Uncategorized

Summary

This workshop session explored how existing international law frameworks can be applied to protect human rights in digital spaces, examining the intersection of international human rights law, international humanitarian law, and international criminal law. The discussion was moderated by Sanhawan Srisod and featured panelists from various organizations working on digital rights and international law.

Chantal Joris from Article 19 opened by explaining that while there is broad consensus that international law applies to cyberspace, the practical implementation remains controversial and fragmented. She highlighted how different legal frameworks—human rights law, humanitarian law, and criminal law—each address similar issues like incitement to violence and hate speech, but often operate separately without clear coordination. This fragmentation creates protection gaps for affected communities who may not receive adequate remedies regardless of which legal framework technically applies.

Tiesa McCruff from Hamle provided a concrete example from Gaza, describing how tech companies have failed to meet their obligations under the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. She documented systematic censorship of Palestinian voices on social media platforms, disproportionate content moderation, and the role of online platforms in potentially facilitating genocide through hate speech and dehumanization campaigns.

Nieves Molina from the Danish Institute for Human Rights emphasized the growing accountability gap in digital spaces, noting that crimes enabled by digital technology are often treated with “exceptionalism” rather than being addressed through existing international law frameworks. She pointed to the blurred relationship between states and corporations as creating difficulties in determining responsibility levels, and suggested that fragmentation enables forum shopping and avenues for impunity.

Francisco Brito Cruz, participating online from Brazil, discussed the challenge of translating corporate responsibility principles into practical platform accountability. He emphasized that both action and inaction by platforms can produce human rights violations, and highlighted Brazil’s recent experience with blocking Platform X as an example of how complex these accountability questions become in practice. He stressed the importance of building methodologies for human rights due diligence that include transparency, monitoring, and proper expertise.

Mikiko Otani, former chair of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, brought attention to children’s specific vulnerabilities online while emphasizing that children want to use digital spaces safely rather than be excluded from them entirely. She highlighted the Committee’s 2021 General Comment requiring states and businesses to integrate child rights impact assessments into digital product design and emphasized the importance of hearing directly from children about their experiences and needs.

The discussion revealed several key challenges: the fragmentation of international law creates protection gaps and accountability loopholes; the close relationship between states and corporations complicates responsibility attribution; existing legal frameworks may be sufficient but lack proper implementation and enforcement mechanisms; and there is tension between protecting rights and avoiding overregulation that could harm freedom of expression. Participants concluded that while new legislation may not be the answer, better coordination between existing legal frameworks and stronger implementation of current obligations is essential for protecting human rights in digital spaces.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Fragmentation of International Law in Digital Spaces**: The discussion highlighted how different bodies of international law (human rights law, humanitarian law, criminal law) operate separately when addressing digital issues, creating protection gaps and accountability challenges. While there’s consensus that international law applies online, the practical implementation remains fragmented and uncoordinated.

– **Platform Accountability and Corporate Responsibility**: Panelists examined the challenges of holding tech companies accountable under international frameworks like the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, particularly regarding content moderation, censorship, and their role in enabling human rights violations during conflicts like in Gaza.

– **State-Corporate Collaboration and Double Standards**: The discussion addressed how states and platforms often work together in ways that can violate human rights, such as government requests for content takedowns that silence dissent while allowing harmful content to proliferate, creating a blurred line of responsibility.

– **Protection of Vulnerable Groups, Especially Children**: The conversation emphasized the disproportionate impact of digital harms on specific populations, particularly children, and the need for comprehensive approaches that consider evolving capacities and the seamless nature of online/offline experiences for young users.

– **Gaps in Access to Justice and Remedies**: Panelists discussed the growing accountability gap for victims of digital human rights violations, noting that crimes enabled by digital technology are often treated with “exceptionalism” rather than being addressed through existing international legal frameworks.

## Overall Purpose:

The workshop aimed to explore how existing international law can provide a regulatory framework to protect individuals and communities from human rights abuses in digital spaces. The session was part of a broader Digital Democracy Initiative project to clarify how international law should be progressively interpreted to address ambiguities and contradictions in the digital context.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a serious, academic tone throughout, with participants demonstrating deep expertise and concern about the challenges presented. The tone was collaborative and constructive, with panelists building on each other’s points rather than disagreeing. There was an underlying sense of urgency about addressing these issues, particularly when discussing real-world examples like the situation in Gaza and conflicts in India-Pakistan. The conversation remained professional and solution-oriented, even when addressing complex and sensitive topics involving state accountability and corporate responsibility.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Sanhawan Srisod** – Moderator of the session, Senior legal advisor at the International Commission of Jurists

– **Chantal Joris** – Senior legal advisor at Article 19

– **Tiesa Meccrewfy** – EU advocacy officer of Hamle (Palestinian digital rights group)

– **Francisco Brito Cruz** – Law professor at Funda Getulio Vargas in Brazil, consultant at OSHR BTEC projects (formerly Executive Director of Internet Lab)

– **Nieves Molina** – Chief advisor of tech business and human rights at the Danish Institute for Human Rights

– **Mikiko Otani** – Former chair of the UN committee on the right of the child and ICJ commissioner

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

**Additional speakers:**

– **Nadim Nashif** – Founder and director of Hamle (Palestinian digital rights group) – mentioned as originally scheduled panelist but unable to travel due to ongoing war between Israel and Iran

# International Law in Digital Spaces: Addressing Fragmentation and Accountability Challenges

## Executive Summary

This workshop session, moderated by Sanhawan Srisod from the International Commission of Jurists, examined the critical intersection of international law and digital rights protection. The discussion brought together legal experts, digital rights advocates, and human rights practitioners to explore how existing international legal frameworks can be applied to protect individuals and communities from human rights abuses in digital spaces. The session was part of a broader Digital Democracy Initiative project co-implemented by ICJ and the Danish Institute for Human Rights, aimed at clarifying how international law should be progressively interpreted to address ambiguities and contradictions in the digital context.

The conversation revealed ongoing challenges in translating legal principles into effective protection mechanisms, particularly given the rapid pace of technological advancement and the complex relationships between states and corporations in digital governance. Panelists identified significant gaps between theoretical legal frameworks and practical implementation, with particular attention to fragmentation across different bodies of international law.

## Opening Framework and Context

Moderator Sanhawan Srisod opened the session by explaining that the workshop was part of the Digital Democracy Initiative, a project co-implemented by ICJ and the Danish Institute for Human Rights. She noted that Nadim Nashif from 7amleh was originally scheduled to participate but could not travel due to the Israel-Iran war, and was replaced by Tiesa Meccrewfy from the same organization.

The session followed a structured format with 25-50 minutes of presentations from five panelists, followed by 25 minutes of Q&A and a brief wrap-up. Participants included both in-person attendees and online participants, with Francisco Brito Cruz joining remotely from São Paulo.

## Fragmentation of International Legal Frameworks

Chantal Joris from Article 19 established the foundational framework for the discussion by addressing the fragmentation challenge in applying international law to digital spaces. She explained that while there is consensus that international law applies to cyberspace, different bodies of international law—including international human rights law, international humanitarian law, and international criminal law—each address similar issues such as incitement to violence and hate speech, but operate separately without clear coordination.

Joris emphasized that international human rights law has developed the most advanced understanding of digital application, but noted the challenge that technology advances much more quickly than the ability of international bodies and domestic parliaments to create appropriate rules. She observed that we are “not in the golden age of treaty making” and must therefore rely on existing international law rules and their interpretation.

From the perspective of impacted communities, Joris noted, “it is not that relevant whether it’s humanitarian law or human rights law and which one is like specialis.” The academic distinctions between legal frameworks become less meaningful when victims cannot access adequate remedies regardless of which legal framework technically applies to their situation.

## Palestinian Digital Rights and Platform Accountability

Tiesa Meccrewfy from 7amleh, a Palestinian digital rights organization, provided concrete examples of systematic censorship of Palestinian voices on social media platforms. She referenced a report published by 7amleh on “digital rights, genocide and big tech accountability in Gaza,” documenting discriminatory content moderation policies that suppress Palestinian narratives while allowing harmful content to proliferate.

Meccrewfy highlighted how government requests for content takedowns complicate transparency and introduce bias into content moderation processes. She described how online platforms can play a role in potentially facilitating serious human rights violations through hate speech and dehumanization campaigns during conflicts, arguing that tech companies have clear obligations under the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights that are not being effectively implemented.

## State-Corporate Relationships and Accountability Gaps

Nieves Molina from the Danish Institute for Human Rights addressed the growing accountability gap in digital spaces, noting that crimes enabled by digital technology are often treated with “exceptionalism” rather than being addressed through existing international law frameworks. She identified the blurred relationship between states and corporations as creating difficulties in determining responsibility levels.

Molina highlighted that this close relationship creates a “blurred reality regarding levels of responsibility,” making it challenging to attribute accountability for digital harms. She suggested that fragmentation enables forum shopping and creates avenues for impunity, allowing both state and corporate actors to evade responsibility.

Significantly, Molina raised the possibility that international law itself may have become a victim of misinformation campaigns, observing that international law and human rights content may have been targeted by campaigns that relativize international law and question its usefulness. She also noted that some scholars are discussing expanding international criminal responsibility to include legal personalities, potentially bringing corporations under frameworks like the ICC-Rome Statute.

## Corporate Responsibility and Platform Governance

Francisco Brito Cruz, participating online from São Paulo, disclosed that he is no longer Executive Director of Internet Lab but is now a law professor and consultant for BTEC (Business, Technology and Human Rights), a project within the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. He emphasized a crucial paradox in digital governance: “inaction can produce violations, but action can produce violations as well.”

Brito Cruz stressed the importance of building specific methodologies for human rights due diligence that go beyond general principles, arguing for transparency, monitoring, and proper expertise in these processes. He highlighted Brazil’s recent experience with blocking Platform X and the arrest of Telegram’s CEO in Paris as examples of how complex these accountability questions become in practice, demonstrating the need for stakeholder engagement, participation, and transparency tools in human rights due diligence processes.

## Children’s Rights in Digital Spaces

Mikiko Otani, former chair of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, brought attention to children’s specific vulnerabilities online while emphasizing that children want to use digital spaces safely rather than be excluded from them entirely. She cited a 2017 UNICEF statistic that one in three internet users worldwide is a child, making the digital environment crucial for children’s rights realization.

Otani explained that the Committee’s 2021 General Comment, adopted after a two-year consultation process that included hearing directly from children, requires states and businesses to integrate child rights impact assessments into digital product design, development, and operation. She challenged traditional protective approaches by noting that children themselves reject overprotection in favor of safe access.

Crucially, Otani observed that for children, “offline and online is seamless. It’s not so easy to differentiate what is the online and offline for the children.” Children, she reported, “want to use the online space safely” rather than being totally protected or excluded from digital spaces.

## Audience Questions and Discussion

The Q&A session included several specific questions that highlighted practical challenges:

**India-Pakistan Example**: Ulvia from London Story described how during tensions between India and Pakistan, platforms amplified violent content while 8,000 accounts with alternative narratives were taken down, illustrating how states can use content moderation to silence dissent while failing to stop harmful content.

**Domestic vs International Law Coordination**: An audience member asked about coordination between domestic and international legal frameworks, highlighting the complexity of multi-level governance in digital spaces.

**Separate Digital Rights Legislation**: Ana Galate from UC Berkeley questioned whether separate comprehensive legislation for digital rights is needed or if existing international law frameworks are sufficient with better implementation.

**Binding Frameworks**: Christian Fazili from DRC asked about the need for new binding frameworks and due diligence obligations, reflecting ongoing debates about whether current voluntary approaches are adequate.

## Key Challenges Identified

The discussion revealed several persistent challenges:

**Legal Fragmentation**: Different bodies of international law address similar digital issues separately, creating protection gaps and coordination difficulties.

**Technology-Law Gap**: Technology advances faster than legal frameworks can adapt, creating ongoing governance challenges.

**Attribution Problems**: The blurred relationship between states and corporations makes it difficult to determine responsibility for digital harms.

**Implementation Gaps**: While legal principles exist, translating them into effective protection mechanisms remains challenging.

**Remedies and Access**: Ensuring access to justice for victims of digital rights violations across fragmented legal systems remains problematic.

## Emerging Approaches and Suggestions

Panelists suggested several potential approaches:

**Focus on Existing Law**: Rather than creating entirely new treaty frameworks, emphasis should be placed on operationalizing and clarifying existing international law.

**Iterative Approach**: Adopting an approach of “intervention and testing” for digital legislation, acknowledging that some regulatory innovations may require adjustment.

**UN Guiding Principles**: Using the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights as an operative layer to navigate tensions between different international law frameworks.

**Transparency Requirements**: Developing transparency requirements for both state and corporate actions in digital spaces to enable proper scrutiny.

**Inclusive Consultation**: Ensuring consultation processes include diverse voices, including children, marginalized communities, and regional perspectives.

## Conclusion

The workshop session highlighted both the complexity and urgency of applying international law to digital spaces. While existing international legal frameworks provide a foundation for protecting human rights online, practical implementation faces significant challenges due to fragmentation, rapid technological change, and complex state-corporate relationships.

The discussion demonstrated that current approaches to international law in digital spaces face implementation gaps that affect real people and communities. The panelists’ insights suggest that while new legislation may not be the primary solution, better coordination between existing legal frameworks and stronger implementation of current obligations is essential.

The conversation emphasized that protecting human rights in digital spaces requires moving beyond technical legal analysis to acknowledge the human impact of these challenges. The path forward requires not only legal innovation but also political will to address the accountability gaps that currently allow both state and corporate actors to evade responsibility for digital human rights violations.

The session concluded with recognition that effective digital governance requires concrete mechanisms for accountability that can keep pace with technological advancement while preserving fundamental rights and freedoms, and that this work must center the voices and experiences of affected communities.

Sanhawan Srisod: Good afternoon. For those who join us here both in person and online, welcome to the workshop sessions Applying International Law Principles in the Digital Space. So my name is Chantal Joris and I’m a senior legal advisor at the International Commission of Jurists and I’m going to moderate the session today. So let me begin with the purpose of today’s session. So the title is Applying International Law Principles in the Digital Space and what we’re going to discuss today is we’re going to explore how existing international law provides a regulatory framework to protect individuals and communities from human rights abuse in the digital space. And we’re also going to discuss about how different bodies of law interact in this increasingly complex digital world. We also touch upon some state obligations, corporate responsibility and involving directions of accountability for both state and corporate actors under international law and also discuss about recent developments and remaining gaps as well. So this discussion is also part of a broader project co-implemented by the International Commission of Jurists and the Danish Institute for Human Rights who is our co-partner today under the Digital Democracy Initiative. So under this initiative, us with a group of experts whom some of them is also from part of the panelists today, we draft a set of principles we seek to clarify how international law should be progressively interpreted and to address some ambiguity and contradiction if they’re able to exit. So as for the format of the sessions, I think we’ll spend the first 25 to 50 minutes for presentation by panelists and then another 25 minutes for Q&A comments in the interactive dialogue with participants and we conclude the sessions with brief wrap-up remarks from panelists. So let me begin with like a brief introductions of the panelists today. Before introducing all the panelists I would like to acknowledge that indeed we already have panelists with us which is Nadim Nashif, the founder and director of Hamle which is a Palestinian digital rights group. He was originally on the list of the panelists but he unfortunately unable to travel today due to the ongoing war between Israel and Iran. However we have his colleague with us today Tessia McCruffy, she’s a EU advocacy officer of Hamle. Another panelist who joins us from online is Francisco Brito Cruz, he’s a law professor at Funda Getulio Vargas in Brazil, also executive director of Internet Lab and consultant at OSHR BTEC projects. Another panelist with us here in the room is Chantal Joris, she’s a senior legal advisor at Article 19 and next to her here is Nervis Molina-Cromont, chief advisor of the tech business and human rights at the Danish Institute for Human Rights. And last that side is Mikiko Otani, the former chair of the UN committee on the right of the child and also ICJ commissioners. So let’s begin the discussions. So for the first issues I would like to begin with Chantal. If we talk about the topic we are discussing today which is on international law in the digital space. So of course this topic begin with a concept that international law of life apply online. like there’s a certain kind of consensus on this but in in the reality when we talk about international law people we ask like which one we are talking about are you talking about international human right law are you talking about international human talent law are you talking about international criminal law are you talking about everything or are you talking about the framework on corporate so probably you can help us set the scene how this framework interact or are they even interact with each other are there any some harmonization between all the so-called international law of this path work of international law or not if there’s any gaps that exist or remain the floor is yours.

Chantal Joris: Thank you very much and thanks everyone for for joining us yeah as you said there is broad consensus that international law applies to cyberspace and that cyberspace is is not a lawless space but what that means in practice is is still very much a subject to discussion and to controversial discussions for example to what extent cyber conduct might constitute an illegal use of force or a violation of the prohibition of the principle of non-intervention and these questions are being discussed within different initiatives under international humanitarian law for example the ICRC has been working extensively on understanding how those norms that have been established in particular the binding rules that have been established many decades ago how these norms can still be interpreted in a manner that they continue to be relevant in in cyberspace I would say international human rights law has probably the most advanced understanding I would say about how it applies as you as you mentioned that the same rights are understood to apply offline as much as they apply online. There are extensive reports, for example, by mandate holders, by the Human Rights Committee, to explain what it means, for example, to be able to enjoy freedom of expression online, the role of online platforms and so on. International criminal law is also catching up to the realities of how cyber conduct can contribute or even constitute atrocity crimes. Tomorrow, for those who will be here, there will be another session discussing the initiative of the International Criminal Court’s Office of the Prosecutor to establish a policy on how cyber-enabled crimes might fall under the scope of the Rome Statute. Of course, there’s also a well-known, the Lean Manual, Oxford Statement. So, there are a lot of initiatives recognizing that it is important for international law to remain relevant, that we also understand how it applies in cyberspace. And certain questions, I would say, are anyway controversial questions under international law, and they also manifest in cyberspace, one example being for the extraterritorial application of human rights. Information operations by a certain state, whether they target the home population or the population in a foreign country, does that shape the obligations that they have? Does it mean that there could be a protection gap when it comes to the rights holders that might be impacted by certain operations? So, what I would say is that Those initiatives are very relevant, but I think there could be more effort probably to avoid the fragmentation of the responses to how international law applies to cyberspace and to make it more, to harmonize it more, to avoid a protection gap. For example, coming back to a potential, say, disinformation campaign that is inciting and dehumanizing and targets people in another country. Potentially, you could have the prohibition of propaganda for war that applies under Article 20 of the ICCPR or the prohibition of hate speech under Article 20, Paragraph 2 of the ICCPR. Certain of those operations could also be prohibited under international humanitarian law. For example, the obligation to respect international humanitarian law. It could potentially be a violation of the prohibition of direct and public incitement to genocide. So we have all these different frameworks that have something to say about this type of content, this type of state conduct, if that’s what we want to focus on. But how they interrelate is not always so established. And from the perspective of the impacted communities and the rights holders who might be harmed by those types of information operations, it is not that relevant whether it’s humanitarian law or human rights law and which one is like specialis. And those can make for very interesting legal discussions. But I think it is important that we find a way to, again, operationalize it, clarify it and make clear what each actor’s obligations are and what, again, the rights of the impacted communities really are with respect to all these legal frameworks.

Sanhawan Srisod: Thank you so much. I think you point out very important issues and very important, one of the most concerning issues about the fragmentations of law is indeed, for example, we talk about incitement of hate violence or propaganda of war. It is there in almost every section of the law, every forms, I mean in ICL, in IHL, as well as under the human rights framework, but it has been discussed or interpreted separately. Like international human rights law, we talk about roundabout plan of actions, in which we try to interpret these sections, but haven’t taken into consideration IHL, ICL at all. So yeah, and I want to link it to our next speaker, Tasia, because you have been working in the context in which three of these law has been collided, has been interacted, including on the issue that Chantal gave an example as well, the propaganda of war, incitement of hate or violence. I understand that at the end of last year, Hamle also have just published a report about digital rights, genocide and big tech accountability in Gaza as well, in which you also record that there’s a race on online hate speech and dehumanization targeting Palestinians. So probably you can explain about this a little bit, and probably you can provide your first-hand observation on how this law operates in practice, and if you see the gaps when it comes to like a fragmentation of the law in practice, especially in the context of Gaza.

Tiesa Meccrewfy: Thank you so much. Non-state actors, including big tech companies, have obligations under international frameworks, such as the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights to respect and protect digital and human rights. These principles mandate that businesses must conduct due diligence to identify, prevent, mitigate, and account for how they address their impacts on human rights. The right to access the Internet, freedom of expression, freedom of opinion, and privacy are all essential for individuals to share their experiences, seek justice, and advocate for their rights. Violations of these rights during such critical times, such as what’s happening in the Gaza Strip right now, not only silence marginalized voices, but also hinder efforts to address and prevent atrocities. So, in the context of the war on Gaza, the protection of digital rights is paramount. Tech companies and online platforms play a real critical role in documenting human rights abuses, sharing information, and mobilizing support as well. Systematic censorship and discriminatory content moderation policies by these platforms, as seen in the suppression of Palestinian voices, undermine these digital rights. And the disproportionate over-moderation leads to restrictions limiting the reach of Palestinian content at the international level. In some cases, it can completely suspend users. Palestinian and international news outlets, as well as journalists, have all experienced content takedowns and account restrictions on Instagram and Facebook specifically. Another contributing factor to censorship is obviously government requests for content takedowns on social media platforms, which complicates the issue of transparency and bias in content moderation. The United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination already expressed serious concern about the sharp increase in racist hate speech and dehumanization directed at Palestinians since October 7th. particularly on the internet and in social media and the ICG order on the plausibility of genocide highlights the gravity of the situation as they are considering in this case the documented use of online platforms to incite genocide against Palestinians in Gaza and all social media services in Israel and Palestine need to prioritize a comprehensive approach that really mainstreams and safeguards human rights and addresses the root causes of discrimination against the community and narratives in full transparency and in line with the United Nations guiding principles on business and human rights and to finish because there is an intersection of digital rights and genocide in Gaza we should highlight the urgent need for robust protections and accountability to ensure that digital spaces remain open and equitable for all thank you.

Sanhawan Srisod: Thank you so much Tassia. In the context of Gaza that’s a I think you already list out I mean there’s a lot of study also statement made by special proctor UN mechanisms and others on the use of platform the use of platform to commit it some prohibited act that may amount to crime under international law she’s including genocide and also the protection gaps as well which is now not there yet so we touch upon another lead lie because it’s in the situation of Gaza now it’s not just about protection but there’s an issue about accountability as well if you talk about the possibility of crime under international law to be committed in that so I would like to move to the next speaker to touch upon the issue of accountability when it comes to the human right violation or abuse that committed in a digital space including those that may amount to to crime under international law so probably the nearest you can talk about you know like the accountability framework as well and challenge in accessing to justice and remedies for those who were victims of human rights violations or abuses that committed online and probably those who have to face challenge through fragmented legal framework as well.

Nieves Molina: Thank you, well this is a quite impressive room, yes I mean building on what my colleagues here have been talking about, I would like to talk about the growing gap in the accountability and as a consequence of course the growing gap on victims access to remedies. Although international law has a well-established framework of obligations in relation to access to reparations, access to justice, prevention of impunity, procedural remedies, compensation, rehabilitation and in what includes like taking all possible measures so that violations don’t occur again. We see that crimes committed or violations or wrongdoings committed being enabled by digital or cyber technology are treated with a level of exceptionalism. So there is this paradox while most legal scholars think that international law has most of the principles that would help us to provide remedies or to provide a regulation, there is certain exceptionalism on producing new legislation and attempting to create new laws that take time to create, but at the same time create a danger of fragmentation of the law. So, from my point of view, there are two or three things that appear as, well, there are more, but I want to talk only about two or three things in these five minutes that appear as a barrier, no? And one of them is this idea of the fragmentation of the law, the idea that a specialist in environmental law, a specialist on IHL, on ISL, on cyber law, seem to be operating separately and not coordinated, not knowing what the other specialties are doing. And then that creates a situation where it creates lack of certainty, it enables forum shopping, where different actors seek for the most favourable regulation for their conduct. And it creates also difficulties for cooperation, and ultimately the result is avenues for impunity. The human rights system is a coherent system where all human rights are interrelated, we say, but there has been an attempt to try to analyse right by right, which, from my point of view, there is no right that is not affected by digital and cyber and new technologies as we advance in a quite fast pace. Finally, the issue of the close relationship between state and corporations has created a blurred reality in which it is difficult to know or to define what the levels of responsibility that different actors have in a given situation. A number of situations have also cast a question when international crimes have been committed with the help or with the assistance of cyber or digital technologies. There are some scholars that are starting to call for the international criminal responsibility of companies as well and there are a number of initiatives on whether it would be possible to expand the ICC-ROM treaty to include also legal personalities. Eventually, for us, there are two ideas that I would like to put forward. One is, do we have all the tools in international law that we require? Eventually, law is by definition a reaction to social changes and human rights are the safeguards that we put for every turn of the advancement of societies. And the second question that I would like to put to you is that in the middle of all this information overload, whether or not international law and the content of human rights have been also a victim or have been also been targeted by misinformation campaigns, relativizing international law and questioning their usefulness. creating spaces where there is some gaps of accountability and gaps of regulation eventually. I want to stop there so that we can have time for an interaction.

Sanhawan Srisod: Thank you so much, Nieves. I think you put on a very important point of the fact that now there’s still a broad line between state and corporate when it comes to who shall be held accountable for certain actions. And it seems like the current international law framework still not catch up to that challenge, but there’s still an ongoing effort to address them. So, moving next to Francisco, who probably could fill in the gaps of the corporate accountability side as well. So, Francisco, under international law, corporates are required to conduct due diligence, they have due diligence obligations, and they also expect to be held accountable as well when there’s a certain kind of conduct that committed on that platform, for example. But in reality, most of the time, we haven’t seen a lot of examples where the platform may be held accountable when there’s a suspect of involvement in certain kind of actions. So, probably you can shed light on these issues, like what’s the status of international law now when it comes to platform accountability? And also, at the same time, because under international law, whatever we do, we have to avoid disproportionate restriction on human rights of the online user as well. So, how can we strike the balance between those accountability and protection of the right? And probably you can give example of the recent rulings in Brazil on this issue as well.

Francisco Brito Cruz: Thank you. I hope you are all listening to me. Hello from Sao Paulo. I’m wanting to be with all of you guys in Norway. I’m happy that my colleagues laid the ground first in terms of international law and these discussions. Just a disclosure, I’m not the Executive Director of Internet Lab anymore. Now I am a law professor and an expert consultant of the BTEC project within the office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights at the United Nations. So in these five minutes I will deal with three questions. The first one is, it seems when we entered this, and as our moderator was questioning me, that we have some tensions within international human rights law. We have prohibition, a number of different discourses of incitement, for example, but also protections for freedom of expression and the need to strike a balance. And we also have tools like the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. So the first question is how to see this. There are tensions, these are layers. I think that it is interesting to see how the United Nations Guiding Principles on Human Rights can act as a more operative layer on that. And maybe a good way to depart this discussion is the assertion that the action can produce violations, but also action can produce violations. Also the statement that corporate can participate in violations and corporate power and also state actors. can participate on violations. And this makes us difficult for navigating, but I think that the guiding principles can provide us at least a more toolbox of different approaches on how we see corporate responsibility. So the second question is, can we turn corporate responsibility into platform accountability? I think this is the main challenge when we see the United Nations guiding principles on human rights. What will make this is to not only assert that principles and human rights law are valid. I think this is very important, but also we should, as the guiding principles show us, we need to build method to that. And thinking about what means human rights diligence as not any form of the diligence, but a specific one that we need to embolden method, we need to embolden transparency, and we need to raise the bar. And to that, I would like to mention the resources that the BTEC project has. BTEC project is a project within the Office of the High Commissioner that is trying to make this translation. So what does it mean to take all of the principles and human rights that are in different documents and in different tools for international human rights law, and how we can build method to bring companies to this kind of compliance? So in terms of AI, for example, we have a different set of tools that we need to apply to that, that combine not only transparency to. but also building expertise on red teaming, for example, that need to build expertise on content regulation, for example. And that put us in a position that we need to not only point out to methods, but also to think on ways to monitor how they are being deployed and what are the results that we are having during time. And to end it, to end my first contribution here, landing this discussion in context, it’s very difficult. So in Brazil, for example, we are seeing the judiciary trying to build a platform accountability field. It’s important to say that, as a Brazilian, I would like to share this. We have a judiciary with many number of peculiarities that can be very proactive. But kind of the judiciary is trying to play an important role after an attempted coup and also after challenges from the tech sector leadership defying the rule of law. And on that, we are seeing on how much is difficult to build this field and to build an idea of platform accountability and even human rights diligence without, for example, state capacities or without a regulator. But of course, we are, as I’m saying on the beginning of my contribution here, not only inaction can produce violations, but action can produce violations as well. So making those steps are very difficult. And I just want to share one thing to make us think on how much the discussion about incitement is important. very important, as my colleagues were commenting before me. We have an interesting episode, the blocking of the Platform X in Brazil. And we saw how much this was spoken about in the international stage, and how much this information was still to be the key motive for the Supreme Court to block this platform in Brazil. And this is not true. The core case that the Supreme Court made that was an incitement case against a law enforcement officer. So advancing on this translation, it’s really, really important for not only setting up standards for different contexts, but also on grounding on this context, the capacity that we need to prevent violations, not only from the state power, but also violations that can be facilitated by the private sector. So I’ll leave it here, and I’m anxious to hear all of you in our interactions.

Sanhawan Srisod: Thank you so much, Francisco. So we have the last panelist with us, and indeed, that’s one of the topics in which we haven’t yet fully covered during our intervention today, which is on the disproportionate impact of online harm on specific groups, especially children, whose lives are increasingly shaped by the digital environment. So Mikiko, under international law, it’s clear, there’s clear recognition of the children’s rights online. However, are there any specific obligations that are imposed on the state and corporate itself, you know, when it comes to protection of students in the online space? So probably you can share with us about those obligations. you know like and probably you share how the protection of this group could be strengthened as well. The floor is yours.

Mikiko Otani: Thank you very much. So in the five minutes I have I’d like to bring in the perspective of child rights and so there are many other group of persons who need special attention but in my case children. So in 2017 UNICEF report said worldwide one in three internet users is a child. So it’s such a reality we learned in 2017 and when I joined in the committee on the right of the child actually 2017 we started learning more and more how the digital environment is important to children. So what we learned the reality is that digital is really part of children’s daily lives. Of course still there is some digital divide however children are living with the digital and children’s rights are impacted. I have to say I have to emphasize positively and negatively we very often emphasize the negative impact of the digital on the children’s rights. However children’s rights are also promoted or enhanced by digital so this is the reality. So in 2019 the committee on the rights of the child decided that we need to work on the children’s rights and in digital relation. Convention on the rights of the child adopted by general assembly in 1989. So we were convinced by the reality that convention on the rights of the child need to be read, understood, applied and implemented in relation to the digital environment because this is the life the children are nowadays are living. So we cannot ignore this reality. and we have to show how the Convention on the Rights of the Child is relevant to the children’s rights. But I also want to emphasize something which I learned through the process of the committee’s work to develop this general comment on children’s rights in relation to digital environment. So it took two years in drafting because we had a wider public consultation including the consultation with the children. So what I’m going to share with you is what I learned from the children. So children living in digital world space, however, offline and offline, online and offline is seamless. It’s not so easy to differentiate what is the online and offline for the children. And secondly, almost all the children’s rights under the Convention are impacted by the children. Of course, the freedom of expression and privacy, however, also many other things like right to play, education, health. In particular these days, mental health is such a serious issue for the children’s rights in relation to the digital. And also how to develop the relationship, personal relationship with others, starting from the children’s and parents’ relationship. And so all those things are actually impacted by the children’s rights. And also I have to emphasize the important role of the parents. So if we talk about a lot of privacy, for example, but if the parents are not aware how they are actually imposing the children to the risk online, so the children’s rights are not protected. So those are what I learned. But what is most important message from the children are they want to use the digital. So they claim to us, the committee, that they don’t want to be… totally protected or excluded from the digital space, but they want to use the online space safely. So this is a very strong message from the children. So what the committee said in this general comment adopted in 2021 after the two-year consultation, I’d like to bring up three issues. So one, the committee said that the states and the business should integrate child rights impact assessment. And particularly, I’d like to emphasize one thing. So the committee said privacy and safety in relation to the design, engineering, development, operation, distribution and marketing of their products and services is very, very important to protect the children’s safety and privacy in the digital world. Second, what I want to share today is that it’s very important to understand the children’s rights comprehensively if we want to address the children’s rights in the digital space. In particular, children are all the persons under 18 years old. So you can imagine how the digital space will impact in the younger age of the children or adolescents. So the evolving capacities is a very important concept. Thirdly, remedies. So for the children, what does that mean to access to justice and remedies on the online home? So we need to integrate those perspectives. And to do that, we need to hear from the children, their lens and their experiences, what they think, how to protect themselves is very key. Thank you very much.

