, it could be true on African networks or in data centers. as I already said, and Armonized Spectrum challenges. We see these partners, not, we see the partnership, sorry, the code, sorry. Yes, we see this partnership not as a choice but a necessity, this is very important. So finally, if we want to prepare our infrastructure for this demand of tomorrow digital economy, we must invest not only in fiber and data centers but also in trust coordination and local capacity. Let’s move forward together with ambition and with purpose. Thank you very much.

Chafic Chaya: Thank you for these words, we’ll keep it in mind. Sorry for keeping you waiting, we have one question in the room, please go ahead. Please, can you introduce yourself? Hello, hello. Can you hear me? Yes, go ahead.

Vinicius Fortuna: My name is Vinicius Fortuna, I actually work at Google Jigsaw on internet access, resilience and privacy. And currently, when you use, even when you use a HTTPS, encrypted HTTP, like your domain name goes in plain text and it leaks. And that’s like with the advancement of AI, that’s becoming a very serious threat. I actually ran an experiment analyzing my own domain names and put it on LLM and create a profile about me and it’s scary, like you can tell the person’s employer, the health conditions, political associations, religion, sexual preferences and gender and all sorts of things. So, and there are two technologies to solve this, like encrypted DNS and encrypted client hello. So I’m wondering like what your organizations can do to help promote an adoption of these technologies by online services or the internet service.

Chafic Chaya: Thank you so much. As we don’t have any more time, I believe we’ll take this after the session ends and I’ll be here with my colleagues to answer your question. But I see another question, please go ahead, for 30 seconds please. But be sure that we’ll answer your questions after the session.

Audience: So, my question is basically going straight to you, NDP and Smart Africa. I was following with a very keen interest, more especially on the projects that are underway to bridge the digital divide, especially in the remote areas. Now, most of the projects, when they are being scaled, they are being done in the urban areas. So, I would really want to find out what are the policies or the laws that you have put in place to make sure that when you are scaling these things about the projects to do with digital transformation, you are channeling these initiatives to reach to the people that are living in the remote areas, because these are the people that are suffering from the poor infrastructure when it comes to internet. At the same time, even the data cost is very costly, which they cannot manage to access. And at the same time, they are also having the issue to do with the digital gadgets. So, that’s my question that I really want to get an answer. Thank you so much.

Chafic Chaya: Thank you so much. I’ll, once again, I will be here with our panelists to answer your question and I’ll be sure to give you the contact of my colleague Danny Wesson, so you can be in direct contact with him. Once again, thanks again for everyone, for our audience in the room, for our audience online, for our speakers. It was a really interesting discussion. We will have some takeaway and some recommendation, but just to summarize, collaboration, partnership, IPv6, RPKI, MANRS, the NSSEC should be in the public infrastructure plan, and the last one is long term investment in capacity building. Once again, thank you so much, and I believe I’m on time. Thank you. Thank you.

Agreement points

Multi-stakeholder collaboration is essential for internet infrastructure development and governance

Speakers

– Adiel Akplogan
– Rodrigue Guiguembde
– Frank Stien
– Zdravko Jukic

Arguments

Multi-stakeholder model critical for DNS stability over 40 years, bringing different parties together for policy development

No single actor can build African digital infrastructure alone due to complexity of challenges

Enhanced regulatory frameworks including EU NIST2 Directive and new Security Act strengthen cybersecurity landscape

Croatia fully transposed NIS2 directive and uses 5G toolbox as example of flexible European cooperation

Summary

All speakers emphasized that complex internet infrastructure challenges require collaboration between governments, private sector, technical community, and other stakeholders. They provided examples of successful multi-stakeholder initiatives and stressed that no single entity can address these challenges alone.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Infrastructure | Development

Capacity building and digital skills development are critical priorities

Speakers

– Frank Stien
– Adiel Akplogan
– Zdravko Jukic
– Sofia Silva Berenguer

Arguments

Broad foundational knowledge combined with specialized expertise through collaboration is essential

ICANN conducted 200+ workshops focusing on regional needs and providing ongoing operational support

General population needs basic cybersecurity awareness rather than expert-level technical knowledge

Implementation of best practices requires bridging gap between technical and non-technical decision makers

Summary

Speakers agreed that capacity building must occur at multiple levels – from basic user awareness to specialized technical expertise. They emphasized the need for regional customization and bridging the gap between technical and non-technical stakeholders.

Topics

Development | Cybersecurity | Infrastructure

Network resilience and redundancy are fundamental for critical infrastructure

Speakers

– Frank Stien
– Zdravko Jukic

Arguments

Densely populated areas require at least three independent transmission networks for critical redundancy

Emergency situations like floods require national roaming capabilities combining all operational network parts

Summary

Both speakers emphasized the importance of building redundant network infrastructure that can withstand failures and emergency situations. They provided specific examples of how redundancy saves lives and maintains connectivity during crises.

Topics

Infrastructure | Cybersecurity

RPKI adoption is crucial but remains insufficient globally

Speakers

– Sofia Silva Berenguer
– Dany Wazen
– Chafic Chaya

Arguments

RPKI adds cryptographic verification to BGP announcements but adoption remains low at 25% for route origin validation

UNDP partnership with RIPE NCC promotes RPKI adoption through awareness campaigns and capacity building

Key takeaways include collaboration, partnership, IPv6, RPKI, MANRS, DNS security, and long-term capacity building investment

Summary

Speakers agreed that RPKI is essential for routing security but current adoption rates are inadequate. They emphasized the need for awareness campaigns and capacity building to increase implementation.

Topics

Infrastructure | Cybersecurity

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers from regulatory backgrounds emphasized the importance of coordinated cybersecurity responses involving multiple agencies and sectors, with clear roles and responsibilities defined for different stakeholders.

Speakers

– Frank Stien
– Zdravko Jukic

Arguments

Norway implements sectorial CERTs across 15 sectors coordinated by national NCSC for specialized threat response

Trusted vendor assessments require collaboration between regulatory authorities and national security agencies

Topics

Cybersecurity | Legal and regulatory

Both speakers highlighted the massive scale of digital divide challenges in their respective regions and the need for coordinated regional approaches to address connectivity gaps affecting hundreds of millions of people.

Speakers

– Rodrigue Guiguembde
– Dany Wazen

Arguments

Smart Africa represents 40 countries and 1.6 billion people working toward single digital market vision

30% of Arab region population (100+ million people) lacks internet connectivity, requiring scalable solutions

Topics

Development | Infrastructure | Digital access

Both speakers emphasized the critical role of partnerships between international organizations to maximize reach and impact, particularly in addressing digital development challenges in underserved regions.

Speakers

– Adiel Akplogan
– Dany Wazen

Arguments

Partnership approach necessary to reach areas single organizations cannot cover effectively

UNDP launching Digital Professional Development initiative focusing on IPv6 adoption and IXP promotion

Topics

Development | Infrastructure | Legal and regulatory

Unexpected consensus

Balance between economic efficiency and security redundancy in network infrastructure

Speakers

– Zdravko Jukic
– Frank Stien

Arguments

BEREC renamed working group to emphasize resilience, balancing economic efficiency with redundancy requirements

Densely populated areas require at least three independent transmission networks for critical redundancy

Explanation

It was unexpected to see regulators explicitly acknowledging the tension between economic optimization and security requirements, with both speakers recognizing that resilience investments may not be economically justified but are necessary for national security. This represents a sophisticated understanding of the trade-offs involved in infrastructure policy.

Topics

Cybersecurity | Legal and regulatory | Infrastructure

Regional customization of global technical standards and policies

Speakers

– Adiel Akplogan
– Zdravko Jukic
– Dany Wazen

Arguments

ICANN conducted 200+ workshops focusing on regional needs and providing ongoing operational support

Croatia fully transposed NIS2 directive and uses 5G toolbox as example of flexible European cooperation

UNDP developing regulatory framework with GSMA for digital policies supporting connectivity and data centers

Explanation

There was unexpected consensus across different types of organizations (technical, regulatory, development) on the need to adapt global standards to local contexts. This suggests a mature understanding that one-size-fits-all approaches don’t work for complex technical infrastructure challenges.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development | Infrastructure

Overall assessment

Summary

The speakers demonstrated strong consensus on fundamental principles including the necessity of multi-stakeholder collaboration, the critical importance of capacity building, the need for network resilience and redundancy, and the urgency of improving RPKI adoption. There was also agreement on the challenges of balancing economic efficiency with security requirements and the importance of regional customization of global standards.

Consensus level

High level of consensus with significant implications for internet governance. The agreement across different stakeholder groups (regulators, technical community, development organizations) suggests that there is a shared understanding of the challenges and potential solutions. This consensus provides a strong foundation for coordinated action on internet infrastructure development, particularly in addressing the digital divide and improving cybersecurity. The alignment between different perspectives indicates that multi-stakeholder initiatives are likely to be more effective and sustainable.

Different viewpoints

Approach to cybersecurity organizational structure

Speakers

– Frank Stien
– Zdravko Jukic

Arguments

Norway implements sectorial CERTs across 15 sectors coordinated by national NCSC for specialized threat response

BEREC renamed working group to emphasize resilience, balancing economic efficiency with redundancy requirements

Summary

Frank advocates for a decentralized sectorial CERT approach with specialized knowledge per sector, while Zdravko focuses on centralized European coordination through BEREC working groups that balance economic and resilience considerations

Topics

Cybersecurity | Infrastructure | Legal and regulatory

Level of technical knowledge required for general population

Speakers

– Frank Stien
– Zdravko Jukic

Arguments

Broad foundational knowledge combined with specialized expertise through collaboration is essential

General population needs basic cybersecurity awareness rather than expert-level technical knowledge

Summary

Frank emphasizes the importance of broad foundational knowledge of internet fundamentals, while Zdravko argues that basic awareness is sufficient for the general population and can resolve 90% of security issues

Topics

Development | Cybersecurity | Sociocultural

Unexpected differences

Privacy and encryption priorities

Speakers

– Vinicius Fortuna
– Other panelists

Arguments

DNS privacy concerns with encrypted DNS and encrypted client hello technologies need promotion

Various arguments focused on infrastructure, routing security, and basic connectivity

Explanation

Vinicius raised advanced privacy concerns about DNS leakage and AI profiling capabilities, which was unexpected given that most panelists were focused on basic infrastructure development and traditional security measures. This highlighted a gap between advanced privacy considerations and fundamental connectivity challenges

Topics

Cybersecurity | Human rights | Infrastructure

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion showed remarkably high consensus among speakers, with most disagreements being tactical rather than strategic. Main areas of difference included organizational approaches to cybersecurity (centralized vs. decentralized), required knowledge levels for general population, and specific methods for promoting technical standards adoption

Disagreement level

Low to moderate disagreement level with high strategic alignment. The implications are positive as speakers shared common goals of robust internet infrastructure, multi-stakeholder collaboration, and capacity building. The tactical differences actually complement each other and suggest multiple viable approaches to achieving shared objectives. The main challenge identified is bridging the gap between advanced technical capabilities and basic infrastructure needs in developing regions

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers from regulatory backgrounds emphasized the importance of coordinated cybersecurity responses involving multiple agencies and sectors, with clear roles and responsibilities defined for different stakeholders.

Speakers

– Frank Stien
– Zdravko Jukic

Arguments

Norway implements sectorial CERTs across 15 sectors coordinated by national NCSC for specialized threat response

Trusted vendor assessments require collaboration between regulatory authorities and national security agencies

Topics

Cybersecurity | Legal and regulatory

Both speakers highlighted the massive scale of digital divide challenges in their respective regions and the need for coordinated regional approaches to address connectivity gaps affecting hundreds of millions of people.

Speakers

– Rodrigue Guiguembde
– Dany Wazen

Arguments

Smart Africa represents 40 countries and 1.6 billion people working toward single digital market vision

30% of Arab region population (100+ million people) lacks internet connectivity, requiring scalable solutions

Topics

Development | Infrastructure | Digital access

Both speakers emphasized the critical role of partnerships between international organizations to maximize reach and impact, particularly in addressing digital development challenges in underserved regions.

Speakers

– Adiel Akplogan
– Dany Wazen

Arguments

Partnership approach necessary to reach areas single organizations cannot cover effectively

UNDP launching Digital Professional Development initiative focusing on IPv6 adoption and IXP promotion

Topics

Development | Infrastructure | Legal and regulatory

Key takeaways

Multi-stakeholder collaboration is essential for internet infrastructure development, with successful examples like Smart Africa’s One African Network and UNDP-RIPE NCC partnerships

Infrastructure resilience requires balancing economic efficiency with redundancy – densely populated areas need at least three independent transmission networks

Capacity building must address both general user awareness (basic cybersecurity practices) and technical expertise for network operators

RPKI adoption remains critically low at 25% for route origin validation despite being available for over 10 years, requiring increased awareness and implementation

Regional approaches are necessary as internet challenges vary significantly – 30% of Arab region lacks connectivity while developed countries focus on AI and IoT infrastructure

Sectorial CERT coordination (like Norway’s 15-sector model) provides specialized knowledge while enabling scalable incident response

Regulatory frameworks must be agile and collaborative, with examples like EU’s NIS2 directive and 5G toolbox showing flexible implementation approaches

No single actor can address complex digital infrastructure challenges alone – partnership between government, private sector, and technical communities is mandatory

Resolutions and action items

UNDP to launch Digital Professional Development initiative with three pillars: IPv6 adoption, IXP promotion, and RPKI security implementation

UNDP and RIPE NCC partnership to conduct awareness campaigns and capacity building for routing security in Arab region

BEREC to develop methodology for balancing economic investment with network resilience requirements across European member states

Smart Africa to continue One African Network expansion beyond current 11 countries to eliminate roaming charges

Continued promotion of MANRS initiative and best practices implementation through RIR regional support

Development of regulatory framework by UNDP with GSMA for digital policies supporting connectivity and data centers

ICANN to continue 200+ annual workshops with regional focus and ongoing operational support for DNS operators

Unresolved issues

Technical connectivity problems during session prevented full participation from some online speakers

Question about IoT infrastructure management by device owners remained unanswered due to time constraints

Privacy concerns regarding DNS leakage and need for encrypted DNS/encrypted client hello adoption not fully addressed

Specific policies for ensuring digital transformation projects reach remote areas rather than just urban centers

How to address high data costs and digital device access barriers in underserved communities

Detailed methodology for trusted vendor assessments and implementation across different national contexts

Specific mechanisms for intelligence and information sharing across borders for cybersecurity threats

Suggested compromises

Balance between economic efficiency and network redundancy through BEREC’s proposed methodology allowing flexible national implementation

Sectorial CERT approach combining specialized knowledge with coordinated national response capabilities

Multi-level capacity building addressing both basic user awareness and advanced technical skills rather than expecting universal expertise

Regional flavor in global initiatives allowing local adaptation while maintaining international coordination

Flexible regulatory frameworks like EU’s 5G toolbox that provide common standards while allowing national customization

Partnership-based resource sharing to reach areas single organizations cannot cover effectively

But when it comes to resilience, there we do exactly the opposite, we try to build some connections that should be used maybe in some emergency situation. So they are not economically, let’s say, justified by itself.

Speaker

Zdravko Jukic

Reason

This comment highlighted a fundamental paradox in infrastructure planning – the tension between economic efficiency and resilience. It challenged the typical regulatory approach of avoiding duplication and introduced the complex concept of investing in ‘economically unjustified’ redundancy for security purposes.

Impact

This observation shifted the discussion from technical solutions to the deeper economic and policy challenges of building resilient infrastructure. It introduced the theme of balancing economic optimization with security needs, which became a recurring thread throughout the session.

Although the Internet is a global network, it’s a global network made of small independent networks that are connected and that are operated at the local level. So, applying the same multi-stakeholder approach, ensuring that different parties are impacted by the Internet in general, but its operation specifically, are around the table to think, to share ideas…

Speaker

Adiel Akplogan

Reason

This comment provided a crucial conceptual framework that bridged global and local perspectives. It reframed the internet from a monolithic global entity to a collection of interconnected local networks, emphasizing that global solutions must be implemented locally.

Impact

This perspective fundamentally shaped how other speakers approached their responses, leading to more nuanced discussions about regional variations, local capacity building, and the need for context-specific implementations of global best practices.

And in order to advance this, we have recently launched two initiatives… So basically, the initiative is about connectivity for digital inclusion and to address these challenges. We wanted to work on bipartite access. The first one is related to scalability… Second is allow sustainability… and thirdly, is a safe and secure connectivity.

Speaker

Dany Wazen

Reason

This comment was insightful because it provided a concrete, structured approach to addressing digital divides while integrating the theoretical concepts discussed earlier. The three-pillar framework (scalability, sustainability, security) offered a practical model for implementation.

Impact

This intervention grounded the discussion in real-world application and demonstrated how multi-stakeholder partnerships translate into actionable programs. It shifted the conversation from problem identification to solution implementation, inspiring other speakers to provide more concrete examples.

My experience from cyber security, as you already know, it’s important to understand the fundamentals because the internet is really complex and in order to find weak links, when you’re putting up a stable, scalable system, is really to understand how this works. But at the same time, no one will ever be able to understand everything.

Speaker

Frank Stien

Reason

This comment addressed a critical paradox in cybersecurity and internet governance – the need for both deep technical understanding and collaborative expertise. It acknowledged the inherent complexity while advocating for collaborative approaches to knowledge gaps.

Impact

This observation influenced the discussion on capacity building and skills development, leading other speakers to elaborate on different levels of expertise needed (from basic user awareness to technical specialization) and reinforcing the importance of multi-stakeholder collaboration.

No single actor can build African digital infrastructure alone. The complexity of the challenge we are facing, connectivity gaps, regulatory fragmentation, climate imperative, and endless risk, require a united, agile, and inclusive approach.

Speaker

Rodrigue Guiguembde

Reason

This comment powerfully synthesized the session’s themes while adding the crucial dimension of climate considerations and regional fragmentation. It elevated the discussion beyond technical and regulatory issues to encompass environmental and geopolitical realities.

Impact

This statement served as a compelling conclusion that tied together all the session’s themes – multi-stakeholder collaboration, capacity building, infrastructure resilience, and regional cooperation – while emphasizing the urgency and complexity of the challenges faced by developing regions.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shaped the discussion by introducing critical tensions and frameworks that elevated the conversation beyond technical specifications to strategic thinking. Zdravko’s economic paradox established the complexity of infrastructure planning, while Adiel’s global-local framework provided a conceptual foundation for understanding implementation challenges. Dany’s practical three-pillar approach demonstrated how theoretical concepts translate into actionable programs, and Frank’s expertise paradox reinforced the need for collaborative approaches. Finally, Rodrigue’s synthesis brought urgency and comprehensiveness to the discussion. Together, these comments created a rich dialogue that moved from problem identification through conceptual frameworks to practical solutions, while consistently emphasizing the interconnected nature of technical, economic, regulatory, and social challenges in building resilient internet infrastructure.

Would it be good if there is an infrastructure to ensure the communication of the IoTs so that they can be managed by the owner of the IoTs itself?

Speaker

Timothy (online participant)

Explanation

This question addresses the need for dedicated infrastructure for IoT device management and communication, which is crucial as IoT adoption expands and becomes more critical to digital infrastructure

What are the needed digital skills and what are the essential digital skills in the internet-driven future?

Speaker

Online participant (via Dany Wazen)

Explanation

This question seeks to identify the specific competencies required for the future digital economy, which is essential for capacity building and workforce development planning

How can organizations promote adoption of encrypted DNS and encrypted client hello technologies to address privacy concerns with domain name leakage?

Speaker

Vinicius Fortuna (Google Jigsaw)

Explanation

This addresses a serious privacy and security concern where domain names leak in plain text even with HTTPS encryption, potentially revealing sensitive personal information when analyzed by AI systems

What policies or laws are in place to ensure digital transformation projects reach remote areas rather than just urban centers?

Speaker

Audience member

Explanation

This question addresses the digital divide and the need for inclusive policies that ensure connectivity initiatives benefit underserved rural populations who face poor infrastructure, high data costs, and lack of digital devices

How to develop methodology for balancing economic viability for operators with national security requirements for network resilience?

Speaker

Zdravko Jukic

Explanation

This represents a key challenge for regulators in determining optimal investment levels for network redundancy that balance commercial interests with national security needs

How can countries balance different levels of digital advancement within regions like Africa?

Speaker

Chafic Chaya

Explanation

This addresses the challenge of coordinating digital development across countries with varying levels of infrastructure and technological advancement

How to improve intelligence and information sharing among cybersecurity peers across borders?

Speaker

Frank Stien

Explanation

This identifies a gap in international cybersecurity cooperation that needs further development to enhance global internet security

Summary

This discussion, presented by IGF 2025 host country Norway, focused on how small states and startups can leverage AI to compete with larger players in the global AI landscape. The session explored whether smaller actors are sidelined by AI’s resource demands or positioned for unique opportunities through agility, trust, and strategic collaborations.

Norwegian Minister Karianne Tung outlined Norway’s ambitious goal to become the world’s most digitalized country by 2030, highlighting investments in national AI infrastructure, including the new Olivia supercomputer and free Norwegian language models. She emphasized that small states can lead through flexibility and value-based approaches rather than despite their size. Jan-Marcus Lervig from Cognite demonstrated how startups can compete by focusing on specific domains where they possess more relevant data than tech giants, citing Cognite’s leadership in industrial data management.

Professor Ole-Christopher Granmo presented the Settling Machine as an energy-efficient alternative to deep learning, using up to 10,000 times less electricity while maintaining accuracy and explainability. Dr. Chinasa Okolo emphasized opportunities for smaller nations to lead in ethical AI development through contextual innovation, data sovereignty, and peer-to-peer collaboration, particularly in the global majority regions.

Industry representatives Jeff Bullwinkel from Microsoft and Kojo Boake from Meta discussed how large platforms support smaller players through open infrastructure and models. Esther Kunda from Rwanda shared insights from the AI playbook for small states, emphasizing capability building and trusted environments for innovation.

The panelists agreed that success requires focusing on creating value first, then implementing appropriate governance frameworks, while avoiding over-regulation that could stifle innovation. The discussion concluded that small players can become strategic shapers of AI’s future through smart partnerships, domain expertise, and leveraging unique national advantages like renewable energy and specialized knowledge.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Small States and Startups Leveraging AI Innovation**: The discussion explored how smaller nations and companies can compete with tech giants by focusing on domain expertise, agility, and unique advantages rather than trying to match the scale of hyperscalers. Examples included Norway’s focus on industrial data, Rwanda’s AI policy leadership, and Estonia’s digital government initiatives.

– **Energy-Efficient and Alternative AI Technologies**: Significant attention was given to developing sustainable AI solutions, including Professor Granmo’s Settling Machine as an energy-efficient alternative to deep learning, and Norway’s advantage in green energy for AI infrastructure. The discussion highlighted the environmental costs of current AI models and the need for more efficient approaches.

– **Open Source vs. Closed AI Models**: The debate centered on democratizing AI access through open-source models (like Meta’s Llama) versus proprietary systems, with speakers discussing how open-source approaches can level the playing field for smaller players and enable local customization and fine-tuning.

– **AI Governance and Regulation Frameworks**: Extensive discussion on balancing innovation with responsible AI development, including the EU AI Act implementation, regulatory sandboxes, and the need for context-appropriate governance frameworks that don’t stifle innovation while ensuring ethical AI deployment.

– **Data Sovereignty and Local Context**: The importance of countries maintaining control over their data and developing AI solutions that reflect local values, languages, and societal needs, rather than relying solely on models trained on Western data and perspectives.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to explore how smaller nations, startups, and underrepresented regions can effectively participate in and shape the global AI landscape despite resource constraints. The session sought to identify strategies for leveraging unique advantages, fostering innovation ecosystems, and creating inclusive AI development that serves diverse global needs rather than being dominated by a few major tech companies.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained an optimistic and collaborative tone throughout, with speakers emphasizing opportunities rather than limitations. There was a strong sense of partnership and shared purpose among panelists from different sectors (government, academia, industry). The tone was pragmatic yet aspirational, acknowledging challenges while focusing on actionable solutions. Speakers consistently reinforced themes of cooperation, innovation, and the potential for smaller players to make significant contributions to the AI ecosystem. The atmosphere remained constructive and forward-looking, with minimal tension despite representing different perspectives on AI development and governance.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Natalie Becker Aakervik** – Moderator for the session

– **Karianne Tung** – Norway’s Minister of Digitalization and Public Governance

– **John M Lervik** – Entrepreneur and strategist from Cognite, described as one of the leading voices in Norway’s startup ecosystem

– **Ole Christopher Granmo** – Professor at University of Agder and Director of CAIR (Centre for Artificial Intelligence Research), expert in Tsetlin Machine approach to AI

– **Chinasa T. Okolo** – Fellow at the Center for Technology Innovation at the Brookings Institute, recognized as one of the world’s most influential people in AI by Time, expert at the intersection of AI, equity and global governance

– **Esther Kunda** – Director General of Innovation and Emerging Technologies (from Rwanda)

– **Jeff Bullwinkel** – Deputy General Counsel for Microsoft EMEA

– **Kojo Boake** – Vice President of Public Policy for Africa, the Middle East, and Turkey at META

– **Daniel Dykes** – (Role/expertise not clearly specified in transcript)

– **Noel Hurley** – (Role/expertise not clearly specified in transcript)

– **Rishad A. Shafik** – (Role/expertise not clearly specified in transcript)

**Additional speakers:**

None identified beyond the provided speakers names list.

# Small States and Startups in the Global AI Landscape: IGF 2025 Discussion Report

## Introduction and Context

This IGF 2025 session, hosted by Norway, examined how small states and startups can leverage artificial intelligence to compete in the global AI landscape. Moderated by Natalie Becker Aakervik, the hybrid session brought together government ministers, industry leaders, academics, and policy experts to explore whether smaller actors face insurmountable challenges from AI’s resource demands or can find unique opportunities through strategic positioning.

The panel featured Norway’s Minister of Digitalization and Public Governance Karianne Tung, entrepreneur John M Lervik from Cognite, Professor Ole Christopher Granmo from the University of Agder, AI governance expert Chinasa T. Okolo from the Brookings Institution, Rwanda’s Director General of Innovation Esther Kunda, Microsoft’s Jeff Bullwinkel, and Meta’s Kojo Boake.

## National AI Strategies and Strategic Positioning

### Norway’s Comprehensive Digital Vision

Minister Karianne Tung outlined Norway’s ambitious strategy to become the world’s most digitalized country by 2030. This vision is supported by substantial investments including the new Olivia supercomputer and development of Norwegian language models. Tung emphasized that Norway’s approach focuses on creating value through flexibility and values-based approaches rather than competing purely on scale.

The Norwegian government has allocated 1.3 billion Norwegian kroners to AI research through six newly selected research centers beginning operations in summer 2025. Norway is also implementing the EU’s AI Act with a national supervisory authority and launching the AI Norway initiative, which includes regulatory sandboxes to foster innovation while ensuring responsible development.

Tung articulated a fundamental principle: “AI must not become a playground for the powerful, it must serve the public good. And small players are often well positioned to drive innovation with purpose.”

### Rwanda’s Innovation Laboratory Approach

Esther Kunda shared Rwanda’s comprehensive AI strategy, highlighting the country’s collaboration with Singapore on an AI Playbook for Small States and partnerships with Carnegie Mellon University for talent development. Rwanda has developed regulatory sandboxes and positioned itself as an innovation laboratory with agile regulatory frameworks.

Kunda emphasized Rwanda’s focus on three key areas: access to high-performance computing, quality data governance including data sharing policies, and skilled workforce development. She noted that Rwanda participates in the Digital FOSS platform of 108 small states established in 1992, demonstrating long-standing commitment to collaborative digital development.

## Energy-Efficient AI Technologies

### The Tsetlin Machine Alternative

Professor Ole Christopher Granmo presented the Tsetlin Machine as a revolutionary energy-efficient alternative to current AI technologies. He provided stark statistics about AI energy consumption: “One query with ChatGPT… is the same amount of energy as it takes to light one light bulb for 20 minutes. Furthermore, every month, ChatGPT produces more than 260,000 carbon CO2… equal to the emission of 260 flights from New York to London.”

The Tsetlin Machine offers significant energy savings while maintaining explainability—a critical advantage over current “black box” AI systems. Granmo argued that “if we don’t understand the AI, the AI controls us,” emphasizing the importance of maintaining human agency over artificial intelligence systems.

### Norway’s Green Energy Advantage

John M Lervik highlighted Norway’s unique position combining 100% clean energy with cold climate, creating natural advantages for sustainable AI infrastructure. Combined with Norway’s expertise in industrial data, this positions the country to lead in sustainable AI development. A salmon farming demonstration video showcased practical applications of AI in Norway’s key industries.

## Strategic Approaches for Smaller Players

### Domain Expertise Over Scale

Lervik shared Cognite’s success story, demonstrating how startups can compete by focusing on areas where they possess more relevant data than large technology companies. He advocated for strategic focus: “Small players should focus on particular problems and ensure they’re sufficiently big that large companies also care about them to create competitive tension.”

This approach creates competitive dynamics that benefit smaller players while addressing substantial market needs, rather than attempting to compete with tech giants on general-purpose AI.

### Contextual Innovation and Local Solutions

Chinasa T. Okolo emphasized opportunities for smaller nations to lead through contextual innovation, data sovereignty, and peer-to-peer collaboration. She highlighted the importance of addressing AI bias in non-Western contexts, noting that current AI fairness literature focuses primarily on Western concepts while more research is needed on discrimination based on social identities relevant to global majority countries, such as caste or tribal affiliation.

Okolo argued that smaller nations can lead by focusing on contextualized AI approaches rather than trying to build general AI models that compete directly with tech giants.