Sanhawan Srisod: Thank you so much, Mikiko. Next, I would like to invite all participants to ask questions and share perspectives. I know that after five speakers, most of the… What we share are challenges due to the fragmentation of international law and especially in terms of providing protections to individual communities and also on accountabilities. Of course, there are still gaps, but there is still an effort globally to address them. If anyone would like to share, would like to ask any questions, please.

Audience: Hello, my name is Ulvia. I’m from the London Story. We recently published a report which is called Escalate, where we describe how during the India-Pakistan tensions and military conflict in April-May 2025, platforms like X and Meta amplified violent and hateful content, while the Indian government pushed for takedowns of critical voices like journalists and human rights defenders. So, around 8,000 accounts have been taken down, which verbalized alternative narratives. For us, this raises a serious issue when states use the content moderation to silence dissent, but don’t stop harmful content that can fuel the violence. In this situation, population is left more vulnerable online, especially during the conflict. So, my question would be, when it’s the state itself contributing to the erosion of online civic space, who is responsible for protecting civilians in these digital spaces? And how should international law respond to these double standards, where both the… The States and the platform failed to act in the public interest. So I would like just to hear your perspective on this because we also work on this issue. Thank you so much. Are you taking questions in turn? Are you going to take questions in turn?

Sanhawan Srisod: I think we probably can take one more question and then we answer.

Audience: Yeah, sounds good. I think my question relates to what was just mentioned about the role of the state. We’ve heard from the panel the idea of international law placing duties and responsibilities in terms of due diligence on corporations. And I think this is kind of the language or the idea that we are seeing increasingly more also in domestic legislation. So platform regulation also kind of requires companies to have some kind of due diligence, assess risk, risk mitigation, risk identification, or kind of duty of care. If not, for example, the UK Online Safety Act embodies this concept. And then my question is, how do you see the two of them fitting together or not? Is kind of international law and this kind of domestic efforts to hold platforms to account friends and foes? How can we make them friends and foes? Because you also hear from some voices, and I think some of the previous comments was in that direction, that states can also violate international human rights law. So how can regulation kind of both international and domestic kind of be driving change in accountability in the same direction and not be kind of conflicting? Yeah, that’s my question. Thank you so much.

Sanhawan Srisod: I think we take the first round probably for questions.

Audience: My audio device isn’t working. as well, so I’m not sure if I’m being heard right now. Okay, great. Hi, I’m Ana Galate. I represent UC Berkeley. I work as a public interest cybersecurity researcher and practitioner, and I have background in software development, psychology, philosophy, so on, so forth. I want to say thank you, first of all, for this overview of international law and its application. But during our time here, the focus largely appears to be how current international law, human rights, criminal, could be applied or amended to better intersect with rights needing to be protected for within the digital spheres. But the nuances are far more complex, given how intertwined and interdisciplinary our digital selves journey truly is, you know, complex domains such as political infrastructure, behavioral psychology, economic power, tech design, these are all purposely interwoven to converse within like a digital users, daily systems. My question, are there any efforts underway for separate legislation for our digital selves, you know, one that is far more holistic to protect, for example, like cognition of cognition and mind and our thoughts, like there are new technology deployed day by day at an exponential rate that is attempting to scrape and source by any means possible to better build our digital profile and kind of use us as a pawn. So just wondering if there are any efforts, like separate efforts, given all that. Thank you.

Sanhawan Srisod: Can I proceed? Yes, please.

Audience: Okay, thank you. My name is Christian Fazili. I’m from the Democratic Republic of Congo, and I work as a lecturer and researcher at the University of Goma. I’m also a civil magistrate. Thank you for the wonderful presentation. I have a few questions related to this topic. Beyond voluntary commitment, what binding framework would ensure equitable digital governance such as a global treaty on tech accountability, another one related to due diligence, to what extent are states obligated to prevent malicious cyber activity, organizing from their territory? And the last one, how can this be enforced without infringing sovereignty? Thank you very much.

Sanhawan Srisod: Thank you so much for all the questions. I think we have the questions that on when the state itself contributes to all our erosions, who’s going to protect civilians, and respond to double standards. Probably who wants to respond, Chantal? You want to respond to the first question? And we can give the second question to Francisco as well. Probably you want to answer the third question. Okay, probably you, the first question first.

Chantal Joris: Let me perhaps make sort of overarching observations on I think a number of the questions. I think one of the challenges is that we see that there are massive challenges as to the conduct in the digital space. There are digital harms, new digital harms, technologies evolving fast. How can we keep up, right? And we know that those advancements are often much quicker than the ability of certainly international bodies, but of domestic parliaments as well, to come up with good rules. So I think one of the problems that we have right now is perhaps it’s, I don’t think we’re exactly in the golden age of treaty making. So that also means that we will often try to rely on existing international law rules and see how can we operate with them, how can we interpret them for them to remain relevant, because it seems reasonably unlikely that there will be a new Geneva Convention. adopted, ratified, and widely implemented anytime soon, I think. The second challenge is also, I think, I understand the quest for wanting to regulate some of these issues, but I think the devil is in the detail, and also following up on what Francisco said and what other panelists said, it’s a very complex space, and again, as has been mentioned, inaction can be problematic, and action can also be problematic, so what sort of rules, there has been a question about a global treaty on digital accountability, I think, or again, lawmaking to address some of these technologies, it’s just some of the legislations we see are very reactive, not based on human rights, so you have this disconnect between the international law obligations of states, particularly human rights obligations, and what they do domestically, they don’t bring the domestic legislation in rhyme with human rights, they also don’t do it based on proper expertise, so it’s not necessarily good lawmaking, again, you might have to bring a psychologist, and you want to hear from children’s rights groups when you regulate those issues, so I think it’s sometimes, again, the response can be almost as problematic as the lack of response, perhaps also one point on the role of online platforms, also that we’ve seen in armed conflicts, India, Pakistan, I think one of the things also to mention, and I think Nieves has mentioned this as well, often platforms also operate or respond to government demands as well, so it’s not, you know, it’s not states do one thing and platforms do another, more and more, depending on the governments, depending on the power of the governments, there is very close cooperation and engages both states’ obligations and companies’ obligations, and I think there is also a big responsibility for us to understand whether the right measures have been taken. I’ll wrap up. The devil is in the details with these measures, be it, as Francisco mentioned, a blocking of eggs in Brazil or an arrest of the Telegram CEO in Paris. We need to have really the details, understand why exactly it has been done. There needs to be transparency as to the real reason, so we can also really scrutinise and assess whether those measures are in line with international law. I tried to sort of connect a few things.

Nieves Molina: There are a couple of interesting points. I mean, the issue of a state actor’s behaviour in platforms is one that needs to be addressed. And I’m not sure, I agree with Chantal, I’m not sure it’s the golden age of new legislation.

Chantal Joris: It’s not.

Nieves Molina: It’s not.

Chantal Joris: No, no, no.

Nieves Molina: That’s what I said. That I agree. Yeah, yeah. No, it’s not the golden age of it, because we have seen at international level, but also at national level, we have a couple of projects where we try to compare national legislation with international obligations. And every single time that we face this reaction of legislating more, and every time that we get it, then it’s more repressive kind of legislation. So that’s one thing. The other thing is that there are the legislation in relation to incitement, so in relation to justification of war, to justification of crimes. It’s all, we have examples of that. We have the media trial, but before that, Nuremberg, you know, so the concepts of law might exist, the way we implement them and the willingness for enforcing them. is where where I feel that we are lacking behind and I want to I want to address the issue that that I think the second question brought up on the issue of how technology is advancing so much that that there is there are some when what a friend of mine Suante or wrote about no is the issue of freedom of thought now takes a different connotation because technology actually my advance to that point that you that what you think can be reachable even if you don’t announce it as technology will advance and we will have to take decisions on whether the legislation that we have covers but what I would warn against is whether the we do have a real vacuum or what we have is an willingness to enforce international obligation that exists yeah I think I leave it there.

Sanhawan Srisod: Yeah probably also on the second question Francisco you want to help answer as well on domestic registration on platform regulations and also probably you can help answer on the beyond monetary commitment are there any buying framework especially on tech and due diligence as well yeah I’ll make

Francisco Brito Cruz: some comments are you listening yes yes great great so the question is if platform regulation for accountability and and even international human rights law if they’re friends or foes I think they can be both depending on the situation actually Like as Chantal was saying, action and inaction are both pervasive if you’re seeing what’s happening. And then there is no recipe for this. But maybe a few points should be made. First, with or without legislation, with or without some kind of regulatory framework, I believe that human rights legislations coming and looking to the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, they can be fruitful in terms of at least laying the ground for some kind of intervention that can help us to know more what’s happening, helping us to know more what is working or not, and helping us evolve on which is the right way to intervene or to demand corporate responsibility in a very concrete way. But I know that all of that, there are baby steps, right? It’s not something that you can sketch up from one day to another. And also, all of that should happen with involving stakeholder engagement, involving participation, involving transparency tools for civil society. This is the kind of part of a human rights due diligence process that can also ensure that everyone is participating and everyone is in the same page. But also, with legislation, when we’re seeing regulatory frameworks, I think it’s also key on monitoring how this legislation is performing. So, seeing out what are the checks and balances for state action and state power, and thinking about that there is no end line. There is intervention and testing, and more intervention and testing. And some things can go wrong, and we need to acknowledge that some things can go wrong. Some innovations of legislation can go wrong as well. And I don’t think, I don’t see this as a way of paralysis. I see this as a way of learning what’s working or not. And to end, remedies are also key, right? Not only remedies around corporate power and corporate, on corporate decisions, but also remedies on state decisions. To really end, just a question here, and I would love to exchange more on that. We’re talking a lot about sovereignty, and how important for ensuring corporate responsibility this can be as well. But I think an important question should be made, like sovereignty, it can be a path for many things, right? Rule of law can be a path for many things. And it’s, I think we as human rights defenders, and people that believe on human rights, international law as well, we can, we should see sovereignty and rule of law in all of these complexities, to understand what are the ways that can serve as a path for protection also of human rights. So, but this is more of a question than an answer. And I thank you for it.

Sanhawan Srisod: Thank you so much. and Francisco. Probably last question, I think we are running out of time, probably the last one I ask Mikiko then, because there’s a question about, judging from the exiting floor that we are talking about today, are there any effort on separate legislations that try to holistically address the issues, especially when technology day by day has been like, with the threat of technology day by day, probably you can talk about it from the student right perspective as well, and probably you can update a little bit on the effort that we are engaging or involving in.

Mikiko Otani: Thank you so much, so I heard, so the first question for the panel, we started talking about the international law means, international criminal law, international human rights law, international humanitarian law, and then I brought in the child rights perspective, and I emphasise that the children’s is not only the one group which requires the specific attention, and I heard from Nieves talking about the risk of fragmentation, so how can we holistically approach all those issues, I don’t want to mean by sharing the children’s perspective to again go into the silo or fragmented approach, so I think we really need to bring in various perspectives and diverse voices when we talk about how this big question, international law, applies and should play a role in the digital space. So there is no answer, however the consultation process and hearing from various voices, not only about the groups, but also regionally, because there is a lot of different initiatives and challenges, so it’s not so much an answer, however I think this is the way we should go. Thank you.

Sanhawan Srisod: Thank you so much, I think it’s already time’s up, so thank you for all of your time and I hope today’s session was helpful for you, I think it’s just the beginning of talking more of this topic and we hope to engage more with all of you on this topic in the coming years as well. Thank you so much.

Agreement points

International law applies to cyberspace but implementation remains challenging

Speakers

– Chantal Joris
– Nieves Molina
– Francisco Brito Cruz

Arguments

International law applies to cyberspace but practical implementation remains controversial

Crimes enabled by digital technology are treated with exceptionalism despite existing legal frameworks

Both inaction and action can produce violations, making navigation complex

Summary

All speakers agree that while international law clearly applies to digital spaces, translating this into practical implementation faces significant challenges due to the complexity of digital governance and the rapid pace of technological change.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights | Cybersecurity

Fragmentation of legal frameworks creates protection gaps and accountability challenges

Speakers

– Chantal Joris
– Nieves Molina
– Sanhawan Srisod

Arguments

Different legal frameworks (IHL, ICL, human rights law) address similar issues separately, creating fragmentation

Need for harmonization to avoid protection gaps and forum shopping

International law framework faces fragmentation challenges with different bodies addressing similar issues separately

Summary

There is strong consensus that the current fragmented approach to international law in digital spaces, where different legal specialties operate separately, creates significant gaps in protection and accountability mechanisms.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights

Corporate accountability requires moving beyond voluntary commitments to concrete methodologies

Speakers

– Tiesa Meccrewfy
– Francisco Brito Cruz
– Audience

Arguments

Tech companies have obligations under UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights to conduct due diligence

Need to translate corporate responsibility into platform accountability through specific methodologies

Need for binding frameworks like global treaty on tech accountability beyond voluntary commitments

Summary

Speakers agree that while corporate obligations exist under current frameworks like the UN Guiding Principles, there is a critical need to develop concrete methodologies and potentially binding frameworks to ensure effective platform accountability.

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Technology advances faster than legal frameworks can adapt

Speakers

– Chantal Joris
– Nieves Molina
– Audience

Arguments

Technology advances much quicker than ability of international bodies and domestic parliaments to create good rules

Technology may advance to the point where freedom of thought takes different connotation as thoughts become reachable

Question whether separate legislation for digital selves is needed given exponential rate of new technology deployment

Summary

There is consensus that the rapid pace of technological advancement significantly outpaces the ability of legal and regulatory systems to develop appropriate responses, creating ongoing challenges for digital governance.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights | Cybersecurity

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers recognize that current political realities make new comprehensive international treaties unlikely, requiring focus on interpreting existing law while acknowledging the practical difficulties of implementation without adequate institutional capacity.

Speakers

– Chantal Joris
– Francisco Brito Cruz

Arguments

Not in the golden age of treaty making, so must rely on existing international law rules and interpretation

Building platform accountability is difficult without state capacities or proper regulation

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights

Both highlight how content moderation is being weaponized to suppress marginalized voices and dissent while allowing harmful content to proliferate, demonstrating systematic bias in platform governance.

Speakers

– Tiesa Meccrewfy
– Audience

Arguments

Systematic censorship and discriminatory content moderation policies suppress Palestinian voices and undermine digital rights

States use content moderation to silence dissent while failing to stop harmful content that fuels violence

Topics

Human rights | Cybersecurity

Both speakers emphasize the complex interconnection between state and corporate actors in digital spaces and the need for more transparent, participatory approaches to accountability that involve multiple stakeholders.

Speakers

– Nieves Molina
– Francisco Brito Cruz

Arguments

Close relationship between state and corporations creates blurred reality regarding levels of responsibility

Need for stakeholder engagement, participation, and transparency tools in human rights due diligence processes

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights

Unexpected consensus

Children’s agency in digital spaces should be respected rather than imposing total protection

Speakers

– Mikiko Otani
– Audience

Arguments

Children want to use digital spaces safely rather than be totally protected or excluded

Digital users’ daily systems involve complex domains like political infrastructure, behavioral psychology, and economic power

Explanation

There is unexpected consensus that rather than completely protecting children from digital spaces, the focus should be on enabling safe participation. This challenges traditional protective approaches and recognizes children’s agency while acknowledging the complex manipulative systems they navigate.

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural

International criminal law may need to expand to include corporate entities

Speakers

– Nieves Molina
– Sanhawan Srisod

Arguments

Some scholars are calling for international criminal responsibility of companies and expanding ICC-ROM treaty to include legal personalities

Accountability gaps exist between state and corporate responsibility in digital spaces

Explanation

There is emerging consensus on the potentially radical idea of extending international criminal responsibility to corporations, particularly in cases involving digital-enabled atrocity crimes. This represents a significant departure from traditional individual-focused international criminal law.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Cybersecurity

Overall assessment

Summary

The speakers demonstrate strong consensus on the fundamental challenges facing international law in digital spaces: fragmentation of legal frameworks, the gap between technological advancement and legal adaptation, the need for concrete corporate accountability mechanisms, and the complexity of balancing protection with rights preservation. There is also agreement on the inadequacy of current voluntary approaches and the need for more systematic, coordinated responses.

Consensus level

High level of consensus on problem identification and challenges, with emerging agreement on some innovative solutions like expanding international criminal law to corporations and respecting children’s agency in digital spaces. The consensus suggests a mature understanding of the issues but highlights the urgent need for coordinated international action to address the identified gaps and fragmentation in digital governance.

Different viewpoints

Approach to new legislation vs. existing law interpretation

Speakers

– Chantal Joris
– Nieves Molina
– Francisco Brito Cruz
– Audience

Arguments

Not in the golden age of treaty making, so must rely on existing international law rules and interpretation

Reactive legislation often not based on human rights creates disconnect between international obligations and domestic implementation

Crimes enabled by digital technology are treated with exceptionalism despite existing legal frameworks

Need for binding frameworks like global treaty on tech accountability beyond voluntary commitments

Summary

Speakers disagreed on whether to focus on interpreting existing international law or creating new binding frameworks. Chantal and Nieves emphasized working with existing laws due to challenges in creating new treaties, while audience members called for new binding frameworks like global treaties on tech accountability.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights

Unexpected differences

Role of state capacity in platform accountability

Speakers

– Francisco Brito Cruz
– Chantal Joris

Arguments

Building platform accountability is difficult without state capacities or proper regulation

Reactive legislation often not based on human rights creates disconnect between international obligations and domestic implementation

Explanation

While both speakers acknowledged challenges in platform accountability, Francisco emphasized the necessity of state capacity and regulation (citing Brazil’s experience), while Chantal warned against reactive state legislation that violates human rights. This created an unexpected tension between the need for state intervention and concerns about state overreach.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Economic | Human rights

Overall assessment

Summary

The main areas of disagreement centered on approaches to legal frameworks (new vs. existing), the role of state intervention in platform accountability, and the balance between protection and access in digital rights. However, there was broad consensus on core problems: fragmentation of legal approaches, accountability gaps, and the complexity of digital governance.

Disagreement level

The level of disagreement was moderate and primarily methodological rather than fundamental. Speakers shared common goals of protecting human rights and ensuring accountability in digital spaces, but differed on implementation strategies. This suggests that while there are different approaches being pursued, there is potential for convergence around shared principles and coordinated efforts.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers recognize that current political realities make new comprehensive international treaties unlikely, requiring focus on interpreting existing law while acknowledging the practical difficulties of implementation without adequate institutional capacity.

Speakers

– Chantal Joris
– Francisco Brito Cruz

Arguments

Not in the golden age of treaty making, so must rely on existing international law rules and interpretation

Building platform accountability is difficult without state capacities or proper regulation

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights

Both highlight how content moderation is being weaponized to suppress marginalized voices and dissent while allowing harmful content to proliferate, demonstrating systematic bias in platform governance.

Speakers

– Tiesa Meccrewfy
– Audience

Arguments

Systematic censorship and discriminatory content moderation policies suppress Palestinian voices and undermine digital rights

States use content moderation to silence dissent while failing to stop harmful content that fuels violence

Topics

Human rights | Cybersecurity

Both speakers emphasize the complex interconnection between state and corporate actors in digital spaces and the need for more transparent, participatory approaches to accountability that involve multiple stakeholders.

Speakers

– Nieves Molina
– Francisco Brito Cruz

Arguments

Close relationship between state and corporations creates blurred reality regarding levels of responsibility

Need for stakeholder engagement, participation, and transparency tools in human rights due diligence processes

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights

Key takeaways

International law applies to cyberspace but practical implementation remains fragmented across different legal frameworks (international human rights law, international humanitarian law, international criminal law)

There is broad consensus that existing international law provides regulatory framework for digital spaces, but harmonization between different bodies of law is lacking, creating protection gaps

Corporate accountability under UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights exists but translating this into effective platform accountability requires specific methodologies, transparency, and stronger enforcement mechanisms

Digital rights violations disproportionately affect marginalized communities, with systematic censorship and discriminatory content moderation suppressing voices during conflicts

Children’s rights in digital environments require comprehensive protection considering their evolving capacities, with emphasis on safe access rather than exclusion from digital spaces

Technology advances faster than legal frameworks can adapt, creating accountability gaps where both state and corporate actors can evade responsibility

The blurred relationship between states and corporations in digital governance complicates attribution of responsibility and enables forum shopping for favorable regulations

Resolutions and action items

Need for more coordinated efforts to avoid fragmentation of international law responses in cyberspace

States and businesses should integrate child rights impact assessment in design, development, and operation of digital products and services

Requirement for human rights due diligence processes that include stakeholder engagement, participation, and transparency tools for civil society

Development of specific methodologies to translate corporate responsibility principles into operational platform accountability measures

Need for monitoring and evaluation mechanisms to assess how digital legislation and regulations are performing in practice

Unresolved issues

How to effectively harmonize different bodies of international law (human rights, humanitarian, criminal) when they address similar digital issues separately

Who is responsible for protecting civilians in digital spaces when states themselves contribute to erosion of online civic space

How to balance platform accountability with protection of user rights without creating disproportionate restrictions

Whether separate comprehensive legislation for digital rights is needed or if existing international law frameworks are sufficient

How to enforce state obligations to prevent malicious cyber activity from their territory without infringing sovereignty

What binding frameworks beyond voluntary commitments could ensure equitable digital governance

How to address the exponential rate of new technology deployment that attempts to access and profile users’ thoughts and cognition

How to ensure remedies and access to justice for victims of digital rights violations across fragmented legal systems

Suggested compromises

Focus on operationalizing and clarifying existing international law rather than creating entirely new treaty frameworks, given the current challenges in international treaty-making

Adopt iterative approach of ‘intervention and testing’ for digital legislation, acknowledging that some regulatory innovations may fail and require adjustment

Use UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights as an operative layer to navigate tensions between different international law frameworks

Emphasize consultation processes and hearing diverse voices (including children, marginalized communities, regional perspectives) when developing digital governance approaches

Balance children’s desire for safe digital access rather than complete protection or exclusion from digital spaces

Develop transparency requirements for both state and corporate actions in digital spaces to enable proper scrutiny of measures taken

Those initiatives are very relevant, but I think there could be more effort probably to avoid the fragmentation of the responses to how international law applies to cyberspace and to make it more, to harmonize it more, to avoid a protection gap… from the perspective of the impacted communities and the rights holders who might be harmed by those types of information operations, it is not that relevant whether it’s humanitarian law or human rights law and which one is like specialis.

Speaker

Chantal Joris

Reason

This comment is deeply insightful because it shifts the focus from academic legal distinctions to the practical reality faced by victims. It highlights a fundamental problem in international law – that legal fragmentation creates protection gaps for those who need help most. The observation that victims don’t care about which legal framework applies, they just need protection, is both profound and practical.

Impact

This comment established the central theme of the entire discussion – fragmentation as a barrier to justice. It set up the framework that subsequent speakers built upon, with each panelist addressing different aspects of this fragmentation problem. It moved the conversation from theoretical legal analysis to victim-centered practical concerns.

There is this paradox while most legal scholars think that international law has most of the principles that would help us to provide remedies or to provide a regulation, there is certain exceptionalism on producing new legislation and attempting to create new laws that take time to create, but at the same time create a danger of fragmentation of the law.

Speaker

Nieves Molina

Reason

This observation reveals a critical paradox in how the international community responds to digital challenges. It’s thought-provoking because it suggests that the very attempt to solve problems through new legislation may be creating bigger problems through fragmentation. The concept of ‘exceptionalism’ in treating digital crimes differently is particularly insightful.

Impact

This comment deepened the discussion by introducing the paradox that efforts to create solutions might be creating new problems. It influenced the conversation by making participants question whether new legislation is always the answer, and it connected to later discussions about the challenges of treaty-making in the current global context.

Children living in digital world space, however, offline and offline, online and offline is seamless. It’s not so easy to differentiate what is the online and offline for the children… children want to use the digital. So they claim to us, the committee, that they don’t want to be totally protected or excluded from the digital space, but they want to use the online space safely.

Speaker

Mikiko Otani

Reason

This comment is profoundly insightful because it challenges the traditional binary thinking about online/offline spaces and protection/access. The revelation that children themselves reject overprotection in favor of safe access represents a sophisticated understanding of digital rights that many adults lack. It reframes the entire approach to digital protection.

Impact

This comment shifted the discussion from a paternalistic approach to digital protection to one that recognizes agency and voice of affected communities. It influenced how other participants thought about balancing protection with access, and it reinforced the theme that those affected by digital harms should be centered in policy discussions.

The assertion that the action can produce violations, but also action can produce violations… inaction can produce violations, but action can produce violations as well.

Speaker

Francisco Brito Cruz

Reason

This seemingly simple observation captures one of the most complex challenges in digital governance. It’s thought-provoking because it acknowledges that there are no easy solutions – both regulating and not regulating can cause harm. This paradox is at the heart of many digital policy dilemmas.

Impact

This comment introduced a crucial nuance to the discussion about accountability and regulation. It prevented the conversation from becoming overly simplistic about solutions and forced participants to grapple with the complexity of digital governance. It influenced later discussions about the need for careful, monitored approaches to regulation.

In the middle of all this information overload, whether or not international law and the content of human rights have been also a victim or have been also been targeted by misinformation campaigns, relativizing international law and questioning their usefulness.

Speaker

Nieves Molina

Reason

This is a meta-level insight that’s particularly thought-provoking because it suggests that the very framework being discussed (international law) may itself be under attack through digital means. It raises the possibility that misinformation campaigns are deliberately undermining faith in international legal frameworks, creating a recursive problem.

Impact

This comment added a new dimension to the discussion by suggesting that the challenges aren’t just about applying international law to digital spaces, but about protecting international law itself from digital attacks. It introduced the concept that the erosion of trust in international law might be a deliberate strategy, adding urgency to the discussion.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shaped the discussion by establishing fragmentation as the central challenge, introducing crucial paradoxes about regulation and protection, and centering the voices of affected communities. The conversation evolved from a technical legal discussion to a more nuanced exploration of the tensions between protection and access, action and inaction, and the need for victim-centered approaches. The comments collectively moved the discussion away from seeking simple solutions toward acknowledging complexity and the need for holistic, coordinated responses. Most importantly, they established that the current fragmented approach to international law in digital spaces is failing those it’s meant to protect, creating a compelling case for more integrated, community-centered approaches to digital governance.

How can different bodies of international law (human rights law, humanitarian law, criminal law) be better harmonized to avoid fragmentation and protection gaps in digital spaces?

Speaker

Chantal Joris

Explanation

This addresses the core challenge of legal fragmentation where the same conduct (like incitement to violence) is covered by multiple legal frameworks but interpreted separately, creating confusion and potential gaps in protection

How do we operationalize and clarify what each actor’s obligations are across different legal frameworks when dealing with digital harms?

Speaker

Chantal Joris

Explanation

There’s a need for practical guidance on how to apply overlapping legal obligations from different international law frameworks in real-world digital scenarios

How can we build effective methods for human rights due diligence that go beyond general principles to create specific, measurable corporate accountability?

Speaker

Francisco Brito Cruz

Explanation

While principles exist, there’s a gap in translating them into concrete methods that can be monitored and enforced against tech companies

Should international criminal responsibility be expanded to include legal personalities (corporations) under frameworks like the ICC-Rome Statute?

Speaker

Nieves Molina

Explanation

Given the blurred lines between state and corporate responsibility in digital harms, there’s growing discussion about whether companies should face international criminal liability

Has international law itself become a victim of misinformation campaigns that relativize its importance and create accountability gaps?

Speaker

Nieves Molina

Explanation

This explores whether disinformation efforts are deliberately undermining trust in international legal frameworks to create spaces for impunity

When states themselves contribute to online civic space erosion, who is responsible for protecting civilians in digital spaces?

Speaker

Audience member (Ulvia)

Explanation

This addresses the accountability vacuum when the primary duty-bearer (the state) is itself the violator of digital rights

How can international law and domestic platform regulation work together rather than conflict, especially when states can also violate human rights?

Speaker

Audience member

Explanation

There’s tension between international obligations and domestic regulatory approaches that need to be resolved for effective platform accountability

Are separate legislative frameworks needed for digital rights that holistically address the interdisciplinary nature of digital harms, including protection of cognition and thought?

Speaker

Audience member (Ana Galate)

Explanation

Current frameworks may be inadequate for emerging technologies that can access and manipulate human thoughts and cognitive processes

What binding frameworks beyond voluntary commitments could ensure equitable digital governance, such as a global treaty on tech accountability?

Speaker

Audience member (Christian Fazili)

Explanation

There’s a question about whether voluntary corporate responsibility frameworks are sufficient or if binding international treaties are needed

To what extent are states obligated to prevent malicious cyber activity originating from their territory, and how can this be enforced without infringing sovereignty?

Speaker

Audience member (Christian Fazili)

Explanation

This addresses the balance between state sovereignty and international obligations to prevent cross-border digital harms

How can sovereignty and rule of law serve as paths for human rights protection rather than barriers in the digital context?

Speaker

Francisco Brito Cruz

Explanation

This explores how traditional concepts of sovereignty can be reframed to support rather than hinder digital rights protection

How can diverse voices and regional perspectives be systematically integrated into international law development for digital spaces to avoid fragmented approaches?

Speaker

Mikiko Otani

Explanation

There’s a need for inclusive processes that bring together different stakeholder groups and regional experiences in developing digital governance frameworks

Summary

This discussion focused on shaping Africa’s digital future through effective data governance, bringing together government officials, civil society representatives, academics, and private sector leaders to examine the challenges and opportunities in implementing data governance frameworks across the continent. The panel was moderated by Anriet Esterhuisen and featured participants including Sierra Leone’s Minister of Communications Salima Bah, Kenyan Ambassador Bitange Ndemo, and representatives from Research ICT Africa, CIPESA, and Meta.

Minister Bah emphasized the importance of political buy-in and strategic prioritization in moving from policy to practice, highlighting Sierra Leone’s journey over the past 25 years with significant progress in recent years through dedicated institutions and presidential support. Ambassador Ndemo stressed the need to demonstrate data’s value to citizens before implementing complex regulations, arguing that Africa should abandon overly restrictive frameworks and focus on showing practical benefits first. Wakabi Wairagala from CIPESA outlined the essential elements of rights-based data governance, including privacy protection, independent oversight mechanisms, and special attention to marginalized groups’ data rights.

Kojo Boakye from Meta discussed the challenges of operating across multiple African jurisdictions with varying data protection laws, advocating for greater harmonization through the African Union Data Policy Framework while warning against over-regulation based on lessons from other regions. Priya Chetty from Research ICT Africa highlighted critical implementation gaps, including fragmented legislation, weak enforcement mechanisms, and the need for greater user-centered approaches that ensure meaningful inclusion and data literacy.

The discussion revealed tensions between protection and innovation, with participants debating the balance between comprehensive data governance frameworks and practical implementation that delivers tangible benefits to African citizens and economies.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Moving from Policy to Implementation**: A central theme focused on bridging the gap between data governance policies and their practical implementation, with Sierra Leone’s Minister highlighting the importance of political buy-in, strategic prioritization, and institutional capacity building as key success factors.

– **Rights-Based Data Governance and Digital Inclusion**: Discussion of how to ensure data governance frameworks protect privacy and human rights while promoting digital inclusion, with emphasis on the need for meaningful citizen participation, data literacy, and protection of marginalized groups’ rights.

– **Harmonization vs. National Sovereignty**: Debate over balancing the need for harmonized data governance frameworks across Africa (to facilitate cross-border trade and digital transformation) against individual countries’ sovereignty and specific national needs, with particular reference to the African Union Data Policy Framework.

– **Enforcement Challenges and Institutional Capacity**: Examination of weak enforcement mechanisms across African nations, despite having data protection laws, and the need for stronger regulatory oversight, adequate institutional mandates, and effective complaint mechanisms.

– **Multi-stakeholder Collaboration and Private Sector Engagement**: Discussion of the need for better collaboration between governments, civil society, and private sector (particularly big tech companies) in developing and implementing data governance frameworks, with calls for more meaningful participation in national policy processes.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to examine Africa’s digital transformation journey through the lens of data governance, bringing together diverse stakeholders (government officials, civil society, private sector, and academia) to share insights on challenges and solutions for implementing effective, rights-based data governance that balances protection with innovation and economic development.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a constructive and collaborative tone throughout, characterized by mutual respect among panelists and a shared commitment to Africa’s digital development. While there were moments of gentle disagreement (particularly around harmonization approaches and regulatory frameworks), the conversation remained diplomatic and solution-oriented. The tone was notably optimistic about Africa’s potential as a leader in data governance innovation, with panelists expressing confidence in African-developed frameworks and encouraging continued partnership and investment in the continent’s digital future.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Moderator (Anriet Esterhuisen)** – Organiser of the African School on Internet Governance, past chair of the UN IGF MAG, associated with the Association for Progressive Communications

– **Salima Monorma Bah** – Honourable Minister of Communications, Technology and Information, Sierra Leone

– **Bitange Ndemo** – His Excellency Ambassador of Kenya to the European Union (based in Brussels), past collaborator, hosted IGF in Nairobi in 2011

– **Kojo Boakye** – Vice President, Public Policy for Africa at META, 19th IGF participant

– **Wakabi Wairagala** – Representative from CEPESA (Centre for Collaborative Internet Policy in Eastern South Africa), veteran of internet governance

– **Participant 1** – Role/expertise not clearly specified in transcript

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

**Additional speakers:**

– **Priyad Chetty** – Incoming Executive Director of Research ICT Africa (mentioned by moderator but appears to be speaking as “Participant 1” in transcript)

– **Kodjo Waji** – Vice President, Public Policy for Africa from META (mentioned by moderator, but appears the actual speaker was Kojo Boakye)

– **Guy Berger** – Convener of the African Alliance for Access to Data, working with the African Commission

– **Osei Keja** – From Ghana (audience member)

– **Amy** – From Nigeria (audience member)

– **Kuku** – Audience member working with African Union Commission, ISD division

# Shaping Africa’s Digital Future: A Comprehensive Discussion on Data Governance Implementation

## Introduction and Context

This panel discussion, moderated by Anriet Esterhuizen from the Association for Progressive Communications, brought together a distinguished group of stakeholders to examine the critical challenges and opportunities in implementing data governance frameworks across Africa. The conversation featured high-level government officials, including Sierra Leone’s Minister of Communications Salima Monorma Bah and Kenyan Ambassador to the European Union Bitange Ndemo, alongside representatives from civil society, academia, and the private sector, including Wakabi Wairagala from CIPESA (Centre for Collaborative Internet Policy in Eastern South Africa), the incoming Executive Director of Research ICT Africa, and Kodjo Waji from Meta.

The discussion emerged against the backdrop of Africa’s rapidly evolving digital landscape, with the conversation aimed at moving beyond theoretical frameworks to examine practical pathways for effective data governance that balances protection with innovation whilst ensuring meaningful citizen participation.

## Government Perspectives: From Policy to Practice

### Sierra Leone’s Strategic Approach

Minister Salima Monorma Bah provided insights into Sierra Leone’s journey in data governance, emphasising the transformative shift in governmental attitudes towards data. She noted that data governance has evolved “from something that was an afterthought for a lot of African governments to now being just a central piece to what we’re trying to do.” This evolution reflects a broader recognition of data’s dual nature as both an economic asset and a sovereignty issue.

The Minister highlighted critical success factors for effective implementation: strategic prioritisation, political buy-in from the highest levels of government, and understanding both the economic value of data and data sovereignty issues. She stressed that moving from policy to practice requires dedicated institutions and sustained presidential support, drawing from Sierra Leone’s experience of significant progress in recent years through focused institutional development.

Addressing the challenges smaller economies face when dealing with large technology companies, Minister Bah acknowledged that power imbalances sometimes lead countries to resort to “more draconian approaches” in their regulatory responses. This highlighted the complex dynamics between national sovereignty and global technology governance.

### Ambassador Ndemo’s Perspective

Ambassador Bitange Ndemo presented a different perspective on Africa’s approach to data governance. He briefly suggested reconsidering the current African Union data protection framework, arguing that regulations were being implemented before fully understanding what data could do for people. He advocated for demonstrating data benefits to citizens through practical applications.

The Ambassador also stressed the fundamental importance of digital literacy and capacity building as prerequisites for maximising technology use and effective data management, arguing that without these foundations, regulatory frameworks remain less effective.

## Civil Society and Academic Perspectives

### Rights-Based Data Governance Framework

Wakabi Wairagala from CIPESA outlined elements of rights-based data governance, emphasising that data governance must uphold fundamental rights including privacy, access to information, and protection from surveillance. He highlighted the necessity of independent arbiters and remedial mechanisms to mediate disputes and enforce penalties for data rights violations.

Wairagala also emphasised the importance of protecting data rights of minorities and marginalised groups, ensuring that vulnerable populations receive specific attention in governance frameworks. He called for meaningful spaces for citizen participation and awareness-building about data rights.

Addressing harmonisation challenges, Wairagala suggested that working at regional economic community levels, such as through the East African Community, could facilitate harmonisation and domestication of African Union frameworks more effectively than attempting continent-wide coordination immediately.

### Research and Implementation Gaps

The incoming Executive Director of Research ICT Africa brought a critical user-centred perspective to the discussion, challenging participants to consider whether current frameworks adequately emphasise the user perspective. She posed a fundamental question about whether sufficient emphasis was being placed on users across different aspects of digital policy, from digital public infrastructure to artificial intelligence and data governance.

She highlighted several critical implementation gaps, including fragmented legislation, weak enforcement mechanisms, and insufficient attention to user demands and inequalities. She emphasised the need for sustainable mechanisms for data inclusion that enable users to participate meaningfully in and draw value from data systems.

Her analysis revealed that current data governance frameworks insufficiently address structural inequalities and fail to build adequate user capacity for meaningful participation in the data economy. She called for evidence-based policy making that uses data as a tool for better governance.

## Private Sector Perspectives

### Meta’s Continental View

Kodjo Waji from Meta, attending his 19th IGF, provided insights from the private sector perspective, highlighting both opportunities and challenges in Africa’s data governance landscape. He noted that whilst Africa has made progress with national data protection laws, the lack of harmonisation between national policies creates operational complexities for companies operating across multiple jurisdictions.

Waji identified opportunities in the African Union Data Policy Framework for governments to continue creating legislation that addresses national priorities whilst creating opportunities for harmonisation. However, he also noted the institutional complexity that arises when multiple organisations claim jurisdiction over data governance issues.

Addressing enforcement concerns, Waji advocated for approaches that focus on improving data governance for users rather than revenue generation. He also emphasised the importance of thoughtful communication about artificial intelligence benefits and risks.

Drawing from global experiences, Waji referenced discussions about regulatory approaches in other regions, encouraging African policymakers to learn from these experiences whilst developing their own frameworks.

## Key Areas of Agreement and Consensus

### Political Will and Strategic Prioritisation

There was strong consensus among participants that political will and strategic prioritisation represent essential foundations for effective data governance implementation. Both Minister Bah and the Research ICT Africa representative emphasised that successful data governance requires strong political commitment at the highest levels of government.

### African Union Framework Recognition

Despite some disagreements about implementation approaches, there was notable recognition of the African Union Data Policy Framework. The moderator emphasised its importance alongside the African Commission on Human and People’s Rights resolution as significant African instruments for data governance.

### Enforcement Challenges

Participants demonstrated clear consensus that enforcement mechanisms remain weak across African data governance systems. Multiple speakers emphasised the need for stronger enforcement capacity and regulatory cooperation.

### User-Centred Approaches

Both Wakabi Wairagala and the Research ICT Africa representative agreed on the crucial importance of user-centred approaches and meaningful participation in data governance, emphasising the need for citizen participation and awareness-building about data rights.

## Audience Engagement and Broader Concerns

### Enforcement Capacity Questions

Osei Keja from Ghana raised critical questions about strengthening enforcement mechanisms, particularly given the weak enforcement capacity in many African nations. This intervention highlighted the persistent gap between policy development and practical implementation across the continent.

### Learning from Global Experiences

Amy from Nigeria asked how Africa could learn from the successes and mistakes of other nations in data governance, seeking to identify best practices that could be adapted for African contexts.

### Private Sector Engagement

An audience member from the African Union Commission raised questions about how technology organisations could be better engaged in country-level policy development processes rather than only participating in high-level international platforms.

## Additional Contributions

### Multi-Stakeholder Initiatives

Guy Berger highlighted the African Alliance for Access to Data (dataalliance.africa) and the African Commission’s Resolution 620, which calls for practical guidelines on data governance. These initiatives represent ongoing efforts to create collaborative frameworks that bring together diverse stakeholders in developing practical approaches to data governance.

## Emerging Themes and Future Directions

### Capacity Building and Digital Literacy

Multiple speakers emphasised the fundamental importance of capacity building and digital literacy as prerequisites for effective data governance. This emerged as a foundational requirement for people to effectively participate in and benefit from data governance systems.

### Balancing Protection and Innovation

A recurring theme throughout the discussion was the need to balance data protection with innovation and economic development. This balance emerged as particularly challenging for African economies seeking to attract investment whilst protecting citizen rights and maintaining data sovereignty.

### Harmonisation Strategies

The discussion revealed ongoing debates about the most effective approaches to harmonising data governance frameworks across Africa, with suggestions ranging from continental approaches to regional economic community-level coordination.

## Conclusion and Implications

This discussion revealed both progress and persistent challenges in Africa’s data governance journey. Whilst there is clear recognition of data governance as central to Africa’s digital transformation, different perspectives remain about implementation approaches, timing, and institutional frameworks.

The conversation highlighted various viewpoints on data governance across different stakeholder groups, from government officials emphasising political will and sovereignty concerns, to civil society advocates focusing on rights-based approaches, to private sector representatives highlighting operational challenges and harmonisation opportunities.

The emphasis on the African Union Data Policy Framework and related continental instruments suggests a foundation for continued collaboration, whilst the call for enhanced multi-stakeholder engagement, strengthened enforcement mechanisms, and user-centred approaches provides direction for future efforts.

The discussion demonstrated that Africa’s data governance conversation continues to evolve, with stakeholders working to address implementation challenges whilst balancing protection with innovation and ensuring meaningful citizen participation in the continent’s digital transformation.

Moderator: Good afternoon everyone, welcome to this open future on Shaping Africa’s digital future and looking at that future through data governance. We have a fantastic panel, so I’m going to start, we’ve lost a little bit of time, so I’m going to quickly introduce this panel. Firstly, we have Honourable Salima Bah from Sierra Leone and we’re really, really pleased to have her. She’s the Sierra Leonean Minister of Communications, Technology and Information. On the other side of the panel, we have His Excellency Ambassador Bitange Ndemo, past collaborator and in fact something they didn’t put in your bio is that you once hosted the IGF in Nairobi in 2011. Currently Bitange is the Ambassador of Kenya to the European Union, so he’s based in Brussels. On my right is Priyad Chetty, the incoming Executive Director of Research ICT Africa, which I think is Africa’s foremost think tank and I think in general producer of data evidence and analysis in policy and digital development in Africa. And then on my left here, I have Wakabi. Wakabi is from CEPESA, the Centre for Collaborative Internet Policy in Eastern South Africa and also I think a veteran of internet governance and I think one of the organisations that has done just such an immense job in building the capacity of civil society in Africa in trying to be active or being active voices in policy. And then on the far left, we have Kodjo Waji, who is Vice President, Public Policy for Africa from META. And I think Kodjo, this is your second IGF? Third?

Kojo Boakye: No, this is my 19th IGF.

Moderator: Your ninth?

Kojo Boakye: Nineteenth.

Moderator: Nineteenth?

Kojo Boakye: Yeah, I feel like I’ve participated.

Moderator: Were you in the youth caucus at the first one?

Kojo Boakye: No, I am a seventies baby.

Moderator: Well, welcome. It’s really good to have all of you here. And my name is Anriet Esterhuisen. I am the organiser of the African School on Internet Governance. I’m a past chair of the UN IGF MAG and associated with the Association for Progressive Communications. I think just really thanks to the organisers for this session, because data governance I think is indeed really one of those important cross-cutting topics that we need to engage at the IGF. And it’s particularly important at the moment for Africa, looking at where Africa is in its journey on digital transformation. There’s a rollout of digital IDs, national data exchanges, AI strategies and cross-border trade initiatives. For example, the implementation of the African continental free trade area. And all of these efforts hold promise for Africa’s development and for increased digital equality in Africa. But behind every digital system and innovation lies a very important critical foundation. In fact, I think two critical foundations. Firstly, data governance, effective, accountable, inclusive, development-oriented data governance. But then also digital inequality, which is the context that still tends to undermine the implementation of so many innovative and forward-looking digital transformation strategies on the continent. But data governance is not just about regulation. I think it’s about systems, coordination and institutions that ensure that data is managed in ways that are secure, transparent and trusted. And I think, just adding this, this is particularly relevant to the IGF. Trusted across stakeholder groups and by different types of actors. Trusted by private sector operators, by privacy advocates, by trade justice advocates, by governments and by the technical community as well. And it’s only really when you have this trust that digital transformation can be implemented, but work and achieve benefits for people. For governments, there really is a challenge at this point in terms of how quickly to move from policy to practice, how to build systems that are technically sound, and I think also systems that are future-proof, but at the same time systems that recognize that the realities of the context that those governments are trying to work in are still so characterized, so deeply characterized by digital exclusion at multiple levels, at the level of institutional capacity, people’s access, the capacity to have the devices and the skills that are needed to really participate and benefit from these systems. So this session is trying to bring together these quite diverse, different stakeholders to talk about this. They’re all involved in this in one way or another, and so they’re here to share their insights on what the challenges are, what the possible solutions are, what we’ve learned from the data governance implementation and framework development that’s taken place so far. And to start us, I’m going to ask Minister Salimah Bah from Sierra Leone to just give us a sense in terms of what Sierra Leone has done and the experience that you’ve gained over the last few years. What do you think, what are the critical factors, the variables that really make that difference between not effectively implemented policy and strategy or incoherent or non-harmonized policy and strategy to policy and strategy that actually makes that leap from theory, from ideas, from strategy to practice to implementation?

Salima Monorma Bah: Thank you, thank you so much for organizing this, and definitely to the organizers at GIZ and everybody else who’s participated. I think, as you said, this is such a really critical conversation to have, specifically when we look at Africa’s digital transformation journey and agenda and how data is the essential part of that. I think I was having a conversation with somebody, I was like, it went from something that was an afterthought, I think, for a lot of African governments to now, I think, being just a central piece to what we’re trying to do. And I think, well, one, specifically we understand when we talk about our digital transformation agenda, how issues such as data sovereignty and how our data is managed and what that looks like. I think, you know, now the understanding of how critical that is, I think it’s even more established. But then also, I think the other reality is the economic value when it comes to data as well. I think that is also part of it, that everybody’s getting to the understanding of there’s a huge economic value and we want to ensure that how that is exploited or how that is managed or leveraged or tapped into, we want to be part of those conversations as well. But definitely key points in terms of how do you move from policy and strategy to practice, I think one of the first for Sierra Leone, what has really worked, because this has been a journey that we’ve been on for maybe over 20, 25 years, but really we’ve only started seeing effective outputs from that, I think, for the past six, seven years. And I think it’s been as a result of really strategic prioritization. So for example, from the very top level, by His Excellency the President, we get to see that political buy-in and interest. For example, when the President came in for the very first time, he appointed a Chief Innovation Officer, he established a dedicated agency that focuses on technology and how do we implement, he’s included it in making technology a big five.

Bitange Ndemo: With these few things that I have mentioned here plus digital literacy, we can begin to maximize the use of this technology and also manage our data in a in a better way that can move us forward.

Moderator: Thanks, thanks a lot for that Bitanga. And I now want to turn to you Wacabi and you know SPSA has done such pioneering work in terms of digital rights and the protection of privacy and recognizing how that and data protection is an enabler of other rights. I mean for you, what does meaningful rights-based data governance look like in practice at this point in time? And I think particularly now that we’re no longer just talking about GDPR or privacy, data governance is now so much more than the protection of personal information. Thank you very much for joining us. I’m going to turn it over to you, Dr. Wairagala, to talk about how the ecosystem involves so many different types of data. So how do you feel we can effectively apply this rights-based approach to this evolving landscape of data governance?

Wakabi Wairagala: ≫ Thanks, Henriette. So, yeah, from the outset, as you know, we have a lot of data. And we have a lot of data that is relevant to our lives and our participation in society. So if the right is not promoted, if then the appetite for citizens to partake of public services, for them to participate in public affairs, ETC, will all be undermined. So how then do we have rights-based approaches? So, for example, we should ensure that the right to privacy and access to information, and access to data protection, we should ensure that they uphold the right to privacy and related rights like access to information, and protection from surveillance. On the other hand, we should ensure that our laws are aligned with the high-level instruments such as the Constitution, and that they are not limited to the right to privacy and access to information, and that they govern a lot of rights around the continent, as well as with constitutional guarantees in the individual countries. But Dr. Ndemo has also mentioned the issue of balancing protection with innovation. As much as we want to protect rights, we also need the use of data. So, we are not saying that it is specifically for the public interest. A lot of the time, those principles of data-protection, which we keep talking about, but if we were to do a sort of assessment, many of those in the data-protection system, we would say that it is not for the public interest, it is for the private interest, and it becomes our role to do assessments of countries to see whether they are actually living up to those principles, or they are not. The other element I would like to speak to is that of the independent arbiters and remedial mechanisms, and the Minister from Sierra Leone actually spoke about them. So, we are going to be able to have the right to be able to mediate, to issue guidance, to issue penalties, that, again, is an area in which we are going to be able to have the rights respected. A final one is clearly acknowledging and instituting measures to ensure that data rights of minorities and marginalised groups are clearly upheld, which brings in the question of the right to be able to mediate, to issue penalty, to issue penalties, namely, that data should not be collected, should not be used in any way that undermines the rights of the marginalised groups. As I sum up, what are some of the elements that need to be done to ensure that citizen voices are heard? One of them is clearly having meaningful spaces for citizens to be able to express their views, and for those views to be taken into practice, but there is also the area of privacy and data rights are fairly new rights, not many people know their data rights, or how to express them, so creating awareness of the rights, creating awareness of how to protect yourself in digital environments, and in policy-making are areas also that can go somewhere in this regard.

Moderator: Yes, I was actually going to ask you, if you think people know what data rights are, and if the concept of data justice is one that is well understood, and I think it is challenging, particularly because data rights also spans different types of data, but absolutely, that’s, you know, that’s exactly the role that civil society should be doing. Kojo, let me move to you. As Meta has to operate in this space, how do you, from your experience of a company that operates in multiple jurisdictions, a very powerful company, a company that’s a very data-intensive data, so central to your business model, how do you find the policy and regulatory environment in Africa from the perspective of a business model? How do you find the policy and regulatory environment in Africa from the perspective of complexity, suitability, harmonisation, compliance, and accountability and transparency on your part?

Kojo Boakye: Great question. Big question as well. The first thing I’ll say is a huge thanks to the government of Norway for putting this conference on, having spent so much time at a number of them, most recently Japan and Saudi and others, I know what a big undertaking it is, but also a huge thanks to my fellow panellists. I told Dr Ndemo unashamedly that he mentored me from afar, certainly in my time with the Alliance for Affordable Internet and still with the Global Digital Inclusion Partnership, et cetera, and some of the changes he made to the policy environment in Kenya were ground-breaking in terms of how they accelerated access to the mobile, et cetera, and Wakabi and Priya who I worked with, Alison and many others, and I told the minister that I worked in Sierra Leone for a while, so huge respect for the panellists. In terms of the policy and regulatory environment in Africa itself, and most of my work across Africa, Middle East and Turkey is with sub-Saharan Africa, although I do look after North Africa as well, but I’ll probably focus on sub-Saharan, I see a lot of development. We have 13 national laws that speak to this. Some of the most well-known are obviously Papaya in South Africa, Nigeria’s Data Protection Act, Kenya’s Data Protection Act as well, which highlight how thoughtful governments are being about this particular issue. Part of your question, Ariane, spoke to the level of harmonisation we see and the impact it has on companies like ours, and I will say smaller companies, if you want to describe it that way, who seek not only to operate in their national jurisdictions but also access African markets abroad, and I’m not going to go on about the Africa Continental Free Trade Agreement and the promise that it holds. What I’m probably seeing less of is harmonisation between those national policies. Yes, there are similarities, but I think if you think about companies that are seeking, both big and small, that are seeking to take advantage of a one billion person opportunity on the continent itself, 1.3 billion if you want to look at North Africa and Sub-Saharan Africa, and growing and getting younger, some level of harmonisation is needed. I think the AU data policy framework offers a huge opportunity not only for governments to continue creating legislation that speaks to their national priorities, whatever those may be, but also creates opportunities to harmonise those frameworks and let organisations, whether they be purely private sector or public sector or NGO, CSO organisations, work across, have some certainty and predictability about how data can flow across the continent and travel. I just want to make a couple of quick comments on some of the great interventions from colleagues. My learned colleague from Sierra Leone, whom I’ve just met and has already impressed me with her policy stance, spoke about the creation of institutions. You asked, Ariane, I just want to link this to the question, you asked about how companies operate. I will say I would love to know more about the kind of institutions being made, because in our experience, sometimes when CODJO is asked to have a call with country X, I’m speaking to this head of an organisation that’s just been created, I’m speaking to the current DG of the regulator, who has been there for some time and the organisation has been there for some time, I’m speaking to the digital development organisation as well, all who understandably believe they have jurisdiction over this growing and important area. And sometimes, not in Sierra Leone, but in some countries, you get a complexity that creates challenges between the institutions themselves and the individual players, as well as for companies both large and small as well. So I do think that people should think carefully about that. I thought Dr Ndemo’s intervention about the lessons learned from Are we telling them that there’s a huge opportunity that they can feed into, that governments can feed into, that commercial companies can feed into to help improve their lives, as Dr. Ndeme said we could have done in the past? Or are we suggesting that big companies like Meta, like Google, like Microsoft, or governments with nefarious purpose, who have nefarious intent or purposes, are going to use AI to, you know, whatever the nefarious purposes may be? And I do think the communication about the promise of AI, the benefits, as well as the risks, need to be really, really thoughtfully approached and delivered to people who will benefit most from it. I hope that answers your question a bit.

Moderator: No, you absolutely did. Thanks very much for that, Kojo. And I just want to emphasize, Kojo talked about the African Union Data Policy Framework. For those of you that are not from Africa, I really urge you to have a look at it. In fact, there are people around this table who helped develop it, and GIZ played a very supportive role. But it’s an African instrument that has been adopted by African states. And it’s a framework that I think very effectively balances the protection of data with the use of data, the making availability, the sharing of data for economic and social and public interest benefits. And then there’s another African instrument. I’m going to let you speak, don’t worry. I know you. There’s something that the African Commission on Human and People’s Rights, a resolution that was passed last year. This is an African body. It developed soft norms, but they’re very powerful norms. And they passed a resolution on access to data and the role that data plays and access to data in realizing the right to access to information. And again, a very powerful, forward-looking, human rights-oriented instrument that again, looks at the use, the protection, the sharing of data. Kojo, you wanted to have a quick response.

Kojo Boakye: I want to be super quick, Ariane. Thank you so much for the additional time. The one other thing I would say about the framework is I believe as a historian of African history, and I’ve spoke about my respect for the panelists, but my heroes include Kwame Nkrumah and many of the kind of post-imperialist or decolonization heroes of our time. I think the framework also offers an opportunity for us to create a harmonized policy framework that is bespoke for Africa. And I say bespoke for Africa because I know data is a global thing, but fits not only our national need, but also our continental need and helps us assume that position. I quickly did a search on Mario Draghi’s report, which I’ve read in full, but I asked Meta.ai, you can also use chat GPT if you want, but I asked Meta.ai, or DeepSeek, whatever you like. I used Meta.ai to ask you what were the main findings of the Mario Draghi report, the Mario Draghi report. And the Mario Draghi report says that, I won’t read it all, but the key thing is Europe has fallen behind its other regions. Lack of investment, no big, a small number of big tech players, no big tech players, I’ll say diplomatically, less diplomatically, many other issues that have happened because of this, in short, over-regulation. Okay, let’s get back to… No, there’s a pushback because…

Moderator: I’m going to push back too.

Kojo Boakye: You can, because there is..

Moderator: We’re not going to talk about European regulation.

Kojo Boakye: No, no, I’m not going to talk about that. I’m talking about the lessons learned from that and the lessons we can take as a continent from that. And for those of you who are interested, go and read the report. It’s not me saying it, it’s one of Europe’s foremost politicians who has said that lessons could be learned, and I would encourage our continent and others to learn

Moderator: from that. I’m teasing Carter, but because he’s from Meta and I think Meta deserves… I’m from Ghana. But that’s true. No, but I think your point about the data policy framework, I think in the context of data flows that are still very extractive, you’re absolutely correct about the power of the data policy framework. Priya, in Research ICT Africa’s experience, you’ve been working with governments in implementing and domesticating the principles in the African Union data policy framework. Can you also work with data and evidence-based policy as a tool? What do you see as the most common critical gaps in implementation? What are governments really struggling with? Is there a multi-stakeholder dimension to this that we might not have touched on enough? So what do you think are the issues that we really need to focus on if we want to utilize the power of data in a rights-oriented and development-oriented way?

Participant 1: Thank you so much, Chair, and thank you for the opportunity to be here today and speak on this panel. I love coming in at this point because I think that people have raised different gaps and challenges already, and this correlates very much with what we are seeing in our work. In our work, we work at the national level, we work at the institutional level, we work at the regional level, and more recently, we have worked as a knowledge partner to the G20 as well. In our work at the moment, data governance has evolved from a standalone concept to how it’s integrated into concepts such as DPI, the extent to which it can be used as a tool for AI transparency and accountability, and more recently, we’ve become a little bit obsessed with the data value chain and participation and agency and inclusion for all of society, including micro, small enterprises as well, in having access to some of those data benefits. So people have spoken about the different gaps and challenges in terms of the fragmented legislation, not necessarily speaking to each other, and this is a global phenomenon as well. It’s a very dynamic field and definitions of data are changing by the day, in fact, and we cannot resolve on a single definition, and even when we speak about the data value chain, it’s so dynamic, it’s moving very, very fast, and in fact, it’s in some ways unfair to us, the policy, to keep up with the pace of innovation. People have spoken about the enforcement mechanisms and weaknesses in the enforcement mechanisms and the regulatory oversight models that we have, and that coherence and alignment in what we speak about now as a data ecosystem, where we realize everyone’s got a role to play, the different government departments, we heard how science, tech and innovation are coming in, we know about how statistics are being called upon to play a role, so that coherence in the data ecosystem as well, and someone raised political will, and as being one of the, and we’ve all had experiences with that, you know, investment and money and being resourced is the one challenge in order to make these kinds of institutional shifts and capacitate the different institutions, but on the other hand, you have to have a real political will and commitment to seeing it through, and of course, we remain with these very structural inequalities, so when we speak as the global south, when we speak from a continental perspective, we entrench that we need meaningful inclusion, and that means that we also need data literacy and digital skills that enable us to participate in the opportunities that we are speaking about. The work that we have been doing is then in that evolution of the data governance framework, so what do we want to see from a regulation perspective, institutional perspective, and I don’t want to box us into an African perspective, because as Anwet mentioned, we have a world-class African Union data policy framework, and it is being consulted on as a novel approach to data governance across the world, and because it introduces novel principles on how we can bring more equity and agency for everyone in the benefits of the data economy, but what are the things we are looking for as we make these shifts? For those who work with us, our partners, you know, we always speak about our situational analysis, where we want to understand the political economy and the kind of infrastructure set up, and where do we stand before we work on data governance. We also look at the rights framework, so we want… We want to know if there’s the right to privacy, right to access information. We also want to know if there’s something that can be interpreted as the right to meaningful connectivity, or the rights to benefit from the data value chain. We try to improve on the adequacy of the privacy frameworks and the access to information frameworks. And more recently, we’ve been placing emphasis on the access to information frameworks. How do we manipulate the proactive disclosures and mandatory disclosures in this, that we start to open up the data and have it available to those that need to use it. We also want to try and improve the adequacy of the enforcement mechanisms by going and having a look at the mandate of the institutions and of the regulators. If we look at the consumer protection regulators, the information regulators, if we look at the ministries, if we look at the institutional mandates to carry out standards building, are the mandates sufficient to really give legitimacy to what they are going to input into the ecosystems? There’s also no point in developing any of these if it doesn’t have legitimacy coming from the institutional mandates. So there’s often a need to change the mandates and to expand those. But what I wanted to place focus here that we haven’t spoken about is to bring the civil society perspective in, which is that in all the work that we are doing, are we really putting emphasis on the user? And whether we’re speaking about DPI, whether we’re speaking about AI, whether we’re speaking about data governance that informs those, are we putting the emphasis on the user? Have we considered their demands? Have we considered their inequalities, their baseline of where they’re coming from? And can we look at these different mechanisms, the laws and the policies and the institutional frameworks, and can we use that as a means of coalescing to build the user’s capacity to participate and draw value? And that, I think, is the most fascinating part of our work at the moment, is how do we build sustainable mechanisms for that data inclusion? It’s something personally that we’re very excited about.

Moderator: And do you feel that’s something we’re not doing enough of right now?

Participant 1: And we’re not doing it. And if I even think about conversations we’re having here, I would challenge us to say, are we putting enough emphasis on that?

Moderator: Thanks. I know the panel want to respond, but we only have 10 minutes left. So before you respond, are there any questions online, Joshua? Are there any questions in the room? If you want to ask a question, go and stand by a microphone. Nothing online. Perfect. Please, you have to be super, super brief. Your name and your question. And make it a question, please. It’s active. You can just speak.

Audience: Okay. So mine is a comment related to Kodjo’s submission. So currently, the African Union Commission, ISD division to be precise, is working with African countries to implement the African Union Data Policy Framework, for which GIZ is supporting. And the aim is harmonization. But there are 54 or some say 55 countries on the continent. And so we should accept that this is not going to be a very easy task. So the harmonization issue is on the agenda. But this is just a call for action for Kodjo and other big tech organizations. What we have realized so far in implementing the African Union Data Policy Framework is that usually, and I know it’s difficult, but big tech in the country processes usually tend to shy away. And they are more interested in platforms like this. And I think where we need to do a bit of work is in the country processes, so that they support with the policy development and the development of the data ecosystem. Thank you.

Moderator: Thanks. And sorry to cut you short, but we have seven minutes left. Please, quickly, and then we’ll take that last point.

Audience: Thank you to the panel and thank you to the moderator for mentioning the African Commission on Human Rights Resolution 620. Please take a look at it, Resolution 620, African Commission on Human and People’s Rights. My name is Guy Berger. I’m convener of the African Alliance for Access to Data that are working with the African Commission to develop guidelines on access to data following Resolution 620. So if you’re interested in the alliance and the work and shaping these guidelines on access to data, public sector data and private sector data, please visit dataalliance.africa. Thank you.