## Industry Platform Strategies

### Open Source as Democratization Tool

Kojo Boake from Meta discussed how open source models like Llama enable smaller players to fine-tune AI for local purposes while reducing compute costs and increasing transparency. Meta’s approach has enabled applications reaching 3 million students through educational tools and providing agricultural SMS services for farmers.

Boake emphasized that open source models democratize AI access by allowing smaller players to customize solutions for their specific contexts without requiring massive resources to train models from scratch. He also advocated for avoiding “cookie-cutter regulatory approaches,” supporting frameworks suited to local contexts.

### Microsoft’s Sovereign AI Commitment

Jeff Bullwinkel outlined Microsoft’s three-part European digital commitment: expanding sovereign cloud services, enhancing cybersecurity programs, and supporting digital skills development. This approach aims to give smaller nations more control over their digital infrastructure while maintaining responsible AI principles including privacy, security, and ethical frameworks as foundational elements.

## AI Governance and Regulatory Innovation

### Avoiding One-Size-Fits-All Approaches

Multiple speakers agreed that smaller nations should develop governance frameworks suited to their contexts rather than simply copying larger jurisdictions’ regulations. Okolo argued: “Just as we shouldn’t rely on these big tech companies to be the standard of AI development, we also should not rely on these bigger regional blocks or countries to also be the model for AI governance.”

### Balancing Innovation and Responsibility

A nuanced discussion emerged around the appropriate balance between enabling innovation and ensuring responsible AI development. While there was consensus on the importance of both objectives, speakers emphasized different priorities in achieving this balance.

Lervik suggested focusing on value creation first: “We are starting with the cart in front of the horse in many ways. We started to talk about ethical use and privacy… We need to start with understanding how do we create value from AI?”

Other speakers emphasized building responsible AI principles from the beginning, with Bullwinkel stressing Microsoft’s commitment to maintaining data privacy and security as foundational elements.

## Multi-Stakeholder Collaboration

### Essential Partnerships

Strong consensus emerged on the importance of multi-stakeholder collaboration involving companies of all sizes, governments, academia, and civil society. Boake emphasized that “multi-stakeholder collaboration involving big players, medium companies, small regional operators, and academics is essential for effective AI governance.”

This collaborative approach recognizes that effective AI governance requires diverse perspectives and expertise that no single actor possesses.

### Data Sovereignty and Independence

The discussion highlighted data sovereignty as critical for smaller countries seeking to maintain independence from big tech dominance. Okolo emphasized that “data sovereignty, contextual innovation, and peer-to-peer collaboration can help smaller countries control digital resources and increase independence.”

## Key Areas of Consensus

### Strategic Advantages Over Scale

All speakers agreed that small states and companies can compete effectively in AI by leveraging unique advantages like agility, specialized focus, and strategic positioning rather than trying to match the scale of large players.

### Sustainability Imperative

Multiple speakers emphasized the urgent need for energy-efficient AI solutions, with growing awareness of sustainability challenges across the AI community.

### Collaborative Approaches

All speakers emphasized the importance of collaborative approaches to AI development, whether through public-private partnerships, multi-stakeholder governance, or international cooperation.

## Practical Commitments and Next Steps

The session generated concrete commitments: Norway committed to implementing the EU’s AI Act with national supervisory authority and continuing its AI Norway initiative. Meta invited collaboration on using Llama models for national problem-solving and encouraged participation in their Impact Accelerator Program. Microsoft announced its European digital commitments including sovereign cloud services. Rwanda committed to continuing partnerships with academia and other countries for AI talent development.

## Conclusion

The discussion revealed optimism about smaller players’ potential to shape AI’s future through smart partnerships, domain expertise, and leveraging unique national advantages. Rather than being sidelined by AI’s resource demands, smaller players can find opportunities through agility, trust, and values-driven approaches that serve public good.

The session successfully reframed the conversation from defensive survival strategies to empowering leadership approaches in AI development through sustainability, explainability, local context, and collaborative governance. However, significant challenges remain in translating strategic insights into practical implementation, particularly around infrastructure development and maintaining the balance between innovation and responsibility that all speakers recognized as essential.

The collaborative spirit and mature understanding of AI challenges across different stakeholder groups suggests potential for more coordinated and effective AI governance and development strategies globally.

Natalie Becker Aakervik: Hello, everybody. Welcome back. We hope you had a lovely lunch and got to meet and connect with and explore some conversations of people you’ve met. I know the speakers have also been in the networking or rather the lunch session, so if you would have wanted to chat with them, we hope that you got the opportunity to do so. Welcome back. I hope that you’re energized and ready for the next session. Now, good afternoon also to our guests from watching globally from online, welcoming you back as well to this session presented by IGF 2025 host country, Norway. You heard earlier on that Norway was the second country in the world to get connected to the Internet. That’s an important fact. So, we’re looking at large models and small players leveraging AI in small states and startups. I’m Natalie Becker-Arkovic and I’ll be your moderator for this session. Now, over the past few years, we have witnessed something truly extraordinary. AI has moved from the research lab to the boardroom, to the factory floor, to the hospital and increasingly to the center of political and economic power. But, here’s the paradox. As AI becomes more accessible in some ways, it’s also becoming harder to compete. So, the biggest models demand enormous data, compute, investment and resources which are often concentrated in the hands of a few major players. what does this mean for the rest of us? Well, for small estates or for startups and for those not operating at hyperscale, are we sidelined or are we in fact standing at a unique point of opportunity? That is the question. Because here’s what we do know, for example, innovation doesn’t always come from size. It comes from agility, it comes from trust, it comes from deep knowledge and from smart, sometimes surprising collaborations. And today we’re going to explore how small actors can play a big role in shaping the future of AI. We’ll talk about regulation that enables, about startups that outmaneuver giants, about AI systems that work where bandwidth and budgets are limited, but creativity is not. And most of all, we’ll talk about partnerships. Very important word, collaboration has come up very strongly today. Partnerships has come up very strongly today, so we should take note and take that as an actionable takeaway, one of the many. And also partnerships, the kind that really makes innovation inclusive and global and sustainable. In other words, how can we move from being small players to being strategic shapers of the digital world? First, we’ll hear from Karin Tung, Norway’s Minister of Digitalization and Public Governance. Minister Tung will share her vision for how small states like Norway can shape AI policy in a way that not only protects values like fairness and transparency, but also prioritizes countries like hers as competitive innovation hubs in the global AI landscape. So a warm round of applause, please. Minister Tung, the floor is yours. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Karianne Tung: Good afternoon, everyone. It is a pleasure being here and to start this very interesting discussion on leveraging. artificial intelligence to increase business competitiveness and also to create better public services. I think we all can agree that AI will transform industries and markets as well as individual lives and our whole society. Because managed and prioritized correctly, it can be the tool we need to solve many of the complex challenges that we are up against today. And at the same time, quite understandably, I must say many people feel uncertain and concerned. It’s evident that the AI revolution raises many dilemmas and questions and concerns that we need to address. And as digitalization knows no borders, we need to work together to find the best solutions. Artificial intelligence is no longer just a technological issue, it is a matter of geopolitics. AI must not become a playground for the powerful, it must serve the public good. And small players are often well positioned to drive innovation with purpose. Many groundbreaking and impactful AI innovations come from small labs, agile startups and public agencies. Through some received support or investment from big tech, their creativity and flexibility are essential forces behind AI’s rapid progress. As nations race to harness the power of AI, the development of international standards is emerging as a key strategic tool. By shaping the rules and norms that govern AI, we are not only ensuring safety and trust, but also asserting our values and in a rapidly evolving global landscape. For many, the rise of large AI models feels like a race between giants. And indeed, the largest models today are backed by the largest companies drawing on massive data, infrastructure and funding. Being a representative for a small country, I know both the challenges but also the advantages that come with size. We do not have limitless resources. But in fact, many small states are already global leaders in digitalization, cybersecurity and tech regulations. These are not accidental achievements. These stem from long-term national strategies that prioritize innovation, citizen trust and smart governance. I would now like to take the opportunity to share with you some perspectives about how Norway is taking significant steps to harness AI in a responsible and innovative way. Our main goal towards 2030 as set out in our national digitalization strategy is for Norway to become the most and best digitalized country in the world. It is ambitious, but I believe it’s not impossible. We want the business sector to have favorable framework conditions for developing and using AI. And we want all our public sector to utilize AI for greater efficiency and to create better services for our citizens already by 2025, but also for 2030 and the future. To support these ambitious goals, we are now building a national infrastructure for artificial intelligence that can be used for research, for business development and for a more modern world. modern public sector, thus placing Norway at the forefront of ethical and safe AI use. We have allocated to the National Library, in cooperation with the state company Sigma2, to train and to make available, free of charge, Norwegian and Sámi language models. These are based on our Norwegian data and our societal values. We are developing our national infrastructure for high-performance computing, and this will support both public sector and private entities in their effort to develop AI application and utilize AI within different sectors of the economy, but also society. And just last week, we switched on our newest supercomputer. It is called Olivia. It will have 17 times greater computational power than the infrastructure we used until now. And of course, we are also working on the implementation of EU’s Artificial Intelligence Act, with a goal to make it applicable in Norway at the same time as the rest of the EU. The proposal for the necessary legislation will be sent out for public consultation before this summer. To comply with the requirements that we can find in the AI Act, we are also establishing a national supervisory authority and launching what we called AI Norway. AI Norway will be placed in our digitalization agency, and this will be an arena for collaboration, sharing of experience, and also experimenting with AI solutions within different sectors. AI Norway will also, among other things, manage our regulatory sandbox, where Norwegian public sector organizations and companies, especially the SMEs, can experiment with and develop and train AI systems within safe legal frameworks. Also, a couple of weeks ago we allocated 1.3 billion Norwegian kroners to AI-related research. Six newly selected research centres will focus on various societal and technical aspects of developing and applying AI in different fields. The centres will start their operation this summer. The Norwegian School of Economics has also recently published a report on Norwegian AI tool landscape. The rankings in this report offers a unique perspective on the Norwegian AI company landscape, showcasing both established players and emerging companies. Over 350 Norwegian AI tools and companies are described in this report. 30% of these have been founded in 2022 or later, 49 of the companies have 10 or less than 10 employees. So as you see, Norway has a vibrant AI environment and many startups to contribute to this environment with their ideas and their knowledge. We just need to create and sustain favourable conditions for these companies to thrive. Support for early-stage ventures including access to data, talent and sandboxes is critical in that respect, as well as the demand from the public sector to utilise AI in developing better services and solving tasks more efficiently. But we also need to focus on international cooperation, knowledge and sharing and strategic partnerships. Our common goal should be a balanced and inclusive technological landscape that benefits everyone. To conclude, small players can be leaders in this technological shift. not despite the size, but because of their flexibility and innovation capacity, as well as a value-based approach to AI. So, let’s don’t miss up on this opportunity. Let’s work together and build a future that is open, that is fair for the many, not for the few. Thank you for your attention.

Natalie Becker Aakervik: Thank you, Minister Tung. Thank you so much. How small scales can promote innovation and regulation in AI. Thank you for those insights. Now, we’re joined by an entrepreneur and strategist and one of the leading voices in Norway’s startup systems or startup ecosystems, and you’ll recognize him right away. John will show us that size doesn’t have to limit ambition, especially when startups focus on domain strength, agility, and trust. And with concrete examples, he’s going to explain how small players can collaborate with large platforms and sometimes even out-innovate them. That’s an idea. And I’m talking about Jan-Marcus Lervig, who I’m going to introduce in a second and invite onto stage, and he will be followed by Professor Ole-Christopher Grannmål. And Professor Grannmål will give us a quick tour of the Settler machine, which is a lightweight, high-accuracy model ideal for smaller actors and edge applications. So it’s a reminder that you don’t need to be a superpower to do powerful AI. You need smart, interpretable design. So now, without further ado, a warm round of applause, please, for Mr. Jan-Marcus Lervig from Cognite. Please. Thank you. Thank you. I have a few slides, I think, so if you could put them up, it would be appreciated.

John M Lervik: Yes, excellent. So Cognite was founded at the beginning of 2017, and at that time, we saw a fundamental… need to improve the world’s industries. You know we have a growing world population, we have a climate crisis and also you know lately we have seen the geopolitics which basically creates a demand for us to produce more but using less. So produce more goods, more energy but with less emission. This is really the problem that Cognite is about to solve. How can we make our industries more efficient and more sustainable and safer? Eight years later we are Norway’s first unicorn but not only that we’re also a company that delivers data and AI technologies across the world, across industries. As you can see both in the energy sector, life sciences, pharma sector and many other areas. In many ways we have created a new product category for industrial data management and we are the leader in that. You can say a particular market. So then what do we do when it comes to AI? Yes we use AI in our technology to be more efficient, to make our software more intelligent and also to be able to access data, industrial data in this case, through new and better ways. In the same way that you use chat GPT for your personal lives, basically Cognite provides software and AI to access and use data to optimize how you operate industrial facilities. But we’re not happy with that. We’re not happy to be a global leader in that area. How can we take it to the next level? And of course we all know about the giants in California, you know OpenAI for example, they built chat GPT. There’s also many others that have built large language models which is basically large foundational AI models that use huge training sets from text and grammar to build these large LLMs, so large language models that we all use every day. Going forward you also have companies like Meta or Facebook. They’re also building their own foundation model, both for text, but also for images. They’re investing now $15 billion into scale AI to basically create context for images so you can create large foundational models for images. Of course, there’s no way Cognite, or I would say also Norway, can compete with that scale. It requires too much investments, resources, talent that we can compete. But if you go into a sector like industry, we see Cognite, small Cognite, if you will, have a lot more data than the large players on industrial data. We have three orders of magnitude more than NVIDIA and all of these other cloud providers. So there’s an opportunity for us to create foundational models for industrial data because we have industrial data with context. And then you can start to create another category of AI models beyond the, let’s say, consumer models for text, images, videos, et cetera, and also do the same for industrial data. And with that, you can then also start to optimize industrial assets to make them more efficient, more sustainable in new and better ways without using the conventional machine learning approaches and writing advanced software applications. And also we know, of course, that if you look at the graph to the right, it shows how quickly the cost efficiency of different technologies, the blue one is electricity. It took a number of decades. The second one was internet. And the third one is basically generative AI, how quickly the price curve goes down. So if you have access to unique data, the price curve for using those unique data to build new models is very attractive and can enable us to create something very unique. But again, it’s very hard for the conventional, largest companies in the world to compete with. So what does this mean? for Norway or for another small country for that sake. I think you know one key learning you need to stay close to the problem. Of course in our case the problem is industry, asset intensive industries, which you can argue it’s 30-40% of the world’s GDP but still it’s a particular problem and we have particular competence in Norway around industries, process industries etc. Again as I mentioned we have also access to data, not more text than open AI or more images than Facebook, but we have access to much more industrial data than any of them that we can then use with our competence and in our context. Then of course, so number one and two I believe Norway and Cognite in particular have pretty good control over, then of course we need access to compute. We need GPUs, we need ability to really train these models and continue to retrain them, so that’s also one key area. I heard the minister talking about buying into some large computers which is great but we need a lot more and of course to run these computers we also need energy and that’s another area where I would argue Norway is in a very unique position where we have essentially 100% access to 100% clean energy, green energy and this is something we have to nurture and in particular up north you know the energy is also very cheap, it’s cold so you don’t need as much cooling. So we have an opportunity in Norway by using our unique strengths you could say and fair advantages to build technologies that make us, can be world champions even in some of the bigger and more important areas in the world. Thank you.

Natalie Becker Aakervik: you

Ole Christopher Granmo: the settling machine approach to artificial intelligence my base The mission is to perform groundbreaking artificial intelligence research that transforms society.

Noel Hurley: The business world invests in the Settling Machine approach to AI, the alternative to deep learning. The big challenge that we see in AI is it’s computationally incredibly complex.

Daniel Dykes: That’s really what we’re looking at, right? We’re looking at something that is cheaper, it’s cheaper to train, it’s cheaper to run, up to 10,000 times less electricity used per inference per decision.

Rishad A. Shafik: Settling Machine as an algorithm has intrinsic properties based on logic which makes it really interesting in terms of developing new types of AI algorithms and applications that are by nature energy efficient. It is accurate, it is explainable, and it uses very little energy.

Ole Christopher Granmo: Now is the time to join the new AI paradigm creating breakthroughs and powerful applications. We are watching a revolution going on in real time. It’s a revolution driven by machine learning. It’s powerful algorithms that can learn to perform tasks from data in health, in legal, in public sector, everywhere. And the technology has become so powerful that you can solve almost any task with high accuracy. It’s very tempting to use this for all purposes. Thank you. Also very recently, we have seen large language models. I have been a skeptic for a very long time. I haven’t found the real use for it. But a few weeks ago, when I used DeepSeek to dissect my settle machine, I knew the game had changed. It was scarily good. So if you can live with the hallucinations, it’s truly a powerful tool. I would almost say super intelligent in some cases. However, when you scale up, it breaks down completely. So it can solve the complex task, but still very powerful technology. So we are now in an extremely exciting place in human history. But I have some concerns, which I want to talk about today. And I call these concerns betrayals. And I’m going to talk about three betrayals. The first one, betrayal one, is energy. Because one query with ChatGPPT, it’s extremely energy hungry. It is the same amount of energy as it takes to light one light bulb for 20 minutes. Furthermore, every month, ChatGPPT produces more than 260,000 carbon CO2. So that’s equal to the emission of 260 flights from New York to London. So this is… immense. It’s a huge environmental problem and it raises concerns because we are running out of energy and it’s not good for the planet. So that’s the first betrayal because we are endangering our future. The second betrayal is transparency. Because for the first time in human history we are bringing in technology to use that we do not fully understand. Who would fly a plane that the engineers didn’t understand? The deep learning models, the models that are driving chat GPT and other large language models, they are so complex that we cannot understand what’s going on inside them. And we know that they are unpredictable and they are full of biases and discrimination and so on. And still it’s taken into use. For instance in US algorithms are used to decide the length of sentences and the judges don’t understand them. And we know that studies show that these models are discriminating. For instance black people are automatically flagged as high-risk without any context. Furthermore, another example from India, they use AI to decide who’s going to get welfare. And thousands of legitimate receivers were removed by the AI because of faulty or weak algorithms. So extremely powerful technology but we have to be careful because are endangering the freedom and the rights of people by using it. And the last betrayal, betrayal three, is power. Because suddenly it’s the big tech companies that are becoming extremely powerful because they have produced this technology, they are owning it, and we have to use it. So we are in the pockets of big tech, in my opinion. And that affects everyone because kids have to learn to adapt to the algorithms, to get likes and to be accepted. Governments adapt to the technology they use, for instance for automatic policy, which and then calling it objective by using the AI, which we know is biased, which we know have all these weaknesses. So this is very gloomy, but I also have the solution. Because in Norway we have a new kind of artificial intelligence based on a completely new principle. It goes back to a hidden gem in the history of science. It’s from 1961. It’s a very elegant, extremely efficient model of learning that was invented by a Soviet mathematician Michael Settlin. And it’s kind of hidden and lost, but I saw immediately that this was what I was looking for when I invented the Settlin machine. And it had some very interesting properties. So I took that learning mechanism and then I combined it with propositional logic from philosophy because logic is understandable and that became the second machine. So it’s an efficient and new way to do machine learning and right now we are outperforming deep learning in sepsis alerting, in understanding lung disease, in understanding heart disease and in several domains and this is just the start. Deep learning got this decade, now watch this space. Thank you.

Natalie Becker Aakervik: Thank you so much. Right, thank you also to Jan Lervig for the presentation and then also to Professor Olay Christopher Granmore, professor at University of Agder and director of CAIR. So now I would like to introduce our next keynote speaker who’s also going to be delivering a presentation here. She’s a fellow at the Center for Technology Innovation at the Brookings Institute and one of the world’s most recognized voices here today at the intersection of AI, equity and global governance. Chinassa has been recognized as one of the world’s most influential people in AI by Time. Please join me in giving a warm Oslo welcome to Dr. Chinassa T. Okolo. The stage is yours.

Chinasa T. Okolo: All right, so really happy to be here today and thank you again for the opportunity to speak and so I’ll present briefly on how smaller countries, particularly those in the global majority, also known as Africa, Asia, Latin America, the Caribbean and Oceania, can really advance how they pursue AI and how to really make the most of it. So I’m going to introduce Dr. Chinassa T. Okolo who is a professor at the Center for Technology Innovation at the Brookings Institute and one of the world’s most recognized voices here today at the intersection of AI, equity and global governance. Please join me in giving a warm Oslo welcome to Dr. Chinassa T. Okolo who is a professor at the Center for Technology Innovation at the Brookings Institute and one of the world’s most renowned voices here today at the Brookings Institute. and communities. So first, we know that the global AI divide shows disproportionate impacts in these regions, whether it be from labor, climate, social, and economic risk. There’s been much work published on this by the UN and other entities. I was very fortunate to write for the International AI Safety Report that was steered by Professor Yoshua Bengio, who’s the most cited computer scientist alive. We also know that 50% of AI research is produced from the US and China. This map is from Digital Science. And also, the Stanford AI Index indicates that 80% of all VC funding for AI companies is allocated to just these two countries. Again, looking at this map and many others, we see that this also excludes many countries and regions, like Latin America, Asia, Africa, and beyond. We also know that despite these disparities in infrastructure, education capacity, and talent concentration, this marginalization is actually breeding innovation. We see that small and emerging nations aren’t relegating themselves to the sidelines in a global AI ecosystem. They’re redefining and developing new models for how AI should work for them and their respective needs. While Silicon Valley debates topics like AI alignment and also catastrophic risk, smaller nations like Estonia, Rwanda, and Singapore are reshaping AI development, research, and governance on their own terms. For example, Estonia has built an AI-powered digital government, one of the most prominent in the world. It prioritizes citizens, reduces bureaucracy, and also it advances and engages public sector engagement. Next, we see that Rwanda has led development of the first AI policy and that strategy on the African continent. And they’ve done a really great job in increasing their international engagement and cooperation through efforts like the Global AI Summit on Africa that was hosted in April of this year in Kigali and had the fortune of attending and it was a really great event. And finally, we see that Singapore has really made lots of great efforts to steer regional cooperation throughout ASEAN and beyond and have also really steered these really interesting scientific breakthroughs, particularly when it comes to building LLMs and also through these critical evaluation approaches through red teaming and benchmarking. And this is just only a few. So to end this presentation, I’ll present three pillars that can help enable global transformation, particularly for smaller countries and also those in these marginalized regions. However, this is not exhaustive and also can be applied to larger companies, countries, and institutions as well. So first, data sovereignty can be essential in helping small nations, organizations, et cetera, control the digital resources and increase independence from large tech corporations. Estonia has done a really great job in adapting this and integrating this into the digital government, particularly in redefining how they make contracts with large tech companies and also encouraging regional and local talent to help provide services that their government needs. Next, contextual innovation is really important and something that is promoted in approaches like human-centered computing and interaction more broadly. We know that AI design with local context can leverage efficient methods, for example, benchmarking evaluations and also even small models, which is something that lots of organizations and even companies are pivoting to because they notice that these models actually are more efficient and more accurate in many contexts. And again, it’s really important that we understand that these models and efforts should be integrated with indigenous values and knowledge. And finally, peer-to-peer collaboration is essential for ensuring that we can develop regional networks that bypass these traditional power hierarchies and combine resources to optimize AI development. And these resources can include computing infrastructure and even educational infrastructure by distributing different networks and also research centers as well, so countries and organizations can collaborate and ensure again that they’re creating AI that meets their needs. So thank you so much for listening and looking forward to the panel presentation later.

Natalie Becker Aakervik: Thank you for a great presentation Chinassa, wonderful insights there as well. And we’re really looking forward to diving deeply into the panel discussion with the insights that our speakers have given us today. But now we have a speaker who is going to be talking about or really focusing on AI playbook for small states and what are the main conclusions, looking at the playbook, how can Rwanda be in the forefront to shape the future for AI, and how can data sovereignty, innovation and collaboration unlock opportunity. And she is the Director General of Innovation and Emerging Technologies and she is Esther Kunda. So Esther is coming through. There we go, Esther. Thank you so much. Please, a warm round of applause, we know it’s digital, but please welcome Esther Kunda. Thank you very much. I cannot see the screen on the presentation, but if we can definitely start.

Esther Kunda: Thank you for having me, and let me first thank Shinasa for also talking about Rwanda in her previous presentation. To quickly start, when we did this AI playbook for small states, one of the key considerations, we collaborated with Singapore to work on this particular playbook, and the idea is that small states in this playbook around AI have different key takeaways, but also we have different challenges that we are tackling. If you can go to the next slide, please. So the AI playbook, the digital force, which is a form of small states, on the next slide, thank you. So the digital force was established in 1992 by Singapore, and it’s a platform of 108 small states that discuss common interests, and the digital part of it was actually introduced in October 2022 to ensure that we also continue to collaborate on that. So when we started the playbook in 2023, one of the key areas that we were looking at was to ensure that this serves as a compilation of best practices and experiences from force members on implementing AI strategies and addressing challenges that we face. As small nations, I think one of the key areas that we would all appreciate is that we don’t have the same challenges that everyone has, and what we were looking at is to really understand how small states can navigate these opportunities and the risks that AI poses, but also provide actionable guidance based on global governance, but also best practices from other member states. We were also trying to see if we can, amongst ourselves, create this learning and collaboration and peer collaboration. to address challenges, especially on data, compute resources, funding, and as well as the fact that one of the biggest key drivers for small steps is around small domestic markets, and in some instances also being landlocked countries. If you can go to the next, please. In some of the key recommendations that we came up in the playbook in itself, what we were looking at was capability for countries to build foundational AI capabilities for themselves, and this will look at human resource development. So, how do we upscale our workforce, especially in our workforce in public sector or in the existing workforce, and how do we make sure that we have the right in the existing workforce, because this is one of the key areas where when we talk about AI is going to take jobs from different demographics, this is one of the key areas that everyone talks about. And then we also look at infrastructure development, access to high performance computing and the quality of the data that is available to states, and how do we innovate around that. And lastly, sustainability concerns. I think a couple of speakers have also talked about energy, and this is also one of the key concerns that we looked at and looked at best practices towards that. In terms of the second area we looked at is promoting AI development and use, and here we looked at different areas and different best practices in countries where we, where communities are driving AI co-creation and transparent and fair use and inclusivity. Thirdly, we also looked at how we foster trusted environment, and I believe the Honorable Minister who started talked about Norway creating its own sandbox, and I think this is one of the key areas that are very important. So, interoperability. open research, knowledge exchange, and continuously promote these platforms for all of us. And lastly, I think this is also why we’re here, global partnership and corporations in terms of AI standards, AI systems, and explainability and transparency of the AI systems that we do have. So in Rwanda, how we are doing that, if we can go to the next slide, in Rwanda, what we are looking at today is, we’ve spent the last two years with a strategy that really looks at laying a groundwork for what we want to do as a country. So, first of all, we put in place a strategy and a policy that really puts Rwanda as an innovation lab and continues for it to be an innovation lab. Second, we’re trying to do assessment and work around infrastructure and ecosystem readiness. So we’ve been working very hard in ensuring that we have data that is available. Today, when you also look at connectivity and availability of affordable data, this is also something that we are working on. And recently, actually, government passed a data sharing policy that will enable us to easily share data, but also avail this data to the private sector in one way or the other, so that AI models can be able to be trained on data that is Rwandan and that serves Rwanda. Thirdly, as a country, we continue to be a truthful concept. So we’ve positioned ourselves as a country that wants to allow innovators to test in an environment that is agile, because for us, what we understand is that the technology is evolving very fast. So we have to, as policy makers, we have to work with how fast it is evolving and ensure that as we put a regulation in place, we are aligning with how it is evolving. is going. And lastly, of course, we are ensuring that we have the talent and the skills that is required. And that’s why we continue to partner with academia like Connecticut Mellon University, Africa Leadership University, and our own universities to really create the talent that we need and ensuring that in the next few years you can find AI talent within Rwanda. Lastly, if I go to the last slide, we’re also working in ensuring that data is available, as I was mentioning, and then also pouring into our innovation ecosystem and startups and also continue to make partnerships with other countries, other institutions to ensure that AI is viable and useful to every citizen in Rwanda. Thank you very much.

Natalie Becker Aakervik: Thank you so much, Esther, for those great insights and for your presentation. And now we’re going to be introducing our next two speakers. We’re very pleased to welcome Jeff Bullwinkle. He is the Deputy General Counsel for Microsoft EMEA. Jeff will offer insights into how large platforms like Microsoft are working with small markets and governments to build innovation ecosystems and how regulation and responsibility can go hand in hand. After Jeff has done his remarks, we will hear from Kojo Boyake, VP or Vice President of Public Policy for Africa, the Middle East, and Turkey in META. Kojo brings a valuable perspective on how small players and global platforms can co-create inclusive tech futures, especially in regions where connectivity and access and local innovation all intersect. But please first join me in giving a warm welcome and a round of applause to Microsoft. Jeff, the stage is yours.

Jeff Bullwinkel: Well, thank you very much, Natalie. It’s great to be here in Oslo. Welcome to everybody here in the room. Good afternoon, good morning, good afternoon, good evening to anybody who is following online. And thanks to all of you for the opportunity to offer a couple of perspectives at what I think really is a momentous point in time, a very important moment in history in technology. It is the era of AI, as has been talked about already today. But as we think about that and reflect upon what’s happening in this era of AI, it’s worth, I think, also reflecting on history of technology over the course of time. Think about the moment at which the Amul-type printing press was perfected in the mid-15th century, leading to innovation over the course of time that has really changed the course of humanity in so many positive ways. These innovations over the course of time, the steam engine, ultimately, electricity, of course, as well, the telephone, the combustion engine. Naturally, you get into the era of the PC, the intranet, mobile telephony, the smartphone, and of course, ultimately, now what really is cloud and cloud in the era of AI. These have been the building blocks, really, that have defined what is today a modern civilization. But the focus really is, at the moment, not surprisingly, on this era of artificial intelligence. Of course, we think about that and must recognize that AI is really nothing new. We’ve talked about this at least for 75 years, since Alan Turing devised the famous Turing test back in the 50s, but it really is the moment in time over the past few years, perhaps two and a half years, when I think, as Natalie said at the opening, AI has entered the boardroom. In the era of generative AI, the conversation really has changed. That’s why, as you can see, the adoption curve here changing this very dramatic way. You see things here today that really are. At this point, taken entirely for granted, the internet, the mobile phone, Facebook as a platform, Meta as a platform, Meta is here today as well. These technologies took up to many, many years to reach 100 million users, not so with ChatGPT, which really is the one you see here at the end. It’s a straight line. Practically three months only to reach 100 million users for ChatGPT, when it was first launched into the world about two and a half years ago. It’s not perhaps surprising to think about that because it is, after all, a GPT. Not as in ChatGPT, but a general purpose technology. That is a technology that has the ability to reshape, to reinvent, to improve in so many ways every aspect of the economy. Unlike a single purpose technology, which is very good at one particular thing, like a sewing machine, GPTs, like generative AI, do have the ability, again, to reshape every field of human endeavor in dramatic and exciting ways. We’re also finding, though, as we think about this moment we’re in, that there is this additional technology stack that gets created, a stack that has three fundamental layers to it. One is the infrastructure layer. Of course, you need land. You need power, as has been talked about as well today. You need advanced chips and GPUs. Of course, you need data center infrastructure, including what Microsoft and other companies like Meta are building across Europe, across the global north, across the global south as well. That is the infrastructure layer. But also you have, of course, the model layer, the foundation model layer, which includes, of course, data, the new lifeblood, as they say, the new oil of today’s economy. You have the models themselves, whether large language models or smaller language models. Ultimately, of course, you have tooling as well. You have this model layer as well. Then beyond that, above that, you have, of course, the application layer, the various things that people can do with technology that animates in different ways so many aspects of life in really very exciting ways, and ultimately, of course, end users. Now, when you think about this, you realize there is opportunity for growth, for innovation, for progress in so many ways, up and down every layer of this stack. And I think it is very helpful to think about what Minister Tong said at the beginning in her remarks, because she captured it so well in terms of the ability for a small country, a medium-sized country, a large country, for an individual entrepreneur, for a small company, for a large company, for a non-profit, for a hospital, for a school, all to benefit in remarkable ways from this technology, which is really exciting to think about. And, of course, because we are here in Norway, I’ll just have up on the slide here various things that reflect the ways in which companies involved in logistics, in financial services, in healthcare, in IT, professional services, all are doing very exciting things here in Norway with these new technologies. So that really is remarkable for us to think about in terms of, again, every different aspect of human endeavor. At the same time, though, it’s also worth reflecting on the fact that trust is key. And we are, after all, living in an era of geopolitical volatility. Trust has become an issue. Trust in technology, perhaps, has become an issue as well. And that does mean that companies like Microsoft have to make sure they recognize the responsibilities that come with the role that we occupy. And this is a global audience here in Oslo and online, to be sure. But equally, because we are here in Europe, I thought I’d spend a moment talking about how we’ve thought about our responsibilities in the European context through the announcement quite recently, about a month and a half ago, of a new set of European digital commitments that have these five different elements to them you see in the slide. The first really is a recognition of the fact that we have the opportunity, the responsibility to support a Cloud and AI ecosystem that is broad and diverse. That definitely includes the infrastructure that Microsoft itself is building as a company across the Global North and across the Global South as well. But equally, it involves our work in supporting local European providers as well, and local technology companies and other markets in which we operate around the world. We want a broad and diverse AI ecosystem on a Cloud infrastructure. The second element of our digital commitments is really focused on the need for us to be able to provide what I’ll describe as digital resilience even in an era of geopolitical volatility. This commitment has three different elements to it for us here in Europe where these concerns have become particularly pronounced over the past little while. The first is our commitment that as a company, we will in fact oversee and manage our AI data center infrastructure through boards of directors that are comprised exclusively of European nationals. That’s our number one. A second element of this commitment to resilience is making sure we are committing to our customers, to our partners, to government stakeholders, our preparedness to push back against any order from any government to either cease or suspend Cloud services. This actually has become a fairly common point in conversations that we have. Microsoft, what would you do in the event you were ordered to cease or suspend Cloud services? Through this commitment, we essentially commit, and we will do so contractually to national European governments to resist to fight back against any such order, including with litigation if that proves necessary. The third element of this commitment, however, is focused on our need to more than that. So a customer might come to us and say, Microsoft, thank you for committing to resist an order and for litigating that. What if you lose? What then? And so what we just said here essentially is that we will have a mechanism by which we can provide business continuity in the very unlikely event of that happening. And here we’ve talked about our plan to create a repository of software code sitting in Switzerland that will be overseen by third-party providers that will be able to, again, provide continuity in the event, again, of a very, very unlikely scenario such as the one people are now talking about. A third commitment we have here really is building on what has been years of focusing on the need to protect the privacy, the security, the sovereignty of data in Europe and really data around the world. In Europe, we have already taken significant steps to make sure that our customers’ data is being processed and stored within the European Union and other countries as well, including here in Norway. So that’s been a longstanding investment we’ve made over the course of time. Beyond that, though, we’re doing additional things as well to make sure that we are building in sovereign controls to our own cloud services to address what really are very natural, understandable concerns and questions people have in this moment of geopolitical volatility. And in fact, some may have seen that our CEO, Satya Nadella, was in Amsterdam just last week on Monday, and he gave a speech at that time in which he announced a new set of sovereignty-related controls that you can read about online in a blog written by Justin Althoff, focusing on our commitment to provide a sovereign public cloud, a sovereign private cloud, and also, in some cases, national partner cloud. So that really is our third focus here in terms of making sure we are always focused on the need for sovereignty. Now, cybersecurity also, of course, is top of mind. It is for us and has been for some time. It is also for everyone here, I’m sure, in the room. online, recognizing the increasingly pernicious, malicious threats and attacks in cyberspace, often from nation-state actors. We see this frequently as a company. We have the ability at Microsoft to be able to aggregate data, by the way, using AI, looking at 77 trillion signals every single day to detect how threat vectors are evolving over the course of time and how we can defend against attacks before they become problems for the communities that we serve. We also then, following our initial announcement of these commitments that we made back in April, announced a new European security program focused on making sure we’re doing even more to share threat intelligence and work with governments and other stakeholders in a way that will reduce the threat environment online. And finally, what I would say here that we’re also very focused on is the need to make sure that we are committed to openness. And here, we have a commitment to make sure we’re also doing even more to support open source software development in the context of this era of AI. We announced about a year and a half ago at the Mobile World Congress in Barcelona a set of AI access principles that really can be summarized in three words. One, again, is access. Here, the conversation is very much about making sure that everyone can have access to infrastructure needed to benefit from AI in the way that everyone needs to benefit from AI. So access is number one. Fairness is number two. Making sure that once we are giving access to people to use our infrastructure, we’re treating them fairly and doing so in the context of interoperable open standards as well. And finally, there’s an element there of responsibility. Making sure, again, that we as a company are rising to the challenge of responsibility that comes with the role that we occupy, including in relation to developing our own set of principles around responsible and ethical AI, but ultimately making sure we’re being adherent and compliant with laws that governments enact around the world. So I’ll pause there and look forward to the conversation. in the panel, and with that, invite Kojo to follow me. Thank you.

Kojo Boake: Thank you. Hi, everyone. As some people have mentioned, my name is Kojo Bwachi, I’m the Vice President of Public Policy for Africa, the Middle East, and Turkey here with META. It’s extremely hard to follow these speakers. I thought Dr. or Professor Chanasa’s presentation was fantastic, so I’m going to try my very, very best. Be gentle with me. I have to admit also that I was thrown by the question posed to all the panelists. What do they mean by small states, I thought, in part because I’m mindful that the region I look after, Africa, the Middle East, and Turkey, is full of what some people might deem small states, but they punch well above their weight. The United Arab Emirates had the first AI minister friend, Minister al-Ulema, in 2017, and I’m told people laughed when they said they appointed an AI minister. People have seen what KSA are doing, and from my unique vantage point, I’ve seen all the work that’s being done in places like Nigeria, Ethiopia, and South Africa on AI. So I have a small bias here. I’ll probably be speaking more to small companies and startups than I will to small states. How do we as a company, Meta, think about this era of AI? Our view is that we need to level the playing field, that no one company or government can own the future and the promise of AI, and we attempt to do that by open sourcing our models. Since 2023, we’ve launched Lama models, and now on Lama 4, that have been downloaded one billion times, more than that now, and we believe that the unique advantages and differences between closed models and open models shouldn’t be seen as binary. We know some are more open than others. But the unique differences, most notably things like transparency and the fact that you have access to the weights and can fine-tune as you wish, create advantages that are good for the world, for meta, yes, but for good for many of the small startups and small states that wish to use them and are using them. The advantage of lower compute costs, the advantages of being able to fine-tune as you would to meet your local purpose, national purpose, commercial purpose is amazing. The fact that you can actually see under the hood of how these models are created and as we think about the risks of AI, the fact that we can learn from other people’s attempts to get behind the back of it and use it in uneven means but also to share their learnings in respect of cyber security. I said I would have a bias towards some of the small players that are using open AI and certainly LLAMA to meet national goals and increasingly continental ones. In education and in public health we’ve seen ourselves partner with the Africa Union Development Agency to create Akili AI and in part this was because we were told as a company across the Africa region that small to medium businesses that characterize the region didn’t understand how they might scale or grow or work in other countries, how they might take advantage of the new Africa continental trade agreement and work in Ghana and Nigeria or Kenya and Estuani. Enabling this to happen through an app that they can access information on has proved critically important already and we hope to grow this with more governments. I’m also mindful that Fundimate created as an educational app that now reaches more than 3 million students enabling many to go from primary school or lower school to junior school, upper school and on to university. has proved incredibly successful using LLAMA and the fact that we open-sourced it has been a key driver in that incredible development. Digital Green, again, an SMS service backed up by LLAMA AI is helping farmers across Kenya and other parts of East Africa increase yields and increase outcomes. And Jacaranda Health, cited by many as a stunning example of open-source use and traditional technologies, is helping mothers across Kenya in Swahili and now across Ghana with the Ghanian National Health Service and I’m sure other countries as it grows is helping to create much, much safer outcomes in terms of maternal health. A quick video from Fundamate. I always felt it was better if someone else speaks to some of the advantages rather than I, if it plays. I’m hoping tech might be able to help. Is there someone from tech who can help with my amazing video? Sorry, you’re going to have to miss that one. I’m telling you, it’s a blockbuster. That’s Fundamate explaining how they’ve used open AI, not only to meet the needs of students, as I mentioned, students in junior school, students who want to go to university, and the fact that they’ve been able to scale. And this idea of scaling is super, super important, as you can appreciate. I’ll take a bit more time to quickly say that much of this is done through our investments in a holistic way. Obviously, the billions we spend on infrastructure and developing models is critically important. You’ll hear that from many of the big players. But also, stimulating through the Lama Impact Grant, which has enabled startups from around the world receive thousands of applications launched in 2023 and enable startups from around the world to get onto Lama, use Lama, and to grow their businesses. But also, from things that my team in the African, Middle East, and Turkey region have developed. And if you’re quick enough, you can apply for the Lama Impact Accelerator Program, which will see us have mentorship and skills development for organizations, small organizations that wish to use Lama and open source AI to grow their businesses and accelerate their efforts to meet some of the national and local challenges that they face. Of course, this is my 19th IGF. I’m surprised. None of you say, you meant to say you don’t look old enough to have done 19 IGFs. I didn’t hear that. But this is my 19th IGF. I know a lot is being decided this year on the IGF. And I’m mindful that there are not just me, but a number of staff from Meta here who are here to engage and to collaborate and to build partnership. I’m also mindful that this era of AI, the promise that AI holds, as well as the risks that many of us are concerned about and negating those risks, will only come about if we collaborate and if we build the multi-stakeholder partnerships. I’m here till Thursday, as are many of the team here from Meta. We very much look forward to engaging with you, and I look forward to the panel. Thanks ever so much. Appreciate your time. So we hope you enjoyed these really exciting presentations from our esteemed speakers who’ve once again traveled from far and wide to be here with us today and to give their presentations and their insights.

Natalie Becker Aakervik: Now we are again going to take a deeper dive into what they’ve touched upon during their exciting presentations and we’re going to invite them back on stage for a panel discussion. So lots of new insights to work with here, setting the foundations to explore it more deeply. I would like to invite back on stage Chinasa Teokolo, John Lerwick, Jeff Bullwinkle, Ole Christopher Granmore and Koyo Boyake. Hello, I have to ask you, what on earth is going on here? So you see the role that technology does play in our everyday lives. Norway, of course, is known for its salmon. You would know that from all parts of the world and recognized for that globally. And of course, technology and innovation plays a large part in making that a sustainable industry. So we hope that you enjoyed that video as well, where technology and AI is helping to save the Atlantic salmon. Now, as we have our esteemed speakers and presenters here on stage, we’re going to dive right into the panel discussion. And I would like to start with a question to you, Chinasa. What opportunities do you see for smaller nations and underrepresented regions to really lead in ethical and inclusive AI development?

Chinasa T. Okolo: Great question. And thank you. So many opportunities. I would say for me, something that I mentioned in the presentation, you know, thinking about smaller models. And I think, again, because of the benefits that they hold, particularly when it comes to domains or regions where there are data deserts, I think that can help kind of solve the gap a little bit. And some of the issues that we see currently in terms of current approaches to AI development. And then also, I think just in general, many opportunities to really focus on these contextualized approaches and not really trying to build these general AI models again, which I don’t find or seem to see most beneficial for many contexts. And then I would say finally, again, in terms of leveraging smaller models, also taking advantage of some other approaches like model quantization, edge computing, et cetera, which can really help provide many more opportunities, not only for these rural areas or regions in these. you know, global majority communities, but also in the US, you know, where I’m based, we do have rural communities, and also like more marginalized contexts. And I think these approaches pioneered by smaller countries can actually be more beneficial across the global north, quote unquote, and global south, more equally as well.

Natalie Becker Aakervik: Janessa, thank you so much for your kind feedback on that question. Jon, over to you. From a startup perspective, how can small tech companies compete or collaborate with hyperscalers to create a unique value? We have one here, of course. I think the obvious part of it is, of course, that you have to focus on something particular and be really good at it.

John M Lervik: That’s, let’s say, the easier part. And of course, again, as I talked about, we in Cognite have focused on asset-intensive industries. But the other part of it, I think, is a little bit more particular, maybe. You also need to focus on a problem that is sufficiently big that he cares. Because in most cases, they are not focused, they will be just focused on their own things. So the problem we focus on needs to be sufficiently big. So Microsoft, or whether it’s Amazon, Google, or others, or Metafore, let’s say, also care about it. So you get some, also some good competitive tension, which is, I think, exactly what we have in Microsoft. It’s a fantastic partnership, but also a little bit tension now and then, where they see that we do things that they would like to do, and vice versa. I think that’s the recipe for success.

Natalie Becker Aakervik: Thank you so much for that answer, John. And then, Jeff, how can large companies, tech companies like Microsoft, as John nudged you earlier on, support innovation ecosystems in small states while ensuring fair competition and responsible AI development?

Jeff Bullwinkel: Well, I pick up on the point, I think that John made so well, which is that larger companies, despite that question of scale, in fact, ultimately are platform companies. Microsoft is now and really always has been, first and foremost, a platform technology company. And so we do have a lot of work we’ve done, of course, at the infrastructure layer with data center capacity we’ve built here across Europe, indeed in Africa, across the Americas and Asia as well. And at the infrastructure layer, on top of which you have the model layer and then the application layer. And we’re just very excited about the amount of innovation you’re seeing up and down that stack. And so certainly as a company, one thing that we are clearly focused on trying to do, as I mentioned earlier, is to make sure that there is that broad access that we can provide and that we operate in a way that allows for openness and operability across systems as well. So you have these small, exciting companies that are building on our stack and achieving great success, whether in small states or large states. And indeed, you see this across Africa, which has been talked about a bit today, and I’ve had the privilege of spending some time in Africa over the past year, in Kenya and Tanzania, Rwanda, Egypt. That was just two weeks ago, actually, in Nigeria. And the amount of excitement you see across these countries and the innovation happening in these countries with highly localized applications or models is pretty exciting to see.

Natalie Becker Aakervik: Thank you so much. Thank you so much for your response to that, Jeff. And then, like Christopher, massive AI models demand massive resources. So how can small states, for example, like Norway, leverage energy-efficient AI, like the Settlin model, or the Settlin machine, rather, to compete without relying on big tech’s infrastructure?

Ole Christopher Granmo: So my vision is to build completely sovereign technology, and that involves building things from scratch. And we have two very exciting projects with the Supreme Court of Norway and the Parliament, where we’re going to build a fully Settlin machine stack, and it will solve the black box problems in the critical areas. in society. So by making flagship projects that can inspire others and show that it’s possible, that’s my main strategy. Thank you so much. Now, coming to you Kojo, what are your thoughts

Kojo Boake: on what opportunities do you see for smaller nations, underrepresented regions to lead in ethical and inclusive AI developments? I think I spoke to some of it. I wanted to say a quick shout because I think you asked a great question about small companies and what they seek to do with big players. And I think the answer from my learned friend to the right was to create things that big players are interested in and therefore sparked by competition. I want to give a shout out to those small players that aren’t interested in that. They’re actually interested in resolving, making viable businesses or resolving local issues and contextual issues that may never interest Meta, Microsoft, ChatGPT or whatever else at this point in time, but are extremely interesting to their locality or their nation as a business or as a solution provider. So I just want to kind of give a shout out. It may be very different to Norwegian players than it might be to a player from Djibouti or Mauritania or Ghana at times as well. In terms of what we can do to stimulate or to answer your question, I think hopefully I did a reasonable job of outlining how I think Meta as a company and others who believe in the use of open source, Jeff has spoken about the applications layer and people building on that piece, how we’re enabling small players and states by providing this openly. We’re investing 65 billion this year in infrastructure. As I hope my slide made a good point of doing it, it means that the cost of compute, which is obviously the debilitating barrier that many face, isn’t there. We’re making our weights available so that people can create solutions using our models. We’re enabling people to fine-tune, but at the same time we’re also making telling investments as well. The Lama Impacts grant, which was launched by the company in 2023, saw thousands of applications, two from our region that I mentioned. The team is continuing to be invest through programmatic efforts to work with small companies and, increasingly in the future, governments. So if you’re in the room and you’re interested in using Lama to solve your national problems, come and see us. They can tell any investments to do that as well. So I hope our approach, this idea that we can level the playing field by making massive investments on behalf of the company to provide open source AI is really what’s key there. Thank you so much for those

Natalie Becker Aakervik: insights, Koyo, and for the clarity. Then also, in terms of, let’s say, meta, we’ll come back to that question. I wanted to ask you, like Christopher again, Norway has renewables and you’re energy-sipping AI, right? How do we turn this combo into a global

Ole Christopher Granmo: blueprint, okay, for equitable AI growth, would you say? Yes, great question, and hardware is a key component here. And all the hardware today from NVIDIA and others is rigged for deep learning, matrix multiplications, but we have this pioneering work going on in that University of Newcastle. They build settled machine hardware. And Edge, like you said, extremely promising and measurements. And to really build up green technology, we have to create an alternative to the NVIDIA technology, for instance, from the bottom up. So if you can manage to do that, that would be like a big breakthrough in the energy area, yes. Thank you so much for answering

Natalie Becker Aakervik: that question. Chinansa, I want to pose a question to you as well. How do you see these countries and regions potentially avoiding the challenges experienced by larger countries and

Chinasa T. Okolo: companies in scaling AI development? Yeah, great question. I think it’s a bit tough to say because we, again, do see disproportionate impacts occur in these smaller countries that are really just trying to have a foot in the AI race. I don’t like to use that term, but more broadly. And so I would say really it’s just that, again, really focusing on these contextualized models, and then also understanding how AI can benefit different sectors within their respective countries or regions. Again, AI doesn’t need to be and should not be adopted for every little single thing. In many cases, these basic general algorithms can work much better than AI-optimized ones or just straight AI models in general. And then also, I would say, again, it’s just understanding that there’s the different downstream impacts, whether it relates to labor, which we’ve seen these disproportionate impacts in Latin America, East Africa, particularly in Kenya, and also throughout Southeast Asia, and trying to shift away from these extractive models to more so community-centered models. Again, that center and value these indigenous frameworks that understand community, and I would say value building and et cetera, et cetera.

Natalie Becker Aakervik: Thank you so much for that. Do you want to add anything in terms of, let’s say, ethical concerns differing between smaller nations and larger ones as it pertains to AI research and development?

Chinasa T. Okolo: Yeah, and so something I mentioned a lot is that because when we consider the computer science, fairness literature, I’m an academic by training, we see that a lot of these issues are focused on, let’s say, Western concepts. And so when we consider things like race, which isn’t relevant in many African countries, aside from South Africa, and also throughout global majority countries, I think that this also provides a limited understanding of how AI models can exacerbate bias in these respective settings. And so there’s a lot of interesting work emerging on caste, particularly within the South Asian context. excuse me, which I think can really provide interesting insights into how we can ensure that these models don’t discriminate on this respective social identity aspect, along with other things around gender, tribal affiliation, and the intersections, which is something that’s really important because these societies are so diverse. And so this is why I’m really in favor of these countries. As you consider investing in AI development or forthright, you also have to bolster your respective academic ecosystem to support the socio-technical research that can really understand all these dimensions of AI development.

Natalie Becker Aakervik: Thank you, Chinansa. And now talking about policy and framework, Jeff, over to you. How should smaller nations and underrepresented regions adapt their governance frameworks to meet their local contexts? Well, it’s interesting to see how the global conversation about AI regulation is developing.

Jeff Bullwinkel: I would say, for starters, that as a company, we certainly recognized before the AI Act in Europe was even part of the conversation, our own responsibility to make sure that we’re developing and deploying solutions that are adherent to a set of clear principles that equate to responsible AI. Things like fairness, of course, transparency, accountability, safety, security, reliability, these sorts of things for us are paramount in what we do and how we do it. Equally, we’re just one company in one sector, and it’s ultimately up to governments to tell us what the rules are. And so there has been a lot of discussion globally that seems to be leading towards something of a consensus in this area. A group of seven countries a couple of years ago in the so-called Hiroshima process during the Japanese presidency developed some really good ideas in this respect that were then built on during the Italian presidency and now Canada as well. That’s helping to drive also a bit of a global conversation. The OECD, the UN itself more broadly, has been involved in a way that is, I think, very helpful in getting us closer to what would be sort of a global cohesive approach to AI. regulation that is based upon a risk framework that will create the right guardrails, but ultimately be pragmatic and allow for AI adoption. And this is something again, as I’ve had the benefit of meeting with policymakers across countries in Africa, for instance, you see what is a strong interest in what’s happening in Europe. Is that the right model or not? Do we want to make sure there’s a model that’s going to create the right rules, again the right safety frameworks, but also not hinder adoption? And one comment earlier was made, I think by Chinasa, in relation to what’s happening in Singapore, where the government has taken, in fact, a fairly light-touch approach relative to some countries in Europe, which might indeed become what you see happening elsewhere in the world too, so people don’t really hinder diffusion of AI, which is so critical. Thank you so much for that input, Geoff. And now, John, over to you. I may

Natalie Becker Aakervik: combine two questions, and you can speak to the parts of them that you would like to. Opportunities, which of them do you see for smaller nations and underrepresented regions to lead an ethical inclusive AI development? And then also the question is, what constraints should these countries be aware of as they aim to increase their participation in the global AI ecosystem? You want to share a reflection? Good questions. I think also as a follow-up to

John M Lervik: what you just said, I think I would say to generalize a little bit, here in Europe, we are starting with the cart in front of the horse in many ways. We started to talk about ethical use and privacy and stuff like that, and it’s a fact that our friend to the left would never have been there if they started with privacy. You know, Facebook is not a privacy company. They basically create a value. So, you know, I think about it like doing things right versus doing the right thing. So, we need to start with understanding how do we create value from AI? This is also what Microsoft did when they invented Azure and all these things, right? How do we create value, not how do you support, you know, privacy, if you will. So, I think this is super important. Also, you know, to comment about Singapore. We need to focus on the value and then of course we need the guardrails but not opposite because then we will never get to the value. Secondly, I think also referring to the comment from my friend here in Meta which I agree to, of course there’s tons of value to be had in small countries like Norway by sitting on the shoulders of the giants, the two of you. We as a nation we need to leverage that and improve the efficiency of the Norwegian government, of companies, all those things. But I think also we need to have, my last point is, we need to aspire beyond that as well. We cannot just be a country which leverages other people’s IP. So that’s why I also, of course we are lucky in Norway, we have a lot of energy, both green and brown if you will. We export all the brown one or all the gases more or less to Europe. But we also need to take those unfair advantages, industry, energy, and convert that into our own value IP as well in the future where we can also export. Absolutely. And not just sit on the shoulders of Microsoft and Meta which we are very happy to do but we

Kojo Boake: want to do more. Absolutely. Thank you so much. Just to make that super clear, the only thing I

Natalie Becker Aakervik: was trying to bring was balance. I don’t want to fly BA82 or 74 back to Ghana or Nigeria and be lambasted for saying we only want to solve local problems. There are obviously companies that want to go much broader and compete with us and we welcome that competition. But I did want to flag because it’s missing from this particular panel that there are small companies as well. Can I just

Kojo Boake: quickly add a couple of things? Please because you were next. I wanted to ask you, you had a

Natalie Becker Aakervik: choice of a question. How is Meta prioritizing local capacity building research and development when building open source models for the global AI ecosystem? However, I see that you want to respond. I think that would, if I answered that question I’d be at a

Kojo Boake: risk of repeating. Okay, so. Which helps. Please go ahead and respond to some of the points made by Jeff and my friend to the right about how we ensure we don’t have a cookie cutter approach. I think he was, Jeff was extremely diplomatic about some of the problems. And my friend was about some of the problems Europe has faced by what Mr. Draghi calls overregulation, whether that be in respect of GDPR or, or AI and the threat of AI. And we saw very recently that huge players, and I suspect small ones, had seen so much uncertainty by that form of regulation that they held off launching some of the products that would be so valuable. So, for example, Meta delayed the launch of Meta AI on WhatsApp and Facebook and whatever until it had more clarity. So, I think when I travel around and I speak to regulators and heads of state and ministers, whether that be in the Middle East, Africa, Turkey, Azerbaijan, they’re very mindful that they need, they don’t want a cookie cutter approach. So, that’s really, really important. The other piece, and I think this is what the IGF lends itself to and why I’m always so eager to come here, is that to really tackle those ethical problems and challenges and create the value that we think AI can have or believe it can have, we need to have multi-stakeholder conversations like this. Impactful ones, you have the kind of ones that don’t go anywhere, but the super impactful ones need to involve the big players, the CSOs, the medium-sized companies that want to be big players, and the small-sized companies just want to operate in their region and solve their issues, and Dr. Okolo, the academics and everybody else that needs to get involved as well, and I think that’s really, really important. I just want to stress that point. Thank you so much, and with five minutes left, I’m going to give you each 30 to 60

Natalie Becker Aakervik: seconds for last thoughts, parting words to leave the audience with, if you would like to. Where shall I start? Any takers? Okay, so, does anybody want to touch on the opportunity? Opportunities, also frameworks. I see that we’ve covered a lot of ground here, actually. Everybody’s been really good with time. Okay, 30 seconds. No, but I think my perspective is that AI is changing everything and we need to lean in, whether it’s from global companies like Microsoft or nations like Norway or industrial companies and there’s no time to lose. You know, this is happening. Thank you. Jeff.

Jeff Bullwinkel: I might build on John’s comment by saying that I’m reading a book currently by a professor called Jeffrey Ding in Washington, D.C. called Technology and the Rise of Great Powers. And his premise in the book fundamentally is that it may not be so much about where a particular technology originated, where it was invented for the very first time, but rather the degree to which a country is successful in adopting it, integrating it across every aspect of society and leading to this widespread diffusion. That’s what you hear people wanting to do and talking about across the world, whether the global north or the global south. It’s up to us as companies to provide for that, up to governments to create clarity in relation to the regulatory environment and we hope a level of pragmatism for sure. And also up to everyone to work together in making sure you have also the right level of skills to make sure people can actually embrace these technologies in the way that they want to.

Natalie Becker Aakervik: Thank you, Jeff. Other Christopher, anything you’d like to add to the conversation? So I will add a critical point and that is the essence.

Ole Christopher Granmo: Today we don’t fully understand the AI. If we don’t understand the AI, the AI controls us. We have to turn it around. We have to fully understand the AI so they become a tool for us so that we are in control.

Natalie Becker Aakervik: That is essential. Yes. Thank you for that. Chinasa.

Chinasa T. Okolo: I didn’t get to speak much on governance, which is my focus as a fellow at Brookings. But again, I think there are also many opportunities not just to solely innovate in the actual development of AI, but really understanding how it can and should be governed, particularly for smaller nations. Just as we shouldn’t rely on these big tech companies to be the standard of AI development, we also should not rely on these bigger regional blocks. or countries to also be the model for AI governance as well. And so I think there are many opportunities to innovate in that sector as well.