Moderator: Thanks for that, Guy. Please be quick.

Audience: Hello, everyone. I’m Osei Keja from Ghana. My question is many African nations do have data protection laws and largely modeled after the GDPR, yet enforcement capacity has been notoriously weak. What critical strategies or mechanisms can be put in place to make enforcement work? Thank you very much.

Moderator: Thanks very much. And the last question.

Audience: Hi, I’m Amy from Nigeria, and my question is how can we learn from the successes and mistakes from other nations who are currently trying to improve data governance so that we can actually make some successful data governance changes within Africa ourselves?

Moderator: Thanks very much for that. And Kojo, that’s exactly the opening you were looking for earlier. So, panel, we’ve got one minute each left. I think I’d like to bring in – Kojo mentioned earlier AI. I think I’d like you to respond. Think about the questions. Think about what you don’t want to see as we continue on this journey and what you do want to see. And I am going to start over here with Emmanuel Manasseh, and then we’ll move all the way to – and we’re going to finish with the Minister.

Bitange Ndemo: Thank you. I’ll be very clear. What I want to see is to abandon the African Union data protection law and each country. You mean the Malabo? Yes. And if you recall, before we developed this, we had an open government partnership which had actually dealt with a lot of management of resources and transparency. Once we begin to show what data can do, then we can put data regulations in place. Now we have put data regulation before we even know what data will do to the people. At the African level, it’s not doing anything. Nobody is implementing. It can’t be implemented. It’s just something we keep on waving around that we have.

Moderator: Thanks, Bitange. Priya?

Participant 1: In my closing, I’ll respond quickly to some of the comments as well, which is the first is that we do have to continue the support for developing data governance frameworks at the national level and including in the detail of how institutions evolve. The second is I love the civil society coalition with the African alliance coalition because we must develop these standards from that perspective, with those needs in mind, and this complements what could be done at the government levels and at the regional levels. And the third is to respond to the regulatory oversight mechanisms that, one, we can strengthen practically our complaint mechanisms that we have at the regulators, and secondly, we’ve got a lot of traction with regulatory cooperation, so looking at how competition regulators interact with information regulators, and so you’re closing the loop on different gaps and where some of the challenges might be. So that’s my closing shots and a quick response.

Moderator: Thank you, Priya. Wakabi?

Wakabi Wairagala: Thank you. We are working with GIZ to help the East African community come up with a law, a harmonized law on data governance. We’ve been doing a lot of trainings, ETC, and we think that this working at the level of regional economic communities can be one way in which countries can domesticate the African Union data policy framework. There are a lot of problems, different maturity levels, different laws, but harmonization, we think, can happen, especially in areas where there is already an economic community, so it can deepen free flow of videos.

Moderator: Thank you very much, Wakabi. One minute, Kojo.

Kojo Boakye: Quickly responding, closing and quickly responding to comments, Kuku, I think, we’ve met here. Nice to meet you here. Call to action. I would hope we’re already doing that. I think META has one of the larger policy teams, certainly in Africa. Each of the members, I’m proud to say, was born of the region or whose parents were born of the region and come from various backgrounds, government, private sector, civil society. And I think a lot of call for actions, when we receive them, we are responding to. We want to be involved. For META’s benefit and the benefit of the continent and the benefit of users, we want to be involved in contributing to policy and regulatory development. So we’re happy to work on this particular process as well, especially if it lends itself to harmonisation. On Osei’s comment, my friend Osei just gave a comment about enforcement. He asked, how do we enforce better, in short? I think enforcement should take into consideration the aims and what you’re trying to do to improve data governance on behalf of users, as it always should. I think in my personal experience, that should be the primary reason for enforcement. And we should be thinking less about revenue generation, which is the case that some governments, and there’s some excellent governments who aren’t thinking about that at all, but some governments are thinking about it as, in part, revenue generation. And I think we need to be careful of that. And the last thing I’ll say is on learning from others. The lady asked the question, learning from others. Let’s learn from others. I’ve encouraged people to read the Mario Draghi report, which talks of fragmented regulation and over-regulation and the consequences of that. I would encourage us to be even more confident in ourselves about developing policy and regulation. Arionet has spoken to how the world is now looking at the data policy framework. I would encourage us to do that. And talk to each other, is my last point. I know the EPA’s regulators across the region talk to each other, but talk more broadly as well. Talk to India, to Brazil, to other places as well, to think about how they’re doing it. And seek to talk to us as part of a call for action, because I think tech wants to be involved. Sorry to take so long, Arionet.

Moderator: Thanks a lot, Kodjo. Salima?

Salima Monorma Bah: Yes, thank you. Thank you very much. I really, as a closing, as a response, I think the question asked from the participants from Ghana, I think that’s such a critical conversation. And I’ll show you at the very highest level within government, across governments, that’s something we’re discussing, to see how do we really better enforce. I like what you mentioned about fear, and what you mentioned about maybe each country needs to look at what they need in terms of our data protections. Sometimes the harmonization doesn’t really get into effect. I do think the conversation about enforcement could be a separate panel on its own. And I think it’s a separate panel with private sector. Part of that, I know you mentioned some governments, it’s an issue of the revenue, but really, maybe some, but I’ll show you a large part of it is sometimes an issue of, it doesn’t seem as if I can bring them to the table any other way. Especially when you’re dealing with countries of a smaller economic size, and when they go up against big tech, sometimes there’s that gap in me getting what I want. So maybe I’m going to go the most draconian I can. So I think this is where big tech really needs to come to the table to see how do we do that. So you see actually a lot of the movements going towards the GDPR, because it seems as if it’s the best example of continents outside of the Americas who’s been able to get effective hold of how this is managed. So maybe, I think that’s a separate panel of itself, because you can dive into causations, and how, and different models, and how we get there. But I do think for the continent’s sake, as a closing, I think for the continent’s sake, for the private sector’s sake, and for the citizens’ sake, I think this is a really critical conversation that needs to happen as soon as possible.

Moderator: Thanks very much. We’re out of time, but I don’t think I need to make closing remarks either. So thanks for this fantastic panel. Thanks to the team that organized it. And I think to everyone, I work in data governance in many parts of the world. I think Africa is the place to follow. Join us. Invest in our journey. Partner in our journey. And thank you so much for coming to the session. And a quick thanks to the online participants. I know you didn’t speak, but we saw you. So you were visible. You were in the room with us. Thank you. Thank you.

Agreement points

Political will and strategic prioritization are essential for effective data governance implementation

Speakers

– Salima Monorma Bah
– Participant 1

Arguments

Strategic prioritization with political buy-in from the highest levels of government is essential for effective implementation

Evidence-based policy making using data as a tool is crucial for effective governance frameworks

Summary

Both speakers emphasize that successful data governance requires strong political commitment and strategic approach at the highest levels of government, combined with evidence-based policy making

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

The African Union Data Policy Framework represents a world-class approach that should be leveraged for harmonization

Speakers

– Kojo Boakye
– Participant 1
– Moderator

Arguments

The African Union data policy framework offers opportunities for harmonization while allowing countries to address national priorities

The African Union Data Policy Framework represents a world-class approach being consulted globally for its novel equity principles

African data governance instruments represent world-class, forward-looking frameworks that balance protection with utilization

Summary

All three speakers recognize the AU Data Policy Framework as an exceptional instrument that balances protection with utilization and offers opportunities for continental harmonization while being consulted globally

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Enforcement mechanisms remain weak and need strengthening across African data governance systems

Speakers

– Wakabi Wairagala
– Participant 1
– Audience

Arguments

Independent arbiters and remedial mechanisms are necessary to mediate, issue guidance, and enforce penalties for data rights violations

Regulatory cooperation between different types of regulators can help close gaps in enforcement mechanisms

Enforcement capacity remains notoriously weak despite existing data protection laws modeled after GDPR

Summary

There is consensus that current enforcement mechanisms are inadequate and require strengthening through independent arbiters, regulatory cooperation, and improved capacity

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

User-centered approaches and meaningful participation are crucial for effective data governance

Speakers

– Wakabi Wairagala
– Participant 1

Arguments

Meaningful spaces for citizen participation and awareness-building about data rights are essential components

Current data governance frameworks insufficiently emphasize the user perspective and their demands and inequalities

Summary

Both speakers emphasize the need for genuine citizen participation and user-centered approaches in data governance, noting current frameworks don’t adequately address user perspectives and needs

Topics

Human rights | Development

Similar viewpoints

Both acknowledge the power imbalance between smaller countries and big tech companies, with the Minister explaining why countries resort to draconian measures and Kojo advocating for user-focused rather than revenue-focused enforcement

Speakers

– Salima Monorma Bah
– Kojo Boakye

Arguments

Smaller countries face challenges in enforcing regulations against large tech companies, leading to more draconian approaches

Enforcement should focus on improving data governance for users rather than revenue generation

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Economic

Both emphasize the importance of protecting vulnerable populations and ensuring equitable access to data governance benefits through specific protections and capacity building

Speakers

– Wakabi Wairagala
– Participant 1

Arguments

Data rights of minorities and marginalized groups must be specifically protected and upheld

Data literacy and digital skills are necessary for meaningful participation in data economy opportunities

Topics

Human rights | Development

Both stress that digital literacy and capacity building are foundational requirements for people to effectively participate in and benefit from data governance systems

Speakers

– Bitange Ndemo
– Participant 1

Arguments

Digital literacy and capacity building are fundamental prerequisites for maximizing technology use and better data management

Data literacy and digital skills are necessary for meaningful participation in data economy opportunities

Topics

Development | Sociocultural

Unexpected consensus

Criticism of current African Union data protection implementation approach

Speakers

– Bitange Ndemo
– Audience

Arguments

The current African Union data protection approach should be reconsidered as it’s not being effectively implemented

Harmonization across 54-55 African countries is challenging but necessary for continental data governance

Explanation

Despite general praise for the AU framework from other speakers, there’s unexpected consensus that the current implementation approach faces significant challenges, with Ambassador Ndemo calling for abandoning the current approach and audience members acknowledging the difficulty of harmonization across 54-55 countries

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Big tech companies should be more actively involved in country-level policy processes

Speakers

– Kojo Boakye
– Audience

Arguments

Institutional complexity creates challenges when multiple organizations claim jurisdiction over data governance

Harmonization across 54-55 African countries is challenging but necessary for continental data governance

Explanation

Unexpectedly, both the Meta representative and audience members agree that big tech companies need to be more engaged in country-level policy development processes, with Kojo acknowledging the complexity companies face and audience calling for more active participation beyond platform discussions

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Overall assessment

Summary

The speakers demonstrate strong consensus on several key areas: the importance of political will and strategic prioritization, the value of the AU Data Policy Framework as a world-class instrument, the need to strengthen enforcement mechanisms, and the importance of user-centered approaches. There’s also agreement on the challenges faced by smaller countries in dealing with big tech companies and the need for capacity building and digital literacy.

Consensus level

High level of consensus with constructive disagreement on implementation approaches. The consensus suggests a mature understanding of data governance challenges in Africa and points toward collaborative solutions that balance protection with innovation, emphasize user rights, and leverage African-developed frameworks. The disagreements are primarily about implementation strategies rather than fundamental principles, indicating a solid foundation for moving forward with continental data governance initiatives.

Different viewpoints

Effectiveness and Implementation of African Union Data Policy Framework

Speakers

– Bitange Ndemo
– Kojo Boakye
– Participant 1

Arguments

The current African Union data protection approach should be reconsidered as it’s not being effectively implemented

The African Union data policy framework offers opportunities for harmonization while allowing countries to address national priorities

The African Union Data Policy Framework represents a world-class approach being consulted globally for its novel equity principles

Summary

Bitange Ndemo argues for abandoning the AU data protection framework as it cannot be implemented and is merely symbolic, while Kojo Boakye sees it as offering harmonization opportunities, and Participant 1 views it as a world-class framework being consulted globally for its innovative approach to equity.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Approach to Data Regulation Timing and Implementation

Speakers

– Bitange Ndemo
– Salima Monorma Bah

Arguments

The current African Union data protection approach should be reconsidered as it’s not being effectively implemented

Moving from policy to practice requires understanding both the economic value of data and data sovereignty issues

Summary

Bitange argues that data regulations were put in place before understanding what data could do for people and advocates showing data benefits before implementing regulations, while Minister Bah emphasizes the importance of understanding both economic value and sovereignty issues as foundations for effective policy implementation.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development | Economic

Enforcement Approach and Revenue Generation

Speakers

– Kojo Boakye
– Salima Monorma Bah

Arguments

Enforcement should focus on improving data governance for users rather than revenue generation

Smaller countries face challenges in enforcing regulations against large tech companies, leading to more draconian approaches

Summary

Kojo warns against enforcement motivated by revenue generation and advocates for user-focused enforcement, while Minister Bah explains that smaller countries sometimes resort to draconian approaches because of power imbalances with big tech companies, suggesting enforcement challenges are more complex than revenue motivation alone.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Economic

Unexpected differences

Fundamental Value of African Union Data Policy Framework

Speakers

– Bitange Ndemo
– Participant 1
– Moderator

Arguments

The current African Union data protection approach should be reconsidered as it’s not being effectively implemented

The African Union Data Policy Framework represents a world-class approach being consulted globally for its novel equity principles

African data governance instruments represent world-class, forward-looking frameworks that balance protection with utilization

Explanation

This disagreement is unexpected because Bitange Ndemo, as a former Kenyan government official and current Ambassador, takes a surprisingly critical stance against a major African continental framework, while other panelists and the moderator celebrate it as innovative and world-class. This suggests significant divergence in how African policy leaders view continental integration efforts in data governance.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Overall assessment

Summary

The main areas of disagreement center on the effectiveness and implementation approach of continental frameworks, the timing and sequencing of data regulation versus demonstrating data benefits, and the motivations behind enforcement mechanisms. There are also partial agreements on harmonization pathways and citizen participation approaches.

Disagreement level

Moderate disagreement with significant implications. The disagreements reveal fundamental tensions between continental integration approaches versus national/regional approaches, between regulation-first versus benefits-first strategies, and between different perspectives on enforcement challenges. These disagreements could impact the coherence and effectiveness of Africa’s data governance development, particularly regarding whether to strengthen existing continental frameworks or pursue alternative approaches.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both acknowledge the power imbalance between smaller countries and big tech companies, with the Minister explaining why countries resort to draconian measures and Kojo advocating for user-focused rather than revenue-focused enforcement

Speakers

– Salima Monorma Bah
– Kojo Boakye

Arguments

Smaller countries face challenges in enforcing regulations against large tech companies, leading to more draconian approaches

Enforcement should focus on improving data governance for users rather than revenue generation

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Economic

Both emphasize the importance of protecting vulnerable populations and ensuring equitable access to data governance benefits through specific protections and capacity building

Speakers

– Wakabi Wairagala
– Participant 1

Arguments

Data rights of minorities and marginalized groups must be specifically protected and upheld

Data literacy and digital skills are necessary for meaningful participation in data economy opportunities

Topics

Human rights | Development

Both stress that digital literacy and capacity building are foundational requirements for people to effectively participate in and benefit from data governance systems

Speakers

– Bitange Ndemo
– Participant 1

Arguments

Digital literacy and capacity building are fundamental prerequisites for maximizing technology use and better data management

Data literacy and digital skills are necessary for meaningful participation in data economy opportunities

Topics

Development | Sociocultural

Key takeaways

Strategic political buy-in from the highest government levels is essential for successful data governance implementation, moving beyond policy to practice

Africa has developed 13 national data protection laws but lacks harmonization between countries, creating challenges for cross-border operations

The African Union Data Policy Framework is recognized as a world-class instrument that balances data protection with economic use and is being consulted globally

Current data governance frameworks insufficiently emphasize user perspectives and needs, requiring more focus on data inclusion and citizen participation

Enforcement mechanisms remain weak across African countries despite existing legal frameworks, with smaller nations struggling against large tech companies

Rights-based data governance must protect privacy and access to information while ensuring special protection for marginalized groups

Digital literacy and capacity building are fundamental prerequisites for effective data governance and citizen participation

Regional economic communities can serve as effective platforms for harmonizing data governance approaches across member states

Resolutions and action items

Call for big tech organizations to actively participate in country-level policy development processes rather than only engaging in international forums

Invitation to join the African Alliance for Access to Data and contribute to developing guidelines following African Commission Resolution 620

Recommendation for regulatory cooperation between different types of regulators (competition, information, consumer protection) to close enforcement gaps

Suggestion for African countries to learn from other regions’ experiences, including studying reports like the Mario Draghi report on regulatory approaches

Proposal for a separate dedicated panel discussion specifically focused on enforcement mechanisms and strategies

Unresolved issues

How to effectively enforce data protection laws given the current weak enforcement capacity across African countries

Whether the African Union data protection framework should be abandoned in favor of country-specific approaches or strengthened for better implementation

How to balance revenue generation motives with user protection objectives in data governance enforcement

How to achieve meaningful harmonization across 54-55 African countries with different maturity levels and legal frameworks

How to ensure big tech companies engage constructively in policy development without resorting to ‘draconian’ regulatory approaches

How to build sustainable mechanisms for data inclusion that address structural inequalities and ensure meaningful citizen participation

Suggested compromises

Balancing data protection with innovation needs by applying data protection principles while allowing beneficial data use for public interest

Using regional economic communities as intermediate platforms for harmonization rather than attempting continent-wide harmonization immediately

Focusing enforcement efforts on improving data governance for users rather than primarily on revenue generation

Developing bespoke African solutions that learn from global experiences while addressing specific continental needs and contexts

Creating meaningful spaces for multi-stakeholder engagement that includes government, private sector, and civil society perspectives

I think it went from something that was an afterthought, I think, for a lot of African governments to now, I think, being just a central piece to what we’re trying to do… But then also, I think the other reality is the economic value when it comes to data as well.

Speaker

Salima Monorma Bah

Reason

This comment reframes data governance from a compliance burden to a strategic economic opportunity, highlighting the evolution in African governments’ thinking about data as an asset rather than just a regulatory concern.

Impact

This set the tone for the entire discussion by establishing that African governments now view data governance as central to economic development, moving the conversation beyond just privacy protection to economic empowerment and sovereignty.

What I’m probably seeing less of is harmonisation between those national policies… some level of harmonisation is needed… the AU data policy framework offers a huge opportunity not only for governments to continue creating legislation that speaks to their national priorities… but also creates opportunities to harmonise those frameworks

Speaker

Kojo Boakye

Reason

This identifies a critical gap between having individual national laws and creating a coherent continental framework, highlighting the tension between national sovereignty and regional integration in data governance.

Impact

This comment shifted the discussion from national-level implementation challenges to continental-level coordination, introducing the complexity of balancing local needs with regional harmonization and setting up later discussions about the AU Data Policy Framework.

Are we telling them that there’s a huge opportunity that they can feed into… Or are we suggesting that big companies like Meta, like Google, like Microsoft, or governments with nefarious purpose… are going to use AI to… whatever the nefarious purposes may be? And I do think the communication about the promise of AI, the benefits, as well as the risks, need to be really, really thoughtfully approached

Speaker

Kojo Boakye

Reason

This comment challenges the panel to consider how data governance narratives are communicated to citizens, questioning whether current approaches emphasize fear over opportunity and highlighting the importance of balanced messaging.

Impact

This introduced a meta-level discussion about communication strategies and public perception, adding a dimension about how data governance policies are presented to and understood by citizens, which influenced later discussions about data literacy and inclusion.

In all the work that we are doing, are we really putting emphasis on the user? And whether we’re speaking about DPI, whether we’re speaking about AI, whether we’re speaking about data governance that informs those, are we putting the emphasis on the user?… And that, I think, is the most fascinating part of our work at the moment, is how do we build sustainable mechanisms for that data inclusion?

Speaker

Participant 1 (Priya)

Reason

This comment fundamentally challenges the panel to recenter the discussion on end users rather than institutional frameworks, questioning whether current approaches adequately consider citizen needs and capabilities.

Impact

This was a pivotal moment that shifted the conversation from institutional and regulatory perspectives to user-centered design, prompting the moderator to directly ask if this emphasis is lacking and influencing subsequent discussions about enforcement and implementation.

What I want to see is to abandon the African Union data protection law and each country… Once we begin to show what data can do, then we can put data regulations in place. Now we have put data regulation before we even know what data will do to the people.

Speaker

Bitange Ndemo

Reason

This is a provocative challenge to the entire premise of current data governance approaches, arguing for a complete reversal of the typical regulatory sequence – suggesting demonstration of value should precede regulation rather than follow it.

Impact

This comment created a significant tension in the discussion, directly challenging the work that other panelists had been describing and advocating for a fundamentally different approach. It forced other participants to defend their positions and highlighted the ongoing debate about the optimal timing and sequencing of data governance frameworks.

I quickly did a search on Mario Draghi’s report… Europe has fallen behind its other regions… over-regulation… I would encourage our continent and others to learn from that… lessons could be learned

Speaker

Kojo Boakye

Reason

This comment introduces a controversial comparative analysis, using Europe’s experience as a cautionary tale about over-regulation stifling innovation, which directly challenges approaches that prioritize strong regulatory frameworks.

Impact

This created immediate pushback from the moderator and added tension to the discussion by suggesting that strong data protection frameworks might hinder rather than help African development, forcing the panel to grapple with the balance between protection and innovation.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shaped the discussion by introducing several productive tensions: between national sovereignty and continental harmonization, between regulatory protection and economic opportunity, between institutional frameworks and user-centered approaches, and between precautionary regulation and innovation-first policies. The most impactful comments challenged participants to move beyond their initial positions and consider alternative perspectives, particularly around the sequencing of regulation versus demonstration of value, the importance of user-centered design, and the communication of data governance benefits versus risks. The discussion evolved from a relatively consensus-oriented conversation about implementation challenges to a more nuanced debate about fundamental approaches to data governance, with the provocative comments from Ndemo and Boakye forcing other participants to articulate and defend their positions more clearly. This created a richer, more complex dialogue that better reflected the real tensions and choices facing African policymakers in data governance.

How can enforcement mechanisms for data protection laws be strengthened, particularly given the notoriously weak enforcement capacity in many African nations despite having GDPR-modeled laws?

Speaker

Osei Keja from Ghana

Explanation

This addresses a critical gap between policy development and implementation, where laws exist but lack effective enforcement mechanisms

How can Africa learn from the successes and mistakes of other nations currently improving data governance to make successful changes within Africa?

Speaker

Amy from Nigeria

Explanation

This seeks to identify best practices and lessons learned from global experiences that could be adapted for African contexts

How can big tech organizations be better engaged in country-level policy development processes rather than just participating in high-level platforms?

Speaker

Audience member from African Union Commission

Explanation

This highlights the need for more direct involvement of technology companies in national policy development to support harmonization efforts

What does meaningful rights-based data governance look like in practice, particularly as data governance evolves beyond just privacy protection to encompass different types of data?

Speaker

Moderator Anriet Esterhuisen

Explanation

This explores the practical implementation of rights-based approaches in an increasingly complex data governance landscape

How can data literacy and awareness of data rights be improved among citizens who may not understand their data rights or how to exercise them?

Speaker

Wakabi Wairagala

Explanation

This addresses the fundamental challenge of ensuring citizens can meaningfully participate in data governance frameworks

How can sustainable mechanisms for data inclusion be built to ensure users can participate in and draw value from the data economy?

Speaker

Priyad Chetty

Explanation

This focuses on creating lasting systems that enable broader participation in data benefits rather than just protection

Should the focus shift from implementing data protection laws to first demonstrating what data can do for people before putting regulations in place?

Speaker

Ambassador Bitange Ndemo

Explanation

This challenges the current approach of regulation-first and suggests a benefits-first approach to build understanding and support

How can enforcement be designed to focus on improving data governance for users rather than revenue generation for governments?

Speaker

Kojo Boakye

Explanation

This addresses concerns about enforcement mechanisms being driven by financial rather than protective motives

How can smaller economies effectively engage with big tech companies without resorting to overly restrictive measures?

Speaker

Minister Salima Monorma Bah

Explanation

This explores the power imbalance between smaller African nations and large technology companies in policy negotiations

Summary

This discussion focused on the evolution and future of Internet governance in Latin America and the Caribbean, marking the 20th anniversary of the Global Internet Governance Forum (IGF). The session was structured in two rounds, with the first examining the historical development of multi-stakeholder governance in the region and the second exploring future challenges and opportunities.

Participants highlighted significant regional achievements over the past two decades, including the establishment of LACNIC, the Latin American and Caribbean IGF, and the Caribbean IGF among the world’s first regional forums. Speakers emphasized that the region has demonstrated strong capacity for multi-stakeholder dialogue and collaboration, with successful examples like Brazil’s Internet Management Committee serving as models for inclusive governance. However, panelists acknowledged persistent challenges, noting that current multi-stakeholder processes often lack broad participation from all sectors and sometimes fail to reach meaningful conclusions.

The discussion revealed concerns about the fragility of democratic dialogue in an increasingly polarized world, with speakers calling for more efficient mechanisms that move beyond mere discussion to concrete cooperation and action. Participants stressed the importance of addressing regional inequalities, digital gaps, and human rights protection in digital environments. The role of civil society was highlighted as crucial, though speakers noted growing pressures on these organizations through funding constraints and political challenges.

Looking toward the future, panelists emphasized the need to strengthen regional coordination, develop shared digital infrastructure, and ensure meaningful participation in global governance processes like the WSIS+20 review. The session concluded with calls for continued capacity building, better integration of diverse stakeholders, and protection of the multi-stakeholder model against emerging threats to democratic participation in Internet governance.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **20-Year Evolution of Multi-stakeholder Internet Governance in Latin America and Caribbean**: Speakers reflected on the region’s pioneering role in multi-stakeholder governance, including early adoption of IGF models, creation of LACNIC, and successful regional collaboration, while acknowledging that dialogue processes sometimes fail to reach concrete conclusions.

– **Current Challenges to the Multi-stakeholder Model**: Participants identified significant threats including rising authoritarianism, democratic setbacks, monopolization by large tech companies, fragmentation of governance spaces, and difficulties for civil society organizations to participate meaningfully in increasingly complex and numerous governance processes.

– **Need for Enhanced Regional Cooperation and Concrete Action**: Speakers emphasized moving beyond dialogue to collaborative projects, developing regional digital infrastructure, coordinating responses to AI and cybersecurity challenges, and creating mechanisms that address the specific needs and inequalities of Latin American and Caribbean communities.

– **WSIS+20 Review Process and Future Governance**: Discussion focused on the importance of the World Summit on Information Society review process, integration of the Global Digital Compact, and ensuring that established multi-stakeholder principles from NetMundial and São Paulo guidelines are maintained and strengthened rather than diluted.

– **Urgent Issues Requiring Regional Attention**: Participants highlighted immediate concerns including internet shutdowns during protests (specifically in Panama), funding crises for civil society organizations, the need for differentiated approaches to global challenges, and the importance of training new generations of governance participants.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to commemorate 20 years of the Internet Governance Forum while critically assessing the current state and future of multi-stakeholder internet governance in Latin America and the Caribbean. The session sought to identify regional achievements, persistent challenges, and strategies for strengthening collaborative governance models in an increasingly complex digital landscape.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a constructive yet sobering tone throughout. It began with celebratory recognition of regional achievements and pioneering efforts in multi-stakeholder governance, but gradually shifted to express serious concerns about current threats to the model. The tone became more urgent when addressing immediate challenges like civil society funding crises and internet shutdowns, while maintaining an underlying commitment to collaborative solutions and regional solidarity. Despite acknowledging significant obstacles, participants remained cautiously optimistic about the region’s capacity for continued cooperation and innovation in internet governance.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Moderator** – Session moderator for the first round of discussions

– **Raul Echeverría** – Executive Director of ALAI (Latin American Internet Association)

– **Ernesto Majo** – Executive Director of LACNIC (Latin American and Caribbean Internet Addresses Registry)

– **Veronica Ferrari** – Coordinator of Policies and Global Incidence at APC (Association for Progressive Communications)

– **Nigel Cassimire** – Telecommunications Specialist at Caribbean Telecommunications Union

– **Rocío de la Fuente** – Session moderator for the second round of discussions

– **Carolina Aguerre** – Doctor and expert in global governance and internet policies, Associate Professor at Universidad Católica del Uruguay

– **Renata Mielli** – Coordinator of the Internet Management Committee in Brazil (CGIBR), Special Advisor to the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation in Brazil

– **Paloma Lara Castro** – Director of Public Policies at Digital Rights

– **Olga Cavalli** – Dean of the Faculty of Defense (Ministry of Defense of Argentina)

– **Erick Iriarte** – Tribunal of Ethics of the Peruvian Press Council in Peru

– **Participants** – Multiple unidentified participants who made various interventions

**Additional speakers:**

– **Iria Puyolza** – From the Atlantic Council Democracy and Tech Initiative

– **Lilian Chamorro** – Secretary of the AQGF (Latin American and Caribbean IGF)

– **Cristian Robles** – From IPANDETEC, organization working for digital rights in Central America and the Caribbean

– **Gabriel Adonailo** – From LaQX (Association of Internet Exchange Points of Latin America and the Caribbean)

# Report: 20 Years of Internet Governance in Latin America and the Caribbean – Evolution, Challenges, and Future Directions

## Executive Summary

This discussion examined the evolution of Internet governance in Latin America and the Caribbean, marking the 20th anniversary of the Global Internet Governance Forum (IGF). The session brought together regional experts, policymakers, and civil society representatives to assess two decades of multi-stakeholder governance achievements while addressing current challenges facing collaborative governance models.

The discussion was structured in two 30-minute segments: the first examining historical development and successes of multi-stakeholder governance in the region, and the second exploring contemporary challenges and future opportunities. Participants celebrated the region’s pioneering role in multi-stakeholder governance while acknowledging concerns about current limitations and emerging threats to democratic participation in Internet governance processes.

## Historical Achievements and Regional Leadership

### Pioneering Multi-stakeholder Models

**Raul Echeverría**, Executive Director of ALAI, emphasized the region’s early success in multi-stakeholder work, highlighting the collaborative creation of LACNIC as an example of community-driven governance. He noted that LACNIC is celebrating its 30th anniversary, demonstrating the longevity of successful regional initiatives.

**Ernesto Majo**, Executive Director of LACNIC, detailed how LACNIC emerged organically from community processes and has maintained its collaborative approach. He emphasized that this success stemmed from genuine community engagement rather than imposed structures.

**Nigel Cassimire**, Telecommunications Specialist at the Caribbean Telecommunications Union, noted that the Caribbean IGF began in 2005, predating the global IGF by one year. This early adoption created policy frameworks that subsequently spawned national IGFs throughout the Caribbean. He mentioned the Caribbean Internet Governance Policy Framework document, now in its fourth edition, and announced the upcoming 21st Caribbean IGF in Varadero, Cuba, from August 20-22.

### Institutional Successes and Capacity Building

**Olga Cavalli**, Dean of the Faculty of Defence at Argentina’s Ministry of Defence, highlighted successful training programs, including the 17th edition of the School of Southern Internet Governance in Mexico with 400 students. She also mentioned the creation of new careers in cyber defense at Argentina’s Faculty of Defense, demonstrating institutional commitment to developing governance expertise.

**Renata Mielli**, Coordinator of CGIBR and Special Advisor to Brazil’s Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation, highlighted Brazil’s Internet Management Committee (CGIBR) as a model for inclusive governance that has successfully integrated multiple stakeholders while maintaining effectiveness in policy development.

## Contemporary Challenges

### Declining Effectiveness and Participation

**Raul Echeverría** provided a critical assessment of current conditions, noting that “we live in a world where peace is a little undervalued, and international cooperation does not go through its best moment.” He criticized what he termed “a misuse of energy, or a waste of energy, that is too big and gigantic” in political discussions that fail to reach meaningful conclusions.