Natalie Becker Aakervik: Thank you so much. Kodwo, do you want the last word?

Kojo Boake: Not much to add. It’s one of those panels where everybody’s almost in complete agreement about the promises that AI hold and the fact that we need to create policy frameworks and commercial ones, opportunities and stuff that enable us to seize those promises. Even as I understand it, Tom, those who think those promises may come from a different technology. We’re all in agreement on that piece. And I think what that means for me is ultimately what we just discussed, that we don’t want to get in the way of seizing those opportunities. And as my own bias, I’ve been doing policy and regulation for 22 years now, 23, going 23. Again, no one says you don’t look old enough, so it shows I do. We just don’t want that to get in the way. And I think that’s what’s most important at this point in time. That’s why I’m so thankful to have a forum like this, the Internet Governance Forum, and to be sitting amongst such learned people as I am. And I hope to find solutions to whatever concerns, fears, challenges may get in the way of us seizing that promise.

Natalie Becker Aakervik: Kodwo, thank you so much. Thank you, Ander Christopher. Thank you, Jeff. Thank you, John. Thank you, Chinasa. We really appreciate your input. A big round of applause for our wonderful panel, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you so much for this great conversation. Before you leave the stage, we’re going to ask you to please stand here for a group photo. Thank you so much. And I’ll make some announcements as to what is happening in the rest of the day. But thank you. I know a photographer is in the house, so we’re going to have a group photo. OK. There we go. We have a number of photographers. Right. And then, ladies and gentlemen, we invite you back to our conference hall for the rest of the week. Sessions presented by IGF host country, Norway. meet us right back here for the rest of the week and very engaging conversations as you have seen. We’re also invited to explore, thank you so much, a rich and diverse program of sessions covering a wide spectrum of crucial topics from AI and sustainability. Don’t forget to visit the open village just outside the hall and all, for everything else, the panels, the workshops, the networking opportunities, please check out the IGF 2025 app for the latest updates. On behalf of the organizing team and our hosts here in Norway, we wish you a rewarding and inspiring and thought-provoking week of dialogue and insight and collaboration, continuing to build digital governance together. Thank you so much. Thank you. ♪

Agreement points

Small states and players can leverage unique advantages and agility to compete in AI despite resource constraints

Speakers

– Karianne Tung
– John M Lervik
– Chinasa T. Okolo
– Esther Kunda
– Natalie Becker Aakervik

Arguments

Small states can become global leaders in digitalization and tech regulation through long-term national strategies that prioritize innovation, citizen trust and smart governance

Small players should focus on particular problems and ensure they’re sufficiently big that large companies also care about them to create competitive tension

Smaller nations can lead by focusing on contextualized AI approaches rather than trying to build general AI models

Small states should position themselves as innovation labs and testing environments with agile regulatory frameworks

Innovation doesn’t always come from size but from agility, trust, deep knowledge and smart collaborations

Summary

All speakers agreed that small states and companies can compete effectively in AI by leveraging their unique advantages like agility, specialized focus, and strategic positioning rather than trying to match the scale of large players

Topics

Development | Economic

Energy efficiency in AI is a critical concern requiring alternative approaches

Speakers

– John M Lervik
– Daniel Dykes
– Ole Christopher Granmo
– Noel Hurley
– Rishad A. Shafik

Arguments

Norway’s combination of 100% clean energy and cold climate creates unique advantages for energy-efficient AI development

The Tsetlin Machine offers an energy-efficient alternative to deep learning, using up to 10,000 times less electricity per inference while maintaining accuracy and explainability

Current AI technology like ChatGPT is extremely energy hungry, with one query consuming the same energy as lighting a bulb for 20 minutes

The Tsetlin Machine approach offers a computationally simpler alternative to deep learning that is cheaper to train and operate

The Tsetlin Machine algorithm has intrinsic logic-based properties that make it naturally energy efficient, accurate, and explainable

Summary

Multiple speakers emphasized the urgent need for energy-efficient AI solutions, with several promoting the Tsetlin Machine as a viable alternative to current energy-intensive approaches

Topics

Infrastructure | Development

Collaboration and partnerships are essential for AI development and governance

Speakers

– Karianne Tung
– Jeff Bullwinkel
– Kojo Boake
– Chinasa T. Okolo
– Natalie Becker Aakervik

Arguments

AI must serve the public good rather than become a playground for the powerful, with small players often well-positioned to drive innovation with purpose

Large platforms should provide broad access, fair treatment, and interoperable open standards while maintaining responsibility

Multi-stakeholder collaboration involving big players, medium companies, small regional operators, and academics is essential for effective AI governance

Data sovereignty, contextual innovation, and peer-to-peer collaboration can help smaller countries control digital resources and increase independence

Small actors can move from being small players to strategic shapers of the digital world through partnerships and collaboration

Summary

All speakers emphasized the importance of collaborative approaches to AI development, whether through public-private partnerships, multi-stakeholder governance, or international cooperation

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

AI governance should be pragmatic and avoid hindering innovation while ensuring responsible development

Speakers

– John M Lervik
– Jeff Bullwinkel
– Kojo Boake
– Chinasa T. Okolo

Arguments

AI regulation should focus on creating value first rather than starting with privacy and ethical constraints, as value creation enables proper governance

Success in AI adoption may depend more on widespread diffusion and integration across society rather than where the technology originated

Smaller nations should avoid cookie-cutter regulatory approaches and develop frameworks suited to their local contexts rather than copying larger regions

Countries should innovate in AI governance models rather than solely relying on bigger regional blocks or countries as standards

Summary

Speakers agreed that AI governance should prioritize enabling innovation and value creation while being tailored to local contexts rather than copying one-size-fits-all approaches

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers expressed concerns about the risks and inequities of current AI systems, emphasizing the need for more transparent and inclusive approaches to AI development

Speakers

– Ole Christopher Granmo
– Chinasa T. Okolo

Arguments

Current AI systems are black boxes that we don’t fully understand, creating risks when deployed in critical areas like criminal justice and healthcare

The global AI divide shows disproportionate impacts on regions like Africa, Asia, and Latin America despite these areas breeding innovation through marginalization

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Both speakers advocated for specialized, domain-specific approaches to AI rather than trying to compete in general-purpose AI development

Speakers

– John M Lervik
– Chinasa T. Okolo

Arguments

Small companies can leverage unique data access in specific domains like industrial data to compete with giants who have more general consumer data

Smaller nations can lead by focusing on contextualized AI approaches rather than trying to build general AI models

Topics

Development | Economic

Both representatives from major tech companies emphasized their commitment to enabling smaller players through open access, fair treatment, and transparent approaches

Speakers

– Jeff Bullwinkel
– Kojo Boake

Arguments

Large platforms should provide broad access, fair treatment, and interoperable open standards while maintaining responsibility

Open source models like Llama enable smaller players to fine-tune AI for local purposes while reducing compute costs and increasing transparency

Topics

Infrastructure | Development

Unexpected consensus

Tech industry representatives advocating for regulatory restraint

Speakers

– John M Lervik
– Jeff Bullwinkel
– Kojo Boake

Arguments

AI regulation should focus on creating value first rather than starting with privacy and ethical constraints, as value creation enables proper governance

Success in AI adoption may depend more on widespread diffusion and integration across society rather than where the technology originated

Smaller nations should avoid cookie-cutter regulatory approaches and develop frameworks suited to their local contexts rather than copying larger regions

Explanation

Unexpectedly, both large tech company representatives and startup leaders agreed on the need for more flexible, innovation-friendly regulatory approaches, suggesting industry-wide concern about overregulation hindering AI development

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Economic

Academic and industry alignment on alternative AI technologies

Speakers

– Ole Christopher Granmo
– Daniel Dykes
– Noel Hurley
– Rishad A. Shafik
– John M Lervik

Arguments

Current AI technology like ChatGPT is extremely energy hungry, with one query consuming the same energy as lighting a bulb for 20 minutes

The Tsetlin Machine offers an energy-efficient alternative to deep learning, using up to 10,000 times less electricity per inference while maintaining accuracy and explainability

Norway’s combination of 100% clean energy and cold climate creates unique advantages for energy-efficient AI development

Explanation

There was unexpected consensus between academic researchers promoting alternative AI technologies and industry practitioners on the urgent need for energy-efficient AI solutions, suggesting broader recognition of sustainability challenges

Topics

Infrastructure | Development

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion revealed strong consensus on several key themes: the potential for small states and companies to compete effectively in AI through strategic focus and partnerships; the critical importance of energy-efficient AI development; the need for collaborative, multi-stakeholder approaches to AI governance; and the importance of pragmatic regulation that enables innovation while ensuring responsible development

Consensus level

High level of consensus with remarkable alignment between different stakeholder groups (government, industry, academia, civil society) on fundamental principles. This suggests a mature understanding of AI challenges and opportunities across the community, with implications for more coordinated and effective AI governance and development strategies globally

Different viewpoints

Approach to AI regulation – value creation first vs. ethics first

Speakers

– John M Lervik
– Jeff Bullwinkel

Arguments

AI regulation should focus on creating value first rather than starting with privacy and ethical constraints, as value creation enables proper governance

Large tech companies must build sovereign controls, resist government orders to suspend services, and maintain data privacy and security

Summary

Lervik argues Europe has approached AI regulation backwards by prioritizing privacy and ethics before establishing value creation, suggesting value should come first then guardrails. Bullwinkel emphasizes Microsoft’s commitment to responsible AI principles from the start, including privacy, security, and ethical frameworks as foundational elements.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Economic

Technology transparency and control philosophy

Speakers

– Ole Christopher Granmo
– Kojo Boake

Arguments

Understanding and controlling AI technology is essential – if we don’t understand AI, then AI controls us rather than serving as our tool

Open source models like Llama enable smaller players to fine-tune AI for local purposes while reducing compute costs and increasing transparency

Summary

Granmo advocates for complete understanding and control of AI systems, warning against black box technologies. Boake promotes open source as sufficient transparency, arguing that access to model weights and fine-tuning capabilities provide adequate transparency without requiring complete understanding of internal mechanisms.

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory | Infrastructure

Unexpected differences

Role of competition with large tech companies

Speakers

– John M Lervik
– Kojo Boake

Arguments

Small players should focus on particular problems and ensure they’re sufficiently big that large companies also care about them to create competitive tension

Multi-stakeholder collaboration involving big players, medium companies, small regional operators, and academics is essential for effective AI governance

Explanation

Unexpectedly, Lervik advocates for creating competitive tension with large tech companies as a strategy for small players, while Boake emphasizes collaboration and partnership. This disagreement is surprising given that both represent the startup/platform ecosystem and might be expected to have similar views on industry dynamics.

Topics

Economic | Development

Sufficiency of current AI transparency approaches

Speakers

– Ole Christopher Granmo
– Jeff Bullwinkel

Arguments

Current AI systems are black boxes that we don’t fully understand, creating risks when deployed in critical areas like criminal justice and healthcare

Large platforms should provide broad access, fair treatment, and interoperable open standards while maintaining responsibility

Explanation

Granmo fundamentally rejects current AI approaches as insufficiently transparent and dangerous, while Bullwinkel suggests that responsible AI principles and governance frameworks are adequate. This disagreement is unexpected given both speakers’ technical backgrounds and shared concern for AI safety.

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Overall assessment

Summary

The main areas of disagreement center on regulatory philosophy (value-first vs. ethics-first), the level of transparency and control required for AI systems, and whether small players should compete with or collaborate with large tech companies. Most speakers agreed on the potential for small states and companies to succeed in AI through specialized approaches.

Disagreement level

The level of disagreement was moderate but philosophically significant. While speakers largely agreed on goals (enabling small players in AI, ensuring responsible development), they had fundamental differences on approaches and priorities. These disagreements reflect deeper tensions in the AI ecosystem between different models of development, governance, and industry structure that could significantly impact how AI develops globally.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers expressed concerns about the risks and inequities of current AI systems, emphasizing the need for more transparent and inclusive approaches to AI development

Speakers

– Ole Christopher Granmo
– Chinasa T. Okolo

Arguments

Current AI systems are black boxes that we don’t fully understand, creating risks when deployed in critical areas like criminal justice and healthcare

The global AI divide shows disproportionate impacts on regions like Africa, Asia, and Latin America despite these areas breeding innovation through marginalization

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Both speakers advocated for specialized, domain-specific approaches to AI rather than trying to compete in general-purpose AI development

Speakers

– John M Lervik
– Chinasa T. Okolo

Arguments

Small companies can leverage unique data access in specific domains like industrial data to compete with giants who have more general consumer data

Smaller nations can lead by focusing on contextualized AI approaches rather than trying to build general AI models

Topics

Development | Economic

Both representatives from major tech companies emphasized their commitment to enabling smaller players through open access, fair treatment, and transparent approaches

Speakers

– Jeff Bullwinkel
– Kojo Boake

Arguments

Large platforms should provide broad access, fair treatment, and interoperable open standards while maintaining responsibility

Open source models like Llama enable smaller players to fine-tune AI for local purposes while reducing compute costs and increasing transparency

Topics

Infrastructure | Development

Key takeaways

Small states and startups can compete in AI by focusing on specific domains where they have unique data advantages and deep expertise, rather than trying to match the scale of tech giants

Energy-efficient AI alternatives like the Tsetlin Machine offer opportunities for smaller players to develop sovereign AI capabilities using significantly less computational resources

Success in AI adoption depends more on widespread integration and diffusion across society than on where the technology was originally invented

Open source AI models enable smaller players to fine-tune solutions for local contexts while reducing costs and increasing transparency

AI governance frameworks should prioritize value creation first, then add appropriate guardrails, rather than starting with restrictive regulations that may hinder adoption

Multi-stakeholder collaboration involving companies of all sizes, governments, academia, and civil society is essential for inclusive AI development

Data sovereignty, contextual innovation, and peer-to-peer collaboration can help smaller countries maintain independence from big tech dominance

Small nations can lead in AI governance innovation by developing frameworks suited to their local contexts rather than copying larger regional approaches

Trust and transparency in AI systems are critical – current black box models create risks when deployed in sensitive areas like justice and healthcare

Resolutions and action items

Norway committed to implementing EU’s AI Act with national supervisory authority and AI Norway initiative including regulatory sandboxes

Norway allocated 1.3 billion Norwegian kroners to AI research through six newly selected research centers starting operations in summer

Meta invited governments and organizations to collaborate on using Llama models for national problem-solving

Microsoft announced European digital commitments including sovereign cloud services and cybersecurity programs

Rwanda committed to continuing partnerships with academia and other countries to develop AI talent and innovation ecosystem

Participants encouraged to apply for Meta’s Llama Impact Accelerator Program for mentorship and skills development

Unresolved issues

How to balance AI regulation that ensures safety without hindering innovation and adoption, particularly for smaller countries

The challenge of developing truly explainable AI systems that can be understood and controlled rather than operating as black boxes

How to address the massive energy consumption of current AI systems and scale energy-efficient alternatives

The question of whether smaller countries should focus primarily on leveraging existing AI platforms or invest in developing sovereign AI capabilities

How to ensure equitable global AI development when 80% of VC funding goes to just the US and China

The tension between open source AI benefits and potential security/misuse risks

How to develop AI governance frameworks that are contextually appropriate rather than one-size-fits-all approaches

Suggested compromises

Small countries should both leverage existing AI platforms from tech giants AND develop their own sovereign capabilities in areas of competitive advantage

AI regulation should focus on risk-based frameworks that create appropriate guardrails while allowing pragmatic adoption and innovation

Large tech companies should provide open access and interoperability while maintaining responsibility for safety and security

AI development should combine the scale advantages of large companies with the agility and contextual knowledge of smaller players through strategic partnerships

Countries should collaborate through peer-to-peer networks and regional cooperation while maintaining data sovereignty and local control

AI must not become a playground for the powerful, it must serve the public good. And small players are often well positioned to drive innovation with purpose.

Speaker

Karianne Tung (Norway’s Minister of Digitalization)

Reason

This comment reframes the entire AI discussion from a technical competition to a values-based imperative. It challenges the assumption that bigger is necessarily better and positions small actors as potentially more aligned with public interest rather than just market dominance.

Impact

This set the moral and strategic foundation for the entire session, establishing that the conversation wasn’t just about competing with tech giants, but about creating AI that serves broader societal needs. It influenced subsequent speakers to focus on purpose-driven innovation rather than just scale.

Today we don’t fully understand the AI. If we don’t understand the AI, the AI controls us. We have to turn it around. We have to fully understand the AI so they become a tool for us so that we are in control.

Speaker

Ole Christopher Granmo

Reason

This comment cuts to the heart of a fundamental paradox in AI development – we’re deploying technology we don’t fully comprehend. It challenges the entire premise of black-box AI systems and introduces the concept of explainable AI as not just desirable but essential for human agency.

Impact

This comment introduced a critical tension into the discussion about transparency versus performance. It shifted the conversation from ‘how can we compete’ to ‘how can we maintain control,’ adding a philosophical dimension that influenced other speakers to address the transparency and governance aspects of AI development.

We are starting with the cart in front of the horse in many ways. We started to talk about ethical use and privacy and stuff like that… We need to start with understanding how do we create value from AI?

Speaker

John M Lervik

Reason

This comment challenges the European approach to AI regulation and suggests a fundamental reordering of priorities. It’s provocative because it suggests that focusing on ethics first might actually hinder innovation and value creation.

Impact

This sparked a nuanced discussion about the balance between regulation and innovation. It led other speakers, particularly Jeff Bullwinkel and Kojo Boake, to address the ‘overregulation’ concern and discuss how to create frameworks that enable rather than constrain AI development.

Just as we shouldn’t rely on these big tech companies to be the standard of AI development, we also should not rely on these bigger regional blocks or countries to also be the model for AI governance as well.

Speaker

Chinasa T. Okolo

Reason

This comment extends the sovereignty argument beyond technology to governance itself, suggesting that smaller nations shouldn’t just copy existing regulatory frameworks but should innovate in governance approaches tailored to their contexts and values.

Impact

This deepened the discussion beyond technical capabilities to include governance innovation as a competitive advantage. It reinforced the theme that small players can lead rather than just follow, and influenced the conversation toward more nuanced approaches to AI policy.

I want to give a shout out to those small players that aren’t interested in [competing with big tech]. They’re actually interested in resolving, making viable businesses or resolving local issues and contextual issues that may never interest Meta, Microsoft, ChatGPT… but are extremely interesting to their locality or their nation.

Speaker

Kojo Boake

Reason

This comment challenges the assumption that all innovation should aim to compete with or attract big tech. It validates local, contextual solutions as valuable in their own right, not just as stepping stones to global scale.

Impact

This comment broadened the definition of success in AI development and validated different paths to innovation. It helped shift the conversation from a binary view of ‘compete or collaborate with big tech’ to recognizing multiple valid approaches to AI development.

One query with ChatGPT… is the same amount of energy as it takes to light one light bulb for 20 minutes. Furthermore, every month, ChatGPT produces more than 260,000 carbon CO2… equal to the emission of 260 flights from New York to London.

Speaker

Ole Christopher Granmo

Reason

This comment provides concrete, relatable metrics that make the abstract concept of AI’s environmental impact tangible and shocking. It reframes AI development as an environmental justice issue, not just a technological one.

Impact

This introduced environmental sustainability as a critical factor in AI development strategy, influencing other speakers to address energy efficiency and green computing as competitive advantages for smaller nations with renewable energy resources.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shaped the discussion by challenging conventional assumptions about AI development and competition. Rather than accepting that small players must simply adapt to big tech’s paradigms, the speakers collectively built a case for alternative approaches based on values, sustainability, explainability, and local context. The comments created a progression from identifying the problem (AI as playground for the powerful) to proposing solutions (energy-efficient models, contextual innovation, governance innovation) to validating different definitions of success (local solutions vs. global competition). This transformed what could have been a defensive conversation about ‘how to survive’ into an empowering discussion about ‘how to lead’ in AI development.

How can Norway and other small countries build sufficient compute infrastructure and access to GPUs needed for training AI models?

Speaker

John M Lervik

Explanation

Lervig identified compute access as a critical need beyond having unique data and competence, noting that while Norway has advantages in industrial data and clean energy, more computing infrastructure is needed to compete globally in AI development.

How can smaller nations develop AI governance frameworks that avoid over-regulation while still ensuring ethical AI development?

Speaker

Kojo Boake and Jeff Bullwinkel

Explanation

Both speakers highlighted the challenge of creating regulatory frameworks that don’t hinder AI adoption and innovation, with Boake specifically mentioning how European over-regulation has caused delays in product launches.

What specific mechanisms can enable effective peer-to-peer collaboration between smaller countries in AI development?

Speaker

Chinasa T. Okolo

Explanation

Okolo mentioned peer-to-peer collaboration as essential for bypassing traditional power hierarchies, but the specific implementation mechanisms for such collaboration networks need further exploration.

How can the Tsetlin Machine hardware development at University of Newcastle be scaled to create a viable alternative to NVIDIA’s deep learning-optimized hardware?

Speaker

Ole Christopher Granmo

Explanation

Granmo identified the need to build alternative hardware from the ground up to support energy-efficient AI, but the path to scaling this pioneering work into a commercial alternative requires further research.

How can smaller countries effectively balance leveraging existing big tech platforms while developing their own sovereign AI capabilities?

Speaker

John M Lervik

Explanation

Lervig emphasized that Norway cannot just ‘sit on the shoulders’ of Microsoft and Meta but needs to develop its own IP and value creation, raising questions about the optimal strategy for this balance.

What are the specific socio-technical research needs for understanding AI bias in non-Western contexts, particularly around caste, tribal affiliation, and other local social identities?

Speaker

Chinasa T. Okolo

Explanation

Okolo highlighted that current AI fairness literature focuses on Western concepts like race, but more research is needed on how AI models can discriminate based on social identities relevant to global majority countries.

How can the regulatory sandbox model be optimized to support SMEs and startups in AI development across different national contexts?

Speaker

Karianne Tung and Esther Kunda

Explanation

Both speakers mentioned regulatory sandboxes as important tools, but questions remain about best practices for implementation and how to make them most effective for small players.

What are the practical steps for implementing data sovereignty while maintaining international collaboration in AI development?

Speaker

Multiple speakers including Jeff Bullwinkel and Esther Kunda

Explanation

While data sovereignty was identified as crucial, the specific mechanisms for achieving it while still enabling beneficial international partnerships and data sharing need further exploration.

Summary

This discussion focused on building resilient cybersecurity governance frameworks that balance digital sovereignty, security, and human rights in an era of rapidly evolving frontier technologies like AI and quantum computing. The panel, moderated by Enes Mafuta from Zambia’s Standardization Technical Committee, brought together cybersecurity experts, policy specialists, and researchers from Africa, Asia, and other regions to explore collaborative approaches to digital governance.

The panelists emphasized that existing cybersecurity frameworks don’t need complete reinvention but require better implementation and adaptation to emerging threats. Atsen Bako highlighted the importance of leveraging established standards like NIST frameworks while addressing the challenge that cybercriminals operate “at the speed of light” while law enforcement moves “at the speed of law.” Several speakers stressed the critical need for human-centric policy design, with Lily Botsyoe using a spider web analogy to illustrate how solutions imposed without stakeholder consultation often fail.

The discussion revealed consensus around several key principles: zero-trust architecture for AI systems, mandatory threat modeling and red teaming for critical infrastructure, and the urgent need for post-quantum cryptography. Participants advocated for policy sandboxing, sunset clauses, and machine-readable policies to ensure frameworks remain adaptable. The role of regional cooperation was emphasized as essential for preventing internet fragmentation while maintaining digital sovereignty.

Civil society’s role in ensuring accountability and transparency was highlighted, with speakers noting that “security without human rights is brittle.” The panelists concluded that building digital trust requires proactive, inclusive governance that puts human dignity at the center while fostering international cooperation to address shared challenges like deepfakes and misinformation.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Cybersecurity Framework Design and Implementation**: The need to optimize cybersecurity governance frameworks to balance resilience, sovereignty, and global interoperability, with emphasis on leveraging existing standards (like NIST) rather than reinventing frameworks, while addressing challenges in adoption across different countries and organizations.

– **Digital Sovereignty vs. Global Cooperation**: The tension between maintaining national digital sovereignty and ensuring international cooperation, particularly regarding data localization, trusted infrastructure, and regional approaches to cybersecurity that avoid fragmentation while respecting cultural and regulatory differences.

– **Human-Centric Policy Development**: The critical importance of involving stakeholders (especially citizens) in cybersecurity policy design from the beginning, emphasizing transparency, digital literacy, and community-based research approaches rather than treating human engagement as an afterthought.

– **Emerging Technology Threats and Preparedness**: Discussion of frontier technologies like AI-driven cyber attacks, quantum computing threats to encryption, and deepfake misinformation, with emphasis on proactive measures like zero-trust architecture, post-quantum cryptography, and continuous threat modeling.

– **Trust Building Through Accountability and Transparency**: The fundamental role of trust as the foundation of digital security, requiring genuine action behind promises (avoiding “privacy washing”), transparent governance, and multi-stakeholder collaboration including civil society, government, and private sector engagement.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to explore collaborative approaches for establishing robust cybersecurity governance frameworks that balance security, digital sovereignty, and human rights in the face of emerging technological threats, with particular focus on how different stakeholders can work together to build trust and resilience in digital ecosystems.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a consistently collaborative and constructive tone throughout. Speakers demonstrated mutual respect and built upon each other’s points rather than contradicting them. The tone was professional yet accessible, with participants sharing both technical expertise and practical examples. There was an underlying sense of urgency about emerging threats, but this was balanced with optimism about collaborative solutions. The conversation remained inclusive and forward-looking, emphasizing partnership and shared responsibility rather than blame or pessimism.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Samaila Atsen Bako** – Security evangelist representing the African region group, from Code for Africa

– **Lily Edinam Botsyoe** – PhD candidate in Information Technology at the University of Cincinnati, from Ghana

– **Enes Mafuta** – Moderator, from the Zambia Standardization Technical Committee

– **Boutife Adisa** – Information Security expert, MPOC Communication Chair at ICANN

– **Audience** – Eirik, works for various IT companies with security in Norway

– **Kozefi Duban** – Dr., African Internet Governance MAG member, sits on advisory panel on AI, co-founded the Global Youth AI Advisory Body, coordinates AI and cyber diplomacy department, coordinates Chad Youth IGF, from Chad

– **Monojit Das** – Dr., Cyber Governance and National Security Researcher at the C-Joint Tri-Service Think Tank under the Ministry of Defense of the Government of India

– **Ihita Gangavarapu** – Cyber Security Engineer and Program Manager at CloudSec Initiative, from India

– **Osei Keija** – Public Technology Interest Specialist, from the Ghana Youth IGF

**Additional speakers:**

– **Gabriel Kassan** – Online moderator (mentioned but did not speak in the transcript)

– **Tracy Huckshaw** – Asked question online (mentioned as asking a question but did not speak directly)

# Discussion Report: Building Resilient Cybersecurity Governance Frameworks

## Executive Summary

This panel discussion, moderated by Enes Mafuta from Zambia’s Standardisation Technical Committee, brought together cybersecurity experts and policy specialists to explore collaborative approaches to digital governance. The session featured structured 5-minute presentations from each panelist followed by Q&A from both in-person and online participants, including contributions from online moderator Gabriel Kassan.

The discussion centered on whether new cybersecurity frameworks are needed or if existing ones require better implementation, with participants exploring human-centric policy design, digital sovereignty, trust-building, and international cooperation. Key themes included the importance of multi-stakeholder engagement, proactive rather than reactive security approaches, and balancing security with human rights.

## Key Participants

**Samaila Atsen Bako** from Code for Africa’s African region group; **Lily Edinam Botsyoe**, PhD candidate from Ghana studying at University of Cincinnati; **Boutife Adisa**, Information Security expert and ICANN MPOC Communication Chair; **Dr Kozefi Duban** from Chad, African Internet Governance MAG member; **Dr Monojit Das**, cyber governance researcher with India’s Ministry of Defence; **Ihita Gangavarapu**, Cyber Security Engineer from India’s CloudSec Initiative; and **Osei Keija** from Ghana Youth IGF.

## Major Discussion Themes

### Framework Design: New vs. Existing

**Samaila Atsen Bako** opened by arguing against creating new frameworks: “I personally believe there’s no real need to reinvent the wheel in terms of design… What I think the biggest issue in terms of what we’re talking about is maybe the differences in how it’s been adopted or implemented by different organisations or even countries.” He emphasized leveraging existing standards like NIST cybersecurity framework and OWASP IoT project.

**Boutife Adisa** took a different approach, advocating for specific new requirements including zero trust by design for AI systems, mandatory AI threat modeling for critical infrastructure, and post-quantum cryptography implementation. He also proposed “sandboxing innovation like UK and Singapore to test AI systems in controlled environments.”

This represented one of the key tensions in the discussion – whether to focus on better implementation of existing frameworks or develop new regulatory requirements for emerging technologies.

### Human-Centric Policy Development

**Lily Edinam Botsyoe** introduced a compelling analogy from a previous session: “The spider story – where a researcher tried to repair a broken cobweb with thread, but when the spider returned, it destroyed the entire web because it wasn’t consulted about the repair process.” She emphasized that “policies must involve humans proactively rather than reactively through stakeholder engagement.”

Botsyoe also reframed the relationship between trust and policy: “Trust is not a byproduct of strong policy. It is a foundation of it. Let’s build with Trust and Mind and not think of it as an afterthought.”

**Samaila Atsen Bako** challenged traditional views of humans in cybersecurity: “An eligible person is your first line of defence and when you equip them with the right tools, then they become literal human shields for you,” moving away from seeing humans as the weakest link.

### Digital Sovereignty and Regional Cooperation

**Ihita Gangavarapu** highlighted the global “shift from free flow of data to regional control and localisation across all government types” while arguing that “regional cooperation enables trusted data flows, shared security principles, and joint R&D on resilient infrastructure.” She cited examples including India’s trusted telecom center and Kenya’s digital ID consultations.

**Dr Monojit Das** brought a national security perspective, noting that “cyberspace is no more just a tool of communication it’s a frontier of warfare after air, space, land, water, cyber is a frontier of warfare.” He advocated for a “whole-of-nation approach involving all stakeholders beyond just government in democratic setups.”

### Trust Building and Transparency

Multiple speakers emphasized trust as fundamental to effective cybersecurity governance. **Boutife Adisa** argued that “security and trust go hand in hand – secure platforms enable greater user trust.” An audience member reinforced this by noting that “trust requires actual security provision and border control to create genuine trust.”

**Osei Keija** provided a memorable framework: “Security without rights is brittle. Security without human rights is brittle.” He also challenged traditional stakeholder definitions: “the definition of civil society should not be a preserve of a certain group… We are all involved… We cannot clap with one hand.”

### Emerging Technology Challenges

The discussion addressed AI-driven cyber attacks, quantum computing threats, and deepfake misinformation. **Boutife Adisa** proposed technical solutions including continuous threat modeling and “policy APIs for machine-readable policies that can spot violations automatically.”

**Dr Kozefi Duban** emphasized “multilateral AI treaties embedding human rights safeguards and intercontinental threat intelligence sharing” and promoted an “AI for Humanity Code of Conduct emphasising AI for peace, security, and freedom of expression.”

**Lily Edinam Botsyoe** raised concerns about “Q-Day” – when quantum computing could potentially break encryption-based protections, highlighting the urgency of post-quantum cryptography development.

## Q&A Session Highlights

**Tracy Huckshaw** asked whether universal cybersecurity standards could work across all countries or if regional approaches were preferable. Responses varied, with some speakers favoring regional cooperation building toward global standards, while others emphasized starting with common challenges like misinformation.

**Eirik** raised questions about balancing trust and privacy, prompting detailed responses about the need for demonstrable security measures rather than “privacy washing with empty banners.”

**Dr Monojit Das** suggested starting “with common challenges like fake news where all nations agree, then build broader cooperation” and proposed “a collaborative portal for tackling fake news similar to Wikipedia’s model.”

## Key Challenges Identified

**Samaila Atsen Bako** highlighted the fundamental timing challenge: “there’s this popular saying in the industry that cybercriminals operate at the speed of light, while law enforcement or The Good Guys operates at the speed of the law.”

**Dr Monojit Das** noted the urgent need for “defining thresholds for cyber warfare and appropriate response mechanisms” and expressed concern about the “shrinking relevance of UN and other international bodies” in cyber governance.

Participants identified the persistent challenge of balancing privacy and security, the need for effective international governance mechanisms, and questions about whether universal standards can work across diverse national contexts.

## Recommendations

The discussion generated several concrete recommendations:

**Technical measures:** Implement zero-trust architecture, establish sandboxing environments for AI testing, mandate threat modeling for critical infrastructure, and accelerate post-quantum cryptography adoption.

**Governance approaches:** Develop multilateral AI treaties with human rights safeguards, implement whole-of-nation stakeholder engagement, and create policy APIs for automated compliance monitoring.

**Capacity building:** Invest in civic digital literacy programs, establish intercontinental threat intelligence sharing, and start international cooperation with common challenges like misinformation.

**Policy design:** Include sunset clauses for regular policy review, embed multi-stakeholder processes in AI governance, and prioritize human-centric design from the outset.

## Conclusion

The discussion revealed both convergence and divergence in approaches to cybersecurity governance. While participants agreed on the importance of multi-stakeholder engagement, human-centric design, and proactive security measures, they differed on whether to focus on implementing existing frameworks or developing new regulatory requirements.

**Enes Mafuta** concluded that “cybersecurity governance is a long journey requiring collaborative effort across all sectors.” The session demonstrated the complexity of balancing security, privacy, sovereignty, and international cooperation while highlighting practical approaches for moving forward through regional cooperation and focusing on areas of common concern.

The emphasis on trust-building, stakeholder engagement, and human rights suggests a maturing field that recognizes cybersecurity governance must serve human needs rather than treating humans as obstacles to security.

Enes Mafuta: Good morning, good afternoon, good evening. In a digital age where trust is the currency and sovereignty the fortress, the challenge lies in building resilient, interoperable systems that uphold both security and individual rights. Recent breakthroughs in frontier technologies, artificial intelligence, quantum computing, innovative encryption methods are transforming digital ecosystems and redefining the cybersecurity landscape. They are shifting the power dynamics between states, private entities and users, exposing vulnerabilities in critical infrastructure such as the recent typhoon, espionage operation and fueling challenges like deepfake misinformation and automated ransomware. Today’s discussions will explore how policymakers, technical communities, governments, civil societies and private sector can collaboratively establish robust governance frameworks, principles rooted in security by design, resilience and digital sovereignty to ensure global interoperability and trust. So allow me to introduce my speakers. First, my name is Enes Mafuta from the Zambia Standardization Technical Committee. I’ll be your moderator. To introduce our online panelist, we have Atsen Boko who is from Code for Africa, who is a security evangelist representing the African region group. And we have also Lily Edinam Botsyoe from Ghana, who is a PhD candidate in Information Technology at the University of Cincinnati. And we have our online moderator as well, Gabriel Kassan, I’m sure he’s online. To come to the room, we have Dr. Khouzeifi Douban, who is our African Internet Governance MAG member, and he also sits as an advisory panel on AI. Then we have Bolutife Adisa, who is an Information Security. I’ve just seen him walking. Please, you can join us. And he’s also an MPOC Communication Chair at ICANN. Then we have our special lady here, Ihita, from India, who is a Cyber Security Engineer and Program Manager at CloudSec Initiative. I’ll go now to Osei Kega, who is our Public Technology Interest Specialist, and from the Ghana Youth IGF. Last but not least, we have Dr. Monojit, who is a Cyber Governance and National Security Researcher at the C-Joint Tri-Service Think Tank under the Ministry of Defense of the Government of India. Ladies, gentlemen, we’re going to have five minutes each to respond to the questions, and from there we’re going to have interventions from the room, and we’re going to also have some questions from the online speakers. So, without wasting much of your time, I’ll start with Mr. Atsen Samaila Boko, who is also online. Now, Atsen, given the rapid evolution of digital infrastructure, and Fortier Technologies. How can the design of cybersecurity governance frameworks be optimized to strengthen both resilience and sovereignty while maintaining global interoperability? Specifically, how can policy evolve to address the operational strategic challenges posed by AI-driven cyber threat and quantum encryption? Atsen, five minutes.

Samaila Atsen Bako: Thank you so much. I hope you can hear me clearly. Yes, we do. We can hear you. Oh, awesome. That’s a bit of a loaded question, but I’ll try to answer it as best I can. I think the beauty of frameworks in our times today is that we’re, I would say, at a stable point. Over the years, they’ve been worked on, they’ve been refined, they’ve been improved. So I personally believe there’s no real need to reinvent the wheel in terms of design. I also think that we don’t need to have too many frameworks per topic, per item, because I think at some point, it’ll just be like a repetition of the same thing, a remixing of what has been done before. What I think the biggest issue in terms of what we’re talking about is maybe the differences in how it’s been adopted or implemented by different organizations or even countries, which obviously we all know will be impacted by things like political will or even the level of development in the country or the budgets they assign to things like this. If I give an example using the cybersecurity industry where I mainly work, there’s a popular NIST cybersecurity framework, which by the way, just got a new version, now it’s in 2.0, that emphasizes the governance aspect of security. However, if organizations do not take their own steps to get familiar with this new version or to adopt it, and others, and upgrade their security practices, then they will naturally be left behind due to the pace of things in tech-related spaces, as you have rightly pointed out. And so when talking about frontier technologies or emerging technologies, a critical approach would be to leverage standards, because standards are widely adopted and trusted if they are solid enough that’s created by people with the right expertise and endorsed by the right bodies. So an example, for instance, if you look at another frontier tech like Internet of Things, the security of them, there’s an organization called the Open Web Application Security Project, OWASP, that released this IoT project to, and I quote, to help manufacturers, developers, and consumers better understand security issues associated with Internet of Things and to enable users in any context to make better security decisions when building, deploying, or assessing IoT technologies. This means that both the manufacturers and users have a guide, and even regulators can choose the guide as a foundation or template for what the baseline security will look like when it comes to IoT devices, and then when that is enforced by a regulator, then you’ve raised the security bar in IoT devices globally, because standards are recognized globally. And I’d also like to add that there are other challenges. I think one of the key things is the general state of development, digital access, in some scenarios, even scarce subject matter experts or skilled workers, and lastly, the speed of law. And by speed of law, I’m talking about the process it takes for lawmakers to agree on the need for and decide to develop or even review and update laws, because they can become obsolete quite frequently. So there’s this popular saying in the industry that cybercriminals operate at the speed of light, while law enforcement. or The Good Guys operates at the speed of the law, and this implies that it will always be a game of catch-up for us, you know, and we are at the mercy of the interests, knowledge, and priorities of lawmakers and regulators. So, in other words, for policy to evolve and meet the challenges of the day, regulators and lawmakers have to be knowledgeable or hire the right people and appreciate the need to prioritize policy around the development and use of emerging technologies. Only an intentional approach involving the experts, users, manufacturers, and other stakeholders can yield the desired results. I realize that if some of the people in the room or joining us online are in certain countries, then this may be a scary statement I’ve just given a spell out to. I think I’ve physically exhausted my five minutes. I’ll pause there. Thanks, Ernest.

Enes Mafuta: Thank you very much, Axen, and considering that you’ve talked about standards, I come from the standardization side, and one of the things that we have been struggling with is to find a proper mechanism or adoptions of security by design standards and also, yeah, and security systems. Now, I’ll now go to Iheeta. You know, Iheeta, you’ve been part of various regional organizations. One of them is the ITU, and I think you’ve participated in the standardization making process, and also you coming from the Asia-Pacific, so how do you see these countries balance the need of a strong security systems with the preservation of digital sovereignty, especially when deploying security by design within critical infrastructure like telecoms? So, in your view, how can these regional corporates help safeguard sovereignty without creating fragmentation?

Ihita Gangavarapu: Thank you so much, Ernest. Hi, everyone, those joining us in person and remotely. I’m Iheeta Gangavarapu. First of all, I would like to say that the session title is very apt because we use the term odyssey, so it’s been a long and a very long time since I’ve been in a place where I’ve been able to talk about security. So, I would like to start by saying that I’m a big fan of the term odyssey. So, I’m a big fan of the term odyssey, , and the global internet. So this is a meaningful journey in the digital realm and especially towards digital sovereignty. So if you look at from a decade ago, the global internet was held as something very secret. And we used to believe in free flow of data, technology, services. And when we are moving, you’re seeing a shift towards regional control or localization now. And we’re seeing a shift towards localization. And we’re seeing a shift towards localization and localization across countries of all types of governments. Could be democracies or authoritarian regimes, right? And they’re placing serious bets on embedding sovereignty into their digital infrastructure. And I think much of this change that you see is because of the rapid digitalization. From India, since you mentioned it back. Because we’re looking at any kind of especially when you’re looking at critical sectors, like the telecom. It’s not just about stronger encryption or monitoring, it’s about designing systems where, you know, what we’re looking at as countries getting strategy control over data, technology, and access. In India, for example, the government has come up with a trusted telecom center, where a procurement of different telecom equipments to ensure that there is integrity and resiliency in what we incorporate in our infrastructure. And at CloudSec, we have seen firsthand, so we conduct threat intelligence research, and we have noticed that supply chain attacks and different vulnerabilities have been tied to shifting geopolitical dynamics as well. So these insights, you know, show that security by design should go beyond compliance. It is something that you anticipate, you’re anticipating risk at a very systematic level. And I’ll also bring in an enterprise perspective because sovereignty is not just about governments Enterprises are equally invested on one hand, you know, they must comply with national regulations in every jurisdiction They operate in but on the other they must also offer some the customers trust And assurance that the data is secure private and not subject to foreign laws And you’re seeing enterprises today also incorporating enterprise digital sovereignty where they are Demonstrate that you know, they comply with local laws and resist foreign access requests which could affect the trust that customers have on them So given that there are so many dimensions to this that’s where I think regional cooperation comes in to ensure there’s no fragmentation So it the answer lies in Pragmatic alignment where I mean that you need regional cooperation to enable trusted data flows Shared security principles mutual recognition of vendors trusted vendors and even joint R&D on certain Resilient infrastructure and far from fragmenting the internet. It can actually strengthen the whole process And just to add one last dimension to it I’d like to talk about content and cultural sovereignty because digital frameworks from certain like from the countries allow countries to Manage content moderation in ways that reflect their cultural and linguistic norms And in the absence of this kind of a regional cooperation and alignment global platforms may overlook and ignore local sensibilities You know that many may call cultural or linguistic colonialism, so Yeah, I just wanted to highlight over this and I look forward to your next set of questions

Enes Mafuta: Thank you for that, you know in the telecom or in the cyberspace we say trust is a very expensive word Thank you so much for joining us today, and I’m so glad that you’re here with us today. And the way you’ve highlighted it, it’s something that we’ve been talking and talking. But so I’ll go now to Lily, who is online with regard to trust and safety. Lily, I just want you to highlight how these policies and public interest driven approaches can help to reinforce sovereignty without eroding the same trust. Especially when new frontiers like threats like AI or quantum attacks are at play. Lily?

Lily Edinam Botsyoe: Hi, everyone, and good morning, good afternoon or good evening, depending on where in the world you are joining from. I usually will say that I’m so thankful for the gift of the Internet. And today I’ll say I’m thankful for the gift of time zone also, because it allows me to join online before work and also allows me to do this from miles away. So I’m joining you at 315 from Cincinnati, Ohio, and excited to join this conversation. And so I met I met a little bit of what I was describing, but I’m just going to dive into the conversation. Use examples from what we are seeing in research. See just center humans like make this whole process human centric and drive home the points I have in mind. So so thankful for for the audience we have in person and those who also have online. And so one of the questions I mean, the question that is this post has humans at the center. If you look at it critically and like you said, usually trust is so expensive because how exactly do you measure trust? So in this question that he asks right now, we have a very complex variable, which is a human being. And if those are humans, you know, humans would react to things differently based on how it appeals to them. Sometimes using emotions, sometimes using what if what they perceive as safety, sometimes even using what it is that favors them at one point. And then I. I currently do research with users when it comes to the privacy aspect, and which pretty much is language security. So I’m going to go through that aspect to break down what it is that would help us to be able to make sure that humans are actually at the forefront of all that we are talking about when it comes to digital sovereignty in a way that it drives a process to make sure that it works for them, and also to be people who accelerate this process. So one of the things that I’ll start with is just a scenario. I was in a session where somebody spoke about community-based research, and the person she was requesting said something along the lines of, somebody had seen a cobweb. We all know what cobwebs are. So spiders weave cobwebs, right? And when they weave cobwebs, usually it’s so pretty, it can stay for a couple of days, and it can get broken down, or it can stay for as long as, I mean, it’s protected. Now, somebody has seen that a part of the cobweb was broken, right? And a person had seen before the spider weaving a cobweb, and a person went in to try to use thread and a special material to try to complete the cobweb because it was broken. And the next day, the spider came, and this person was a researcher sat at the side waiting to see what the spider would do. And here is where the shocker happened. So the spider came in, and in your mind, you probably think maybe the spider will be happy and say, well, it was broken, so you held me, right? The spider came and destroyed the whole thing. Now, the person threw the question to us and asked, why did a spider behave that way? And the conversation went on, and we came to understand that pretty much the spider wasn’t contacted, wasn’t interviewed, wasn’t asked if they wanted that to happen, or wasn’t asked their view on the process being done the way it was done, and they felt that it was unnatural. So that is what happens in this space of cybersecurity and this space of digital sovereignty. And I’ll break it down as to the reason why. So usually, when we talk about cybersecurity and tech, we usually… I would like to say that things like policies trail behind technology because technology is fast evolving, and then you build so much without usually thinking about the policies that reinforce and make this robust. And sometimes we find that it’s trailing, and we do the catch-up game to try to make sure that all the systems are within a citizen-confined, that it’s protecting humans. At the center of cybersecurity and technology is that key factor, which is the human factor. If humans are not involved, if human views are not sought, usually we see that the adaption or the way that humans usually react to things that we see when it comes to laws, policies, and all of that will be limited. And in essence, there’s so much that will be happening where people will be saying, hey, let’s go back and probably do what they call stakeholder meetings or stakeholder engagement. And sometimes it is more reactive rather than proactive. So answering the question about how trust and safety for digital ecosystems can be pretty much heralded by humans in general, it brings up the whole question of even how government, if it were issues of, say, cybersecurity or not, without involving humans, usually the buy-in is very little. So I’ll give you a past example, aside from what we see with the spider story that I mentioned where even the spiders think that they should have been contacted, and that is the idea of community-based research. And in that context, we say that’s in the context of what we call multi- or multi-stakeholder engagement. When we involve more people from different backgrounds, it is legitimate and it becomes accepted. So in my view, societal confidence influences the success of national security because humans are those that would work with it, that those who buy in to make sure that whatever policies, whatever thing you’re building, it’s really robust and they make sure that it’s functioning. So you can do all the fancy policies, if you don’t involve the humans, they don’t understand it, it’s all going to come crumbling. So for how it can, in essence, breach whatever encryption we know because of how fast and strong it is, right? And they’re talking about Q-Day in this article, and they’re saying, okay, Q-Day is probably looming around, and what Q-Day looks like is a day where everything that is encryption-based or encryption-protected could fail. And me thinking as a user, well, what could that day look like? Is it bound to happen? Because we’ve seen threats from places like CrowdStrike where even airports were shut down completely. And you’re thinking about even a more powerful threat like Q-Day. And even for somebody like me in research, if that got me to panic, imagine my mom who just really uses technology and thinking, what does that mean to us? Some of these threats stifle our use of technology, and it calls on us within this ecosystem to make sure that everybody’s responsibility is pretty much taken into consideration. Government is playing its part. Businesses are playing their part without fail. For example, there have been many instances where users have pretty much lost trust in the system because of things like the concept of, in quotes, privacy washing. So you go into a website, and a company will write this nice label and banner telling you how to protect your privacy. But the actions that follow really is different from what they’re saying. And you’re wondering exactly what it is they’re saying and what it is they’re offering. So in the past, those things that happen even with privacy washing, cybersecurity washing, it’s like promises that do not really stand. And so it doesn’t give the trust to humans to be able to believe in this system. For us in the global South, it’s even well because we are playing a bit of catch-up when it comes to digital sovereignty. We are not in total control of the data, where it sits, how it’s processed, because we are in constant battle with big tech, and our systems and infrastructure are still developing. So if there is something we have to do, we have to do it. We have to do it. We have to do it. We have to do it. We have to do it. , and the other is what do we do to make sure there is this confidence and trust. I will put it in three buckets. The first one is embedding transparency and participation in policy design. We say it feels like a cliche, but like I said, you have to put people from different backgrounds from the different stakeholder groups in one room together. We have a lot of people from Africa and Kenya. They set strong examples with open digital ID consultations. If we can follow the lead globally, that would be amazing. Aside from this, embedding transparency and participation in policy design, I would also think about investing in civic digital literacy. Even the steps to do this is not in the complexity of what it looks like, but it is one of the big things. Like I said, if people don’t understand the risks and the tools at play, whether it is AI, quantum or encryption, they can’t trust or protect themselves. Aside from embedding transparency, let’s also push towards civic digital literacy. I will end with one thing about building cross-border trust. We cannot do it alone. The effort should not be in silos. Some of these frontiers and the innovation we are seeing is not within the national borders. Our response shouldn’t also be standalone and thinking only about national. We should look at how to coordinate a global approach in a way that in our emerging regions.

Enes Mafuta: Lili, your five minutes is up.

Lily Edinam Botsyoe: Thank you. I think I just landed on those three. Thank you so much.

Enes Mafuta: I like the fact that you’ve talked about policy design. There’s something that we’ve always said, that to have a nice policy should be forward-looking and future-proof. Okay, so in terms of trust, we need policies that are forward-looking and future-proof. So now, when it comes to also policy, I have somebody here, Bolutife Adisa. You’ve been in the policy engagements, like you write policy for ICANN in your constituency, NPOC constituency, and you’re a cyber security expert. So I just want you to talk a bit about these policy measures that are needed to enhance trust and security in terms of digital infrastructure and also against just these emerging frontiers threats like AI-driven attacks and quantum vulnerabilities. And also, how can we make them adaptable to future challenges while maintaining stakeholder confidence? Five minutes.

Boutife Adisa: I’m Bolutife Adisa, for the record, and it’s a pleasure to be here today. Okay, thank you very much. Hello, everyone. very limited time, I will just go straight into it. Thank you, Ernest. When we talk about trust and security, I would like to first say that these are not just technical challenges. They are more of social contracts that we need to really consider because to reinforce trust and security, especially when it comes to AI and new digital technologies, I would say we need three foundational policy pillars. So I’m adopting this from a position of operating a critical infrastructure because when we talk critical infrastructure, we don’t just talk protection. We talk resilience. So in order to ensure resilience, first, we need to ensure zero trust by design for AI systems. What is zero trust by design? Zero trust is quite a common buzzword but basically what it means is that we never trust and we always verify so this is sort of a model that should be adopted because it’s mandatory to have multi-factor authentication on some of the systems and to ensure that we don’t have sort of a breakdown that eventually we end up regretting it’s also important to vet the systems not just the systems but the models as well as the data that feeds into the systems and this also should not be a one-off thing it’s a continuous process and then it should be done more regularly and that’s zero trust by design another one is that policy needs to mandate AI threat modeling as well as red teaming for these AI systems so in the critical infrastructure space it’s regulatory requirement actually that you conduct red teaming continuously to check on the resilience of your systems and this is very important because like the earlier speaker said the attackers are moving at the speed of light so it’s important that we constantly test the resilience even when you’re not being attacked you need to ensure that this is in place and then lastly someone talked about quantum computing which is also quite important because right now it’s a race against time the current encryption we have in place how does it stand against quantum computing or quantum power computers and this also now brings the recommendation that we need to think more post quantum cryptography to protect systems especially like AI and other powerful systems that could be exploited and also as good as they are for humanity we can also see the downside of it so very quickly the other part which is How do we ensure that the policy remains multi-stakeholder, remains efficient? I think first of all, we need to look at the UK and Singapore, what they have done in terms of sandboxing innovation. So you put innovators in a controlled environment to really test out and test the resilience of these AI systems. This is very important. It’s also a way to ensure engagement of the required people. Second would be to have sunset clauses and policy APIs. So sunset clauses basically means that policy does not go forever. It gets to a point where it expires and then you can do a review and see if these policies are still adaptable in this context. And also policy API is an important technology development, which we have machine readable policies, such that these systems can spot violations by themselves. And this is also quite important. And lastly, you know, like the IGF, we have the multi-stakeholder process. I think it’s important that this is also still embedded in what we call AI governance or digital technology governance. I think my time is up, so I’d like to give the floor back to you. Thank you very much.

Enes Mafuta: Thank you very much, Bolutife, for that. And I like the fact that you’ve talked about the multi-stakeholder approach in this. And also talking about that, I would also frame it in the context of international cooperation. As you are aware that as new technologies evolve on the market, threats are also evolving. So there is need for international cooperation to ensure that we are in good standing and we are running at the same pace. So I’m going to give the floor to Dr. Kozefi Duban. You are into multiple organizations. One of them is an intergovernmental organization. Dr Kouzeifi, I just wanted to give you a perspective on how international cooperation can ensure that AI and cyber security respect sovereignty and human rights. And also I just wanted to talk about what safeguards are needed to prevent fragmentation and also to build trust and align with these global standards while balancing national interests and collective security. Five minutes.

Kozefi Duban: Thank you, moderator. Good morning to everyone. I’m very honored to speak here today and I would like to thank the predecessors of this very interesting table. Yes, my name is Dr Kouzeifi from Chad. I co-founded the Global Youth AI Advisory Body, coordinating also the AI and cyber diplomacy department and then coordinating also the Chad Youth IGF and Africa IGF MAG member. In the face of emerging threats such as driven AI cyber attacks, deepfake disinformation and quantum-enabled espionage, international cooperation must be grounded in mutual respect for sovereignty while aligning with universal values of human rights and digital trust. As youth advisors, we have co-developed an AI for Humanity Code of Conduct, emphasizing AI for peace and security, freedom of expression and responsible enforcement of international law. So this ethical framework can help guide cyber security cooperation globally, ensuring AI systems are not weaponized by states or corporations in ways that suppress civil liberties. and where state capacity and youth vulnerability are key issues. So we recommend regional capacity building initiatives that link local realities to global frameworks such as the Global Digital Compact through open consultation and public-private partnerships, academic as well. So in conclusion, to prevent fragmentation and foster interoperability, we need multilateral AI treaties, embedding human rights safeguards by design, also intercontinental threat intelligence sharing rooted in trust and inclusivity, and we need also to harmonize cyber norms that balance national digital sovereignty with collective global security. So finally, trust is built not only through technical protocols but also throughout youth inclusion, cultural contextualizations and transparent AI governance. Africa in general is not just a beneficiary, it is a co-architect of secure digital future. So let’s commit to decentralized governance models that reflect these diverse voices and realities. Thank you, Moderator.

Enes Mafuta: Thank you very much, Dr. Khouzeifi, for that. I’ll now go to Dr. Monojit. Dr. Monojit, you’ve done quite a number of research in cyber governance and national security area, most recently in geopolitics. You have expertise in these things. So my question to you would be, how should government prioritize cybersecurity policies to save their national interest in this competitive environment? What strategies should they adopt to balance immediate security needs with long-term digital resilience, especially considering the geopolitical tension around digital sovereignty and the enforcement of critical security measures? You have the floor.

Monojit Das: Thank you, Moderator. First of all, it becomes a bit challenging when you have your predecessors already speaking everything, and you’re coming inside and you have to add on something new. Let me add my bit. So firstly, a disclaimer that although I’m associated with the think tank of the Ministry of Defense, but the views are bi-personal. And regarding to the views that you mentioned about prioritizing the policies, I’ll give you a very recent example of what the government has initiated in India. We have come up with an approach of a whole-of-nation approach. So here, what we have tried is that we have introduced a future warfare course. And this is very much in the open. It’s not classified. And what we have tried to involve is not just from the tri-services, but also the other stakeholders. Because you see, today’s time, infrastructure is not solely residing with the government. In a democratic setup like India, undoubtedly the world’s largest democracy, so we have to take care of the whole-of-nation approach as a first and foremost priority to address these type of issues. So what we have done is that we have brought in all the stakeholders. And this is one such kind we are starting to go off. But my query, or rather I would submit here that the basic understanding here we have all, we are giving our opinion. Largely, it remains same, if not contrasting, but sometimes contradicting as well. But we all remain united to the fact that there should be a central institution, or at least the platform UN, that we are currently sitting and discussing. But with the given passage of time, we see somehow the relevance of the United Nations or the international body at large is shrinking. So we need to have a good discussion between government to government at a larger level should come up beforehand because you see space, cyberspace is no more just a tool of communication it’s a frontier of warfare after air, space, land, water, cyber is a frontier of warfare, domain of warfare rather. So before you know the current scenario what happens every country is in the verge of making the first or the first. So you know there is no threshold in terms of a cyber war or a cyberspace. So what happens there are accepted definitions by some countries that mentions you know if at all a large-scale cyber attack is waged so it can be retaliated with a full-scale war. So what is the threshold? So you know before a country decides its threshold and wages a full-time war or a full-fledged war it is for us to decide and for this I believe we will still need a further discussion at the apex level and the centralized format under the UN which I feel and in addition to this let me also take that since the convergence are more within the UN and the member countries so it should always start off with something like which is a problem to everyone like for example tackling the fake news you know. So these are the common goals which every nation whether they have a diverging views within the UN setup but they do agree to the point that fake news is a challenge. So with this I believe that you know that if at all we can start off with this convergence slowly and steadily we can find out some more areas for collaboration and cooperation that can always help us to form some effective policy that can ultimately pave the way. because otherwise every government has a different interest. For us, it may be different and for countries which may be belligerent to us or which are neutral to us, we’ll have a different strategy and in cyber you cannot trust anyone because always, the cyber actors, we often trace it back to having a state-sponsored support mechanism in some way or the other. And since, as my previous speaker has rightly mentioned, the lack of international law that governs is still because we need someone or some architectural body that can actually oversee because you see the existing mechanism and if you see the International Court of Justice or many such cases, International Criminal Court, but many countries do not recognize that, if you see. So, there should be some form of mechanism. So, with this, I believe my time is close to end. So, I end the word. Thank you.

Enes Mafuta: Thank you, Dr. Monijith. You’ve highlighted quite a number of very important things and one of them that I stood out is about how these fake news, deep fakes, are emerging. And I think governments are finding it so challenging to combat these deep fakes and everything. And it’s creating a different perception in the minds of users and most of these deep fakes, when they are thrown out there, is that there is what we call reputation damage and everything. So, it’s a challenge. So, I agree with you. We really need to move in that step now. I want to bring it to the civil society perspective because we know that civil society plays a key role in shaping accountable and transparent cyber security policies. So, I’m going to invite Keija. I’ll say, from your perspective, you’ve been in the civic space and you’re also a public technology interest specialist. So, how do you see civil society organizations influencing the development of cyber security framework and to ensure that they uphold human rights and social inclusion? Robert and Christine analyzes the issue. Minister of the France will give a signal how to contribute providing the country with several security measures. Emergency de bölging Forward is . Something very long.