**Erick Iriarte** from Peru’s Press Council Tribunal of Ethics argued that the Internet governance community has become somewhat insular, stating: “We have evangelised ourselves so well that we have believed the story of what we did.” He noted that other actors with more resources are now successfully lobbying for different approaches while traditional Internet governance advocates are losing influence.

### Threats to Civil Society Participation

**Iria Puyolza** from the Atlantic Council Democracy and Tech Initiative raised concerns about threats to civil society organisations, which she identified as “an indispensable engine” for the multi-stakeholder model. She highlighted that these organisations face financing challenges for sustainability and significant pressure towards state-centric governance models.

**Paloma Lara Castro**, Director of Public Policies at Digital Rights, reinforced these concerns by highlighting the rise of authoritarianism and democratic setbacks that threaten civil society participation. She emphasized that civil society participation is essential as a fundamental human right necessary for addressing real situations affecting communities.

### Structural Challenges

**Renata Mielli** identified the proliferation of governance forums and processes as creating participation challenges. She noted the difficulty of ensuring effective participation of Global South countries and civil society in multiplying governance processes across different agencies and topics.

**Veronica Ferrari**, Coordinator of Policies and Global Incidence at APC, emphasized that regional discussions must address historical inequalities and digital gaps through human rights-focused approaches. She mentioned specific work on cybersecurity and cybercrime legislation analysis, and referenced the 2014 hearing on human rights on the Internet at the Inter-American Commission.

## Future Directions and Adaptations

### Moving Beyond Traditional Approaches

**Carolina Aguerre**, Associate Professor at Universidad Católica del Uruguay, participated remotely and expressed regret about not being present in person. She argued for the need to move beyond dialogue-focused approaches to concrete cooperation projects, including regional infrastructure development. She emphasized that “we cannot continue walking or tracing the same lines of action and the same discourses when this world has changed, when the Internet has changed.”

### Expanding Governance Scope

**Renata Mielli** advocated for broadening the focus from traditional Internet governance to comprehensive digital governance and policies, encompassing emerging challenges such as artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, data protection, and broader digital rights issues.

### Regional Cooperation

**Gabriel Adonailo** from LaQX highlighted successful regional connectivity improvements through collaborative agreements between organisations, demonstrating the potential for concrete cooperative projects. The discussion included consideration of regional infrastructure development, including supercomputer capacities for artificial intelligence applications.

## Global Governance Processes

### WSIS+20 Review and Global Digital Compact

Multiple speakers addressed the World Summit on Information Society (WSIS) +20 review process and the Global Digital Compact as critical opportunities to strengthen multi-stakeholder principles.

**Veronica Ferrari** emphasized that NetMundial principles should guide governance processes toward more inclusive and transparent approaches. She referenced the NetMundial+10 event and São Paulo Multi-stakeholder Guidelines as important reference points.

**Renata Mielli** focused on the importance of integrating the Global Digital Compact within the WSIS framework to avoid duplication and ensure meaningful participation.

**Paloma Lara Castro** warned against the risk of lowering standards in global commitments while real problems require stronger responses.

## Urgent Issues

### Internet Shutdowns and Human Rights

**Cristian Robles** from IPANDETEC, working on digital rights in Central America and the Caribbean, highlighted the urgent situation in Panama, where the government had implemented Internet shutdowns in Bocas del Toro province during protests. He called for community support to oppose these actions.

### Institutional Sustainability

**Lilian Chamorro**, Secretary of the LACIGF, highlighted the mandate in new statutes to strengthen intersessional work groups and year-round coordination beyond annual forums, requesting community contributions on implementation.

## Key Areas of Agreement

Participants generally agreed on several fundamental points:

– The region’s historical leadership in multi-stakeholder governance development

– The importance of capacity building and training programs for developing governance expertise

– Current governance processes face significant challenges in ensuring meaningful participation from all stakeholders

– The need for sustainable financing and support for civil society organizations

– The importance of addressing regional inequalities and digital gaps

## Conclusion

The discussion revealed a regional community capable of honest self-assessment while maintaining commitment to multi-stakeholder principles. Participants celebrated significant historical achievements in developing collaborative governance models while acknowledging serious current challenges including declining participation, threats to civil society, and the need for adaptation to changing global circumstances.

The path forward requires balancing continuity of successful principles with adaptation to new challenges, strengthening regional cooperation while maintaining global engagement, and protecting democratic space for civil society participation while addressing resource and political constraints. The region’s demonstrated capacity for innovation and collaboration in Internet governance provides a foundation for meeting these challenges, though success will require sustained commitment and strategic adaptation to evolving contexts.

Moderator: Thank you, Rocio. Thank you all. We are going to start the ICF Lab Space session. of our region, we meet in the framework of the Global IGF to share initiatives and reflections around Internet Governance. This year, in particular, the session will have an hour long, as Rocío explained, with two rounds of 30 minutes, where they will participate in each of the organizations that represent all sectors and that will address the evolution and the future of Internet Governance with a view of Latin America and the Caribbean. In addition, we will have a space for comments and interventions in which the other participants will be able to make their comments. Regarding the dynamics, each organization will have four minutes to make their intervention and, well, I will be moderating this first round and then Rocío will follow up. At the 20th anniversary of the Global IGF, where both the Internet Governance Forum and the consolidation of the multi-stakeholder model originated, we have a key opportunity to reflect on the achievements, on the persistent challenges and, mainly, on the importance of continuing to strengthen an inclusive, open and collaborative approach in Internet Governance. In this sense, then, this first round will address the history and the evolution of Internet Governance and I will start by giving the floor to Raúl Echeverría, Executive Director of ALAI. Welcome, Raúl.

Raul Echeverría: It is different in each room. Okay, well, then it is in Spanish. Thank you. Well, in four minutes, how can we make some interesting comments. I think our region has a good record in multistakeholder work and successful experiences. The very creation of LACNIC, of which I was part, was an experience of a work of the community in an integrated way, the work of the Internet Management Committee of Brazil. We have in the region the LAC IGF and the IGF of the Caribbean, which are among the oldest in the world. We were among the first to adopt this mode of work. This speaks well of our capacities and the opportunity for dialogue that we have. Today we are celebrating the 20th edition of this event, of the IGF, and I think it is a good opportunity to see where we are and how we project ourselves into the future. We are clearly living in a tumultuous world. When one speaks of dialogue, multistakeholder dialogue, generally dialogue is associated with situations of peace, of concord, of understanding. We live in a world where peace is a little undervalued, and international cooperation does not go through its best moment. So, although it is a very big challenge for our region, which is a region that is mostly peaceful and democratic, it is a great opportunity to show how we can continue working in this way. But it does not mean that it is all pink, because in fact in Latin America we need to work much better. Some of the processes, such as the IGF, are processes that do not have the strong participation of all the actors. It is necessary to bring more people to these dialogues, but also in the development of more daily policies. It is important to generate the participation of all the actors from the very beginning of the dialogues. It is becoming more and more important. It was never so clear that wisdom and experience are so highly distributed. And if we do not involve all the actors from the beginning in the political discussions, we become very inefficient. And this is what is happening in Latin America, where we have a misuse of energy, or a waste of energy, that is too big and gigantic, I would say, in political discussions that do not even reach a conclusion. We cannot even say that we agree or disagree. Generally, they do not reach anything. So, well, it is a good time to value what we have, to value our capacities, the favorable environment that the region gives us, for our culture, the democratic culture, a majority pacific society, and to base ourselves on that, to look for more efficient ways of dialogue that allow us to go through these moments of change in the world in a successful way. Thank you.

Moderator: Perfect, Raúl. You were excellent in the four minutes that were left. Thank you for the intervention. Can we continue talking? Yes. We will give you back the minute later. Well, let’s continue then. I give the floor to Ernesto Majó, Executive Director of LACNIC.

Ernesto Majo: Hello, good afternoon. Well, taking a little bit of the challenge that they pose to us, to tell a little bit of the story, and reflect on it from that story. I’m going to get this out of me, listening to myself, it’s scary. For us, well, now it’s my turn to represent LACNIC. The truth is that it’s an honor, and in that sense, LACNIC, when it emerged, the World Cup of Social Information, it was a young organization, it was barely a few years old. So it was very natural for us to get involved in those processes and to get involved in that process. in the process of discussion of Internet governance. I say natural, I don’t say easy. Indeed, in those times there were very strong, very extreme discussions where it was difficult to bring the parties together and in that sense ACNIC, as an actor, had a very important role, in this case personalized by Raúl, who was leading those issues at that time. As an example of an organization that, in short, lives and communicates with the construction of agreements, with the collaboration, ACNIC is an entity that arises from a community process, where the community of operators and different entities from different countries with different characteristics promote the construction of an organization to provide services for their region. And in this way we have also continued collaborating and articulating with various actors, trying to build mechanisms of collaboration, articulation and discussion on issues that are relevant to the region in what has to do with Internet governance. Raúl already mentioned it, it is an example of that, it is an example, again, it does not mean that it is a good example, it is an example of a tool that we build, that we defend and work for a long time, but that also has its challenges and needs to be updated. The times we live are very different from those we lived 20 years ago, the themes and priorities are also different and I think that is precisely what has to make us think and help us to see in what way this instrument, so favorable or so fabulous that we have, the multiparty dialogue, the construction of dialogues and consensus on the issues of Internet governance, are still valid and are still alive. How do we, in these new times, with the challenges we live as societies, as a society as a whole, building the dialogue and developing points of agreement to support the development of the Internet for the benefit of humanity. So, from that point of view, I think that the work has to be in that, in identifying those things that we have to improve, how we make the dialogues more balanced, that the actors are present because they understand that they contribute and that they enrich themselves in that process, and not that eventually they become a process of deaf dialogue where some say something and others make us listen. So, I think that’s the challenge. The challenge is, I wouldn’t say re-founding, but at least re-defining and re-working and re-enhancing the multiparty dialogue mechanism and the search for consensus.

Moderator: Thank you very much, Ernesto. We will now give the floor to Veronica Ferrari, Coordinator of Policies and Global Incidence at APC.

Veronica Ferrari: Hello, can you hear me well? Well, I’m going to imitate my colleague in the panel, and I’m not going to listen to myself. Well, thank you very much for the invitation. My name is Veronica Ferrari, I work at APC for those people who don’t know much about APC. We are an organization of civil society, and we are also a network of organizations and activists working on issues of human rights, environmental justice, social justice, gender and technology. APC works very actively in governance processes, both globally and in the different regions, in close collaboration with our members, which are organizations mainly in the global south. In relation to the question of the panel, as a first point, to take into account the discussions of governance in Latin America, they are marked by certain peculiarities of the region, such as, for example, historical inequalities in social, cultural, economic matters, and linked to that, with digital gaps that exist between the countries, within the countries, between urban areas, between rural areas, there are gender gaps, there are gaps in terms of skills, and another characteristic that I wanted to mention, and on which I am going to articulate the points that I wanted to bring, are, in many cases, legal frameworks and public policies that do not take into account issues linked to human rights. For example, we, in fact, work with Paloma and with Digital Rights in an analysis of legislation linked to cyber security and cyber crime, which in many cases, having broad and vague provisions, end up affecting human rights. So, around that, I thought of some milestones in the region, in terms of public policies, of governance, of human rights, as was the concern of the panel. As a first milestone, let’s say, we thought of the 2014 edition of NETMundial as a key event in the context of Snowden’s revelations, an event that gave the possibility to governments, for example, of the region, to participate in international discussions, bringing other types of issues to the agenda. NETMundial was, as you all know, organized by the Brazilian government. It gave rise to certain principles of NETMundial, of how governance processes have to be done. Those principles indicate that it has to be multisectoral, open, participatory, and based on consensus, as Ernesto said, transparent, and that it allows significant participation, with access and low entry barriers, which, in many cases, at this moment, it is difficult for civil society to participate in the governance processes of technology issues. There is a movement towards more and more discussions in multilateral spaces, and with many difficulties, especially for civil society, to participate in a significant way. Ten years later, in 2024, there is an update of these principles with the São Paulo Multisite Holder Guidelines, with NETMundial plus 10. There, too, in those principles, the idea that multisectoral processes must take into account the asymmetries of power between the different actors that participate. Governance, we know that it is not necessarily a panacea and that there are inequalities in terms of incidence and the weight that each of these actors has in these discussions, that the governance processes have to be guided by respects of international principles of human rights, including social and cultural political rights. And these principles are key for a lot of the incidence work that PC and other organizations are doing in other global governance spaces. They are key for what has to do with the review of WISIs, that is, civil society is taking a lot of those principles for its own incidence. Other things I wanted to bring up have to do with the role of the CDH and a general framework of human rights protection in the region. Internet governance also has to do with concrete effects on different rights. So, as a milestone I wanted to bring up in 2014, it was the first hearing on issues of human rights on the Internet. In the CDH, organizations like APC, like Digital Rights, like Carisma, the CELE coordinated that work at the time, ADC brought freedom of expression issues for the first time to the Inter-American Commission. In other words, in the words of the former editor, Edison Lanza, that was a milestone in the region. And also linked to the CDH is all the work that the Freedom of Expression Report has done within the Commission, bringing issues of freedom of expression in digital environments. And especially the report published some standards for an open and inclusive Internet that highlights the role of the multisectoral model. So, well, given the time limit, I’m going to stop here, but I just wanted to highlight those links, the link to Internet governance, with issues of human rights, and then I have a couple more points that we can talk about later. Thank you very much.

Moderator: Thank you, Verónica. Well, to finish this round, I’m going to give the floor to Nigel Cassimire Telecommunications Specialist in Caribbean Telecommunications Union. Welcome, Nigel.

Nigel Cassimire: Thank you very much, Nigel Cassimire of the Caribbean Telecommunications Union, giving you a little background about our historical growth as regards internet governance in the Caribbean. We convened our first Caribbean Internet Governance Forum in September 2005 in an attempt to galvanize Caribbean positions going to the final session of WSIS in Tunis which was November 2005 and we’ve met annually ever since and in fact the UN started its own Internet Governance Forum in 2006 and we’ve kept in step with that since then. Our intention at the outset was and still is to harmonize Caribbean views and policies with respect to internet governance and each time our forum has met we’ve sought to record the agreements that might have been forged at our meetings and we’ve recorded them in a document we call the Caribbean Internet Governance Policy Framework and this particular document has in fact gone through four different editions since 2005. Actually I think the first edition was like 2009, I think 2013, 2016 and 2024 and as we meet we would update the policies associated with it. Back in the original days our focus tended to be more on internet infrastructure and the more technical issues because there was a lot of infrastructure development that still needed to take place. We were talking in some cases of electricity supply in various of our countries. Nowadays, the infrastructure is still spoken about, but it’s a lot less, it has a lot less focus on the agenda now and the focus is now on things like AI and rights and all that good stuff. So this year, we propose to have our 21st Caribbean Internet Governance Forum and it would be in Cuba this year, in Varadero, Cuba, from August 20th to the 22nd. And the agenda for it is still under development. In fact, just last Friday, we closed the call for topics essentially, which would help us to finalize the contents of the agenda. So within the next, I would say probably couple weeks time, we would be putting out our agenda for the 21st Internet Governance Forum. The policy framework that I talked about has been used as a guide for policy development in the Caribbean territories. It has been used as a guide for the CTU’s own work in supporting our member states to develop national policies. And one of the things we’re very concerned about is getting appropriate impact from our forum. And we realized that notwithstanding, we had a regional forum, there needed to be impact at the national level. So we sought to create or encourage the development of national Internet Governance Forum in each of our member countries. To date, we have about four of them that are operating or have operated. And we continue to move the Caribbean Internet Governance around to the various member states so that each one we land in. we could try to make an impact on that local community to develop its own multi-stakeholder group and its own national IGF. When we get, we’ve succeeded in increasing the number of Caribbean persons involved in fora like this. And with the national IGFs that we’ve helped to spawn, we also strengthening the implementation of appropriate internet governance policies throughout the Caribbean. I probably could stop there. There’s a lot more I could say. We’ve had quite a fair amount of success in the work that we’ve done. We’ve helped to spawn internet exchange points and so on. But I can stop at this point. Thanks.

Moderator: Thank you very much, Nigel. Well, thank you very much to the speakers of this first block for their interventions. Without a doubt, there have been successive achievements over the past 20 years that have strengthened the multi-stakeholder model in our region. And they have allowed us to emphasize dialogue, right? And constructive dialogue. However, the challenges persist. As you can see, our panelists have highlighted them. And that’s why we’re going to reflect on the future in this second block, on the visions in this regard. And well, I give the floor to my colleague Rocío to continue moderating the second block.

Rocío de la Fuente: Thank you. Well, thank you very much to the panelists of the first block who gave us a first context to frame the discussion and contributions of the panelists of this second section. And for this second panel, our striking questions focused on how they imagine the future of internet governance in the region. ¿Cuáles son los principales desafíos y las necesidades inmediatas que debemos atender desde todos los sectores para que el modelo multi-stakeholder siga estando vivo y funcional para nuestros intereses y nuestros objetivos? ¿Y por qué creen que la revisión o el proceso de revisión de WSIS++20 es relevante para nuestra comunidad regional? Así que en primer lugar le voy a dar la palabra a Carolina Aguerre. Ella es doctora y experta en gobernanza global y políticas de internet y actualmente es profesora asociada de la Universidad Católica del Uruguay. Así que Carolina, bienvenida, muchas gracias y te damos la palabra.

Carolina Aguerre: Buenas tardes, muchísimas gracias. Una gran pena no poder estar con ustedes esta semana, pero estoy atenta. Bueno, en primer lugar, ya fue dicho en la primera ronda de intervenciones, o sea, hemos aprendido mucho de estos 20 años de procesos de trabajo en gobernanza de múltiples partes interesadas. Ahora bien, seguir apostando, digamos, a un modelo de gobernanza que tenga como horizonte el proyecto de la gobernanza de múltiples partes interesadas, creo que es un poco en este momento, digamos, hay que hacer una revisión, hay que hacer una revisión en la cual pongamos de manifiesto para qué es importante tener esta gobernanza de múltiples partes interesadas, pero otros mecanismos que tienen que estar fuertemente asociados a una gobernanza de una internet que fomente un desarrollo sostenible, inclusivo, centrado en las personas. Esto es un poco como parte del acuerdo de WSIS más 20 y de la revisión, porque lo que hemos visto, digamos, es que este proceso de estos 20 años ha tenido múltiples consecuencias, impactos positivos, pero que tenemos que seguir profundizando en esos impactos positivos, y esos impactos a nivel de gobernanza hoy están bastante frágiles, como ya fue dicho en la primera ronda de intervenciones, necesitamos… in a world where the project of a globalized, unified world of 25-30 years ago with the expansion of the Internet is a world that today is not failing in this way. So, how do we generate better capacities in terms of collaboration, specifically collaboration between different actors? But for this, I would like to strengthen a message that we in the region have resilience and experience. Nigel just talked about the first IGF in the Caribbean, which was an IGF that took place before the first IGFs in the world, where we have experience of work in multiple parts interested in regional format. We have a platform, and this is a concept, let’s say, let’s not think of a platform only as the platforms of digital companies and big tech, as the ILAC can be, platforms already understood as collaboration spaces in which we can deepen, let’s say, in specific cooperation. And when I mean cooperation, it is not only dialogue about cooperation, as the IGF can be, which seems fundamental to me, but it seems very important to me that we start working in cooperation on projects with the participation of multiple actors, where we can develop regional infrastructures that are in the context of artificial intelligence, mounted on the fundamental Internet, have our spaces in the region more consolidated in terms of infrastructure, supercomputer capacities. It seems very important to me, let’s say, what has already been raised, let’s say, in the review consultation in Santiago in December, let’s say, the development of capacities, not only of technological skills and literacy, but also in continuing to foster capacities in terms of regional, national and international governance, in a context that, as has already been said, and I reiterate, let’s say, we cannot continue walking or tracing the same lines of action and the same discourses when this world has changed, when the Internet has changed, even though we continue to advocate for an open, interoperable Internet that promotes inclusion. Those are my first words. Thank you very much.

Moderator: Thank you very much, Carolina. Now, I’m going to give the floor to Renata Mieli. She is the coordinator of the Internet Management Committee in Brazil, CGIBR, and special advisor to the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation in Brazil. Thank you very much, Renata. You have the floor.

Renata Mielli: Thank you, Rocio. Thank you for the invitation to be in this important session for our region. I’m going to share some points about the challenges that I consider are important for Internet governance in our region. The first point that I would like to highlight is that the changes promoted by the Internet have allowed the emergence of new technologies with diverse impacts in our societies. For a long time now, governance spaces have stopped dealing exclusively with the Internet itself and have started to encompass everything that it entails. So, I think it is necessary, as we talked about on NetMundial10 in São Paulo, that we need to broaden our view and focus on governance spaces to address not only the Internet governance processes, but also the processes and digital policies in our region. The second point is the urgency, as Carolina said, to strengthen the coordination between actors and regional organizations around common goals. We could highlight, for example, the challenges related to the promotion of policies to guarantee significant connectivity in our countries, the impacts of artificial intelligence, human rights protection, the reduction of regional asymmetries, the development of public digital infrastructures, as well as the need for coordinated responses in the face of the integrity agenda of information, among many other key issues of the digital ecosystem. This is very important and we have to create the… spaces, not only of articulation, of discussion, but also of cooperation between our governments about these issues. Also to expand this articulation to reinforce, as I said, the regional cooperation, in line with the principles and guidelines of the world network Más 10, Verónica brought here some of the principles that we discussed in the guidelines of the world network Más 10. We must also have these principles as a reference for other processes, such as the processes of the WISES and the Global Digital Pact. It is also essential to reinforce the defense of a governance with active participation of multiple interested parties, create coordinated spaces and avoid duplication of efforts. As new processes and discussion forums emerge in different agencies, or the agenda is multiplied about artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, data protection, NINES and many other issues, it becomes more difficult to guarantee the effective participation of the countries of the global south, of small countries, of civil society and even of the private sector, which are not so economically powerful. It is very difficult to guarantee participation in so many processes. That is why the concentration, the unification of the spaces is very important. I would also like to reinforce in this sense that we consider it strategic to integrate the follow-up of the Global Digital Pact within the structure of the WISES framework of action now in the review, to contemplate shared responsibilities with various organizations. Also reinforce the participation of non-state actors in government processes. including the development of intergovernmental processes, so that they can evolve into decision-making processes with multiple interested parties. This was one of the topics that we also raised in a very important way in the discussions of the World Network Plus 10. Finally, to stay within the four minutes, I would like to highlight that the multistakeholder guidelines agreed in São Paulo should serve as a key reference to advance towards a digital governance, not only a governance of the Internet, but of the Internet and digital processes in a more inclusive, legitimate and effective way. Without a doubt, we have a lot to contribute in terms of how to ensure that there is more participation and more relevance in spaces like the IJF. We all participate in other processes and ensure a more strengthened multistakeholder governance in our region. Thank you.

Rocío de la Fuente: Thank you very much, Renata. And to close this second panel, I am going to give the floor to Paloma Lara. She is Director of Public Policies in Digital Rights. Thank you very much, Paloma, and we give you the floor.

Paloma Lara Castro: Thank you very much. I am representing Digital Rights. We are a Latin American organization with 20 years of experience in the work at the intersection of technology and human rights, participating very actively in global, regional and local discussions. In this sense, one of the issues that we highlight the most as part of our central incidence is the need to consider the differentiated impacts that global issues have, to which we are referring both in substantial discussions in these processes and in this same panel. In that sense, it is important to take into account that although there are shared challenges at a global level, obviously we are in a serious situation, going through a million situations that not only deepen structural inequalities, but also create new forms of exclusion. But at the same time, we have to understand that the impacts are not the same in all regions and in all countries. So in that sense, the knowledge that comes from the communities that are in a vulnerable situation and are in greater proportion affected by certain policies, or lack of some digital policies that are located, it often happens that many global commitments are generated, which although they must be shared, they are often not translated in a way that responds to the needs of the communities. So in that sense, spaces like the KGF are key, not only to provide, as has been said several times in this panel, a space for multisectoral dialogue where various interested parties participate, but also as a key element to understand local needs and therefore generate strategies that address different perspectives, adapted to needs and adapted to local urgencies. In that sense, for example, we can see that although the world is going through a number of asymmetries, when we talk, for example, about digital gaps, we have to take into account that within the digital gaps, there are a lot of gaps that make up the same digital gap. And in that sense, it is also different in terms of how we see at the local and regional level. In that sense, supporting this type of space is key, supporting the participation of civil society in these spaces is key, especially considering the rise of authoritarianism at a global but also regional level, marked democratic setbacks, monopoly of large companies, which in turn have extractivist logics, which end up affecting especially countries in the global south. Setbacks in terms of gender, setbacks in terms of legislation, as Verónica also explained in her intervention. In that sense, to enable or guarantee the participation of civil society is not only a key element for governance, but an urgent demand to ensure that we do not continue to advance towards the deepening of new gaps, the generation of new gaps, but we continue to advance towards a situation that not only recognizes structural gaps, but also aims to address them. In that sense, the review of WSIS is now a crucial moment at a global and regional level. What we are seeing in this sense is that if you have read the Elements Paper, which is what will be debated in the next consultations, it is important to take into account that there are several commitments that are not repeated in this document, but have already been accepted and agreed upon or consensuated in previous moments of governance. That is, we are also working on a bar that has been going down more and more, and at the same time that it goes down, it generates more insufficiency to deal with current real problems. So, I know I don’t have much time, but just to close on very important points, civil society is key in the participation in terms of the visibilization of real situations, but also as a human right to participation, as a human right to significant participation that addresses concrete and situated realities. On the other hand, we have to take into account in WSIS and the countries committed to the multisectoral model, to advance to the protection of the teachings that have been shared during the panel, to the commitments that we have advanced, to ensure those commitments, but not to stay with that. WSIS is not only about updating an agenda, but it is also about recognizing not only the structural problems, but the new gaps that are being generated as a result of new global problems and challenges that have in their hands a lot of the advancement of technology, but not only the advancement itself of technology, but in the lack of accompaniment of safeguards of human rights and public policies at the same time. So, these are situations that we find ourselves in a complicated moment, but this is precisely the crucial moment for both the state and civil society to safeguard what has been advanced, but also to look ahead and understand that if we do not address the situation in a differential way, we lose the focus on what can be affected in our communities, in our countries, in our realities. Thank you very much.

Renata Mielli: Thank you very much, Paloma, and to all the panelists of these first two panels. We went a little fast with the time assigned to each one because we were interested in having these remaining 20 minutes to invite other representatives of the regional community to also make their comments, share their reflections. We see many representatives of civil society organizations, technical community, who are also present here. So, we want to invite you to also participate in the debate, to react to the ideas that were shared, and also the panelists who have already spoken can return to participate in this discussion. I have Olga’s hand first in the zoom and then Eric. Olga, go ahead.

Olga Cavalli: Ah, I did it, it’s red. Good, thank you. Thank you very much for the session. Very interesting. I know there is little time, so I want to comment on two issues. One, in my role of work in the State. As you know, I am a dean of the Faculty of Defense, which depends on the Ministry of Defense of Argentina. And at the specific request of the Minister, we have created new careers, one specifically the first in Latin America, in Spanish, virtual, free, a degree in cyber defense, which has had a … We have 600 students, we started in April, plus other more virtual courses, so we are very happy with this, which is added to the offer of the Faculty of National Defense of Argentina. We can tell you that the 17th edition of the School of Southern Internet Governance was organized in Mexico with the collaboration of the Technological University of Monterrey. Very successful, we had 400 students, 200 in the room, 200 virtual, and we address topics precisely about what we have been talking about, all the previous panelists, public policies related to artificial intelligence, cyber defense, cyber security, how to think about the future in relation to all the changes that technology has brought us. So I thank you for the space and I congratulate you for having organized this session.

Moderator: Thank you very much Olga. Erick, I give you the floor, if you can introduce yourself and use three minutes.

Erick Iriarte: Perfect, Erick Iriarte, Tribunal of Ethics of the Peruvian Press Council in Peru and other titles. I’m going to try to make a reflection that forces us to think. We have evangelized ourselves so well that we have believed the story of what we did, and we have believed it so well that we have been able to maintain it for a long time. But when, for example, we talk about a topic as practical as urban mobility taxis, while we are defending the position from the technology industry or from the principles of technology, the other industry, those that were before, also began to do their own cabaldeo in the public spaces of political decision-making and legislation generation. When we began to talk about freedoms or the use of platforms for, for example, the fight against violence against women, the forms of regulation that communities that work with these rights had before we reached the world of technology were different, and they began to make different legislations than we had proposed to them. Until just before the pandemic, we could reach out to legislators and directly stop legislation or improve legislation that could be done or propose them. Now it is almost impossible, even if we have a strong voice or a recognized voice. And it is that we are only one more actor within the equation where all society is digital. And it is no longer just the digital issue of our digital issue. So how do we manage to convince others? How are we going to evangelize others so that they join our line of thought? So that when we discuss cybersecurity issues, they are not thinking about the cybersecurity industry, which is not interested in the technology industry or technological platforms or the principles of the OASIS. What interests them is doing business. Or how are we going to talk to those who are working on other issues of domotics or robotics, which are not interested in the principles we are talking about. They do not come to these forums and they will not come to these forums. I think the reflection goes inward. We have all been involved in this issue for many years. We have managed to convince, we have managed to convince, to attract some actors. But the actors who are doing the lobby to make different policies, different regulations, going back in regulations, as was mentioned a moment ago. But they go back in regulations that we would have raised, but that are useful to these private actors of civil society and academia. It is not that we do not act only against the private sector or against some sector of civil society. It is the rest that do not necessarily understand the principles that we are defending. So when you talk about multilateralism, we understand it, but not necessarily in those spaces where they end up making totally disparate regulations. And this is also being seen in ILAC, it is also being seen in other spaces, because other actors are arriving who were not the common actors that we were used to. It is a big alert call. Because what comes next is more regulation along the same path that we cannot stop. It’s happening in various countries. We can’t stop it, even if we go to talk to the actors we used to talk to. There are simply other actors with more money, there are other actors with more involvement in the social economy, with more relationships they can have, and that’s what we’ve lost, not bringing these forums to the people who are making the political decisions in our respective countries. Thank you very much, Eric, for your comments. We see two participants in the line of the microphone. We are going to give them the floor, we ask them to introduce themselves, and we give them two minutes each. Thank you.

Paricipants: Thank you. I’m Iria Puyolza, from the Atlantic Council Democracy and Tech Initiative. There was a topic I haven’t heard in the conversations during the day, and it has surprised me a lot. I want to bring it to the conversation. For the permanence, the continuity of the multiparty model of Internet governance, an indispensable engine is civil society, civil society organizations. And in the last year, these organizations have suffered a critical situation regarding their stability, both in terms of financing for the sustainability of these organizations, but also a lot of pressure towards other models of governance more focused on the states. I think it would be interesting for this discussion to take place more in this space. It is a discussion that has been taking place in other spaces, with organizations not only from Latin America, but also from Africa and Asia. And it has caught my attention that in this conversation, in this round today, there has not been a discussion about what the community can do, particularly the civil society organizations of Latin America, to try to protect the ecosystem in this moment of crisis and threats, both economic and political. Thank you.

Rocío de la Fuente: Thank you very much. I think Lilian is next. If you can introduce yourself and we’ll give you two minutes as well. Lilian, I don’t know if you can hear me. Sorry, I couldn’t hear you. We can hear you well. Go ahead. Yes. Can you hear me? Yes, perfect.

Carolina Aguerre: Thank you. Well, thank you very much to everyone in the panel. It’s very interesting to listen to you. I’m Lilian Chamorro, secretary of the AQGF. This was one of the most important sessions for us because it’s about listening to the community and having more clarity about what is required of this space, which is a space for everyone. As a secretary, I would like to reinforce that our action is basically to facilitate the process, but the space is yours. It’s not a space that belongs to us. It’s a space that many of you are part of through the different committees, the workshop selection committee, the program committee. And as those who have been involved in this space during the last few years know, it’s a challenge. This morning they said it at the inaugural ceremony and I thought it was very successful because the multistakeholder process is of the highest importance, but it’s also a challenge to carry out. It’s something that needs to be done. that we take for granted, let’s say, but it requires a work of all of us. So, just to reiterate the invitation so that all of us can build this space, we see that we have some key challenges, for example, to make the process visible, to make the results visible, and to make visible all the work that is done in other spaces, both in these international spaces, but also at a local level, at a national level, and in spaces such as the Global Digital Compact, the WSIS, so that it is recognized that there is already a territory won. We say, there are 18, 17, the editions that have been of the AQGF, where it has been growing, it has been learning, and there is a territory won in that there is a number of people involved that can continue to contribute to the discussions. And we know that it is not enough, right? They also mentioned it here, more participation of civil society is needed, more participation of governments is needed, more participation of the technical community is needed, and many times this participation is not given because the knowledge is limited, right? There we also appreciate the work that people like Olga do, like ISOC Foundation, well, and so many training initiatives, because they are the ones that allow many new people to reach the space, and I think that these spaces must be strengthened as well, but we also have to look for other communication mechanisms to reach other actors, and that what we are doing in these discussions is understood, and that is what we want to achieve. And another of the great challenges we have is the strengthening of the intersessional processes. One of the mandates for the AQGF in the new statutes is the creation of the intersessional work groups,

Paricipants: and it is something we are working on, but we also receive their contributions, we receive their ideas, to see how we can concretize these spaces that have been discussed here, these spaces where not only can we talk, but also some agreements can be reached, some definitions, some recommendations that can go beyond and that arise from a coordinated space where multiple actors are connected during a longer period and not only during the annual forum. Eso era todo. Gracias.

Renata Mielli: Muchísimas gracias, Lilian. Vamos a darle la palabra al caballero. Le voy a pedir que se presente. Y después tenemos también a Raúl, a Gabriel, y tal vez tengamos espacio para una persona más. Les pedimos que se ajusten al límite de los dos minutos. Ah, y Ernesto también. Ok. Por favor, un minuto, cuarenta segundos cada uno. Adelante.

Paricipants: Buenas tardes a todos. Soy Cristian Robles, de IPANDETEC, una organización que trabaja por los derechos digitales en Centroamérica y el Caribe. Bien, en las últimas semanas, en Panamá, se han visto envueltos en protestas y manifestaciones sociales en contra de reformas al Seguro Social, jubilaciones, pensiones. Específicamente en la provincia de Bocas del Toro, que se han cambiado los escenarios. En las últimas semanas se han visto saqueos, vandalismos y demás. Lo que ha llevado al gobierno a declarar un estado de urgencia que eliminan algunos derechos constitucionales en esta zona. El gobierno de Panamá, a través de la Autoridad de los Servicios Públicos, ha tomado la decisión de suspender los servicios de telefonía móvil e internet durante varios días en medio de estas manifestaciones sociales. Desde IPANDETEC, nosotros rechazamos esta medida desproporcionada que no solo representa una grave violación a la libertad de expresión y derecho a la información, sino que también vulnera derechos fundamentales. Cortar este acceso al internet en contextos de protesta limita la posibilidad de documentar abusos, de comunicarse con los familiares, de recibir información confiable, e incluso de acceder a servicios de emergencia hasta la educación. Así que queremos hacer un llamado a otras organizaciones, sobre todo de nuestra región, ayudarnos a visibilizar esta acción desproporcionada de parte del gobierno de Panamá y que se levante esta medida que ofrece acceso de internet a la provincia de Bocas del Toro. en Panamá. Así que vamos a estar circulando a través de Ipandetec entre hoy y mañana un statement y esperamos contar con el apoyo de todos.

Rocío de la Fuente: Muchísimas gracias. Le doy la palabra ahora a Gabriel Adonailo de LaQX. Y por favor, un minuto y medio.

Paricipants: Sí, ahí se oye, sí. Bueno, gracias. Simplemente, bueno, LaQX es la Asociación de Puntos de Intercambio de Tráfico de América Latina y Caribe. Nombre largo y extraño, pero los puntos de intercambio de tráfico básicamente lo que hacen es mejorar la calidad de servicio de internet a todos los usuarios e intentar mantener o minimizar el costo de acceso a internet. Quería reforzar, Caro Aguerre mencionaba acerca de la colaboración entre las organizaciones. A nosotros nos parece muy importante eso. En 2018 firmamos un acuerdo de colaboración con LACNIC y con Internet Society y luego más adelante con con LACTLD y como decía Carolina, no quedarse en el diálogo sino llevar a la acción y realmente avanzamos sobre implementaciones concretas que mejoran el uso de internet en general. Otra cosa quería mencionar, he participado, creo que es mi quinto IGF, el primero ha sido el primero en Atenas, valga la redundancia, fui invitado por Raúl aquí presente a participar de una sesión plenaria en la cual el problema en ese momento tenía que ver con los costos de conectividad de nuestra región de América Latina y cómo se conectaba al mundo. Eso hoy en día ya no es un problema, tenemos fibra conectando con todas las regiones porque ahora se ha anunciado recientemente una fibra submarina nueva que unirá a Chile con el continente de Oceanía. Eso nos permite mejorar la conectividad y nuevamente… It is not a problem of costs, it is not a problem of infrastructure, but there are still some initiatives in terms of regulation that can affect the connectivity of the infrastructures and how the Internet traffic is run and, therefore, there may come back a discussion again about the Internet costs and the quality of the Internet that we have created. I don’t know if this is the right forum, in Athens it has been, but it is simply for us to be aware that there are discussions in the sphere of regulation or regulators and lobby of some companies that can have an impact on these issues.

Rocío de la Fuente: First Raúl, and then Ernesto, and I ask you, if it is possible, one minute and a half each, because we have to finish on time. Thank you very much. Go ahead, Raúl.

Raul Echeverría: Thank you. First, my solidarity with the people of Panama, with the colleagues and with the citizens of Panama who are living this horrible situation and, the truth, very bad the idea of the government’s decision. I wanted to recognize here the presence of many young people in the room, many of whom were at the time participants of training programs and training, and today they occupy leadership positions in different organizations. This also speaks well of us as a community. It gives me great joy and congratulations to all those who work in many programs. Here there are many people, Olga already spoke, but there are many people who participate in this type of program, leading for many years. We talked about everything we have achieved. I mentioned the Internet Management Committee of Brazil as an example of the success of the Multistakeholder model. I forgot to mention that they are turning 30 years old, so my congratulations to Renata and all the colleagues of the Management Committee and the NIC, who do a great job. We have spoken here, there is nothing that is guaranteed. In Brazil, although we are all proud of what the Management Committee has done as a region, well, in Brazil there are people who have bad ideas and who have proposed some policies that would set up setbacks and would take away the fundamental characteristics of success that the Management Committee has. We have expressed our support for the current model, which of course can always be improved, but never go back, so I invite you all to support the Management Committee at this stage. And finally, I wanted to say that in recent years the participation of Latin America in international discussions has decreased and we have lost capacity to influence. When we think about it and compare it with the time of the Internet Governance Working Group or the first IGF in Guizis, I think we have lost, and we have lost in all the groups of interest. There are very few governments that participate in a significant way, of course there are exceptions, like the Ambassador Eugenio García de Itamaraty, who participates in everything that can participate and gives him time, but not all governments have the same level of participation. I think we have to make a call and also press many times, in recent years many groups have been formed in the United Nations that I think could have a better representation of the region than they have had, so we have to work in that direction. Just a call for us all to join efforts in that.

Rocío de la Fuente: Thank you, Raúl. And 40 seconds for Ernesto.

Ernesto Majo: 12? I’m going to take the time I need. No, I just wanted to highlight two things. First of all, well, to reinforce the message regarding the role of the Management Committee, that surely we have all benefited from the work they have developed during these 30 years, beyond the direct link we have with Acnic as a founding member of Acnic, but also in the daily work, since 30 years ago, or in our case 22 years ago, it has been very relevant and, well, it is really worrying that these initiatives are being promoted that we understand do not have any kind of support from the point of view of how the Management Committee works and the VR link, so, well, we are very concerned about that. And regarding the aspect related to how to continue, it seems to me that one aspect, Raúl also referred to the same thing, that is, the incorporation, the recruitment of actors and the training and the training and the preparation of the generations that are coming or that are going to come, that are going to take on responsibilities in the future, is extremely important. Some of them have already been mentioned, we also have some programs in Acnic, such as the online course or other activities for the development of leaders, in short. It seems to me that this is an area in which we have to work to improve the knowledge, the information and the understanding of these processes, not only for the actors that today, as I say, the future actors who are going to participate, but for the current ones, so that they understand how to generate and manage the dialogues, to find the consensus that is needed for the future of the Internet and the world. In short, simply to reinforce the message of the need to continue working on training, on the development of skills for constructive dialogue.

Rocío de la Fuente: Muchísimas gracias. Con esto cerramos la sesión y nos alegró mucho tener tanta diversidad de voces. Así que gracias a todos y los esperamos en la próxima edición. Subtítulos realizados por la comunidad de Amara.org

Agreement points

Regional success and early adoption of multistakeholder governance models

Speakers

– Raul Echeverría
– Ernesto Majo
– Nigel Cassimire

Arguments

Regional success in multistakeholder work with early adoption of collaborative models like LACNIC creation

LACNIC emerged naturally from community processes and has maintained collaborative approach for over 20 years

Caribbean IGF started in 2005 before global IGF, creating policy frameworks and spawning national IGFs

Summary

All three speakers emphasize that Latin America and the Caribbean were pioneers in adopting multistakeholder governance models, with successful community-driven initiatives like LACNIC, Brazil’s Internet Management Committee, and the Caribbean IGF predating even global initiatives.

Topics

Infrastructure | Development | Legal and regulatory

Need for capacity building and training programs to develop future leaders

Speakers

– Ernesto Majo
– Olga Cavalli
– Paricipants

Arguments

Critical importance of continuing education and skill development for constructive dialogue

Success in developing new generations of leaders through various training programs

Need for better communication mechanisms to reach new actors and explain governance work

Summary

Multiple speakers agree on the fundamental importance of education and training programs to develop both current and future generations of internet governance leaders, with concrete examples of successful initiatives.

Topics

Development | Capacity development

Challenges in ensuring meaningful participation from all stakeholders

Speakers

– Raul Echeverría
– Renata Mielli
– Paloma Lara Castro
– Paricipants

Arguments

Need for more inclusive participation from all actors in policy discussions to avoid inefficient dialogues

Difficulty ensuring effective participation of Global South countries and civil society in multiplying governance processes

Civil society participation essential for addressing real situations and as fundamental human right

Civil society organizations facing critical financing and political pressure threatening ecosystem stability

Summary

There is strong consensus that current governance processes face significant challenges in ensuring meaningful participation from all stakeholders, particularly civil society and Global South actors, due to resource constraints and political pressures.

Topics

Development | Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Importance of moving beyond dialogue to concrete cooperation and action

Speakers

– Carolina Aguerre
– Paricipants

Arguments

Need to move beyond dialogue to concrete cooperation projects including regional infrastructure development

Success in regional connectivity improvements through collaborative agreements between organizations

Summary

Speakers agree that while dialogue is important, there is a critical need to translate discussions into concrete collaborative projects and infrastructure improvements that deliver tangible benefits.

Topics

Infrastructure | Development

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize that internet governance in Latin America must address the region’s specific context of historical inequalities and structural gaps, requiring differentiated approaches that consider local needs rather than one-size-fits-all global solutions.

Speakers

– Veronica Ferrari
– Paloma Lara Castro

Arguments

Regional discussions marked by historical inequalities and digital gaps requiring human rights-focused approaches

Requirement for differentiated approaches addressing local needs and structural inequalities

Topics

Human rights | Development

Both speakers advocate for expanding the scope of internet governance to encompass broader digital governance issues while maintaining multistakeholder principles established in processes like NetMundial.

Speakers

– Renata Mielli
– Veronica Ferrari

Arguments

Importance of broadening focus from internet governance to comprehensive digital governance and policies

NetMundial principles should guide governance processes toward more inclusive and transparent approaches

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Both speakers, representing regional technical organizations, emphasize the importance of preserving successful regional governance models while investing in capacity building for future sustainability.

Speakers

– Raul Echeverría
– Ernesto Majo

Arguments

Importance of maintaining Brazil’s Internet Steering Committee model against proposed setbacks

Critical importance of continuing education and skill development for constructive dialogue

Topics

Infrastructure | Development | Legal and regulatory

Unexpected consensus

Urgent need to address government overreach in internet shutdowns

Speakers

– Raul Echeverría
– Paricipants

Arguments

Regional success in multistakeholder work with early adoption of collaborative models like LACNIC creation

Urgent need to address disproportionate government actions like internet shutdowns during protests

Explanation

While not directly related to their main arguments, there was immediate solidarity and consensus across speakers when the Panama internet shutdown issue was raised, showing unexpected unity on human rights violations even among speakers focused on technical and infrastructure issues.

Topics

Human rights | Freedom of expression

Recognition of declining regional influence in global governance processes

Speakers

– Raul Echeverría
– Erick Iriarte

Arguments

Need for more inclusive participation from all actors in policy discussions to avoid inefficient dialogues

Other industries and actors now lobbying effectively while traditional internet governance community loses influence

Explanation

Both speakers, despite coming from different perspectives (regional technical leadership vs. legal/policy analysis), unexpectedly agreed that the region’s influence in global internet governance has declined, with other actors becoming more effective at lobbying and policy influence.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion revealed strong consensus on several key areas: the region’s historical success in pioneering multistakeholder governance models, the critical importance of capacity building and training programs, the challenges in ensuring meaningful participation from all stakeholders (particularly civil society and Global South actors), and the need to move beyond dialogue to concrete cooperative action. There was also agreement on addressing regional inequalities through differentiated approaches and maintaining successful governance models while adapting to new challenges.

Consensus level

High level of consensus with constructive alignment on fundamental principles and challenges. The speakers demonstrated remarkable agreement on both celebrating regional achievements and acknowledging current limitations. This consensus suggests a mature regional community that can honestly assess its strengths and weaknesses while maintaining commitment to multistakeholder principles. The implications are positive for regional coordination, as the shared understanding of challenges and solutions provides a solid foundation for collaborative action in addressing WSIS+20 review processes and future internet governance evolution.

Different viewpoints

Approach to strengthening multistakeholder governance – dialogue vs. concrete action

Speakers

– Carolina Aguerre
– Ernesto Majo
– Renata Mielli

Arguments

Need to move beyond dialogue to concrete cooperation projects including regional infrastructure development

LACNIC emerged naturally from community processes and has maintained collaborative approach for over 20 years

Importance of broadening focus from internet governance to comprehensive digital governance and policies

Summary

Carolina emphasizes moving beyond dialogue to concrete cooperation projects and infrastructure development, while Ernesto focuses on maintaining collaborative dialogue approaches that have worked for LACNIC, and Renata advocates for broadening the scope to comprehensive digital governance rather than focusing on specific projects

Topics

Development | Infrastructure | Legal and regulatory

Primary focus for addressing participation challenges

Speakers

– Erick Iriarte
– Veronica Ferrari
– Paloma Lara Castro

Arguments

Other industries and actors now lobbying effectively while traditional internet governance community loses influence

Regional discussions marked by historical inequalities and digital gaps requiring human rights-focused approaches

Rise of authoritarianism and democratic setbacks threatening civil society participation

Summary

Erick focuses on the competitive lobbying landscape and loss of influence to other industries, Veronica emphasizes structural inequalities and human rights frameworks, while Paloma highlights authoritarianism and democratic threats as the primary challenges to participation

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory | Development

Unexpected differences

Effectiveness of current multistakeholder model

Speakers

– Raul Echeverría
– Nigel Cassimire

Arguments

Need for more inclusive participation from all actors in policy discussions to avoid inefficient dialogues

Caribbean IGF started in 2005 before global IGF, creating policy frameworks and spawning national IGFs

Explanation

Unexpectedly, while both speakers represent successful regional initiatives, Raul is critical of current dialogue effectiveness calling them inefficient and wasteful, while Nigel presents the Caribbean experience as largely successful with concrete policy outcomes and sustained impact

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

Urgency of addressing current challenges

Speakers

– Carolina Aguerre
– Paloma Lara Castro

Arguments

Need to move beyond dialogue to concrete cooperation projects including regional infrastructure development

Civil society participation essential for addressing real situations and as fundamental human right

Explanation

Unexpectedly, both speakers advocate for moving beyond current approaches but with different urgency levels – Carolina focuses on infrastructure and cooperation projects as evolutionary steps, while Paloma frames civil society participation as an urgent human rights demand requiring immediate action

Topics

Human rights | Development | Infrastructure

Overall assessment

Summary

The main areas of disagreement center on: 1) Whether to focus on dialogue improvement vs. concrete action projects, 2) How to address participation challenges (competitive lobbying vs. structural inequalities vs. authoritarianism), 3) Methods for capacity building (inclusive processes vs. skills development vs. formal education), and 4) Approaches to global governance processes (integration vs. standard maintenance vs. principle application)

Disagreement level

Moderate disagreement level with significant implications – while speakers share common goals of strengthening multistakeholder governance, their different approaches could lead to fragmented regional efforts. The disagreements suggest a need for more coordinated strategy development that incorporates multiple approaches rather than pursuing separate paths. The unexpected disagreements particularly highlight tensions between evolutionary vs. urgent reform approaches that could impact the effectiveness of regional coordination in global governance processes.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize that internet governance in Latin America must address the region’s specific context of historical inequalities and structural gaps, requiring differentiated approaches that consider local needs rather than one-size-fits-all global solutions.

Speakers

– Veronica Ferrari
– Paloma Lara Castro

Arguments

Regional discussions marked by historical inequalities and digital gaps requiring human rights-focused approaches

Requirement for differentiated approaches addressing local needs and structural inequalities

Topics

Human rights | Development

Both speakers advocate for expanding the scope of internet governance to encompass broader digital governance issues while maintaining multistakeholder principles established in processes like NetMundial.

Speakers

– Renata Mielli
– Veronica Ferrari

Arguments

Importance of broadening focus from internet governance to comprehensive digital governance and policies

NetMundial principles should guide governance processes toward more inclusive and transparent approaches

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Both speakers, representing regional technical organizations, emphasize the importance of preserving successful regional governance models while investing in capacity building for future sustainability.

Speakers

– Raul Echeverría
– Ernesto Majo

Arguments

Importance of maintaining Brazil’s Internet Steering Committee model against proposed setbacks

Critical importance of continuing education and skill development for constructive dialogue

Topics

Infrastructure | Development | Legal and regulatory

Key takeaways

Latin America and Caribbean region has strong historical foundation in multistakeholder internet governance, with early adoption of collaborative models like LACNIC and Caribbean IGF starting before global IGF

The multistakeholder model faces significant challenges including reduced regional influence in international discussions, difficulty ensuring participation from Global South countries and civil society in multiplying governance processes

Civil society organizations are experiencing critical threats to sustainability through financing pressures and political attacks, which undermines the multistakeholder ecosystem

There is urgent need to evolve from dialogue-focused approaches to concrete cooperation projects, including regional infrastructure development and coordinated policy responses

Internet governance must expand beyond technical issues to comprehensive digital governance addressing AI, cybersecurity, data protection, and human rights impacts

Training and capacity building programs have successfully developed new generations of leaders, but continued investment in education and skill development is essential

Regional coordination and cooperation between actors and organizations around common goals is critical for addressing shared challenges like connectivity, AI impacts, and information integrity

The WSIS+20 review and Global Digital Compact processes present opportunities to strengthen multistakeholder principles and avoid duplication of governance efforts

Resolutions and action items

LACIGF to strengthen intersessional work groups and year-round coordination beyond annual forums as mandated in new statutes

Community called to support Brazil’s Internet Steering Committee model against proposed setbacks that would undermine its multistakeholder characteristics

IPANDETEC to circulate statement calling for support to oppose Panama government’s internet shutdown in Bocas del Toro province during protests

Need to integrate Global Digital Compact follow-up within WSIS framework structure to avoid process duplication

Strengthen training and capacity building programs to recruit new actors and prepare future leaders for governance roles

Develop better communication mechanisms to reach new actors and explain governance work to broader audiences

Unresolved issues

How to effectively counter the influence of other industries and actors who are successfully lobbying against internet governance community positions

How to ensure sustainable financing for civil society organizations facing economic and political pressures

How to guarantee meaningful participation of Global South countries and smaller organizations in multiplying global governance processes

How to address the lowering of standards in global commitments while real problems require stronger responses

How to translate global commitments into policies that respond to local community needs and structural inequalities

How to maintain regional influence in international discussions where Latin American participation has decreased

How to balance state security concerns with human rights protections in digital governance policies

Suggested compromises

Broaden focus from internet governance to comprehensive digital governance while maintaining core multistakeholder principles

Use NetMundial+10 principles as reference for other processes like WSIS and Global Digital Compact to ensure consistency

Create coordinated spaces that avoid duplication while allowing for differentiated regional approaches to global challenges

Develop governance processes that recognize power asymmetries between different stakeholders while maintaining inclusive participation

Integrate technical infrastructure cooperation with policy dialogue to move beyond discussion toward concrete implementation

We live in a world where peace is a little undervalued, and international cooperation does not go through its best moment… we have a misuse of energy, or a waste of energy, that is too big and gigantic, I would say, in political discussions that do not even reach a conclusion.

Speaker

Raúl Echeverría

Reason

This comment was particularly insightful because it reframed the entire discussion by acknowledging the broader geopolitical context affecting internet governance. Rather than focusing solely on technical or procedural aspects, Echeverría highlighted how global political fragmentation directly impacts the effectiveness of multi-stakeholder dialogue.

Impact

This observation set a sobering tone for the entire session and influenced subsequent speakers to address the fragility of current governance models. It shifted the conversation from celebrating past achievements to critically examining current challenges and the need for more efficient dialogue mechanisms.

We must also have these principles as a reference for other processes, such as the processes of the WISES and the Global Digital Pact. It is also essential to reinforce the defense of a governance with active participation of multiple interested parties, create coordinated spaces and avoid duplication of efforts.

Speaker

Renata Mielli

Reason

This comment was thought-provoking because it identified a critical structural problem: the proliferation of governance forums is actually weakening participation rather than strengthening it. She pointed out that multiple parallel processes make it difficult for smaller countries and civil society to participate meaningfully.

Impact

This insight redirected the discussion toward practical solutions for consolidating governance efforts. It influenced other speakers to consider how fragmentation of governance spaces undermines the very inclusivity they aim to promote, leading to calls for more strategic coordination.

We have evangelized ourselves so well that we have believed the story of what we did, and we have believed it so well that we have been able to maintain it for a long time… Now it is almost impossible, even if we have a strong voice or a recognized voice… There are simply other actors with more money, there are other actors with more involvement in the social economy.

Speaker

Erick Iriarte

Reason

This was perhaps the most provocative comment of the session, challenging the community’s self-perception and effectiveness. Iriarte argued that the internet governance community has become insular and lost influence to other actors who don’t share their principles but have more resources and political connections.

Impact

This comment created a significant shift in the discussion’s tone, forcing participants to confront uncomfortable truths about their diminishing influence. It challenged the assumption that their model was still relevant and effective, leading to more critical self-reflection about outreach and engagement strategies.

For the permanence, the continuity of the multiparty model of Internet governance, an indispensable engine is civil society, civil society organizations. And in the last year, these organizations have suffered a critical situation regarding their stability, both in terms of financing for the sustainability of these organizations, but also a lot of pressure towards other models of governance more focused on the states.

Speaker

Iria Puyolza

Reason

This comment was insightful because it identified a fundamental threat to the multi-stakeholder model that hadn’t been explicitly discussed: the systematic weakening of civil society organizations through financial pressure and political attacks. It connected global democratic backsliding to internet governance challenges.

Impact

This observation added urgency to the discussion and highlighted a critical vulnerability in the governance ecosystem. It shifted focus from theoretical discussions about participation to concrete threats facing the organizations that enable meaningful multi-stakeholder engagement.

We cannot continue walking or tracing the same lines of action and the same discourses when this world has changed, when the Internet has changed, even though we continue to advocate for an open, interoperable Internet that promotes inclusion.

Speaker

Carolina Aguerre

Reason

This comment was thought-provoking because it challenged the community to move beyond familiar rhetoric and adapt to new realities. Aguerre argued for maintaining core principles while fundamentally changing approaches, calling for concrete cooperation projects rather than just dialogue.

Impact

This comment influenced the discussion by pushing participants to think beyond traditional forum-based approaches toward more action-oriented collaboration. It helped bridge the gap between idealistic principles and practical implementation needs in a changed global context.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shaped the discussion by challenging participants to move beyond comfortable assumptions about their success and relevance. The conversation evolved from initial celebrations of past achievements to increasingly critical self-examination. Echeverría’s opening remarks about global political fragmentation set a realistic tone that influenced all subsequent contributions. Iriarte’s provocative challenge about the community’s insularity created a turning point that forced more honest assessment of current limitations. The comments about civil society under threat and the need for new approaches rather than familiar rhetoric pushed the discussion toward more urgent, practical considerations. Together, these interventions transformed what could have been a self-congratulatory session into a more substantive examination of existential challenges facing internet governance in Latin America and the Caribbean. The discussion ultimately became more actionable and realistic, with participants acknowledging both their achievements and the serious threats to their continued relevance.

How can we bring more people to multistakeholder dialogues and ensure participation of all actors from the beginning of policy discussions?

Speaker

Raúl Echeverría

Explanation

He noted that IGF processes don’t have strong participation from all actors and emphasized the need to involve everyone from the start to avoid inefficient political discussions that reach no conclusions

How do we make dialogues more balanced so that actors participate because they understand they contribute and are enriched, rather than becoming deaf dialogue processes?

Speaker

Ernesto Majó

Explanation

He identified the challenge of ensuring meaningful participation where all parties genuinely engage rather than just going through the motions

How can we develop regional infrastructures and supercomputer capacities in the context of artificial intelligence?

Speaker

Carolina Aguerre

Explanation

She emphasized the need for regional cooperation on concrete projects including infrastructure development to strengthen the region’s technological capabilities

How can we guarantee effective participation of Global South countries, small countries, civil society, and less economically powerful private sector actors in multiple governance processes?

Speaker

Renata Mielli

Explanation

She highlighted the difficulty of ensuring meaningful participation as discussion forums multiply across different agencies and topics

How can global commitments be translated in ways that respond to local community needs and address differentiated impacts?

Speaker

Paloma Lara Castro

Explanation

She emphasized that while challenges are shared globally, impacts differ by region and country, requiring locally adapted strategies

How can we evangelize and convince other actors outside the traditional internet governance community to adopt multistakeholder principles?

Speaker

Erick Iriarte

Explanation

He noted that other industries and actors are successfully lobbying for different approaches while traditional internet governance advocates are losing influence

What can the community do to protect civil society organizations facing economic and political threats to their sustainability?

Speaker

Iria Puyolza

Explanation

She highlighted the critical situation of civil society organizations suffering from financing instability and political pressure, which threatens the multistakeholder model

How can intersessional work groups be strengthened to create spaces for ongoing collaboration beyond annual forums?

Speaker

Lilian Chamorro

Explanation

She mentioned this as a mandate in new statutes and requested community contributions on how to implement these continuous working spaces

How can Latin America increase its participation and influence in international discussions?

Speaker

Raúl Echeverría

Explanation

He observed that regional participation in international discussions has decreased compared to earlier periods, with fewer governments participating significantly

Summary

This panel discussion focused on the critical role of data governance in enabling equitable and inclusive outcomes from Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI), examining how governance frameworks must evolve to balance innovation with accountability. The conversation was moderated by Priya Chetty from Research ICT Africa and featured experts from various sectors discussing the intersection of data governance, DPI implementation, and sustainable development goals.

Souhila Amazouz from the African Union Commission outlined continental policy frameworks, particularly the African Union Data Policy Framework adopted in 2022, which aims to create integrated data governance approaches across Africa. She emphasized the concept of “data justice” to ensure equal representation in digital spaces and highlighted that while 60% of African countries have data privacy laws in place, only 7% have interoperable digital payment systems. Andrew Vennekotter from Amazon Web Services stressed the importance of getting data governance right for AI innovation, advocating for risk and principles-based frameworks that focus on security, responsible AI implementation, and human-in-the-loop approaches rather than premature technology mandates.

Payal Malik raised critical concerns about market concentration risks in DPI ecosystems, warning that private entities operating on public infrastructure rails could engage in data extractivism without proper governance frameworks. She argued for contractual arrangements and fiduciary obligations to prevent the creation of monopolistic enclosures while maintaining the public nature of DPI. Thomas Linder emphasized civil society’s crucial role as a third sector voice, advocating for local adaptation and operationalization of governance frameworks rather than cookie-cutter approaches.

Mariana Rielli from Data Privacy Brazil presented findings on integrating data protection frameworks with DPI governance, moving beyond privacy-focused approaches to encompass broader fundamental rights and accountability mechanisms. The discussion highlighted real-world challenges through examples from India’s healthcare DPI implementation, where exclusion of vulnerable populations and privacy concerns have emerged despite system efficiencies. The panel concluded that effective DPI governance requires integrated, multi-stakeholder frameworks that address not only privacy and security but also competition, inclusion, and democratic participation to ensure that digital public infrastructure truly serves public interests.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Data Governance as Critical Infrastructure for DPI Success**: The panelists emphasized that effective data governance frameworks are essential for Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI) to deliver on its promises of digital transformation, inclusion, and sustainable development. Without proper governance, DPI cannot achieve its potential for equitable outcomes.

– **Public-Private Partnership Challenges and Market Concentration Risks**: Significant concerns were raised about how private entities operating on public DPI platforms may engage in data extractivism, create monopolistic enclosures, and concentrate market power. The discussion highlighted the need for contractual frameworks and regulatory oversight to ensure public interest is maintained.

– **Integration of Rights-Based Frameworks Beyond Privacy**: Panelists argued for moving beyond traditional privacy-focused approaches to incorporate broader data protection principles, including informational autonomy, self-determination, and contextual integrity. This includes embedding accountability mechanisms and ensuring fundamental rights are protected in data flows.

– **Multi-Stakeholder Governance and Civil Society Role**: The conversation emphasized the critical importance of including civil society organizations in DPI governance design and implementation, recognizing their unique position to represent diverse community interests and bridge between technical implementation and local contexts.

– **Real-World Implementation Lessons and Challenges**: Drawing from examples like India’s healthcare DPI and Brazil’s data protection framework, the discussion highlighted both the benefits (efficiency gains, improved service delivery) and significant risks (exclusion of vulnerable populations, privacy violations, stigmatization) of current DPI implementations.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to explore how data governance frameworks can be evolved and strengthened to ensure that Digital Public Infrastructure delivers equitable and inclusive outcomes. The session sought to move beyond technical efficiency considerations to address broader questions of digital rights, market concentration, and democratic participation in DPI development and implementation.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a constructive and collaborative tone throughout, with panelists building on each other’s insights rather than debating opposing viewpoints. The conversation was notably solution-oriented, with speakers acknowledging challenges while focusing on practical recommendations and frameworks. There was an underlying sense of urgency about getting governance frameworks right, particularly given real-world examples of both successes and failures in current DPI implementations. The tone remained academic and policy-focused while being grounded in practical, on-the-ground experiences from various global contexts.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Chetty Pria** – Moderator, Research ICT Africa (digital policy think tank based in Cape Town, working across Africa on digital equality and data justice)

– **Souhila Amazouz** – Senior ICT Policy Officer, African Union Commission (over two decades of experience in ICT frameworks, policy frameworks, digital policy frameworks, data policy frameworks, regional harmonization efforts and technical support to member states in Africa)

– **Andrew Vennekotter** – Senior Manager, Amazon Web Services (expert in cybersecurity and assurance work, former NASA employee, worked in public sector for many years, now leading public-private efforts at AWS)

– **Malik Payal** – Senior Advisor, International Council for Research on International Economic Relations (ICREA) (formerly based at Competition Commission, works at intersection of economics, competition, and policy)

– **Linder Thomas** – Senior Coordinator, Open North (works on initiatives related to data governance, citizen engagement, and data justice)

– **Mariana Rielli** – Co-Executive Director, Data Privacy Brazil (brings perspective from Brazil’s ground experience with data governance work)

– **Audience** – Various participants asking questions and providing comments

**Additional speakers:**

– **Nikita Jain** – Online moderator, Economist with the International Council for Research on International Economic Relations (ICREA)

# Comprehensive Report: Data Governance for Equitable Digital Public Infrastructure

## Executive Summary

This Internet Governance Forum panel discussion examined the critical intersection of data governance and Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI), focusing on how governance frameworks must evolve to ensure equitable and inclusive outcomes. Moderated by Priya Chetty from Research ICT Africa, the session brought together experts from continental policy organisations, technology companies, civil society, and academic institutions to address fundamental questions about power, equity, and democratic governance in the digital age.