Osei Keija: And for the record, my name is Osei Keija and I would like to welcome everyone to this conversation. It is a long journey. Do you believe that the future of cyber security lies in civil society? Just shoot your hand up if you do believe. Awesome. It seems everything is being shelved to us, pushed to us. Oh, civil society, do this. Civil society, do this. And look at the topic. Very long expedition. And for the reason, present for some people. I do acknowledge that civil society organizations play a very crucial role. They serve as the bulwark and indispensable counterweights in cyber security governance. But who should? The question is who are the people there? Is it me and you? Or the tech? Everyone is involved. So I, the term civil society organization should not be there present for everyone. I do believe everyone should be involved. That’s my first argument. Then let’s go into it. What have you been doing in terms of all this conversation? It’s a lot, honestly. Maybe my five minutes may elapse from education to responsibility. I think that a lot of people should be engaged in that. But I don’t think that I am. I think we should be engaged in the conversation about the issues we have to discuss. I think that I agree with the people who are involved in this conversation. And then I Transparency, and all that. But as I mentioned, how many civil society organizations are there in certain marginalized even communities, or even that has access to there? So in that regard, in that nuance, we need to activate something there. We all, I do acknowledge, we all can be activists. We all can be pushing, be at the forefront of things. But how can you and I contribute in a little way in demanding accountability, policy accountability? Lily mentioned about human-centric approach. We will come to that. Bolu mentioned about sunset clauses and all that. You are a lawyer here. In your individual capacity, what can you do to demand accountability? Have you written a letter to your Ministry of Communications demanding about surveillance? And with regard to the balance, which are legitimate powers and illegitimate powers, we need to activate something. How do we energize the base? So secondly, co-creating right-centric standards, something civil society have been doing. And it’s quite seen the case of the EU, I mean, most countries, where there’s co-creation of impact assessment for critical infrastructure. And it’s seen in most African countries to some African countries, where there I say security without rights is brittle. Security without human rights is brittle. It’s at the center of it all, the conversation we are having. And we need to push for an inclusive, equitable human rights for the long-term health of society. Lastly, I would like to talk about another strategy in civil society, it’s forging unlikely alliances. We saw in the case of Brazil when they had issues with WhatsApp and civil society served as a trilateral dialogue where they brought the government inside and also big tech inside trying to just make sure end-to-end encryption protocols were preserved. They serve as a dialogue. I know my five minutes may elapse, but I would like to end here that the definition of civil society should not be a preserve of a certain group. Public interest technology should not be a preserve of a certain group. We are all involved. Yes, we know we cannot be front-runners, but in our own small way, in education, creating awareness, we can cultivate. We can make things happen. So we must continue, what I’ll quote one of my favorite people, is that we must continue with all our intellectual, spiritual, and spiritual energy to campaign for the emancipation of the productive forces. And there’s one African proverb I do love very much. It says we cannot clap with one hand. So let’s try if you can clap with one hand. It doesn’t work. Collaboration. So let’s collaborate. Thank you

Enes Mafuta: Thank you very much Keija. Yeah, we can all be activists considering that We are all affected in one way or another. So let us be activists. Let’s not leave it to civil society alone I know technical communities. Let’s also come together Governments everything. Yeah, all see all sectors. So now I’ll now open the floor to the room We’re gonna have some questions from the room We’re gonna have about maybe 10 minutes for questions from the room anyone who want to take up some questions Or comments Yeah, there’s a mic there No one Okay, Kassan, do we have some questions online? There’s a hand here.

Audience: Question regarding this. My name is Eirik. I work for Various, I’ve been working for various IT companies with security in Norway for many years My question is when you talk about trust, how can you expect trust if you don’t have people making sure they have privacy? How do you make sure that How can you believe that the border control can be creating trust? Because you need to make sure that what is actually provided is secure So it’s providing the secure service would be providing the trust How do you think about this?

Enes Mafuta: Anyone want to go first? Sure, I think I’d like We’ve had a comment on trust from Lily. I’m not sure if she’s still here in the corner. Yeah. Yes Yeah, I think I’ll prefer this thing, but I just want to say I think trust

Lily Edinam Botsyoe: I don’t know if you can see me, I’m trying to get my video on, but I’ll just start by answering. I mean, in essence, craft justice, if you look at it, it’s multifaceted. When I say multifaceted, it requires many things to happen for it to really be achieved. And I give an example, like I said, there’s been the context of what is called privacy washing. Like, you go onto a platform, you see a banner, it has a title that says, hey, we preserve your privacy, or we do whatever, we don’t collect data, we don’t share with people, we don’t sell your data. In the end, it comes a week later, and then you’re getting all of these emails from people wondering how exactly they got your details to be able to even reach out to you. The concept of privacy washing has become so much out there that people do not even trust what it is that they see online, and the action that follows. So what he described is actually true. There is an offering that has to come from whoever is a provider for trust to really be actualized. It is in the doing, the action that you do to back the promise you’ve given to a user, that would ensure that the user trusts in you. Many times, we’ve seen that trust has been trashed in the face of users, and so users do not really trust that the system would even work. So for it to work, we usually would say, do the advocacy, but it’s also ways that people demand this. People are asking that, look, even online, for what it is that you put on there, we want to be able to understand, and then the concept of privacy margin comes in. What you’re putting out there, is this only to promise me, or you really are doing what you say you’ll do? Is there a place I can see how long my data is held for what purpose? Is there a place I can see even who it goes to or who you share it with? So they’re looking for a way to even actualize what is known as situational awareness online, so that people can perceive. whatever it is they see online by way of maybe pop-ups, all these banners, they can comprehend what they’re saying and they can also anticipate any future consequences. So, I would say that what you said is true. There is a need for action to follow for people to trust it. Without the action and the service level agreement being fulfilled, usually users wouldn’t feel the trust. And like I said, users will feel trust for different reasons. It can be that I accept that, yes, I’ve been treated fairly because my data wasn’t shared, or I don’t accept because I later on found that you were holding my data for whatever purpose. If what you said you do, you are doing, it also just bolsters the trust of people, and people also can feel safe using your technology or using your platform. So, that is what I’ll say about it, and I hope that it’s really helpful for you in the context that you were thinking.

Enes Mafuta: Thank you very much, Lily. I don’t know. You want to go? Yeah, I think Lily has covered it all. Okay, anyone wants to? Okay, Adisa.

Boutife Adisa: Yeah, so, Bullet Defe Adisa for the record. In my opinion, I think in addition to what Lily has already said, I think security also goes side by side with trust. So, if you have a secure platform, people are able to trust in what you’re offering and they’re able to use it more effectively, basically. So, the trust also goes both ways. I think you mentioned rightly that whoever is the border control needs to ensure that whatever they provide is trustworthy, and I think that’s extremely important, and it’s also in line with what a lot of the speakers already mentioned. So, yeah, I think ensuring that the platforms are transparent as well as secure is the major recipe for trust, especially for end users, yeah.

Enes Mafuta: Thank you, Adisa. Josefi?

Kozefi Duban: Yeah, I would like just to add two words. I think before to talk about. We need to make sure that we have contained control and regulation. Whatever the language we use, users have to be sure that if they are online, they are, first of all, safe. What they use is also safe and controlled. And for that, we need national mechanisms that will allow us to control this process. It is very important.

Enes Mafuta: Thank you very much, Khouzeifi. Anyone else want to go? Okay, so we have another question from online. I think we take this first before we come back to the room again. The question is from Tracy Huckshaw. It says, do you think there can be a one-size-fits-all set of universal cybersecurity standards that will work across all countries? Or should there be another regional or even economical status focused approach? Okay.

Osei Keija: Thank you very much, Tracy. Very insightful question. There’s nothing like one-size-fits-all, like a silver bullet when it comes to security or, say, cybersecurity issues. But I will say that, as I mentioned, security without human rights is brittle. Whatever we are designing, it must take into account the people. It must take into account the people. They are at the center of it. What are we designing for them good? Are their rights respected? That should be the answer. Policy harmonization may come in. It’s effective. It’s very good. But the core of it all must be the human-centric approach. And co-creation, it being inclusive, not designed for someone and being an afterthought. Why stakeholder consultation? We trade there. No, it doesn’t work that way. Thank you.

Enes Mafuta: Thank you very much. Anyone wants to take that?

Ihita Gangavarapu: Yeah, I think that’s okay with you. It’s actually… Thanks, Tracy, for your question. So the thing about… Although we say standards are something that should be applicable across… Maybe it could be a…

Osei Keija: Thank you very much. It’s been very, very insightful discussion and I hope and my belief and my desire, aspiration that we will live here fortified, energized to work for the common good of all humans, to make sure that our security is the core of whatever we are doing, there’s trust, there’s privacy, and most importantly, humans are the center of everything. And let’s all, in our own individual capacity, our minds, everything, contribute to this cause. Just like the topic says, cyber security or DSA, it’s not a short journey, it’s a very, very long journey. So let’s journey together. Life, they say, is better in company. So let’s all co-pilot. Thank you.

Enes Mafuta: Okay, Ihita?

Ihita Gangavarapu: Yeah. So I thought it was from here. All right, so thank you so much, actually, for this opportunity today. What I understand at Digital Sovereignty is this as a concept, it cannot work in silos, and you need to have a very layered approach. And, you know, we spoke about how regional and national and even actually global cooperation is required in this realm. Then that’s something we’ve been discussing even during WSIS and the GDC discussions as to how, you know, you need these kinds of policies and structures in place. And overall, when you look at the work that’s been done in the cyber security space, could be policy regulation standards, or any kind of activism that’s also done, it has to be flexible, scalable, adaptable, adoptable by countries, organizations, and us as individuals. So I think I’ll leave it to that.

Enes Mafuta: Yeah, thank you. Before I go to Dr. Monajit, Lily, any final closing remarks? Then I’d say no follow.

Lily Edinam Botsyoe: I think I tend to talk a lot. So I’ll just end by saying this. Past isn’t a byproduct of strong policy. It is a foundation of it. Let’s build. with Trust and Mind and not think of it as an afterthought. Thank you.

Enes Mafuta: Thank you, Lily. Atsen?

Samaila Atsen Bako: Yeah, Ernest. I just want to buttress that, you know, we’ve spoken about a lot of things, like multiple interventions that are pushing things in the right direction. You know, things like, you know, AI for Good or AI Ethics or Defense in Depth, Zero Trust, Separation of Duties, Principle of Disprivilege, you know, and while I admit that some of them are technical in nature and not the responsibility of the maybe average person or average internet user, it’s worth noting that our IT and security teams have some support, you know, and so that I do not sound like a prophet of doom or fearmonger, I think I would like to end on positive, sorry, end with positive thoughts. So, the good news is that, you know, policy is just one side of the security triangle, you know, we have technology and people to help as well. So, when dealing with the risk, you know, frontier tech, things like generative AI or quantum computing that can break, you know, encryption algorithms, we should not forget, you know, to enlighten the people and also adopt tools that can mitigate the risks we are concerned about. So, remember that an eligible person is your first line of defense and when you equip them with the right tools, then they become literal human shields for you. So, I prefer this kind of statement than saying, you know, the human is the weakest link in the security chain. So, regardless of your role or capacity, you know, aim to learn more, understand how policies and regulations can be beneficial to you or your organization and you will definitely be playing your part. Thank you so much.

Enes Mafuta: Thank you very much, Adsen. Dr. Monajith, you can go next. Yeah. So, when you talk about the term security, you know, the biggest dilemma is that whether we will be building 10 schools or we will be buying a few helicopters or ammunition, you know, this is the standard dilemma that a country faces every time. And in terms of cyberspace, so it’s either we are going to give the privacy or get the security because privacy and security sometimes we find it don’t come together. So with this I’d like to mention that since my esteemed panelists are already working in multiple fields, you know So let us do something, you know, that can really pave the way for future collaboration like for example In terms of tackling of the fake news, which is I’ll reiterate that it’s a challenge for every country that faces So, you know at least developing some portal and like how you see Wikipedia came up, you know a few years back You know, it was really not so supportive. I’ll not use any other word But you know of late you see it has developed but it’s somehow you’ll find some interesting or some valuable information So at least if at all we can have it something generated from our side, you know There can be one point of contact Then we send in something and then it verifies that whether it is right at least it can start off in a single stem and probably Like how five-year plan used to be there by all government and other agencies So if at all we can plan of something in that way It’s like a five-year plan for tackling fake news So in this way, we can have something a convergence that can really pave the way for otherwise, you know

Monojit Das: Diverging views will lead up to diverging thoughts and you know, we may not converge in some time. Okay. Thank you.

Enes Mafuta: Thank you. Dr. Monaghan, Dr. Koza if you can go next

Kozefi Duban: First of all, I’d like to say thanks to the participant for being here to listen to us. There is no good or bad idea It’s always about discussions. I would like also to say thanks to my collaborators and friends here panelist and also to you moderator for creating this I wouldn’t Forget about Kazan also who is online coordinating the the platform. Thank you also Kazan in conclusion Let me highlight this securing our digital future in the age of frontier technologies demands more than just reactive policies It calls for proactive inclusive and ethically grounded cooperation from in Jemena to Nairobi from Olso to Jakarta. We must build a cybersecurity ecosystem rooted in trust, guided by human rights and resilient by design. As youth, we are not just participants, we are co-creators of the digital compact. So let’s together ensure that the AI service humanities respect sovereignty and protect the dignity of all. Thank you very much.

Boutife Adisa: Thank you very much everyone for listening to us today. I think the panelists have really spoken well. For me, at the end of the day, I think trust and security are essential tools in building the digital backbone for our next century. So when we think security, when we think trust, I would like us to think more in terms of resilience, because it’s important that we don’t wait until things go bad before we look for solutions. So in the security sense, it’s important to always test, always discuss beforehand, always see if your system fails, see if AI probably would not work in certain aspects, so that we will not fall into a situation where humanity suffers from the product of innovation that we see today. So it’s important that we test the resilience of this. And we keep talking, we keep pushing it, pushing the policies, pushing the necessary frameworks that are required to ensure that this system works for our good and not for doom, like some people might think. But thank you very much. I would like to submit on this note. Thank you.

Enes Mafuta: Thank you very much everyone. So my final… Thank you all for your active participation and thoughtful contributions. So let’s continue this vital journey together of building bridges of trust and resilience across our regions. Thank you very much.

Agreement points

Multi-stakeholder approach is essential for cybersecurity governance

Speakers

– Boutife Adisa
– Lily Edinam Botsyoe
– Kozefi Duban
– Osei Keija
– Enes Mafuta

Arguments

Multi-stakeholder process like IGF should be embedded in AI governance and digital technology governance

Embedding transparency and participation in policy design with multi-stakeholder groups

Youth are not just participants but co-creators of digital compact and AI governance

Civil society definition should not be preserve of certain groups – everyone can be activists

Cybersecurity governance is a long journey requiring collaborative effort across all sectors

Summary

All speakers emphasized the critical importance of inclusive, multi-stakeholder approaches in cybersecurity governance, with each advocating for broader participation beyond traditional government and technical communities to include civil society, youth, and diverse stakeholders.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights | Development

Human-centric approach must be at the center of cybersecurity policy design

Speakers

– Lily Edinam Botsyoe
– Osei Keija
– Ihita Gangavarapu

Arguments

Policies must involve humans proactively rather than reactively through stakeholder engagement

Security without human rights is brittle – human rights must be at the center of cybersecurity

Digital sovereignty requires layered approach with flexible, scalable, adaptable policies

Summary

Speakers consistently emphasized that cybersecurity policies must prioritize human needs, rights, and participation from the design phase rather than treating humans as an afterthought or the weakest link in security chains.

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory | Cybersecurity

Trust requires concrete actions and transparency, not just promises

Speakers

– Lily Edinam Botsyoe
– Boutife Adisa
– Audience

Arguments

Trust requires action backing promises, not just privacy washing with empty banners

Security and trust go hand in hand – secure platforms enable greater user trust

Trust requires actual security provision and border control to create genuine trust

Summary

There was strong consensus that trust cannot be built through marketing promises alone but requires demonstrable security measures, transparency, and actual protection of user data and privacy.

Topics

Privacy and data protection | Cybersecurity | Human rights

Need for proactive rather than reactive cybersecurity approaches

Speakers

– Samaila Atsen Bako
– Boutife Adisa
– Ihita Gangavarapu

Arguments

Speed of law versus speed of cybercriminals creates perpetual catch-up game for regulators

Think in terms of resilience rather than reactive security – test systems before they fail

Security by design should go beyond compliance to anticipate systematic risks

Summary

Speakers agreed that the current reactive approach to cybersecurity is insufficient and that policies and systems must be designed proactively to anticipate and prevent threats rather than responding after attacks occur.

Topics

Cybersecurity | Legal and regulatory | Infrastructure

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized leveraging existing, proven cybersecurity frameworks and standards rather than creating new ones, with focus on zero trust architectures and continuous security practices.

Speakers

– Samaila Atsen Bako
– Boutife Adisa

Arguments

Leverage widely adopted and trusted standards like NIST cybersecurity framework 2.0 and OWASP IoT project

Zero trust by design for AI systems with mandatory multi-factor authentication and continuous vetting

Topics

Cybersecurity | Infrastructure

Both speakers recognized the trend toward digital sovereignty and the need for comprehensive national approaches that involve multiple stakeholders beyond just government entities.

Speakers

– Ihita Gangavarapu
– Monojit Das

Arguments

Shift from free flow of data to regional control and localization across all government types

Whole-of-nation approach involving all stakeholders beyond just government in democratic setups

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development | Digital sovereignty

Both emphasized the importance of educating and protecting users through both literacy programs and regulatory mechanisms to ensure people can safely navigate digital environments.

Speakers

– Lily Edinam Botsyoe
– Kozefi Duban

Arguments

Investing in civic digital literacy so people understand risks and tools like AI and quantum encryption

Need national mechanisms for control and regulation to ensure user safety online

Topics

Development | Cybersecurity | Legal and regulatory

Unexpected consensus

Civil society role should be universal rather than limited to specific organizations

Speakers

– Osei Keija
– Kozefi Duban
– Lily Edinam Botsyoe

Arguments

Civil society definition should not be preserve of certain groups – everyone can be activists

Youth are not just participants but co-creators of digital compact and AI governance

Policies must involve humans proactively rather than reactively through stakeholder engagement

Explanation

Unexpectedly, there was strong consensus that traditional boundaries between civil society, government, and other stakeholders should be dissolved, with everyone being viewed as potential activists and co-creators rather than passive recipients of policy.

Topics

Human rights | Development | Legal and regulatory

Regional cooperation strengthens rather than fragments global internet governance

Speakers

– Ihita Gangavarapu
– Kozefi Duban

Arguments

Regional cooperation enables trusted data flows, shared security principles, and joint R&D on resilient infrastructure

Need multilateral AI treaties embedding human rights safeguards and intercontinental threat intelligence sharing

Explanation

Despite concerns about digital sovereignty leading to fragmentation, speakers unexpectedly agreed that regional cooperation and localization can actually strengthen global governance by building trust and enabling better coordination.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Infrastructure | Human rights

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion revealed remarkable consensus on fundamental principles: the necessity of multi-stakeholder governance, human-centric policy design, proactive security approaches, and the requirement for concrete actions to build trust. Speakers consistently emphasized moving beyond traditional silos and reactive approaches toward inclusive, forward-looking governance models.

Consensus level

High level of consensus on core principles with strong implications for cybersecurity governance. The agreement suggests a mature understanding among diverse stakeholders that effective cybersecurity requires collaborative, human-centered, and proactive approaches rather than technical solutions alone. This consensus provides a solid foundation for developing comprehensive cybersecurity policies that balance security, sovereignty, and human rights.

Different viewpoints

Framework development approach – reinvention vs. new frameworks

Speakers

– Samaila Atsen Bako
– Boutife Adisa

Arguments

No need to reinvent frameworks, focus on adoption and implementation differences across organizations and countries

Zero trust by design for AI systems with mandatory multi-factor authentication and continuous vetting

Summary

Bako argues against creating new frameworks and emphasizes leveraging existing ones like NIST, while Adisa proposes specific new policy requirements like mandatory AI threat modeling and red teaming that would require new regulatory frameworks

Topics

Cybersecurity | Legal and regulatory

Civil society role definition and scope

Speakers

– Osei Keija
– Kozefi Duban

Arguments

Civil society definition should not be preserve of certain groups – everyone can be activists

Youth are not just participants but co-creators of digital compact and AI governance

Summary

Keija argues for a broad, inclusive definition where everyone can be activists and civil society shouldn’t be limited to specific groups, while Duban focuses specifically on youth as a distinct group with special co-creator status in digital governance

Topics

Human rights | Development

Sovereignty approach – regional vs. national focus

Speakers

– Ihita Gangavarapu
– Monojit Das

Arguments

Regional cooperation enables trusted data flows, shared security principles, and joint R&D on resilient infrastructure

Whole-of-nation approach involving all stakeholders beyond just government in democratic setups

Summary

Gangavarapu emphasizes regional cooperation and cross-border collaboration as key to digital sovereignty, while Das focuses on national approaches and whole-of-nation strategies, with less emphasis on regional coordination

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Infrastructure

Unexpected differences

Trust building foundation vs. outcome

Speakers

– Lily Edinam Botsyoe
– Boutife Adisa

Arguments

Trust is foundation of strong policy, not byproduct – build with trust in mind

Security and trust go hand in hand – secure platforms enable greater user trust

Explanation

This represents an unexpected philosophical disagreement about whether trust is a prerequisite for good policy (Botsyoe) or an outcome of secure systems (Adisa). Both are cybersecurity experts but have fundamentally different views on the causal relationship between trust, security, and policy

Topics

Cybersecurity | Human rights

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion showed relatively low levels of direct disagreement, with most conflicts being subtle differences in emphasis and approach rather than fundamental opposition. Main disagreements centered on framework development approaches, the scope of civil society participation, and whether to prioritize regional vs. national sovereignty strategies

Disagreement level

Low to moderate disagreement level. The speakers largely shared common goals around human-centric cybersecurity, multi-stakeholder governance, and the need for robust security frameworks. Disagreements were primarily about implementation methods and emphasis rather than fundamental principles. This suggests a mature field where core principles are established but implementation strategies are still being debated, which is healthy for policy development and indicates room for complementary approaches rather than conflicting paradigms

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized leveraging existing, proven cybersecurity frameworks and standards rather than creating new ones, with focus on zero trust architectures and continuous security practices.

Speakers

– Samaila Atsen Bako
– Boutife Adisa

Arguments

Leverage widely adopted and trusted standards like NIST cybersecurity framework 2.0 and OWASP IoT project

Zero trust by design for AI systems with mandatory multi-factor authentication and continuous vetting

Topics

Cybersecurity | Infrastructure

Both speakers recognized the trend toward digital sovereignty and the need for comprehensive national approaches that involve multiple stakeholders beyond just government entities.

Speakers

– Ihita Gangavarapu
– Monojit Das

Arguments

Shift from free flow of data to regional control and localization across all government types

Whole-of-nation approach involving all stakeholders beyond just government in democratic setups

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development | Digital sovereignty

Both emphasized the importance of educating and protecting users through both literacy programs and regulatory mechanisms to ensure people can safely navigate digital environments.

Speakers

– Lily Edinam Botsyoe
– Kozefi Duban

Arguments

Investing in civic digital literacy so people understand risks and tools like AI and quantum encryption

Need national mechanisms for control and regulation to ensure user safety online

Topics

Development | Cybersecurity | Legal and regulatory

Key takeaways

Cybersecurity governance should focus on implementing existing frameworks rather than creating new ones, with emphasis on standards like NIST 2.0 and OWASP

Digital sovereignty requires balancing regional control with global interoperability through trusted data flows and shared security principles

Human-centric policy design is essential, requiring proactive stakeholder engagement and transparency rather than reactive approaches

Trust must be built through concrete actions backing promises, not empty privacy statements or ‘privacy washing’

International cooperation should start with common challenges like fake news where all nations agree, then expand to broader cybersecurity issues

Zero trust architecture and post-quantum cryptography are critical for protecting against AI-driven attacks and quantum threats

Civil society participation should be inclusive of all individuals as potential activists, not limited to formal organizations

Security and human rights must be integrated – ‘security without human rights is brittle’

Policy adaptability requires mechanisms like sunset clauses, sandboxing innovation, and machine-readable policies

Resilience-focused thinking is preferable to reactive security measures – test systems before they fail

Resolutions and action items

Develop multilateral AI treaties embedding human rights safeguards by design

Implement intercontinental threat intelligence sharing rooted in trust and inclusivity

Create sandboxing environments for testing AI systems in controlled settings (following UK and Singapore models)

Establish policy APIs for machine-readable policies that can automatically spot violations

Mandate AI threat modeling and red teaming for critical infrastructure systems

Invest in civic digital literacy programs to help people understand AI and quantum encryption risks

Develop a collaborative portal for tackling fake news similar to Wikipedia’s model

Create five-year plans for addressing fake news through convergent approaches

Implement whole-of-nation approaches involving all stakeholders beyond government

Establish sunset clauses in policies to ensure regular review and updates

Unresolved issues

How to balance privacy and security when they sometimes conflict

Defining thresholds for cyber warfare and appropriate response mechanisms

Addressing the speed gap between cybercriminal activities and legal/regulatory responses

Determining whether universal cybersecurity standards can work across all countries or if regional approaches are better

Establishing effective international governance mechanisms when UN relevance appears to be shrinking

Managing the dilemma between investing in social services versus security infrastructure

Ensuring adequate subject matter experts and skilled workers in developing regions

Creating effective mechanisms for individual accountability and citizen engagement in cybersecurity policy

Suggested compromises

Start international cooperation with universally agreed challenges like fake news, then gradually expand to more contentious cybersecurity areas

Adopt regional cooperation frameworks that enable sovereignty while maintaining global interoperability

Use multi-stakeholder approaches that balance government, private sector, civil society, and individual interests

Implement flexible, scalable, and adaptable policies that can work across different national contexts while maintaining core human rights principles

Balance immediate security needs with long-term digital resilience through phased implementation approaches

Create hybrid governance models that respect national digital sovereignty while enabling collective global security

Develop pragmatic alignment mechanisms for trusted data flows and mutual recognition of vendors across regions

I personally believe there’s no real need to reinvent the wheel in terms of design… What I think the biggest issue in terms of what we’re talking about is maybe the differences in how it’s been adopted or implemented by different organizations or even countries… there’s this popular saying in the industry that cybercriminals operate at the speed of light, while law enforcement or The Good Guys operates at the speed of the law

Speaker

Samaila Atsen Bako

Reason

This comment reframes the entire discussion by suggesting that the problem isn’t lack of frameworks but implementation gaps and regulatory speed. The metaphor about speed differences between criminals and law enforcement crystallizes a fundamental challenge in cybersecurity governance.

Impact

This set the tone for the entire discussion by shifting focus from creating new policies to improving implementation and adaptation speed. It influenced subsequent speakers to address practical implementation challenges rather than theoretical frameworks.

The spider story – where a researcher tried to repair a broken cobweb with thread, but when the spider returned, it destroyed the entire web because it wasn’t consulted about the repair process

Speaker

Lily Edinam Botsyoe

Reason

This powerful metaphor illustrates how well-intentioned cybersecurity policies can fail when stakeholders (especially end users) aren’t involved in the design process. It makes the abstract concept of stakeholder engagement tangible and memorable.

Impact

This story became a recurring theme throughout the discussion, with multiple speakers referencing human-centric approaches and the importance of involving affected communities in policy design. It fundamentally shifted the conversation toward inclusive governance.

Security without rights is brittle. Security without human rights is brittle… The definition of civil society should not be a preserve of a certain group… We are all involved… We cannot clap with one hand

Speaker

Osei Keija

Reason

This comment challenges the traditional boundaries between different stakeholder groups and democratizes the concept of cybersecurity governance. The phrase ‘security without rights is brittle’ provides a memorable framework for evaluating cybersecurity policies.

Impact

This redefined the role of civil society from a separate stakeholder group to an inclusive concept where everyone can be an activist. It influenced the closing remarks of several speakers who emphasized collective responsibility and collaboration.

We have come up with a whole-of-nation approach… cyberspace is no more just a tool of communication it’s a frontier of warfare after air, space, land, water, cyber is a frontier of warfare… So what is the threshold? So you know before a country decides its threshold and wages a full-time war or a full-fledged war it is for us to decide

Speaker

Monojit Das

Reason

This comment introduces the critical concept of cyber warfare thresholds and escalation, moving beyond defensive cybersecurity to offensive considerations. It highlights the urgent need for international agreements on cyber warfare rules of engagement.

Impact

This elevated the discussion from technical cybersecurity measures to geopolitical and military considerations, prompting other speakers to address international cooperation and the need for global governance mechanisms.

Trust is not a byproduct of strong policy. It is a foundation of it. Let’s build with Trust and Mind and not think of it as an afterthought

Speaker

Lily Edinam Botsyoe

Reason

This comment fundamentally reframes the relationship between trust and policy, suggesting that trust should be the starting point rather than the end goal of cybersecurity governance. It challenges conventional policy-making approaches.

Impact

This provided a conceptual framework that influenced the closing remarks of multiple speakers and reinforced the human-centric approach that became central to the discussion’s conclusion.

An eligible person is your first line of defense and when you equip them with the right tools, then they become literal human shields for you… I prefer this kind of statement than saying, you know, the human is the weakest link in the security chain

Speaker

Samaila Atsen Bako

Reason

This comment challenges a fundamental assumption in cybersecurity discourse by reframing humans from being the ‘weakest link’ to being ‘human shields’ when properly equipped. It’s a paradigm shift that empowers rather than blames users.