The discussion revealed the complexity of DPI governance challenges, with participants examining both the transformative potential of DPI and the significant risks that must be addressed through comprehensive governance frameworks. Key themes emerged around the inadequacy of traditional data protection approaches, the risk of market concentration in public-private partnerships, and the need for integrated governance frameworks that prioritise public value creation.

## Opening Framework: African Continental Perspective

### Setting the Context for Data Justice

Priya Chetty opened the discussion by establishing the African continental context, explaining that the African Union Data Policy Framework, adopted in 2022, represents a significant shift towards integrated data governance approaches across Africa. She introduced the concept of “data justice” as ensuring equal representation of all people in the digital space, including diversity of languages and cultures.

“The African Union Data Policy Framework was adopted in 2022, and it really tries to take an integrated approach to data governance across Africa,” Chetty explained. “It introduces this concept of data justice, which is about ensuring equal representation of all people in the digital space, including diversity of languages and cultures.”

Chetty outlined the current state of DPI implementation across Africa, noting significant disparities: while 60% of African countries have established data privacy laws, only 7% have implemented interoperable digital payment systems, and merely nine countries possess real-time data exchange capabilities. This uneven development landscape underscores the importance of harmonised approaches while respecting local contexts.

She positioned DPI as potentially transformative for Africa’s integration agenda, capable of accelerating achievement of Agenda 2063 goals through multi-stakeholder, multi-sectoral, and secure data sharing systems. However, she emphasised that realising this potential requires addressing fundamental questions of data justice and equitable participation.

## Continental Policy Perspective

### African Union’s Integrated Governance Approach

Souhila Amazouz from the African Union Commission elaborated on the continental framework, emphasising how the African Union Data Policy Framework moves beyond traditional transparency measures to actively address equity concerns in digital infrastructure development. She highlighted the framework’s focus on harmonisation while respecting diverse national contexts and capacity levels.

Amazouz stressed that DPI represents a “game changer” for African integration, but warned that technical implementation alone is insufficient. “We need to move beyond just the technical aspects to address fundamental questions of how data governance can serve all our people equitably,” she noted.

The continental perspective revealed the challenge of coordinating DPI development across countries with vastly different technological capabilities and regulatory frameworks, while maintaining the vision of seamless, interoperable systems that can serve the continent’s development goals.

## Civil Society and Democratic Participation

### Reframing Governance Beyond Corporate Models

Thomas Linder from Open North provided the civil society perspective, emphasising how traditional corporate data governance models are inadequate for public infrastructure. He argued that DPI governance requires fundamentally different approaches centred on democratic participation and social contracts.

“Data governance as traditionally understood originated in corporate spaces focused on efficiency and effectiveness, but DPI governance requires different approaches centred on social contracts and democratic participation,” Linder observed.

Linder outlined four key ways civil society organisations can contribute to DPI governance: policy and research work, advocacy for collective ownership models, direct advocacy and accountability work, and capacity building initiatives. He emphasised that civil society serves as an essential third-sector voice to balance state and corporate interests while adapting high-level governance principles to local contexts.

“Civil society organisations have a crucial role in ensuring that DPI implementations serve community needs and maintain democratic accountability,” Linder stated, highlighting the importance of community participation in governance frameworks.

## Economic Analysis and Market Dynamics

### Platform Economics and Monopolisation Risks

Payal Malik from the International Council for Research on International Economic Relations (ICRIER) introduced critical economic analysis of DPI platform dynamics. She highlighted how the economics of multi-sided platforms create inherent network effects that can lead to winner-takes-all outcomes and monopolisation.

“The economics of multi-sided platforms where DPIs essentially function as platforms connecting multiple actors create inherent network effects that can lead to winner-takes-all outcomes resulting in the creation of monopolies,” Malik explained.

She identified a crucial “regulatory blind spot” where private entities operating on public platforms may engage in data collection and usage without adequate oversight, potentially creating “monopolistic enclosures and data hegemony in public-private partnerships.”

Malik argued for comprehensive contractual arrangements and fiduciary obligations to ensure private partners uphold public interest and maintain competitive neutrality in DPI implementations. She emphasised that without proper governance frameworks, there is significant risk that public data and infrastructure will be leveraged for private gain without corresponding public benefit.

## Private Sector Innovation Perspective

### Balancing Innovation with Accountability

Andrew Vennekotter, representing the private sector perspective with experience from NASA and U.S. government technology initiatives, advocated for risk and principles-based frameworks that enable innovation while ensuring accountability. He emphasised the importance of getting data governance right for AI innovation, arguing that premature technology mandates could stifle beneficial developments.

Vennekotter cited a Harvard Business School study showing that AI tools can improve task completion by 12.7% while democratising expertise across skill levels. “This demonstrates the potential benefits of AI when properly governed, but we need frameworks that don’t stifle this innovation through overly prescriptive regulations,” he argued.

He highlighted significant compliance costs associated with prescriptive regulatory approaches, noting that compliance can reach 40% of product value in some jurisdictions. Vennekotter advocated for frameworks based on established standards like the NIST AI Risk Management Framework and ISO 42001, focusing on security, responsible AI implementation, and human-in-the-loop approaches.

“Data governance must focus on risks and principles-based frameworks rather than premature technology standards to enable innovation,” Vennekotter stated, while acknowledging that technical solutions must be embedded within broader governance frameworks.

## Rights-Based Legal Integration

### Moving Beyond Privacy-Centric Approaches

Mariana Rielli from Data Privacy Brazil presented findings from their new report on integrating data protection frameworks with DPI governance. She argued for approaches that move beyond traditional privacy-focused frameworks to encompass broader fundamental rights and accountability mechanisms.

“Economic value being generated by data, regardless of how that is shared, does not per se guarantee the achievement of public value if the rights of people are being neglected,” Rielli observed.

She distinguished between economic value generation and public value creation, emphasising that economic benefits do not automatically translate to public good if people’s rights are neglected. Rielli introduced concepts including “contextual integrity” and briefly mentioned “informational separation of powers” as frameworks for thinking about data governance that go beyond simple privacy protection.

Rielli argued that data protection frameworks should be integrated into DPI discussions as procedural rights that provide rules for just information flows, recognising data protection as containing preventive and precautionary principles that can help ensure DPI implementations serve public rather than private interests.

## Real-World Implementation Challenges

### Lessons from India’s Healthcare DPI

The discussion was grounded through examination of India’s healthcare DPI implementation, presented by audience member Erum via online moderator Nikita Jain from ICRIER. This case study revealed both potential benefits and significant risks of current DPI implementations.

While the system has created efficiencies in patient data sharing among doctors, significant adverse outcomes have emerged. People with chronic diseases such as leprosy, or people with disabilities, struggle with Aadhaar enrollment processes. Most concerning, patients with diseases carrying social stigma, such as HIV and AIDS, exclude themselves from using the Ayushman Bharat Digital Mission (ABDM).

“Although there have been efficiencies in patient data sharing among doctors, significant adverse outcomes have been realised as well. People with chronic diseases, like leprosy, or people with disabilities, struggle with Aadhaar enrollment. Patients of diseases with social stigma, such as HIV, AIDS, exclude themselves from using ABDM,” the audience member reported.

This real-world example demonstrated how technical solutions can reproduce and amplify existing social inequalities despite stated goals of inclusion, effectively creating a two-tiered healthcare system where those most in need of services are least able to access them through the digital system.

## Key Themes and Recommendations

### Integrated Governance Frameworks

Throughout the discussion, speakers emphasised that traditional data protection approaches focusing solely on individual consent and privacy are insufficient for DPI governance. Instead, comprehensive, integrated frameworks are needed that address structural issues, public value creation, and equitable outcomes.

### Multi-Stakeholder Collaboration

Speakers consistently emphasised that effective DPI governance requires collaboration across government, private sector, and civil society organisations. This multi-stakeholder approach was seen as essential for ensuring balanced representation of interests and equitable outcomes.

### Addressing Implementation Gaps

The varying levels of DPI maturity across regions, particularly in Africa, require sustained attention to capacity building and institutional development. Speakers highlighted the need for approaches that can integrate existing digital systems rather than replacing them entirely.

### Preventing Market Concentration

The discussion emphasised the need for contractual arrangements and regulatory frameworks to prevent private monopolisation of public infrastructure, ensuring that DPI serves public purposes rather than private profit maximisation.

## Conclusion

This comprehensive discussion revealed both the transformative potential and significant governance challenges of Digital Public Infrastructure. The conversation demonstrated sophisticated understanding of the need to move beyond technical implementation to address fundamental questions of equity, rights protection, and democratic participation.

The real-world examples of both successes and failures in current DPI implementations underscore that these are urgent practical challenges affecting millions of people’s access to essential services. The emphasis on data justice, equity, and inclusion reflects growing recognition that technical efficiency alone is insufficient—DPI must actively work to serve all populations, particularly the most vulnerable.

The path forward requires continued collaboration across sectors, sustained attention to capacity building, and commitment to learning from both successes and failures in current implementations. Only through comprehensive governance approaches can DPI fulfil its promise of enabling equitable digital transformation while avoiding the risks of market concentration, exclusion, and rights violations that current implementations have revealed.

Chetty Pria: Good afternoon, everyone, and thank you for joining us after the tea break. We are very excited today about this particular panel because it brings the data conversations that we’ve been having, I think, across the last few days into focus. And today we’re speaking about data for impact and its correlation with digital public infrastructure and how we can evolve and shift our approaches to data governance to bring more equitable and inclusive approaches to data governance. This correlates, I think, with IGF Subtheme 2, which is around building sustainable and responsible innovation. And I think this has really been our experience as we’ve worked across digital public infrastructure, artificial intelligence more recently, policies that are centred on micro and small enterprises in the digital economy, and various other subjects interrelated with this subject that data governance is really being looked to as a model to bring more equity and inclusion in what technology and innovation promises in this age. So, a quick introduction of myself, the moderator for the session. My name is Priya Chetty. I come from Research ICT Africa. We are a digital policy think tank based in Cape Town, but working across Africa on a range of programmatic areas around digital equality and data justice. Your online moderator today is Nikita Jain. You’ll see her. Hello to all the online participants. You’ll see Nikita with you. She is an economist with the International Council for Research on International Economic Relations, ICREA. So welcome, online participants, and thank you, Nikita, for the online moderation. So, just a few thoughts to set the scene for today. We’ve had a number of conversations around digital public infrastructure, and really this opportunity that is presented by DPI as a foundational layer technology option for digital transformation across society. And so we’ve had a number of discussions in the lead up to this on DPI. And the promise in digital public infrastructure to drive national digital transformation, to drive regional digital transformation, to foster innovation, and to produce some outcomes for sustainable development. What is the promise behind DPI for sustainable development? At the same time, we have this realization that the ambition that we have for DPI is not realized unless we have relevant governance frameworks to give us direction, to give us a strategy, and to keep us accountable for what we will do with DPI. So, what we want from the technical perspective is high levels of efficiency. And sometimes there can be an overfocus, I suppose, on the technical side of things. So we want to have a balanced approach that is about technical efficiency, but also about equitable outcomes. If we are investing in digital public infrastructure. We want to have a fair degree of openness in terms of the systems, in terms of the applications, and in terms of the data. And at the same time, we want to balance this with assurances that we need to give society and users about the security of the data, and the protection of the data, and the assurances that will be built into the systems and applications that are constituted by digital public infrastructure. So, what we are speaking about is that we want to advance the innovation, and at the same time, we want to make sure that the governance delivers an accountability framework that we can rely on as we implement digital public infrastructure. When we speak about data governance specifically, we first speak about the association between data governance and digital public infrastructure. We have come to recognize that how we govern the data, the data exchange component, not just as a pillar of DPI, but across digital identity and digital payments implementation, really determines whether DPIs can deliver on this promise. That data governance has become so integral to the objectives of digital public infrastructure. And this is where we speak about how we are going to, one, adapt our data governance frameworks so that we can foster the innovation that we need, because we need to see the data moving across this layer at the system level. And also, how we can broaden the participation of those who are engaging with the digital public infrastructure for data-led value creation. Can they participate in the data value chain? So, when we speak about data governance, it isn’t just about the protection mechanisms and the accountability mechanisms. It’s also about whether it can be used and leveraged, the governance that we have It’s also about whether it can be used and leveraged, the governance framework, to empower citizens digitally. Can changes in access to data and use of data and sharing and exchange of data at all levels of society empower citizens and users of DPI? And when we enable this kind of integrated data governance framework, can we unlock this sustainable development gain? The challenge that we see at the same time is that this requires a different orientation to data governance. So, a reference that we work with at Research IST Africa and now a model that has been absorbed into the Global South is the African Union Data Policy Framework. And this particular framework is looking at this integrated approach to data governance. It speaks about whether the frameworks that we have currently provide for the essential digital and data rights for all. And we don’t just mean the right to privacy or the right to information. We’re speaking about the right to meaningful connectivity. Whether the frameworks actually do allow this data exchange for equitable and beneficial data access. So, where citizens are not just the providers of data, but they are in fact using the data in beneficial ways. Whether these frameworks are adequate for transparency, accountability, and responsible data use. Whether the mechanisms of enforcement and redress are there and apparent in the frameworks or whether we need to improve them to address issues of bias that can present in the data or rights violations. Do we need stronger oversight or interoperability mandates? And when we see this unique coming together of public and private sector in new models of cooperation, do we have the necessary mechanisms in our broader data governance frameworks? Not just in our data protection frameworks or in our access to information laws, but also in our consumer protection laws and our market mechanisms, our competition laws and policies to prevent monopolization while also fostering this open innovation. And that brings us to our session today. Which we hope will be interactive and we hope that you will engage with us on recommendations that we can take forward.

Souhila Amazouz: There’s been a lot of conversations on what we need. But how exactly are we going to do it? So we’re going to hear from our fantastic panelists today who are each going to bring unique perspectives from their work and their on the ground work in this space. And then we’re going to have some audience engagement where I hope you will not just raise questions for the panelists but also share your recommendations and your experience working in this space. I think what’s wonderful about the IGF is that we’re in a room of experts where everyone is equally vested in this topic but also actively engaged in this topic. So with that, I want to bring our panelists into the conversation. We are delighted to have with us today Sohila Amosu who joins us from the African Union Commission where she’s a senior ICT policy officer and has been engaged in over two decades in various situations of ICT frameworks, policy frameworks, digital policy frameworks, now data policy frameworks, including in the regional harmonization efforts and technical support to member states in Africa. We have Andrew Fenecotta from Amazon Web Services. He’s a senior manager there. And to date the only person that I know who’s worked at NASA but he has. He is an expert in cybersecurity and assurance work in the trust area and worked for many years in the public sector and now leading public-private efforts at AWS. We have Payal Malik who’s the senior advisor to the International Council for Research on International Economic Relations, ICREA. And Payal for many years has been based at the Competition Commission where she advised and informed policy shifts. So her work is at the intersection of economics, competition, and policy. We have Thomas Linder with us from the Open North. He’s a senior coordinator on various initiatives related to data governance, citizen engagement, and to data justice. And we have Mariana Rielli who’s the co-executive director of Data Privacy Brazil and brings a fascinating perspective where Brazil is really encountering these issues on the ground already and so really looking forward to Mariana’s perspective. perspectives from the ground in Brazil with her data governance work. So, over to our panelists. Souhila, if I can come to you first for your continental and public sector perspective. Can you paint the picture for us? What are the relevant continental policy frameworks that guide data governance for DPI? Especially when we speak about equitable and inclusive outcomes for society from DPI. And what is your experience with those frameworks? What can you share from your experience of engaging with those frameworks and lessons here for the IGF community? Good afternoon. Do you hear me? Good afternoon. Thank you. First of all, I would like to thank Research ICT Africa for extending the invitation to the African Union Commission to be part of this important conversation on how to develop or to advance effective and well-functioning data governance frameworks and mechanisms to support the deployment of digital public infrastructure, knowing that data is a foundational component of DPI. So, to respond to your question, I would say that from our African Union perspective, we see DPI as a game changer. Like for Africa, it will help to support our integration and development agenda. It has the potential to accelerate the attainment of the Agenda 2063 and advance digital transformation, and also address the socio-economic inequalities, knowing that DPI is a concept of integrated systems and the operability of digital systems that will create a platform for citizens’ participation, and also it will improve lives as it will facilitate access to essential services, and this will really help to bridge the digital divide affecting the continent. It also has the opportunity to create new business opportunities for people, like to boost intra-Africa digital trade, the development of an inclusive digital economy. And also, we really aim that through the implementation of the DPI concept, we can achieve the digital prosperity and inclusion of the continent. So, at continental level so far, we don’t have a continental policy on DPI, but we have many strategic frameworks that have been adopted in recent years. They are laying the foundation for the development of DPI across the continent. Maybe, as you mentioned, the main one is the African Union Data Policy Framework that was adopted in 2022. Our main objective is to see how to harness the potential of data to transform the economies and societies, and also it aims to build the capabilities of African countries when it comes to data, like how to manage data, to have the data storage capacities, and also to create a kind of data exchanges at national level that will help data access and also facilitate data transfer. So, the data policy frameworks lay the foundation for the development of integrated data governance approach across the continent, and we are now in the implementation phase, as we are implementing the framework through a continental initiative, which is a data governance initiative for Africa, where we support all African countries to develop their national data strategies or policies, to develop capacities, because there is also a need to build institutional and human capacities in data to enable data, to make data available, to enable data access, use data sharing, and it is one of the main conditions that will enable us to develop DPI. So, just to highlight that all this, another framework that is directly related to DPI is the interoperability framework for digital ID, which is also a continental framework that was adopted in 2022. It aims to create space for countries to agree on minimum standards and technical parameters, and also harmonization of policies and regulations to facilitate and enable the use of digital ID across the continent. There is also an initiative on digital payment, where we created a Pan-African payment and settlement system in Africa. It is a digital platform that is already operational, that aims to facilitate payment across the continent without relying on foreign policies. So, this is the key strategic frameworks that we have in place, but both of them are in the implementation phase, and all of them are aligned with our main core values, like the principles of equity and integrity, and also we introduced a new concept of data justice and also transparency. Through the data justice, we aim to ensure equal representation to all people in the digital space, including the diversity of languages and cultures. So, as I said, we are now working with all countries to develop national capacities, because it is important. At the same time, also, we have many countries that have started implementing DPI at national level. We have countries that advance DPI as a national priority, such as South Africa, they are also pushing through the G20 also for DPI, and we have other countries that are really making good progress in advancing DPI as an integrated approach. Like, we have already progressed when it comes to advancing digital ID systems and also some experiences on digital data exchanges. For instance, we have around 60% of African countries, they have already the data privacy in place. We have like 60% also, they have in place transactions, legislations, and when it comes to the countries with data exchanges, we have 28 countries so far, they have data exchanges. Among them, they have 22, they are cross-sectoral data exchanges, but only nine of them, they have real-time data exchanges. And we have so far, 35% of African countries, they have in place some kind of digital payment systems, but only 7% of them, they are interoperable, which shows that there is work in progress. There is a lot of policy development and also implementation, while at the same time, we try to align to the African context. We know that our main challenge is to address the infrastructure and digital deficit, while at the same time, integrating all what is related to digital transformation, including DPI in the national development agenda. I stop here and I would be happy to come back if there are any questions. Thank you. Thank you so much, Sina, and I think you’ve already introduced

Chetty Pria: into this conversation a few defining concepts for us to take forward. The one, signaling the need for interoperability of the data and the data systems, if we are really going to unlock the access to the digital services in our digital transformation ambitions. The second, data justice, where access to data benefits all, and seeing how we meaningfully deliver on that. You spoke about integrated governance and you also gave us a picture, I suppose, of the data ecosystem that we see across the continent and the need to boost the maturity of the data ecosystem. I wonder if I could bring Andrew into the conversation now. Sihila spoke a little to the ambitions of the continent and what the digital transformation ambitions are that rely heavily on innovation. So, I wanted to ask you, what is the reason for us to get the data governance right if we want to enable this kind of DPI innovation? Why is data governance so critical in this space? And I wonder, Andrew, if you can draw on your public sector and your private sector experience. Sure. So, thanks. And I want to say, first of all, I appreciate the

Andrew Vennekotter: opportunity to speak at this event. One of my, actually my last posting for the U.S. government was in Ghana. So, I spent a year living in Accra. So, to any Ghanaians out there, thank you for welcoming me to this. So, let me start with why getting data governance is so critical for enabling innovation. At its core, data governance is about asserting positive control over, especially in the AI world, generative AI outputs. So, we have to ensure that they’re not just useful, but also safe and beneficial. And so, while large language models are becoming increasingly sophisticated generating content, reducing hallucinations, and performing deep research, there’s no shortcut for around good data governance. The better we help AI understand our data, the better results we’ll achieve. And that goes for, you know, private companies and governments and public organizations alike. But then, you have to also think about security, which is a critical part of data governance. So, security is a fundamental aspect of governance frameworks. It can’t be an afterthought or a bolted-on solution. It has to be woven into organizations’ cultural fabric and prioritized by leadership, which means carefully selecting providers and partners in the public and private sector who demonstrate a strong security culture. And clear data ownership is also crucial. So we also recommend that organizations work with partners to establish distinct ownership boundaries around data and provide tools for secure data management. So another aspect of data governance that we need to get right is a responsible AI, right? You need to have a concrete plan for managing risks. I recommend starting with established frameworks like NIST’s AI Risk Management Framework or international certifications like ISO 42001. Those provide structured approaches to developing AI safely while limiting potential harmful content. And so there’s a lot of, that’s data governance, right? But why do we need data governance? What is the whole point of gathering data, processing and generating new information? What are we doing this for? And I think a lot of the benefits of gen AI have not yet been fully realized by a lot of organizations. So there’s a lot of buzz around it, but I want to share some actual research and exciting findings. There’s a Harvard Business School study recently, actually earlier this year, that investigated 776 professionals at Procter & Gamble and it revealed some pretty remarkable insights. Teams using AI showed significant performance improvements, completing tasks 12.7% faster while producing higher quality work. And what’s particularly interesting is that a single AI-enabled individual was able to perform at levels comparable to traditional teams working without AI. And so it also, the study also found that AI helps break down expertise barriers within organizations. It bridges functional silos between different specialists, such as R&D, commercial teams, and enables professionals to produce more balanced solutions regardless of their background. This democratization of expertise is transforming how organizations operate. It’s also enabling people who are, who may not be extremely technical or engineers to start thinking about creative solutions to technical problems in new ways, which is, I think, something that we’re all interested in. And we’re seeing these benefits in some real-world applications. And, you know, not speaking for all providers, but for us, we have a customer, YC, and they’re using AI to revolutionize medical writing, regulatory medical writing, which is significantly accelerating the delivery of new medicines. And by maintaining a human-in-a-loop approach, they ensure not only regulatory accuracy and compliance, but also save pharmaceutical companies thousands of hours in document preparation time. And so that human-in-a-loop approach is also critical. It goes back to the risk management framework. We have to think about where humans need to be, in fact, involved in the AI data governance. So that’s a critical thing that all organizations, public or private, should be thinking about. So, you know, we talked a lot about, we talked a lot about, like, governance and regulation. So when does government regulation of technology make sense? I think where it makes sense is when we focus on risks and principles, right? So we need to develop frameworks based on risks and principles, because the, you know, if we, if we, the compliance costs for most government imposed regulations are pretty high. In the EU, they’re about 40% of the total product’s value, right? So if you think about how to enable innovation, and you’re already taxing an organization’s resources with 40%, you can think of all the different things you can do with that, with those resources. And so harmonizing standards is also critical, right? So enable, to enable international cooperation and things like data governance. We need to figure out how to make the standards work together with each other, because technology does not have borders anymore, really. And so the more we can enable innovation everywhere in the globe, the more the entire globe benefits from that. So we also need to think about when not to do that, right? When should we be cautious when mandating new standards? Because I think we’ve all can think of an example of a standard regulating something when the technology advances much faster than the standard. And so that’s not to say that we shouldn’t do standards. Obviously we should, we have lots of standards that we comply with in my organization. But it just means that we need to make sure that the technology is in a settled place, in a place that will allow for the use of standards in a smart way that thinks about the risks and principles involved. And so the second thing we need to do is to accelerate private sector digital adoption. And that means streamlining access to private finance for startups and government funding for businesses, a factor that 45% of businesses decide is critical. We also need to think about lifting up all boats by building digital skills. So 84% of businesses see AI skills as crucial but only 26% feel adequately prepared. And that goes for the entire globe, right? Especially if you think about some of the great innovations going on in Ghana where I served. I knew a lot of folks who were itching to spread their products to the globe, but they were facing a limitation of digital skills in terms of the labor workforce. So I think that there’s a lot of work we can do both in the private sector and the public sector to enable that. And then finally.

Chetty Pria: Andrew, I wonder if we could pause there and if we could come back to your recommendations, final recommendations in the closing remarks. I thought it was a good point to bring in AI innovation as an example and to then use that as a proxy for speaking about the positive control that we might need over some of the AI innovation outputs. But at the same time, I think it’s a good time to bring in Payal now. What we’re seeing, especially in DPI, and Andrew has spoken quite a bit about AI as a proxy, but across the DPI, we’re seeing this model of public and private participation and this model of public-private sector coming together to implement DPI. And I wanted to come to you to give us a perspective on how this is influencing markets and what some of the key data governance challenges are that are emerging in that space. Are there risks of market concentration, data extractivism, privatization of public data? I make these three points because I have inside information having collaborated with you on a recent paper. But I wonder if you could come in at this point. What is the interplay between the public and private sector? What are the risks we should be aware of? And what is the potential for data governance to address some of those risks?

Malik Payal: Thank you, Priya. And yes, as you mentioned about that T20 policy brief, which we did, it was really great to collaborate with you because these issues which were not discussed in the DPI ecosystem, especially the role of data governance, etc., and how it may be a competition issue as well. So as we all know, DPI’s distinguished characteristics, and that’s what we are all excited about because it is really transformational when it comes to public service delivery, characteristics of openness, interoperability and scalability to underscore DPI’s criticality beyond just technology, but for the larger goals of public and private service delivery. So what was pathbreaking with this kind of technology where the public infrastructure was kind of rails that they provided a network or gateway that enabled other entities, and especially the private entities, and that’s where the value creation came from, to scale up to a simple plug-and-play system by building digital applications or services on these rails. But the economics of multi-sided platforms where DPI’s are essentially the platforms connecting multiple actors, be it users, be it service providers, be it the applications, the value of the platform to one side increases with increased number of participants on the other side. So these inherent network effects of DPI’s can lead to winner-takes-all outcomes resulting in the creation of monopolies. So in the data ecosystem, there are significant concerns that these applications, which are the private entities trying to create value out of the public infrastructure, may involve or may be extracting a huge amount of data. What are the data usage principles? Are they governed by any, or it is free for all? Because these zero-priced products, because these, for instance, in the case of India’s UPI, it is zero-priced. market for users, but the application providers, that is the TPAP, that is the third party application providers, are harvesting vast amounts of user data over time. Because data is like a shareable modular input that allows these firms, who are then riding on these digital public infrastructure rails, to also expand into adjacent markets. For instance, in the payment system, we are seeing that exploiting these data, harnessed and harvested from these public infrastructures, companies are then getting into retail lending, microfinance, et cetera. So what needs to be done, and that’s why we had started our discussion, that there is an absence of a contractual or regulatory framework which governs these private entities operating on these public infrastructures. So there should be some, to address these challenges, there should be some governance reforms. And what we are discussing at various forums is that DPI must be treated as a shared infrastructure and not be converted into exclusive assets because only a handful of companies are then harvesting the data. So there should be some kind of a contractual arrangement or concession agreements between the private entity and the public infrastructure provider to provide for open access, but also put limits on the kind of data which could be collected, the minimization of data collection, et cetera. And these agreements, therefore, should establish fiduciary obligations on the private partners to uphold public interest and competitive neutrality, thereby aligning the private incentives with public goals. So there is currently a regulatory blind spot, if I may say, because if this data collection, data usage by the private entities on these public platforms is not regulated, it may lead to creation of monopolistic enclosures and data hegemony in public-private partnerships. So privileged access to public data sets enables these dominant players to leverage DPI infrastructure and create more dominance in many several markets. And currently, we see that there is an absence of effective governance arrangements which exacerbates the risks of data extractivism, network effects exploitation, and reinforcements of existing hierarchies. So while these DPIs were supposed to be, by design, competitive, and of course they did allow multiple parties to participate, but the fear is they may end up as alt-big tech because of the data misuse and in the absence of data governance. So I can stop here, and there we could just then discuss what are these possibilities, what could be a good data governance framework, not just limited to the data protection laws, but because data protection laws do not take care of these structural infirmities which are arising out of indiscriminate data use by private entities.

Chetty Pria: And thank you so much, Payal, and thanks for sharing also or introducing that what we are witnessing here is these platforms connecting multiple actors. So we’re seeing these network effects, and we do need to ask the question of how we create the value, how do we embed these data governance principles, use the example of digital payments as needing those embedded frameworks, including contractual frameworks, regulatory frameworks. And it comes back to that question of what makes DPI, in fact, public infrastructure? What makes it public? So, and let’s emphasize the concepts of openness, interoperability. Andrew, you mentioned democratization and the need to develop the appropriate standards. And I think that’s where we want to place the emphasis is on the maturity of the governance frameworks we have, but also have that democratization element that you mentioned is so crucial. I wonder if we can come to you now, Thomas, to bring in the civil society perspective and your data justice work. What is the role of civil society here as these governance frameworks are being built? And how do we strengthen data governance frameworks by bringing in the crucial civil society perspective?