Impact

This positive reframing influenced the overall tone of the discussion’s conclusion, with speakers emphasizing empowerment and education rather than restriction and control as cybersecurity strategies.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shaped the discussion by shifting it from a technical policy-focused conversation to a human-centric, collaborative approach to cybersecurity governance. The spider story metaphor and the ‘security without rights is brittle’ framework became recurring themes that influenced how subsequent speakers framed their contributions. The discussion evolved from addressing ‘what policies do we need’ to ‘how do we build inclusive, trust-based governance that empowers rather than restricts people.’ The military/warfare perspective introduced urgency around international cooperation, while the reframing of humans as assets rather than liabilities provided a more optimistic and empowering conclusion. Overall, these comments transformed what could have been a dry policy discussion into a nuanced exploration of the human dimensions of cybersecurity governance.

How can we find proper mechanisms for adoption of security by design standards and security systems?

Speaker

Enes Mafuta

Explanation

This was identified as an ongoing struggle in standardization work that needs resolution for effective implementation

What does Q-Day look like and is it bound to happen?

Speaker

Lily Edinam Botsyoe

Explanation

She referenced concerns about a potential day when quantum computing could break all encryption-based protections, requiring further investigation into timeline and preparedness

What is the threshold for cyber warfare and when does a cyber attack warrant full-scale war retaliation?

Speaker

Monojit Das

Explanation

He highlighted the lack of accepted international definitions and thresholds for cyber warfare escalation, which poses significant security risks

How can we develop a centralized portal for tackling fake news, similar to how Wikipedia evolved?

Speaker

Monojit Das

Explanation

He proposed creating a collaborative verification system as fake news is a common challenge across all countries

How can we create a five-year plan approach for tackling fake news with convergent international cooperation?

Speaker

Monojit Das

Explanation

He suggested structured long-term planning similar to government five-year plans to address misinformation systematically

How can we energize and activate marginalized communities to participate in cybersecurity governance?

Speaker

Osei Keija

Explanation

He questioned how to ensure broader participation beyond traditional civil society organizations, especially in communities with limited access

What specific actions can individuals take to demand policy accountability from their governments regarding surveillance and cybersecurity?

Speaker

Osei Keija

Explanation

He challenged participants to consider concrete individual actions like writing to ministries to demand transparency and accountability

How can we ensure post-quantum cryptography implementation to protect against quantum computing threats?

Speaker

Boutife Adisa

Explanation

He identified this as a race against time requiring immediate research and implementation before quantum computers become capable of breaking current encryption

How can we establish effective international mechanisms for cyber governance given the declining relevance of traditional international bodies?

Speaker

Monojit Das

Explanation

He noted the shrinking relevance of UN and other international bodies in cyber governance, requiring new approaches to international cooperation

Summary

This discussion was the AU Open Forum for the African Internet Governance Forum (IGF), where representatives from the African Union Commission, UN Economic Commission for Africa, and various stakeholders shared updates on digital transformation initiatives across Africa. The forum served as a platform for African organizations to report on their accomplishments and for participants to share experiences and challenges from their respective countries.

Dr. Maktar Sek from UNECA outlined four key challenges facing the continent: policy harmonization, connectivity issues, digital inclusion gaps, and cybersecurity threats. He reported that African internet connectivity had only increased by 1% in 2024, reaching just 38% coverage, which he deemed unacceptable. UNECA has developed various tools to address these challenges, including a tax calculator for ICT sectors, an AI innovation platform showcasing 2,400 continental innovations, and support for digital ID systems across multiple countries.

The African Union Commission representative discussed ongoing initiatives including the digital transformation strategy implementation, PRIDA phase two launch, and development of continental AI and cybersecurity strategies. A significant focus was placed on the low ratification rate of the Malabo Convention on cybersecurity, with only 17 countries having ratified it despite its importance for continental cyber governance.

The Permanent Secretary of Tanzania provided a comprehensive overview of the 14th African IGF held in Dar es Salaam, which attracted 1,097 participants from 67 countries. The forum produced the Dar es Salaam Declaration, identifying nine key challenges including infrastructure gaps, digital inclusion barriers, and cybersecurity vulnerabilities, along with corresponding commitments for addressing these issues.

Several participants raised concerns about implementation of IGF recommendations, noting that while excellent outputs are produced annually, there is insufficient follow-up and monitoring of actual implementation. The discussion concluded with calls for stronger institutional support for the African IGF Secretariat and better coordination among various organizations working on digital policy harmonization across the continent.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Digital Infrastructure and Connectivity Challenges**: Extensive discussion about Africa’s low internet connectivity (only 38% by end of 2024), affordability issues, infrastructure gaps, and the need for policy harmonization across the continent to create a digital single market.

– **Implementation and Governance of Digital Policies**: Focus on the slow ratification of the Malabo Convention on cybersecurity (only 17 countries have ratified), the need for stronger institutional frameworks, and challenges with internet resource management through AFRINIC.

– **Capacity Building and Skills Development**: Emphasis on digital literacy programs, youth empowerment, the African School on Internet Governance (AFRICIG), and the need to build local expertise rather than relying solely on external support.

– **Sustainable Funding and Resource Mobilization**: Discussion about reduced international cooperation budgets, the need for African countries to step up with domestic funding, greater private sector involvement, and potential GDP levy mechanisms for development funding.

– **Moving from Discussion to Action**: Concerns raised about the gap between IGF declarations/recommendations and actual implementation, with calls for stronger monitoring frameworks and the need to transform IGF from a discussion platform into one that produces actionable resolutions.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion served as the AU Open Forum for the African Internet Governance Forum (IGF), aimed at sharing progress reports from key organizations (AU Commission and UN Economic Commission for Africa), presenting outcomes from the 2025 Tanzania African IGF, and facilitating multi-stakeholder dialogue on Africa’s digital transformation challenges and opportunities.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a collaborative and constructive tone throughout, characterized by professional engagement and shared commitment to African digital development. While participants acknowledged significant challenges (low connectivity, funding constraints, slow policy implementation), the tone remained optimistic and solution-oriented. There was a strong spirit of pan-African cooperation, with frequent expressions of gratitude for partnerships and mutual support, though some frustration was evident regarding the slow pace of policy ratification and implementation gaps.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Adil Suleimana**: Moderator/Chair of the AU Open Forum, representing African Union organization

– **Maktar Sek**: Chief Digital Officer, United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (UNECA)

– **Participant**: Permanent Secretary of Tanzania, host of the African IGF 2025

– **Amenta Ramalan**: Representative of Africa Youth IGF, from Nigeria

– **Henriette Esterhuisen**: Organizer of the African School on Internet Governance, works with AU Research ICT Africa and Association for Progressive Communications

– **Jacqueline Jijide**: Ambassador for Pan-African Youth Internet Governance, Digital Inclusion Practitioner, member of Malawi Youth IGF, from Malawi

– **Michel Kenmo**: West Africa Advisor for Communication and Information, UNESCO

– **Tobias Thiel**: Resident Director of GIZ for the African Union, based in Addis Ababa

– **Audience**: Multiple unidentified speakers from the audience making various interventions and questions

**Additional speakers:**

– **Dr. Amina Miyada**: EVC, CEO of Nigeria Communication Commission (acknowledged but did not speak)

– **Honorable Minister from Chad**: (acknowledged but specific remarks not transcribed)

– **Honorable Minister from Gambia**: (acknowledged but specific remarks not transcribed)

– **Honorable Minister from Zambia**: (acknowledged but did not speak)

– **Sorine**: Instrumental in African IGF organization over the last two years, works on African IGF Secretariat

# AU Open Forum for African Internet Governance: Discussion Report

## Executive Summary

The AU Open Forum for the African Internet Governance Forum convened as a platform for multi-stakeholder dialogue on Africa’s digital transformation progress and challenges. The forum brought together representatives from the African Union Commission, UN Economic Commission for Africa, government officials including ministers from Gambia and Chad, civil society organisations, and youth representatives to share updates, discuss implementation gaps, and coordinate future actions.

Key discussions centered on Africa’s persistent connectivity challenges—with internet penetration reaching only 38% by 2024—alongside efforts to establish comprehensive policy frameworks for cybersecurity, digital inclusion, and economic transformation. Participants engaged in frank discussions about the gap between policy declarations and actual implementation, coordination challenges among multiple organisations working on similar initiatives, and the need for sustainable funding mechanisms for Africa’s digital agenda.

## Opening Remarks and Context Setting

Adil Suleimana from the African Union Commission opened the forum by outlining the AU’s ongoing digital transformation initiatives, including implementation of the continental digital transformation strategy and the launch of PRIDA phase two. He highlighted the development of comprehensive continental strategies for artificial intelligence and cybersecurity as foundational elements for Africa’s digital future.

A significant concern raised was the limited ratification of the Malabo Convention on cybersecurity and personal data protection. Despite being in force since 2023, only 14-17 countries have ratified this critical framework, with major economies including South Africa, Nigeria, Ghana, Kenya, and Ethiopia yet to adopt the convention. The Commission proposed establishing a dedicated committee to examine barriers to ratification and develop model laws to facilitate broader adoption.

## Continental Digital Landscape Assessment

### UNECA’s Digital Transformation Analysis

Dr. Maktar Sek, Chief Digital Officer at UNECA, presented a comprehensive assessment of Africa’s digital challenges. He reported that African internet connectivity reached only 38% by the end of 2024, representing minimal annual progress that he characterized as “unacceptable.” This stagnation stems from multiple factors including affordability barriers, inadequate infrastructure, limited digital literacy, and fragmented policy frameworks.

Sek emphasized that “Africa needs policy harmonisation to create a digital single market for implementing the African free trade area,” highlighting how the continent’s fragmented regulatory landscape hinders cross-border digital commerce and creates barriers to seamless digital services.

UNECA has developed several tools to address these challenges, including a tax calculator for ICT sectors that enables governments to optimize taxation policies. Sek argued that “when we optimise, we have seen our old tax collection revenue will be increased because the impact of ICT sector in other sector, health, education, finance service.” The organization has also launched an AI innovation platform showcasing continental innovations and provides support for digital ID systems across multiple countries.

### Infrastructure and Energy Challenges

The discussion highlighted fundamental infrastructure constraints, with approximately 700 million Africans lacking access to electricity—a prerequisite for meaningful digital participation. This energy deficit compounds connectivity challenges and limits the effectiveness of digital inclusion initiatives.

## African IGF 2025 Outcomes from Tanzania

Leo Magomba, Tanzania’s Permanent Secretary, reported on the successful 14th African IGF held in Dar es Salaam, which attracted 1,097 participants from 67 countries. The forum produced the Dar es Salaam Declaration, identifying nine key challenges: infrastructure gaps, digital inclusion barriers, cybersecurity vulnerabilities, limited digital literacy, regulatory fragmentation, insufficient funding, weak institutional frameworks, limited local content in African languages, and inadequate monitoring mechanisms.

Corresponding to these challenges, the forum produced nine specific commitments including accelerating infrastructure development through public-private partnerships, implementing targeted digital inclusion programmes, strengthening cybersecurity frameworks, expanding digital literacy initiatives, harmonising regulatory approaches, mobilising sustainable funding mechanisms, building robust institutional frameworks, promoting local content development, and establishing comprehensive monitoring systems.

## Youth Perspectives and Capacity Building

### Africa Youth IGF Contributions

Amenta Ramalan from Nigeria reported on the Africa Youth IGF 2025, which attracted over 200 participants for discussions on digital identity interoperability, content moderation approaches, and AI readiness across African countries. The youth forum emphasized the importance of intergenerational dialogue, particularly between youth and parliamentarians, as crucial for reviewing the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) mandate and charting future directions.

### African School on Internet Governance

Henriette Esterhuizen, representing the African School on Internet Governance (AfriCIG), highlighted the programme’s success in developing local expertise. However, she raised a critical concern about the tendency to constantly generate new proposals at the expense of implementing existing recommendations: “we have such a spirit of collaboration in Africa and we produce good outputs. Every African IGF has produced excellent outputs, but we don’t go back to them and see if we are actually implementing.”

## Critical Implementation and Coordination Challenges

### AFRINIC Governance Crisis

A significant portion of discussion focused on challenges facing the African Network Information Centre (AFRINIC). An audience member clarified that contrary to initial characterizations of financial instability, AFRINIC maintains substantial reserves. The real challenges are governance-related, representing what the speaker termed “a failure of the multi-stakeholder approach” due to low participation rates and attempts at institutional capture.

This situation highlights vulnerabilities in multi-stakeholder governance models and serves as a cautionary example for other continental digital governance initiatives. A follow-up meeting was scheduled to address these concerns.

### Policy Harmonisation Coordination

Multiple speakers raised concerns about coordination failures among various organisations working on digital policy harmonisation. An audience member identified a meta-problem: “Different organisations work with different policy approaches and policy framework, and if we do not harmonise the work we are doing, then what is going to happen is that neighbouring countries may have different policy frameworks that do not speak to each other.”

This observation revealed how well-intentioned efforts by multiple organisations—including the African Union Commission, UNECA, Digital Impact Alliance, and Smart Africa—could inadvertently create the very fragmentation they aim to resolve.

## Funding and Resource Mobilisation

### Declining International Support

Tobias Thiel, GIZ Resident Director for the African Union, raised critical questions about funding sustainability given reduced international cooperation budgets. This challenge reflects broader shifts in development cooperation, with traditional donor countries reducing commitments while African countries face competing priorities for limited domestic resources.

### Domestic Resource Mobilisation

In response to funding challenges, Suleimana emphasized that “African countries need to step up in providing funds and mobilising private sector participation, as private sector plays a major role in developed nations’ digital space.” The discussion explored various mechanisms including the proposed 0.02% GDP levy for development purposes, though insufficient countries have adopted this approach.

## Sectoral Focus Areas

### Information Integrity and Content Governance

Michel Kenmo, UNESCO’s West Africa Advisor, outlined efforts to promote coherent approaches to information integrity policy and digital platform governance across West Africa. UNESCO is developing model policy frameworks that countries can adapt while maintaining regional coherence, addressing growing concerns about misinformation and the need for culturally appropriate content moderation.

### Digital Identity and Payment Interoperability

Despite having over 130 digital payment systems across Africa, more than 100 cannot communicate with each other, creating barriers to cross-border commerce and financial inclusion. This fragmentation reflects broader interoperability challenges extending beyond payments to digital identity, data sharing, and service integration.

## Rural and Community-Centred Approaches

Jacqueline Jijide from Malawi emphasized the need to rethink digital inclusion approaches in rural communities, arguing for making “digital inclusion more accessible and practical” through community-centred approaches that address specific local needs rather than imposing standardised solutions. This perspective challenges infrastructure-first approaches, suggesting instead that connectivity should be embedded within solutions to specific community problems.

## Education and Technology Production

A particularly challenging intervention came from an audience member who observed: “Africa is not on the supply side. We can clap about every small gain, but we are not significant suppliers of anything on the internet.” The speaker argued that addressing this requires focusing on “science education, and also in particular, the sciences that are creating these technologies, which is really computer science.”

This perspective redirected attention from consumption and access issues to fundamental questions about technological capability and production capacity, suggesting that sustainable digital transformation requires building educational foundations for technological innovation and production.

## Implementation Mechanisms and Accountability

### Moving from Discussion to Action

A central theme was the challenge of translating forum discussions into concrete implementation. Maktar Sek observed that “IGF recommendations lack implementation mechanisms as it’s just a discussion platform without obligation to implement outcomes.” This limitation reflects broader challenges of multi-stakeholder governance processes that can generate consensus but lack implementation authority.

### Proposed Solutions

Participants proposed several accountability mechanisms including developing continental monitoring and evaluation frameworks with annual reports to African IGF, establishing formal communication mechanisms to share declarations with National and Regional IGFs, and strengthening the African IGF Secretariat with institutional rather than just forum support.

Additional proposals included submitting African IGF and WSIS declarations to the African Union Specialised Technical Committee meeting for ministerial adoption as official resolutions, thereby giving forum outcomes greater political weight and implementation authority.

## Conclusion and Next Steps

The forum revealed both the strengths and limitations of current approaches to African digital governance. While strong collaboration and consensus on challenge identification provide a solid foundation, persistent implementation gaps, funding constraints, and coordination challenges among multiple organisations threaten to undermine well-designed initiatives.

Key priorities identified include strengthening implementation mechanisms and accountability frameworks, improving coordination among organisations working on digital policy harmonisation, addressing governance challenges facing critical institutions like AFRINIC, developing sustainable funding mechanisms, and shifting focus from technology consumption to production through strategic investments in science education and innovation capacity.

The forum concluded with specific follow-up actions, including a scheduled meeting to address AFRINIC governance challenges and commitments to improve coordination among continental organisations working on digital transformation initiatives.

Adil Suleimana: Hello, good morning, everybody. Welcome. Welcome to the AU Open Forum this year. I think for those who are joining for the first time, you can see that this is like your home. And I think it’s the platform we share as an organization, African organization. We share what we are doing, what we have accomplished. And also it’s also an opportunity for you also to share with us what you have accomplished back home and the challenges that you are facing. So so I think without further ado, let me welcome you once again. Also, let me recognize that we have also some ministers with us. Honorable Minister, you are welcome. And also we have members of parliaments with us also. They are welcome. I think after we make the introduction and the briefing from the organization, if you are if you feel that you want to speak for the ministers, I will give you the floor so that you can at least greet everybody. And and somehow if you have something to share with us, please feel free to share without further ado. The agenda for today, we are going you are going to get briefing from the two main organization that are responsible for the African IGF and also from the activity, digital activity within Africa, namely the African Union Commission and the United Nations Commission for Africa. We just you’re going to hear. what we are doing so that you rest assured that a lot of things are being done in the continent. And the next session we are going to hear, get a briefing on the African IGF that was held in Tanzania. We hear from the youth representative, the MAC chair, and then we’re going to open the floor for Q&A. I can see that we have the Honorable Minister of Zambia. Welcome. It’s an honor, Gambia. Welcome. It’s an honor to have you with us today. And also we have the Permanent Secretary of Tanzania, the host of the African IGF 2025. Without further ado, let’s start the program. And let’s hear from Dr. Maktar Sek, Chief Digital Officer within the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa. Maktar, the floor is yours.

Maktar Sek: Thank you, Adil. And good morning to everyone. Good morning, P.S. Honorable Minister, distinguished delegate, let me going to start by thanking you for attending this open forum to listen what are we doing for you. And also we need to get a view from you. It’s very important because we are here to serve the member states of the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa. And this support should be based on your needs. And for this year, 2024, 2025, lots of things have been happening at the continental level, driven by ECA. And this activity or key project are based on the needs of the continent. And where we are focused during this period under review, as you know, our continent is facing several challenges. Let me just focus on four. One, it is on policy harmonization. We have a lot of fragmentation of our policy and one of our role, it is to work with AUC on how to harmonize all this policy because our objective is to come with a digital single market in the implementation of the African free trade area. Second, connectivity is a big issue across the continent. You have seen in end of 2023, the connectivity was 37% for African country and end of 2004, we have 38%. Means we have only 1% progress for one year. It’s something not acceptable. Why? Because we have an issue of affordability. Issue of infrastructure, of issue of literacy and policy also and also involvement of the private sector. Why we have several activity? To try to put more involvement of the private sector by supporting African country to develop as a rule and regulation involving this private sector. Also to develop also this access to the service and device. Why we have developed one platform, tax calculator, to review the taxation in the ICT sector. I think we can share the link at the screen and this taxation has been conducted in 54 member state. We’ve all data following the salary payment, the tax of VAT, excess debt, everything regarding tax in the ICT sector. And we have shown to the Minister of Finance in this conference last year that. Optimizing ITC tax can increase not only the GDP, but we have seen an increase according to our statistic of the broadband connectivity as well as the job creation. What does it mean? ICT sector, it is not an area where government think they can get more money. Generally, all our government will focus on the ICT sector on the taxation. We have to optimize. When we optimize, we have seen our old tax collection revenue will be increased because the impact of ICT sector in other sector, health, education, finance service. It is a one platform, one you have at your disposal and we invite Minister of Finance and Minister of ICT to go through to this tool and to discuss how they can optimize the taxation in your respective country. It is a very comprehensive tool. You can play one percent, two percent, four percent until you get the amount necessary for the development of the country. Another point, we talk about a lot on AI, artificial intelligence, but the big problem is we don’t know exactly what’s happened in the continent. I don’t know if I’m Rwanda, what’s happened in innovation on artificial intelligence in Kenya or in Senegal or in Mauritania or in Tanzania. We have developed a web-based platform to show all innovation on AI in the continent. And we select, we have found around 2,400 innovation across the continent. And we have selected, given the impact, 343 innovation in around, I think, 28 sector. And we have the platform, you can visit the website. And this innovation, this platform will show you what is the impact of this innovation, how to contact also people who led this innovation across the continent, and we’ll create a knowledge sharing as a partner. partnership, collaborative technical transfer digital skills between Africa. It is the second project. The other one, on data governance, we thank GIZ, we work with GIZ to support four African countries to harmonize or to develop their national framework on data governance and to build their capacity in line with the African Union data governance framework. Namely, we are supporting DRC, Burundi, and Tanzania, as well as Mozambique. We are making good progress in DRC and Burundi, and we started last week the process, two weeks ago, the process in Tanzania and in Mozambique. And by the end of this year, we are going to have the four strategies ready and build the capacity of these four African countries through the support provided by GIZ. Digital ID, very important as a continent if you want to develop the continent. As you know, we are 500 million of our population without any legal form of identity. When you talk about 38% connectivity, you forget the 500 million. It is something we need to overcome in the continent, and why we have a big component project activity on digital ID, and we support a lot of African countries to develop their national digital ID. Ethiopia, we are supporting them now, and we have now more than 10 million people registration in the digital ID database, and we organized a successful digital ID for Africa meeting in May in Ethiopia. Another issue on policy, the issue of cyber security. We talk about the Malabo Coalition is there since, I don’t know, more than 10 years, 12 years. We have only 14 countries who ratify, and when we ask countries, they told, yeah, you have to adapt. But we are working with the African Union to adapt, to update this framework to respond to the need of African countries. Digital single market also, we are working on this. And also, we work with African Nenda and World Bank on the digital payment system, how we make this cross-border digital transaction happening in the continent. As you know, we have around 130 digital payment system in the continent, and more than 100, they don’t speak each other. Because issue of interoperability, issue of regulation, and we work of this African country to make sure we have an interoperability system across the continent in order to make this digital payment happening in all African continent. Because we need to develop this digital trade between African country, not in a country alone. It is what we do in cross-border digital payment this year. Another point where we are, it is a capacity building. We need to build the capacity of policy maker, of youth, of also private sector. Why we have several program on capacity building targeting this women entrepreneurship on digital trade, on finance technology, policy maker on how to use this emerging technology, how to develop the law and regulation, as well as capacity building for the parliamentarian. We have also a program of capacity building for the youth on innovation. And we organize this STI forum, SEAS technology innovation forum, for African country. And we have a very good component for youth, how this youth can utilize, can use this digital technology to solve the African problem. And we call it this concept, the origin concept. The origin concept is become, find local solution for problem, African problem. And it is this work, this concept work very well in Kenya, in other three, four country, Morocco, and Zambia, and in Senegal also, we have this project, this original project. Another point, it is on the collaboration, international collaboration. How African country should amplify its voice at the international level. We are the focal point for Wishes for Africa, World Summit Information Society. We organize several gatherings, several meetings. And this year, we organized Wishes Plus 20 in Kotonou in May. And almost all African country were represented at the government level, private sector, civil society. And we come up with a declaration on the Wishes Plus 20. What are the view for Africa since the implementation of the Wishes in 2025? What we need for Africa? Also, what are our key priority? We did the same thing also in Tanzania with the African Internet Governance Forum. And thank you also for the government of Benin and the government of Tanzania for their support in organizing Wishes Plus 20 and the African Internet Governance Forum. And for these two events, because they are linkage between Wishes and IGF, because IGF is part of the Wishes, it is one key outcome of Wishes, we agree. Africa, priority of Africa, it is on policy, harmonizing policy. We need to harmonize our policy. We need to bridge the digital divide between rural, urban, and between country, because we have several digital divide between the country and Africa. Also, between the men, women, and youth, we need to bridge the digital divide. priority for Africa, it is a digital literacy. We need to build our capacity of our policy maker, of our youth generation, because Africa, the aspiration for Africa is to be leader in this digital technology by 2050. And we have more than a lot of you across the continent who are making a lot of progress, innovation. I give you an example. During the COVID period, Africa has registered around five innovations on AI, of focus on medical issue, health care, and other. It is one priority for Africa. Another priority, it is this collaboration. We need this kind of collaboration, knowledge sharing, discuss between us what happened in Rwanda, what happened in Tanzania, what happened in Nigeria, and to share knowledge. We have to start this collaboration in Africa first. Yesterday, during the session, we have several initiatives shared by the Minister of Chad. I think it is something very important. We have to learn about it and to see how we can collaborate it. Also, I’m going to finish quickly because we have too many things. Another area where we need to focus in Africa, it is energy. We talk about a lot of time on digital technology, but we forget the energy side. As you know, 700 million of our population doesn’t have access to electricity. And when we want to build this digital future, this internet society, this digital economy, we need also to take into consideration energy. And last but not least, it is security, very important. Cyber security, it is a big challenge for the continent if we want to use this digital information, this service. Also, we talk about disinformation, misinformation. It is something we have because it’s coming with this knowledge society. We need to find a way. There is a good example presented yesterday by Gambia. I think it is something we can build to see how we can mitigate this cyber system, misinformation, disinformation across our country and across also our continent. And all this declaration, continue declaration, we have to do it in the Africa, we need to find a solution conclusion to find a solution for all of this challenges in Africa. We are as an IGF, to expand the mandate of the Internet governance forum to give it the aspect of this mandate, we have to make an alignment also with the global digital compact, we have adopted in September through five objectives, namely connectivity, inclusion, data governance, cyber security, and also artificial intelligence. We are going to stop there and thank you very much.

Adil Suleimana: Thank you. Thank you very much, Mokhtar. Thank you. Thank you. I promise you, you will be able to speak, because I think that’s the essence of the session, to have people on the floor to speak and share their experience. Let me also acknowledge the presence of the Honorable Minister from Chad, and also Dr. Amina Miyada, the EVC, CEO of Nigeria Communication Commission, I think Nigeria has been a strong ally of the African IGF, they hosted three or four times. So we are very thankful to Nigeria. Let me just run quickly through some of the activity within the African Union Commission. This is not like something, this is an ongoing activity, and most of this activity are going to be reported through the ministerial meeting that is going to take place by the end of the year. With regard to the digital transformation strategy for Africa, we are working with the World Bank to implement the digital transformation strategy for Africa, and we are working with the World Bank to implement this strategy. With regard to the digital transformation strategy for Africa, and in collaboration with World Bank, the following activities commence this year. connectivity for education and agricultural sector, digital implementation tracking tool, offline, online, data collection tool to track implementation of digital transformation across Africa, digital transformation strategy implementation monitoring and visualization dashboard, report on digital transformation implementation across the continent, and recommendation. Development of green digital infrastructure framework guidelines and standard as well as GHG calculation tool for Africa. Following the adoption of the interoperability framework for Africa digital ID, the AUC is now considering developing guidelines and minimum standard for interoperable digital ID across Africa. They also is pleased to share that PRIDA phase two will be formally launched as early as August of this year. PRIDA two will support AUC to accelerate the implementation of the digital transformation strategy for Africa, harmonization of policy and regulation to support the realization of the African digital single market, and strengthening the ability of African stakeholders to actively participate in the global Internet governance debate. On the implementation of the AU data policy framework, the Commission will prepare the following reports. Progress report on the implementation of data governance technical assistance program with the support of GIZ, data categorization and sharing framework, cross-border data flow framework and mechanism, continental open data strategy. On the implementation of the continental AI strategy, the Commission will impact on the development of the following. Plan plan and MNE framework for the continental AI strategy, study on the implication of AI on African economy, society, peace and security, democracy and development. Report on the AU participation in G20, including update of the AI. Africa initiative, African AI conference and G20 outcomes in relation to AU digital agenda. A draft continental cybersecurity strategy has been developed. The commission is conducting consultation and validation workshop involving various stakeholder groups on the continent. The final draft should be presented to the specialized technical committee meeting for approval by early November of this year. The AU commission also will be launching cybersecurity initiative in close collaboration with the World Bank, EU. Key areas under the two initiatives is domestication of Malawi Convention as mentioned by my colleague here, including developing model laws on Malawi Convention related to Malawi Convention and cybersecurity strategy and also development of child-friendly online portal and for Africa, for African children and also the digital ID. I stop here, let me give the floor to his excellency the permanent secretary of Tanzania, the host of this current African IGF.

Participant: Thank you so much, thank you so much. Honorable ministers, dear colleagues, good morning. As we all know that the 14th Africa IGF was held in Dar es Salaam from 29 to 31st May 2025 and this forum was represented from with various stakeholders including policemakers, parliamentarians, private sectors, technical committees, youth advocates, civil society organization, academia. We are all gathered in this forum and it also welcomed almost 1097 participants both in person and most of them were online from almost 67 countries including 49 from the African continent, 18 international partner countries and the forum both brought together a wide range of stakeholders across. the digital ecosystem. And on this forum, we came out with a declaration which due to limited time I’ll just go and talk about the key points what was discussed and what is inside the declaration. Inside this declaration, we identified the key challenges which were almost around the nine of them. I will go through one by one. And one of the key challenges that was discussed and which is in this declaration is the issue of infrastructure and connectivity. And this we are trying to address the large segments of our population remains excluded due to limited broadband coverage, high data cost and insufficient access to fixed broadband networks. And the second key challenge which was addressed in the Dar es Salaam declaration is the internet resource management. As we all know, the African Network Information Center, AFRINIC, faces serious operations and governance challenges including financial instability, leadership disputes, regulatory uncertainty, jeopardizing effect resources management. So those are most of the challenges that we are facing in the internet resource management on AFRINIC. And the third issue that is inside the Dar es Salaam declaration is the digital inclusion vulnerable and mechanized groups including persons with disabilities, refugees and stateless persons, women, rural youth, informal sector workers remain excluded from digital opportunities. And the fourth challenge which has been addressed in the Dar es Salaam declaration is regulatory readiness, fragmented digital And the fourth one, which has been addressed in the recent declaration, is capacity development, education systems, lack of integration of advanced digital skills, such as AI, artificial intelligence, big data security, cyber security, and furthermore, many other issues. And the fifth one, which has been addressed in the recent declaration, is capacity development, education systems, cyber security, and furthermore, many schools’ curricula do not integrate ICT education at the primary level, limiting early exposure to digital skills. And the sixth challenge is cyber security threats. We all know weak data protection regimes and limited cyber security capabilities leave countries vulnerable to cyber crime, data breaches, and attacks on critical infrastructure. The seventh key issue that was identified, the challenge, is stakeholder engagement and continental coordination. Here we are trying to address the inadequate framework exists for definition roles, responsibilities, and oversight mechanism among the key stakeholders, as well as the articulated and defined African common position on digital governance issues. And the eighth issue that has been declared in the recent declaration is localized content. Limited availability of digital content in local languages and cultural relevant formats undermines digital inclusion and cultural preservations. And the last key challenge that has been addressed is the energy infrastructure. Unreliable electricity supply continues to constrain ICT deployment and digital connectivity. So my dear colleagues, thank you. These are the nine challenges that we discussed in Dar es Salaam forum, and they are all well explained in the Dar es Salaam declaration. So what we did is we came up with commitments to addressing the above challenges through following actions. One is to do investment in secure and resilient infrastructure. Here we are trying to address, to promote investment in the development and expansion in critical internet infrastructure to ensure equitable and secure access to digital resources across Africa, including domain names, IP address, and root servers. The second commitment is accelerating and the adoption of digital public infrastructure, DPI, to foster public-private civil society partnership, to scale up DPI as a means to improve service delivery, governance, and digital innovation. The third one is enhancing energy infrastructure and connectivity. Here we are trying to address the support to support the modernization and digitalization of power systems while integrating renewable energy solutions to expand broadband access in remote areas. And the fourth one is ensuring effective governance to internet resources. Here we are trying to address that to strengthening the institutional and organization stability of AFRINIC, guided by transparency, accountability, and regional ownership. As we all know, we have a lot of challenges in AFRINIC. And the fifth one is strengthening police and legal frameworks. Advanced regional harmonization of digital governing policies, legislation with focus on AI regulations, data protection, and inclusive digital innovation. We are conducting, sort of, continuation of this evaluation using multistakeholder governance sandboxes. And the sixth one is advancing cyber security. We were trying to harmonize national and regional frameworks to achieve inclusion and skills development. We were trying to implement inclusive digital literacy programs that address gender, stability, and geographical disparities, and integrate advanced technology modules into national curricula, including AI, Internet of Things, quantum computing, and AI technologies. And the eighth is establishment of regional centers for colleges, universities, community science and institutions. And the ninth one to support African-led digital transformation. The ninth one is advancing content development that supports the production and development of African-languages and knowledge system. We also looked at empowering African youth. Here we are committed to empower African youth to lead, innovate and thrive in the digital future by investing in their potential, fostering digital skills, and providing the necessary support to unlock the benefits of digital transformation for the continent. The next one is empowering African parliamentarians. And the last is the parliament. the role as key drivers of digital governance, shaping policies that promote sustainable development, foster innovation, and ensure equitable access to digital opportunity across the continent. The next one is encouraging African countries to ratify the Malabo Conversion by establishing a dedicated committee to examine the underlying reason for the low ratification rate and to propose necessary reforms or actions to facilitate broader adoption. And the last one is developing African Internet Governance Index. Here we are trying to come into and find specific targets, indicators, and metrics for the progress and development of internet governance in Africa. Dear colleagues, these are the commitments that are mentioned in the RISLAM declaration that took place on 29th to 31st May of this year. To conclude, we also came up with additional commitments and the strategic imperatives. One is to do is strengthening monitoring, evaluation, and the oversight frameworks. Here we are trying to come up to develop a continental mechanism for monitoring and evaluation progress by annual report to the African IGF to ensure transparency and evidence-based decision-making. We also came up with advancing gender equality and intergenerational digital justice to close the gender-digital divide, promote women leadership in internet governance, and empower African youth to co-create digital policies and solutions. We also came up with promoting multilingualism and the protection of legal knowledge systems. Here we are trying to enable promoting… and develop digital services in indigenous African language to preserve traditional knowledge through inclusive digital platforms. The additional one is integrating environmental sustainability and climate smart digital transformation. Here we adopt a green ICT policy, invest in low carbon digital infrastructure and promote circular economy approach including e-waste management. We also came up with mobilizing partnership in international solidarity, call on international partners to support African led digital transformation through investment, technical assistance and equitable partnership in global governance processes. Safeguarding human rights and digital freedom and hold fundamental rights including freedom of expression, access to information, privacy and protection for discrimination in all digital policies and technologies. Strengthening national and sub-regional IGF support the development and sustainability of national and sub-regional internet governance forum NRI as inclusive platforms aligned with African IGF process. Elevating African digital influence, enhancing intra-Africa coordination to ensure effective and sustainable African engagement global is forum. To conclude with the declaration is that the present declaration reflects African collective commitment to reaffirm the pivotal role of the internet governance IGF as an essential platform for fostering inclusive, transparent and multistakeholder discussion on global internet governance as well as global spectrum of a digital policy and policy issues. Also to ensure that progress remains aligned with global priorities including the objective of the Global Digital Compact. We call for the continuous of ongoing process within the framework of the World Summit Information Society, OASIS, throughout the next decade. Furthermore, we look forward to the OASIS Plus 20 review formally establishing the Internet Governance Forum, IGF, mandate as a permanent United Nations entity with secure and sustainable funding, ensuring the continued impact and relevance in the evolving global governance of the Internet Digital Policy. Thank you so much.

Adil Suleimana: Thank you very much, permanent secretary. Thank you very much for the report. It was very enlightening. I am sure by now you guys are tired of this side of the meeting, so we are going to open the floor. I don’t see from far, so if there is a representative from youth, Afrinik, Afrisik, Apnik, and Mark, please, you can take the floor. But let me start also by understanding the minister. I think the permanent secretary is going to excuse himself. He has an engagement. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you very much. Let me start by giving the floor. I understand the minister from Gambia wants to address the meeting. Okay. Thank you very much. Let’s open the floor for intervention, Q&A, remarks, reports from the floor. I think, as I said, this is the essence of this meeting. It’s good that we have almost 35 minutes or 36 minutes. We start with, I think that there is a queue there. We start from.

Audience: Yeah, thank you very much, Chair. Ponsleit speaking for the record. I would like to know, you talked about this committee being set up to get more countries to adopt the Malabo Convention. If you look at it currently with the 15 countries that have adopted and rectified, it is really very embarrassing. You only have Egypt and Senegal as the big countries there. All the others are small countries, South Africa, Nigeria, Ghana, Kenya, they have not adopted it. So I don’t know what, Ethiopia, who houses the African Union. I don’t know how you are going to do it with this committee because I believe that to go forward with, when you want to localize cyber security initiatives, our own GDPR, which is the Malabo Convention, at least the big countries should be a good example for that and it has taken time. So I don’t know how this committee will do it. Thank you very much.

Adil Suleimana: Henriette.

Henriette Esterhuisen: Thank you, thank you Adil. Henriette Esterhuisen, I am the organizer, one of the organizers of the African School on Internet Governance, which is an initiative of the AU Research ICT Africa and Association for Progressive Communications. And I just want to share that we had AFRICIG this year. It was the 13th AFRICIG in Tanzania. I cannot thank enough the Ministry of ICT, the Permanent Secretary, Mr. Leo Magomba, his team and everyone in Tanzania for doing an exceptional job in hosting us and for giving us so many of their staff to be part of the school and participate in the school. So just to thank everyone, the Nigerian Communications Commission who’s hosted, ECA, everyone who’s hosted. And that I do feel that over time AFRICIG. is really contributing to leadership development and internet governance in Africa. It’s a school, not for entry-level people, it’s for people that are practicing, professionals, leaders from all stakeholder groups and internet governance. It’s very intensive, but we really have results. And I think it also demonstrates that there is so much leadership and there is so much capacity. And the faculty of AFRICIG as well, and many of them are in the room, are people of exceptional quality. And I think the one thing that AFRICIG shows us is that we already have expertise. We have existing internet governance expertise in the continent. We need to galvanize it. And Adil, I’ll just share with you, I won’t name the donor, but there was a donor that we had a meeting with recently that referred to AFRICIG as the Ivy League among schools of internet governance. So I just want to thank everyone who’s always been part of that. Just how many people here have participated in AFRICIG over the years? Just put up your hands. So thanks very much to everyone. And then I think just in response to the call you put to us, I think that what we really just have to be cautious about, we have such a spirit of collaboration in Africa and we produce good outputs. Every African IGF has produced excellent outputs, but we don’t go back to them and see if we are actually implementing. I’m even thinking of AFRICIG in 2022, where we collaborated with the African Union to produce an input for the open-ended working group, which was a strategy on how to build multi-stakeholder cyber resilience. Very practical steps and recommendations. And I think we should really be very cautious about constantly making new proposals, coming up with new ideas. Often, I think that happens at the expense of actually fully implementing the ones we’ve already generated. Thanks very much.

Adil Suleimana: Thank you. Please introduce yourself.

Amenta Ramalan: Good morning, everyone. My name is Aamenta Ramalan, I’m from Nigeria I’m a representative of Africa youth, I will be giving a brief about the Africa youth 85, 2025. The forum was organized by the African youth IGF. It was a series of conversations that was aligned with the theme for the main Africa IGF. The forum had over 200 participants from across several African countries. This was actually one of our most attended Africa youth IGFs and hopefully it will be impactful and the recommendations will be implemented. We had a series of conversations around the importance of digital identity and how it can be implemented in Africa. We had a series of conversations around the importance of digital identity and how it can be implemented in Africa. One of our conversations around that was for cross-continental interoperability, so the digital identity is interoperable between nations. We also had conversations on collaborative approaches to social media content moderation, ensuring that different platforms are available to share the same content and to ensure that the content is accessible and easy to understand. We also had conversations on open source and open future, Africa’s youth on AI and frontier tech. We noted that UNESCO’s open AI readiness assessment is being implemented in 50 plus African countries, however, there is still a need for investment across the continent within the US, before releasing the results. And we’re afraid that the funding will be lost. Because without skilled youth and infrastructure funding alone will not succeed. We said, let me tell you, this has to be done and this is what we’re doing. We said, let’s go to Africa, and okay, let’s not take the data off because will not be effective in developing AI solutions. And lastly, we had an intergenerational dialogue between the youth and parliamentarians. Now, the key of this session was to bring together the architects of the early WSIS engagement and the leaders of today. We had conversations around the founding principles of the WSIS and engaged in dialogue on how we can chart our way forward as a region and what will be most important for us while the WSIS mandate is being reviewed. In conclusion, the Africa Youth IGF provided a platform for young leaders to engage in meaningful dialogue on the role of youth in shaping Africa’s digital transformation. Thank you.

Adil Suleimana: Thank you very much.

Audience: I think I have to adjust this. Thanks very much for organizing the forum. I’ve been away for a while and so I’m quite impressed with the activity I’m seeing. I thought I’ll try to redirect some things and then maybe also post my priorities just so that I’m also included. I like to do a check. There was a mention of domain names. So I like to find out how many of the people here have domain names from African ccTLDs or .Africa. Okay, you have some, but notice that it’s very small. So redirect to we believe in ourselves and owning the domain name system in Africa. The second thing is there was a mention about AFRINIC having financial problems. I think the evidence is that they even have reserves of about $9 million. I do not know many companies. in Africa that, apart from operating capital, have reserves of nine million. So that needs to be, the problem we see with AFRINIC, our resource management organization, is more about failure of the multi-stakeholder approach, where it’s not able to reach consensus, and there are attempts of capture. You know, when participation is low, this process we like so much can easily be captured, and that may be a good study for the researchers and academicians regarding the case of AFRINIC. Now, I just want to now throw my priorities. For me, I think the supply side is where we are not. Africa is not on the supply side. Even on the internet, Africa is not on the supply side. We can clap about every small gain, but we are not significant suppliers of anything on the internet. Not really, okay? So we have to kind of focus on what creates that supply side. In my opinion, it’s science education, and also in particular, the sciences that are creating these technologies, which is really computer science, okay? Applications of it is what we are seeing that we are enjoying. We’ve been doing AI since the 70s, okay? And we’ve been doing all these distributed systems since that time. So for me, the priorities in beefing up science education, it does not mean that the other humanities and social sciences are not significant, but you need a minimum composition of the sciences to be able to advance, in my opinion. The second message that I can give. give is we need to adopt the MS practices in our domestic environments, because it requires certain techniques, such as active participation, and you must be knowledgeable enough, and you must be constructive, and you need to have a moderator that will call consensus. So if you miss participation, it can be captured. If you don’t have a moderator that can call consensus, you are doomed. So I just leave it there. The last bit is we have to preserve and grow the capacities that we have by focusing on intergenerational mentorship and coaching. Currently, it looks like it’s disjointed. Everybody’s going their own way, peer to peer. We forget that you have to have a stream, especially in certain areas like cybersecurity, where you cannot afford to have any vacuum in the chain. So I thought I’ll give you these two ideas, and thank you very much for a good follow-up. Thank you.

Adil Suleimana: Thank you very much. Can you please be brief, because I think we need to give the floor for as many people as possible.

Tobias Thiel: Sure. Good morning. My name is Tobias Thiel, and I’m the resident director of GIZ for the African Union, based in Addis Ababa. Thank you so much for a comprehensive presentation. You outlined quite an extensive list on African-led initiatives in the digital sector, which I believe is a crucial prerequisite for the digital transformation of the continent. At the same time, we also know from experience that the commitment is also very much measured in terms of the resources that are being committed. So my question to you would be, given recent reductions… and international cooperation budgets. How do you realistically expect this wealth of initiatives to be funded, especially with a view to member state resources, but also private sector? Thank you so much.

Adil Suleimana: All right. So from this side.

Jacqueline Jijide: Good morning.

Adil Suleimana: Oh, you have also another side. Okay. So please go ahead.

Jacqueline Jijide: Okay. Thank you. So my name is Jacqueline Jijide, and I’m from Malawi. Actually, I’m Ambassador for Pan-African Youth Internet Governance, as well as the Digital Inclusion Practitioner, and also a member of Malawi Youth IGF. Thank you so much for the presentations that have been made, especially on the issues to do with digital inclusion. My question this morning will be directed more especially on the proposed solution to do with promoting digital inclusion as well as skills development. I always advocate for a digital divide, more especially for the remote areas. So my question is, in rural communities where digital infrastructure is weak, digital literacy is low, and participation in development programs is limited, how can we rethink our approach to make digital inclusion and skills training more accessible, practical, and embraced by people themselves? Thank you.

Michel Kenmo: Good morning. I am Michel Kenmo. I’m the West Africa Advisor for Communication and Information for UNESCO. Thank you for the presentation. My intervention here is to share with you an initiative that is ongoing in West Africa. and the region and related to information integrity. I’m happy to see the Honorable Minister from Gambia, who is one of our champions of that initiative. And the initiative is aimed at promoting a coherent and integrated approach to policy on information integrity, as well as enhancing digital platform governance. As you know, UNESCO has adopted a few years ago the guideline for digital platform governance and it’s been adopted by the African Union, and it’s been adopted by the African Union, and it’s been adopted by the African Union, and it’s been adopted by the African Union. So, through the initiative, it’s to come up with a policy framework, a model policy framework across the region on information integrity that will cover, among other, digital platform governance, access to information and data, in line with the model on access to information adopted by African Union. So, I think it’s very much a hunk of the treasure trove of digital platform governance and acceptance, and the media endorsements and views in Africa do fundamental elements of digital platform governance and accessibility for Africa. And this will be implemented from June until July due to a COVID19 outbreak, and it’s been implemented already will lead to information integrity for West Africa and Sy-Hale, and it’s expected the conference will lead to the conversation among UNNOC representatives. So, thank you for your attention.

Adil Suleimana: Thank you very much.

Audience: Thank you very much. I Landing particularly the comprehensive assessments of the Africa IGF that held in Tanzania. I’m particularly concerned about the implementation of some of the declarations that were mentioned, particularly one of the contributors here listed the nations that have adopted some of those declarations, and I tried to make consultations with my secretaries to find out if these declarations have been formally written in correspondences to the NRIs, and I got a negative response. So my presentation here is that when such events like the Africa IGF or even the West Africa IGF that we hosted, we should be able to reach out to all local and regional IGFs to formally write that these are the outcomes and these are the roles that you are supposed to play. And then thereafter, we all are aware that implementation of policies, adoptions and all that are usually difficult, so we should create a provision for following up and monitoring the execution of this so that to a great extent we will be able to achieve what we have set out to do. That’s my contribution. Thank you.

Adil Suleimana: Thank you very much. I think we stop here, maybe the second round after we go to the question. I think we have some of the interventions were not questioned, it was just reporting, but we will try to address the questions that were raised. Let me start before I give the floor to the rest of the colleagues here. There was a question about Malibu Convention, the first question I guess. It’s true that there was a small ratification, but Malibu Convention went into force in 2023. We needed 15 ratifications for the treaty to go into force, and we are now at 17. I agree it’s very low, the number of countries ratified, and that’s why we are taking a two-pronged approach. Number one, working with the government. ECA, we want to have this committee, first of all, to do some kind of research, why country are not ratifying, what are the reasons, what are the challenges, so that we can address those challenges and then go to the country and give them answers. Second approach is to develop model law to explain, because as you mentioned, correctly mentioned that the Malabo is a very old treaty, it has to be updated. So I think we also did a review report of the Malabo Convention, we suggested some amendments, but unfortunately the countries, they are supposed to champion those amendments, but they have not, so far they have not come forward. But the model laws are, the intent of the model law is to be able to explain and to add more content, because as I said 2014 is a long time ago in this space, so we are doing model law so that the countries can feel more comfortable after explaining, like data protection, cybercrime and all that. So after explaining that in the model law, so the countries are going to be more inclined to ratify. So this is with regard to the question. There was a question from the GIZ director about, I will leave some of the question to my colleagues, but I will try to see the direct question, that’s what the rest was. There was a question about these initiatives, there are too many initiatives and with all the politics, geopolitics that is happening now, what are we going to do, especially with the international partners, being a little bit now, they are going through a very tough time. It’s true, I think the country they have to step up, the African countries, I think it’s good that we have ministers with us, they have to step up, not only actually in providing funds, in mobilizing funds and getting the private sector, I think it’s important for the private sector to be part of this. in developed nation, private sector is playing a major role on the digital space. So I think we look forward to the countries to step up in terms of playing a leadership role, not only in providing funds, but also in mobilizing funds through the private sector. I think it’s very important that we get the private sector into this equation. There is also, within the African Union Commission, there is also a move to take a levy from the GDP. It’s like 0.02% levy from GDP so that it can go into development. We’re still not getting enough number of country to adopt this approach. But I think if it’s adopted, then I think maybe it’s going to provide a little bit of improvement. But I totally agree that there is a challenge, a huge challenge, actually not only Africa is facing. Even developing countries now, they are facing this challenge. Let me stop here and then pass the mic to my colleague, Maktar, and also the representative from Tanzania.

Maktar Sek: Thank you, Adil. Thank you all for your pertinent question and contribution. Let me start first by Ariat about the implementation of the IGF recommendation. As you know, IGF, it is just an outcome of the wishes. It’s just a platform for discussion. Everything happening in IGF, you don’t have any obligation to implement it. It is why, in the new reform of IGF, we need to look at this implementation side. Because we discuss every year since 19 years on IGF, and nothing has happened about the recommendation. So, I would like to conclude by saying that we need to have a resolution. We need to have a resolution. When you come to the global IGF, there is no recommendation. Just a report and the summary of the discussion. In Africa, we try to adopt this declaration, but you don’t make confusion between declaration and resolution. The declaration, it is just commitment. We have the key challenge and we think we are going to do this, but we need to have a resolution. We need to have a resolution and we need to have a resolution to IGF for sustainable development. How IGF can contribute to the digital divide in the continent and other continents also. And this discussion, this ongoing discussion on the expansion of IGF, also how to align IGF with this global digital compact and we need to have a resolution. So, I would like to conclude by saying that this monitoring framework and IGF, it is something also we have to take into consideration. I fully agree IGF provide a platform of discussion where a lot of great ideas are coming, but the lack, it is an implementation side, but it is a spirit of IGF, it’s a little bit different to WSIS, where we have some target and some resolution and this is something we try to sort it out. So, it’s the very first time I am here and it’s my first time here in Munich. And I really thank the IGF. Thank you. So we need some resolutions to see our voices innovate in order to see how we can go together to support them. It’s very important for the future. digital skills, we need to involve you in the discussion. When we talk about entrepreneurship, job creation, we need to involve you in this discussion. It’s very important. And sometimes it is something we forget in several discussions. You don’t have a youth, and we need to have this youth to be fully part of the discussion across the continent. It’s not only ICT sector. When you talk about agriculture, climate change, we need to involve you. Industrial development, we need to involve you. Me, fully agree with you, we discussed a lot on this. But for the AFRINIC, I will not respond now. Because tomorrow, we are going to have a discussion, a meeting, on AFRINIC. We have several issues about AFRINIC on CCTLD and the domain name in the continent. And to Wisdom, tomorrow, the meeting is at 10, I think. What time is it? Wisdom, is it in the room? No, we have a meeting. Sorry, what time is the meeting? OK, 11. We invite tomorrow, 11.30, to attend this meeting. Very important for the continent. We have a special discussion among the agenda on AFRINIC. Supply side, yeah, it’s where we have to go. I think we talk about 20 years, but more than 20 years. The same 30 years, we talk about development technology across the continent. And we are still not progressing very well. It is the reason why, at ECA, we have this Search Technology Innovation Forum. Also, we already established the African Center of Artificial Intelligence in Congo. And also, we are going to establish soon the STEAM Center in Rwanda, and also the Cyber Security Center in Togo, to push and to promote innovation across the continent. And without the supply side, we can’t use. We can’t be a key actor in this technology revolution. The other question is, GIZ, thank you, Dr. Tobias, also for the support we receive from GIZ, we have France, we have Kaku, all is here, we work closely with you and we appreciate this collaboration and we are fully right, given this freeze, what we have to do. You know, we have several organization, even at UN, we have several organization doing same thing, sometime. Now, it is a reflection under the UN80, we talk about UN80, and to see how we can be more efficient working together. First, with the UN agency, with our partner, and also with member states. We have seen, where we have a duplication, we have to avoid, it is the policy now. If you have two agency doing the same thing, we are going to merge them, it’s clear. With our several partner at the continental level, we are going to look at the comparative advantage of each organization, and each organization who has this comparative advantage should lead any project related to each sector. And we have to change approach of our member state. We need to give them, member state doesn’t have a lot of issue on funding. We need to give more advisory service to the member state. There’s some countries, you go there, they told you, we don’t need money, yes, we need advisory service. What’s happen in other continent or other country, how can I adapt my need to be more efficient? When you talk about digital ID, we can look at the case we develop in, what call it, in Ethiopia. When you look at digital agriculture, look at what we have done in Botswana, to see how we can replicate it in this country. And also, we have to involve our member state in the all development support we are doing is something very important and will become more and more efficient. I think this freeze is very important and also it comes at the right time now for people to think about the new way to support member states and the new way also to work together and inside also to develop our own expertise in-house. I think it is something we are doing now. We have several working groups at the UN, UNAT, and by the end of June we are going to have a first proposal for all UN agencies and after we go to member states before we are going to the General Assembly. And also Malawi, how to promote digital inclusion in the rural area. You know we have several ways to develop this digital inclusion. First the big issue it is a usage gap in the continent. You have the network but you don’t have connectivity. People didn’t connect, why? Because they don’t have money to pay. Because there is an issue of affordability on the data and also on the device. For data it is easy. We can just look at our taxation policy and have a good regulation of the sector to reduce the data. We have one tool developed by ECA on the taxation of the ICT sector. This will improve the connectivity across all the continent in the rural area, urban area. As a device we need to have an industry in Africa. How we can work together to develop the device in the continent. And data also, why also this support from GIZ is very important. It is the way to harmonize data, to make data accessible in the continent at a low cost also. And this one can help the rural area to be more connected. And also technology. Technology side, I think Poncele was there. They have a lot of technology adapted to the rural area. Why you put 5G in place where you don’t need it? You have several applications, satellite, constellation, Wi-Fi. You can use other technology alternative for this rural area. And also there are Another point, it is a universal access fund. In several countries they have a universal access fund to connect what is called an inter-service area, real area included, but sometimes this innovation, this universal fund is not going to support the real area. It is a political issue. Unfortunately, we have to think about if you want to put a universal fund for ICT, this universal fund should respond to the need of this sector. It is where we can develop also this, promote this inclusion in the real area. Another one, it is UNESCO, we fully agree with you, I think it is a good project. Also in the Internet Governance Forum, we have this declaration, the declaration is posted in the website. Now we are going to make it very official, there is an STC to be organised by the African Union by the end of October, beginning of November, and we are going to submit this declaration, the WSIS declaration and the IGF declaration to the Minister of ICT for adoption. Now when they adopt it, it becomes a resolution for African travellers, their common position on WSIS plus 20 and IGF also, and now at the national level we are going to see how we can implement and we can report on this next year. Thank you.

Adil Suleimana: Thank you. Thank you very much. I think we have time for one intervention, and basically I think before, just let me compliment a little bit before I give you the floor. I think this is why now IGF plus is very important, because I see a lot of questions about the recommendation, what happened, implementation and all that, so IGF plus is very important and contribution from people like you I think is very important so that it can be enhanced. It can be strengthening the IGF. And on the inclusion question, I think we need to think more about not connectivity, but solutions. I think we need to think about also community, provide solution to the communities. Like if there is an issue with education, we provide education, but embedded in the solution is connectivity everything. So we need to change the mindset from providing connectivity and it’s not used to solutions. Meaning like if you have issues, local issues, community issues, you need to address them through provision of solution, and then the solution is going to be an integrated solution. Let me give the floor to our colleague here, Koko.

Audience: Thank you very much, Adil. So yesterday in our session, the point of harmonizing our data policies was made strongly. But what we usually do not talk about is also something that Matar just mentioned, which is to get the organizations to work together. So I think one area we need to look at is the harmonization of the efforts of the several organizations on the continent that are working on data policies. So you have AUC leading the effort, UNECA is supporting member state, Digital Impact Alliance, Smart Africa. There are several organizations and I think we need to harmonize this effort because the challenge I see is this, different organizations work with different policy approaches and policy. the policy framework, and if we do not harmonize the work we are doing, then what is going to happen is that neighboring countries may have different policy frameworks that do not speak to each other, and this will make harmonization extremely difficult. So this is also an area that I think we should look at going forward. Thank you.

Adil Suleimana: Thank you very much. I think we are going to be not doing a disservice if we don’t give the floor to Sorine. Sorine has been very instrumental in the African IGF organization, so let’s give the floor for her to say a few words, but I think let’s give her a round of applause for the job well done with the organization of the African IGF over the last two years. Thank you very much, Sorine.

Audience: Thank you, Adil. Thank you, everyone, for coming to this open forum. I just want to start from the declaration, especially on the last line, that we are calling for the permanent structure of the IGF. When we are calling for the global IGF to be a permanent structure, we ask ourselves in the African region, how do we make sure that the African IGF Secretariat, which is the brain of the African IGF, is the one that is going to be the executive branch, the one that is going to be the foundation or the machine behind what happens in the African IGF forum. I just want to take you back two years. When the African community had an engagement meeting in Kyoto, we decided to have a task force to make sure that we need to the African school of Internet Governance. We have been working with the African school of Internet Governance, which is a program that was already adopted last year in November in Addis Ababa, which today you see Anne Rait, which is the program director of the African school of Internet Governance, talk very happily about the organization and the support she got from the host country, because this year we made sure that the African school of Internet Governance and the host country, which is the host country, has been working with us before the forum to happen, working cohesively. Not only even the African IGF, even the global IGF has been working with us seamlessly. But I just want to also go back what the director said. Our commitment is how much resource we put in place to strengthen the African school of Internet Governance, and how much we support the African school of Internet Governance. We have been working for a long time to make sure that the Secretariat institution is strong enough, so that’s why this year we can really see the success of African IGF. So going forward, we need to create stability for the Secretariat, and I want to thank the GIZ which is our greatest supporter, and we need to make sure that the Secretariat is strong enough to support institutions that are not institutional support, instead of forum support, because all the conversations we have, the Malabo Convention, the WISIS Review, the NRIs, for them to play the Secretariat has to be as strong as possible, which will require institutional support. With that, I will close. Thank you so much for always being supportive.

Adil Suleimana: Thank you, very much, Serene. With that, we thank you very much. We’ve come to the conclusion of this meeting. Thank you for coming, and have a wonderful day. Thank you very much. Thank you.