Linder Thomas: Thank you, Priya. Hi, everyone. Thanks for inviting me. It’s a pleasure to be here, and it’s a pleasure to follow such excellent speakers. I think from this perspective, I’d like to broaden the scope somewhat and talk about what data governance has become in this conversation about DPI. It’s been becoming this for quite a while when you think about it. Data governance as a term originated in the corporate space and was very tied to questions of efficiency and effectivity as it pertains to corporations and profit-making. However, that’s really not what we’re talking about in DPI that much anymore. I mean, sure, there will be some for-profit elements, but a lot of it is public infrastructure. It’s in the name. So really, we’re talking about something much broader than just questions of efficiency. And as you mentioned, Priya, it comes down to questions of democracy and inclusion and participation and equity and all of those things. And once we understand data governance from that perspective, it becomes far more a question of using data governance to understand the kind of social contract that we’re developing with DPI, right? This isn’t just a simple for-profit venture. This is a redesigning of fundamental parts of society. And from that perspective, including civil society is essential as it has been for a wide range of many other society-changing developments that we’ve had over the last decades. Civil society’s role there has always been as a kind of third sector, right, to balance the interests of the state and to balance the interests of corporate interests. Civil society organizations are in a very unique position in this, from this perspective, to represent different interests of groups and communities that would otherwise have been lost. And this is really essential because they function not just as a different interest, but they also function to represent these interests on different levels. They can be extremely local to transnational. We see all sorts of civil society organizations doing this, whether they’re non-profit or charity or NGO or any other guys. So as we’re thinking about introducing DPI and thinking about the data governance of it, we really need to ensure that we have this third sector voice that can represent these different organizations, these different communities, these different groups at these different levels. So including them in the conversation, including them in the design and implementation and operationalization of data governance is essential as you’re leaving out vast swaths of the people purported to be represented or you served by DPI. So what are the main ways that civil society orgs can participate in this? Because after all, it is largely up to them to take up the baton and do that, as many do. And from my perspective, there are four, if you count it differently, five different ways for civil society orgs to do this. The classic one is policy and research. Then the more, let’s call it the pie in the sky one, is collective ownership over data and also collective ownership and control over software and hardware. A fourth one would be advocacy, representing groups, pushing voices, and finally, capacity building. And I will get into each one of these one at a time. So from the policy and research perspective, civil society organizations, and there are a great number of excellent organizations who do this, have done exceptional work to not just conduct simple policy analysis and provide recommendations, but when we’re talking about this kind of wholesale application of high-level data governance principles, ethical frameworks, et cetera, what’s really needed, what we’ve seen over and over again, is a combination of integration, adaptation, and operationalization to local contexts and conditions. It will never work to simply take one model, one cookie-cutter approach, and replicate it all across the world, certainly not in a place as diverse as Africa. It just doesn’t work that way. You need civil society organizations with a deep embedded understanding of the local conditions who can help to do this integration, adaptation, and operationalization, especially for something like DPI, where there are so many pre-existing, what I like to think of as precursor DPI projects, whether they’re around digital ID, or payments, or data exchange, or whatever the next function is that we add to the DPI complex. Many of these things already exist in some form or another quite successfully, and you… can’t just replace them, they need to be integrated, they need to be adapted. So the top-down ideas of DPI need to be connected to these pre-existing projects on the ground. And the local civil society organizations that know them best are also best suited to help do this kind of work. Then civil society organizations can also help with coordination and translation of this knowledge. I’m thinking here specifically of knowledge gleaned by practitioners on the one hand, so people who’ve been doing the work to operationalize and implement this tech already, but then also the important academic work that happens. And frequently there’s a mismatch between the two, sides don’t talk to each other very well. But civil society organizations can be uniquely situated to help facilitate that connection, to bridge between the two worlds and translate that knowledge that may most effectively be adopted by both sides. We’ve seen several organizations in Africa that do this very well, Research ICT Africa is one, Open Cities Lab is another, Policy is one after that. So they already exist and it’s just a question of championing them further.

Chetty Pria: Thomas, I wonder if we could stop there. I think we’re waiting to get to Mariana as well, because Mariana, this is a good point to come in. As we’ve heard the different recommendations from the panelists and also interesting now to bring you in with also a technical perspective on this topic. So as you’ve listened in, I suppose, what are your recommendations for how some of this can be built into the technical side of DPI? These essential elements, the essential attributes of what we’re speaking about as the just information architecture, if we want to realize these outcomes from DPI. Thank you.

Mariana Rielli: Thank you, Priya. Thank you for the question and also the invitation to be on this panel and to the panelists before me. So I have this tough challenge of having little time and being the last one to kind of try to bring everything together. But we were thinking, I speak from an organization that is based in Brazil and is doing local and global work to promote fundamental rights in the face of datafication processes. And we were acquainted somehow with the idea of DPI as a framing and as a definition and that it is disputed also around the time of the transition between the G20 in India and the G20 in Brazil, which took place last year. And we were asking ourselves, I think some of these same questions, like some more conceptual or what are we talking and some more normative, what is the public and DPI? What should it be? And I think what I heard, I heard a lot about the word integration and integrating frameworks. And we have been attempting based on the Brazilian context where we have fundamental rights to data protection and a very lively current landscape of both legal and institutional movements to kind of give life to this right and to this framework. How that can also be integrated to the discussions of DPI, because I think our hypothesis was that this grammar of data protection was not duly integrated to the discussions of data governance when it comes to DPI. So what we had already at that point had some research and policy work on risks of digital identity systems in the Brazilian context. And those were risks arising from data processing specifically, but also broader risks of discrimination, exclusion. I mean, I think we all know what we’re talking about here, but basically I think our concern was to not frame the problem of data related risks of ID and of digital infrastructure only in terms of privacy, but rather understanding how data protection as a procedural right that has certain mechanisms to be implemented that already involves a whole number of actors that need to be accountable, how that can be better integrated into the discussions of first identity as a backbone of DPI, but also now with the DPI framework. So more recently we produced this new report that kind of seeks to create, to propose that integration. Of course, it considers the Brazilian legal institutional framework for data protection, but we understand that there is a lot of it that is relevant elsewhere. And I think it goes back to the idea that while privacy is substantive, the idea of data protection really starts from the idea that personal information will circulate and should circulate, and it provides the rules and the constraints to ensure that this information flow is just and protects fundamental rights, including privacy, but also other fundamental rights. So we think that this is relevant because I think we think that it provides a bridge to concerns about trust that not being formulated only in terms of trustworthiness of systems, but rather from a relational perspective that centers people, that centers their rights and that creates mechanisms to ensure transparency, accountability, and redress for people. So from this particular context, from this particular read on DPI, the report comes to a few conclusions and attempts to articulate these ideas. I will briefly share them. I know we have very little time, but it starts really addressing the public value in DPI as a condition for it, and that economic value being generated by data, regardless of how that is shared, does not per se guarantee the achievement of public value if the rights of people are being neglected, and that informational autonomy and self-determination at the same time that it ensures that individuals are able to exercise their capacity to develop their personalities, but also to know how their data is being used. It also can generate collective value as it creates more trusting people and also trustworthy databases and even can act as barriers to fraud and identities that affect when you have that kind of relationship being established and using those concepts from data protection and those ideas of self-determination. We also talk about privacy as contextual integrity. I think this is also important to kind of bring into the discussion. This is very confined usually to data protection scholarly circles, but we think that it makes sense in the context of DPI as well, and the informational separation of powers, the idea that at least on the state side of things, there needs to be also administrative oversight and certain mechanisms to make sure that the sharing of data is also not creating more concentration of power on that side of the equation. And finally, there are also some discussions on accountability mechanisms and the idea that data protection is already containing a preventive and sometimes a precautionary principle and accountability mechanisms such as assessments and things that could also be looked at in terms of being updated and being adapted to the context of DPI, but that we think really should not be taken for granted. And I think the idea is that sometimes you have this notion that data protection is solely related to privacy or that it is very individual, but what we try to kind of stress here is whether that framework also can be further assessed in terms of its public value creation. So what we have attempted to do in Brazil recently was that, and I will stop here so that we have some time for questions.

Chetty Pria: Thank you. And thanks so much, Mariana. And I think everyone’s wondering when they can get access to that report or read it. And certainly I am very keen to read it. But thanks for that. And what was really interesting was that you were speaking about embedding the rights frameworks, even in the information flows and speaking about, I suppose, beyond privacy by design. You know, what comes next in terms of these real mechanisms of accountability. And you spoke about autonomy and self-determination. And I think that goes back to what Thomas was describing as the social contract. If we want people to show up, then how do we deliver on the value that was initially promised? And so this has been an excellent set of provocations, I think, for how we get closer to the data governance framework that we need. So thank you, panelists, for bringing those very many perspectives. And Mariana, you also mentioned integrity. I think that ties in with some of what we spoke about in terms of security as well. But placing now the emphasis, even when we speak about integrity, on how we deliver assured data value for citizens. So let’s turn now to our people in the room and let’s ask Nikita if we’ve got any questions. When the screen swapped a little bit, I did see that there were a few comments or perhaps some questions in the chat. Nikita, can we go to you and get a sense of comments or questions that have come up from online participants? And while we’re doing that, can I also ask everyone in the room, if you’ve got a question, to please come up to one of these microphones and we’ll take a round of questions. So, we have one comment, so let me first go through that.

Audience: So, it says that, like, Amin has commented on it. And in Amin’s thoughts, basically, we should structure a DPI in a way that facilitates a seamless cross-border data movement. And this way, it will gonna enable innovations such as AI in designing models. So, that’s one feedback that we have got in the chat. Besides that, there is Erum, who wants to actually discuss the findings of implementation of DPI in India in a healthcare space, like focusing on the ABDM, which is Ayushman Bharat Digital Mission. So, she’s, like, kind of discussing the findings from the Anita Gurumurthy, who is the Executive Director in IT4Change. And she presented it in a seminar. So, I’m just, like, giving a brief of what are the findings that Erum has provided in the chat box. And then the panelists can provide their feedbacks if they have any. So, the findings are, basically, although there have been efficiencies in patient data sharing among doctors and in healthcare aggregate data analytics supporting insurance companies, significant adverse outcomes have been realized as well. So, these include lack of access by many patients to ABDM and ABDM-Cas. For instance, people with chronic diseases, like leprosy, or people with disabilities, struggle with Aadhaar enrollment or authentication, leading to exclusion of those in need of healthcare services, diluting their right to equitable access to healthcare. The next finding is that the prospect of sharing health data in this manner also diverts some from accessing digital healthcare at all. For example, patients of diseases with social stigma, such as HIV, AIDS, exclude themselves from using ABDM. And lastly, the sharing of medical data violates the privacy by design principle. So, these are the findings that have been presented. So, if any of the panelists, yeah, over to you, Priya, then.

Chetty Pria: Thanks so much, Nikita. And I think that’s a great example to use, because I think it makes some of what we are speaking about here really, really come alive. We, I’m looking around, and there aren’t any hands raised. So, please feel, oh, Andrew’s raised his hand. Andrew, can I ask you, when you raise your hand as well, to also maybe just share a closing thought, and perhaps it’s included in what you’re going to raise, but to share a closing thought as we turn to each of the panelists for a line, a word, something you’re taking out of the session as we close the session.

Andrew Vennekotter: Yeah, thanks for the opportunity to talk. I do have to drop in a couple of minutes. So, just a really quick reaction to that question. There are actually some pretty good approaches right now in terms of technology, such as a data clean room, which is something that you use basically to analyze data without sharing the raw data among different organizations. And that’s a technical privacy-preserving technique that can help if you’re interested in sharing some of that sensitive medical data across providers. So, an approach that’s been implemented by many different providers in many different ways, but data clean rooms are at least something to explore when related to that question. And I’ll keep my remarks at that. Thanks for the opportunity. Remember, risks and principles-based frameworks don’t lock in technology before the industry has agreed on a standard, and make sure to lift all boats with skills and technology development.

Chetty Pria: Thanks, Andrew. Can I come to you, Suheela, for a closing thought?

Souhila Amazouz: Thank you, Priya. I would, from my side, I would say that data governance is an imperative for the development of equitable DPI. We have seen that really there is a need to have, to ensure that there is multi-stakeholder, multi-sectoral, and secure and safe data sharing systems, like to support the operationalization of DPI. And this can only be achieved also with putting in place the necessary safeguards through accountability, transparency, and also measures to mitigate the risks of misuse and also the risk of exclusion in the digital space. As you mentioned, when we started the session, the DPI main objective, if we can say, is really to ensure digital inclusion and also to empower people. Thank you, Priya, for this opportunity to speak.

Chetty Pria: Thank you so much, Suheela. Payal and then Thomas, if I can come to you for closing thoughts.

Malik Payal: Yeah, thank you, Priya. So I think there was a very good question from the audience, and that basically is the core of our discussion here, that DPI’s governance system, that is, they were supposed to be having embedded privacy by design, competition by design. But those principles are continuously violated. And she gave the example of India’s Ayushman Bhadad health digital mission. So I guess the sooner the DPI community understands, which they do, but the sooner some governance frameworks, integrated governance frameworks are discussed, the better it is. Because the very benefit which these DPIs were supposed to bring on the table would be lost, because we don’t want to be in a situation by that where in the absence of clear governance guardrails, especially data governance, this data can quietly slip into quasi-private control without transparency, accountability, or equitable return to public. And why we keep on talking about integrated data governance frameworks? Because data protection laws generally just focus on individual consent and privacy. These are important, but they are insufficient as they do not address many structural risks. And lastly, the Indian government also, I just pulled out because of the question which has been put up, is quite aware of the data concerns and which not only are challenges related to cybersecurity, but also protocols regarding robust encryption protocols to safeguard data during transmission and storage. And data storage, and Andrew is here, is also to be looked into carefully. Where is most of the data getting stored? Is there so much of private control on data storage? What is the government’s control on this data? What are the cross-border data flow rules in place, et cetera? So in short, it’s not just about privacy and consent awareness, which do get protected, get covered through data protection laws if they exist. Data governance is far more broad and should not be left to just a single law, just a data protection law, but should integrate all aspects of the DPI ecosystem, such that even issues such as disproportionate control, data sharing, et cetera, interoperability and portability are also taken into consideration. Thank you.

Chetty Pria: Thanks so much, Payal. I’ve been signaled that we’ve run out of time, but Thomas, I wanted to say that both you and Mariana, that I think layering onto what Payal and Andrew have said and what Sahila has said, I think there’s also value, one, in bringing these perspectives together, and thank you for sharing those perspectives, but also value in what you described, Thomas, as the precursor projects. There are lessons to be learned from our digital identity and digital payment ventures that came before. And then Mariana, as we said, so excited to read that report, and thank you also for sharing. I think we’ve heard from India and we’re hearing from Brazil, and these are the crucial lessons as we develop maturity and interest in DPI as to what’s working, what’s not working, but really timely and current insights coming from live DPI applications. So thank you all so much, panelists. We’ve run out of time. We could have expected it. It’s a great conversation to have had and look forward to continuing these conversations and our efforts and initiatives across the spectrum of stakeholders to make the DPI governance work for the outcomes that we’re pursuing. Thanks, everyone. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks. Goodbye.

Agreement points

Need for integrated and comprehensive data governance frameworks beyond traditional data protection laws

Speakers

– Chetty Pria
– Souhila Amazouz
– Malik Payal
– Mariana Rielli

Arguments

DPI requires integrated data governance approaches that balance technical efficiency with equitable outcomes and accountability

The African Union Data Policy Framework provides foundation for integrated data governance across the continent, emphasizing data justice and equal representation

Current data protection laws are insufficient as they focus only on individual consent and privacy, not addressing structural risks in DPI ecosystems

Data protection frameworks should be integrated into DPI discussions as procedural rights that provide rules for just information flows

Summary

All speakers agree that traditional data protection approaches are insufficient for DPI governance and that comprehensive, integrated frameworks are needed that address structural issues, public value creation, and equitable outcomes rather than just individual privacy concerns.

Topics

Data governance | Legal and regulatory | Human rights principles

Multi-stakeholder approaches are essential for effective DPI governance

Speakers

– Souhila Amazouz
– Linder Thomas
– Chetty Pria

Arguments

Multi-stakeholder, multi-sectoral, and secure data sharing systems are imperative for equitable DPI development

Civil society organizations serve as essential third sector to balance state and corporate interests in DPI development

DPI requires integrated data governance approaches that balance technical efficiency with equitable outcomes and accountability

Summary

Speakers consistently emphasize that effective DPI governance requires collaboration across multiple stakeholders including government, private sector, and civil society to ensure balanced representation of interests and equitable outcomes.

Topics

Development | Human rights principles | Legal and regulatory

Risk of market concentration and monopolization in DPI ecosystems requires governance attention

Speakers

– Malik Payal
– Andrew Vennekotter
– Chetty Pria

Arguments

DPI platforms connecting multiple actors create network effects that can lead to winner-takes-all outcomes and monopolization

Data governance must focus on risks and principles-based frameworks rather than premature technology standards to enable innovation

DPI requires integrated data governance approaches that balance technical efficiency with equitable outcomes and accountability

Summary

Speakers agree that DPI implementations face inherent risks of market concentration due to network effects and that governance frameworks must proactively address these risks while enabling innovation.

Topics

Economic | Data governance | Consumer protection

Public value creation must be prioritized over purely economic outcomes in DPI

Speakers

– Mariana Rielli
– Souhila Amazouz
– Chetty Pria

Arguments

Public value in DPI requires that economic value generation does not come at the expense of people’s fundamental rights

DPI serves as a game changer for Africa’s integration agenda and can accelerate achievement of Agenda 2063 goals

DPI requires integrated data governance approaches that balance technical efficiency with equitable outcomes and accountability

Summary

Speakers consistently emphasize that DPI must deliver public value and serve development goals rather than just generating economic returns, with fundamental rights protection being a prerequisite for legitimate public value creation.

Topics

Development | Human rights principles | Sustainable development

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers argue that existing data protection frameworks are inadequate for DPI governance because they focus too narrowly on individual privacy rather than addressing broader structural and systemic issues in data ecosystems.

Speakers

– Malik Payal
– Mariana Rielli

Arguments

Current data protection laws are insufficient as they focus only on individual consent and privacy, not addressing structural risks in DPI ecosystems

Data protection frameworks should be integrated into DPI discussions as procedural rights that provide rules for just information flows

Topics

Privacy and data protection | Legal and regulatory | Data governance

Both speakers emphasize the need for proactive governance measures that establish clear accountability and control mechanisms for private sector participants in public infrastructure, rather than reactive or voluntary approaches.

Speakers

– Andrew Vennekotter
– Malik Payal

Arguments

Data governance requires positive control over AI outputs and embedded security as fundamental aspects, not afterthoughts

There is need for fiduciary obligations on private partners to uphold public interest and competitive neutrality in DPI implementations

Topics

Data governance | Legal and regulatory | Economic

Both speakers recognize the importance of local context and capacity in DPI implementation, emphasizing that one-size-fits-all approaches don’t work and that local adaptation and capacity building are essential for successful DPI deployment.

Speakers

– Linder Thomas
– Souhila Amazouz

Arguments

Local civil society organizations are best positioned to integrate, adapt, and operationalize high-level governance principles to local contexts

African countries show varying levels of DPI maturity with 60% having data privacy laws but only 9 countries having real-time data exchanges

Topics

Development | Capacity development | Legal and regulatory

Unexpected consensus

Technical solutions can address some governance challenges without requiring extensive regulatory frameworks

Speakers

– Andrew Vennekotter
– Mariana Rielli

Arguments

Privacy-preserving techniques like data clean rooms can help address sensitive data sharing concerns in healthcare and other sectors

Informational autonomy and self-determination can generate collective value by creating more trusting relationships and trustworthy databases

Explanation

Despite coming from different perspectives (private sector technology focus vs. rights-based civil society approach), both speakers acknowledge that technical design choices and privacy-preserving technologies can contribute to governance objectives and rights protection, suggesting that technical and rights-based approaches can be complementary rather than opposing.

Topics

Privacy and data protection | Cybersecurity | Data governance

Real-world implementation challenges validate theoretical governance concerns

Speakers

– Audience
– Malik Payal
– Mariana Rielli

Arguments

DPI implementations like India’s healthcare system show both efficiencies and significant adverse outcomes including exclusion of vulnerable populations

DPI platforms connecting multiple actors create network effects that can lead to winner-takes-all outcomes and monopolization

Public value in DPI requires that economic value generation does not come at the expense of people’s fundamental rights

Explanation

The audience’s real-world examples from India’s healthcare DPI implementation directly validate the theoretical concerns raised by policy experts about exclusion, rights violations, and the gap between efficiency gains and equitable outcomes, creating unexpected alignment between practitioners and theorists.

Topics

Digital access | Human rights principles | Privacy and data protection

Overall assessment

Summary

There is strong consensus among speakers on the need for comprehensive, integrated data governance frameworks that go beyond traditional privacy protection to address structural risks, ensure multi-stakeholder participation, prevent market concentration, and prioritize public value creation in DPI implementations.

Consensus level

High level of consensus on fundamental principles and challenges, with speakers from different sectors (public, private, civil society, academia) agreeing on core governance needs. This consensus suggests a mature understanding of DPI governance challenges and creates a strong foundation for developing actionable policy recommendations and implementation strategies.

Different viewpoints

Approach to regulation and standards in DPI governance

Speakers

– Andrew Vennekotter
– Malik Payal

Arguments

Data governance must focus on risks and principles-based frameworks rather than premature technology standards to enable innovation

Current data protection laws are insufficient as they focus only on individual consent and privacy, not addressing structural risks in DPI ecosystems

Summary

Andrew advocates for minimal, principles-based regulation to avoid stifling innovation, citing high compliance costs (40% of product value in EU), while Payal argues for more comprehensive integrated governance frameworks that go beyond current data protection laws to address structural market risks and monopolization

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Data governance | Economic

Priority focus for DPI governance – technical efficiency vs structural market concerns

Speakers

– Andrew Vennekotter
– Malik Payal

Arguments

Data governance requires positive control over AI outputs and embedded security as fundamental aspects, not afterthoughts

DPI platforms connecting multiple actors create network effects that can lead to winner-takes-all outcomes and monopolization

Summary

Andrew emphasizes technical aspects like security, AI safety, and innovation enablement, while Payal focuses on economic structural issues like market concentration, data extractivism, and the need for competitive neutrality in public-private partnerships

Topics

Data governance | Economic | Cybersecurity

Unexpected differences

Role of technical solutions vs systemic governance reforms

Speakers

– Andrew Vennekotter
– Malik Payal

Arguments

Privacy-preserving techniques like data clean rooms can help address sensitive data sharing concerns in healthcare and other sectors

Private entities operating on public infrastructure may engage in data extractivism without proper contractual or regulatory frameworks governing their activities

Explanation

Unexpected because both speakers are addressing data protection concerns, but Andrew suggests technical solutions (data clean rooms) can solve privacy issues, while Payal argues that technical solutions alone cannot address structural governance problems and regulatory blind spots in public-private partnerships

Topics

Privacy and data protection | Data governance | Economic

Overall assessment

Summary

The main disagreement centers on regulatory approach – whether to prioritize innovation-friendly, principles-based frameworks or comprehensive structural governance reforms. There’s also tension between technical solutions versus systemic governance changes.

Disagreement level

Moderate disagreement with significant implications – the different approaches could lead to very different DPI governance outcomes, with Andrew’s approach potentially enabling faster innovation but risking market concentration issues that Payal warns about, while Payal’s approach might provide better structural protections but could potentially slow innovation as Andrew suggests

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers argue that existing data protection frameworks are inadequate for DPI governance because they focus too narrowly on individual privacy rather than addressing broader structural and systemic issues in data ecosystems.

Speakers

– Malik Payal
– Mariana Rielli

Arguments

Current data protection laws are insufficient as they focus only on individual consent and privacy, not addressing structural risks in DPI ecosystems

Data protection frameworks should be integrated into DPI discussions as procedural rights that provide rules for just information flows

Topics

Privacy and data protection | Legal and regulatory | Data governance

Both speakers emphasize the need for proactive governance measures that establish clear accountability and control mechanisms for private sector participants in public infrastructure, rather than reactive or voluntary approaches.

Speakers

– Andrew Vennekotter
– Malik Payal

Arguments

Data governance requires positive control over AI outputs and embedded security as fundamental aspects, not afterthoughts

There is need for fiduciary obligations on private partners to uphold public interest and competitive neutrality in DPI implementations

Topics

Data governance | Legal and regulatory | Economic

Both speakers recognize the importance of local context and capacity in DPI implementation, emphasizing that one-size-fits-all approaches don’t work and that local adaptation and capacity building are essential for successful DPI deployment.

Speakers

– Linder Thomas
– Souhila Amazouz

Arguments

Local civil society organizations are best positioned to integrate, adapt, and operationalize high-level governance principles to local contexts

African countries show varying levels of DPI maturity with 60% having data privacy laws but only 9 countries having real-time data exchanges

Topics

Development | Capacity development | Legal and regulatory

Key takeaways

Data governance is imperative for equitable DPI development and must balance technical efficiency with accountability and inclusive outcomes

Current data protection laws focusing only on individual consent and privacy are insufficient – integrated governance frameworks addressing structural risks are needed

Public-private partnerships in DPI create network effects that risk monopolization and data extractivism without proper contractual and regulatory safeguards

Civil society organizations play a crucial third-sector role in balancing state and corporate interests while adapting governance principles to local contexts

DPI implementations show mixed results – while creating efficiencies, they also demonstrate exclusion of vulnerable populations and privacy violations

Technical solutions like data clean rooms and privacy-preserving techniques can help address sensitive data sharing concerns

African countries show varying DPI maturity levels, with foundational frameworks like the AU Data Policy Framework providing guidance but implementation gaps remaining

Data governance should be based on risks and principles rather than premature technology standards to enable innovation while ensuring accountability

Resolutions and action items

Develop contractual arrangements and concession agreements between private entities and public infrastructure providers to establish fiduciary obligations

Create integrated data governance frameworks that go beyond data protection laws to address competition, consumer protection, and market mechanisms

Implement multi-stakeholder, multi-sectoral approaches to data governance involving civil society organizations in design and implementation

Establish informational separation of powers and accountability mechanisms including assessments adapted to DPI contexts

Build digital skills capacity as 84% of businesses see AI skills as crucial but only 26% feel adequately prepared

Harmonize international standards to enable cooperation while avoiding compliance costs that can reach 40% of product value

Unresolved issues

How to prevent DPI from becoming ‘alt-big tech’ platforms due to data misuse in absence of proper governance

Addressing exclusion of vulnerable populations (people with disabilities, chronic diseases, stigmatized conditions) from DPI systems

Balancing cross-border data movement facilitation with data sovereignty and local control concerns

Determining optimal data storage governance and preventing excessive private control over public data

Resolving tensions between openness/interoperability requirements and security/privacy protections

Establishing clear boundaries between what constitutes ‘public’ versus private value creation in DPI ecosystems

Addressing the regulatory blind spot where private entities operating on public infrastructure lack adequate oversight

Suggested compromises

Implement human-in-the-loop approaches for AI systems to balance automation with human oversight and accountability

Use privacy-preserving techniques like data clean rooms to enable data sharing while protecting sensitive information

Adopt risks and principles-based regulatory frameworks rather than prescriptive technology mandates to balance innovation with governance

Establish fiduciary obligations on private partners while allowing them to participate in value creation from public infrastructure

Create data governance frameworks that enable information flows while embedding rights protections and accountability mechanisms

Balance technical efficiency goals with equitable outcomes through integrated governance approaches rather than purely technical solutions

We introduced a new concept of data justice and also transparency. Through the data justice, we aim to ensure equal representation to all people in the digital space, including the diversity of languages and cultures.

Speaker

Souhila Amazouz

Reason

This comment is insightful because it moves beyond traditional data governance concepts to introduce ‘data justice’ as a framework that explicitly addresses equity and cultural diversity. It reframes data governance from a technical/legal issue to a social justice issue, recognizing that digital infrastructure must actively work to include marginalized communities rather than simply avoiding harm.

Impact

This concept of data justice became a recurring theme throughout the discussion, with subsequent speakers building on this foundation. It shifted the conversation from focusing primarily on efficiency and protection to emphasizing equitable outcomes and inclusive participation in the digital economy.

The economics of multi-sided platforms where DPI’s are essentially the platforms connecting multiple actors… these inherent network effects of DPI’s can lead to winner-takes-all outcomes resulting in the creation of monopolies… there is currently a regulatory blind spot… because if this data collection, data usage by the private entities on these public platforms is not regulated, it may lead to creation of monopolistic enclosures and data hegemony in public-private partnerships.

Speaker

Malik Payal

Reason

This comment is particularly thought-provoking because it challenges the optimistic narrative around DPI by introducing critical economic analysis. It reveals how the very features that make DPI powerful (network effects, scalability) can paradoxically undermine their public purpose by creating private monopolies. The concept of ‘monopolistic enclosures’ and ‘data hegemony’ provides a stark warning about unintended consequences.

Impact

This comment fundamentally shifted the discussion from celebrating DPI’s potential to critically examining its risks. It introduced the crucial question of ‘what makes DPI actually public?’ and led to deeper analysis of the need for contractual frameworks and regulatory oversight of private actors operating on public infrastructure.

Data governance as a term originated in the corporate space and was very tied to questions of efficiency and effectivity… However, that’s really not what we’re talking about in DPI that much anymore… we’re talking about using data governance to understand the kind of social contract that we’re developing with DPI… This is a redesigning of fundamental parts of society.

Speaker

Linder Thomas

Reason

This comment is insightful because it recontextualizes the entire discussion by pointing out that applying corporate data governance concepts to public infrastructure is fundamentally inappropriate. By framing DPI as a ‘social contract’ and ‘redesigning of fundamental parts of society,’ it elevates the stakes and emphasizes the democratic implications of these technical decisions.

Impact

This reframing shifted the conversation toward questions of democracy, participation, and civil society engagement. It provided theoretical grounding for why traditional approaches are insufficient and why new governance models are needed that center social outcomes rather than technical efficiency.

Economic value being generated by data, regardless of how that is shared, does not per se guarantee the achievement of public value if the rights of people are being neglected… privacy as contextual integrity… informational separation of powers… data protection is already containing a preventive and sometimes a precautionary principle.

Speaker

Mariana Rielli

Reason

This comment is thought-provoking because it distinguishes between economic value and public value, challenging assumptions that economic benefits automatically translate to public good. The concepts of ‘contextual integrity’ and ‘informational separation of powers’ provide sophisticated frameworks for thinking about data governance that go beyond simple privacy protection.

Impact

This comment grounded the theoretical discussions in practical legal frameworks and provided concrete mechanisms for implementation. It showed how existing data protection principles could be adapted and expanded for DPI contexts, offering a bridge between current legal frameworks and future governance needs.

Although there have been efficiencies in patient data sharing among doctors… significant adverse outcomes have been realized as well… people with chronic diseases, like leprosy, or people with disabilities, struggle with Aadhaar enrollment… patients of diseases with social stigma, such as HIV, AIDS, exclude themselves from using ABDM.

Speaker

Audience member Erum (via Nikita Jain)

Reason

This comment is particularly impactful because it provides concrete, real-world evidence of how DPI systems can exclude the most vulnerable populations despite their stated goals of inclusion. It demonstrates how technical solutions can reproduce and amplify existing social inequalities, making the abstract discussions suddenly very tangible.

Impact

This real-world example served as a powerful reality check for the entire discussion, forcing participants to confront the gap between DPI aspirations and actual outcomes. It validated the concerns raised by earlier speakers about the need for robust governance frameworks and showed why theoretical discussions about data justice and inclusion are urgently practical matters.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shaped the discussion by progressively deepening and complicating the conversation about DPI governance. The discussion evolved from initial optimism about DPI’s transformative potential to a more nuanced understanding of its risks and governance challenges. Souhila’s introduction of ‘data justice’ set an equity-focused tone that influenced all subsequent contributions. Payal’s economic analysis introduced critical skepticism about market dynamics, while Thomas’s reframing of data governance as social contract theory provided democratic legitimacy for these concerns. Mariana’s legal framework analysis offered practical pathways forward, and the audience’s real-world example from India’s healthcare system provided sobering evidence that validated the theoretical concerns. Together, these comments created a comprehensive critique that moved the discussion from technical implementation questions to fundamental questions about power, equity, and democratic governance in the digital age. The conversation became increasingly sophisticated, moving from celebrating DPI’s potential to developing frameworks for ensuring it serves public rather than private interests.

How can we develop stronger oversight or interoperability mandates in data governance frameworks?

Speaker

Chetty Pria

Explanation

This was identified as a gap in current frameworks that needs to be addressed to prevent monopolization while fostering open innovation in DPI implementations.

What are the specific contractual or regulatory frameworks needed to govern private entities operating on public infrastructure?

Speaker

Malik Payal

Explanation

There is currently a regulatory blind spot regarding how private entities collect and use data from DPI platforms, which could lead to monopolistic practices and data extractivism.

How can data governance frameworks be integrated and adapted to local contexts and conditions across diverse regions?

Speaker

Linder Thomas

Explanation

Cookie-cutter approaches don’t work for DPI implementation, especially in diverse regions like Africa, requiring local civil society organizations to help with integration and adaptation.

How can precursor DPI projects (existing digital ID, payments, data exchange systems) be effectively integrated rather than replaced?

Speaker

Linder Thomas

Explanation

Many successful digital systems already exist and need to be integrated into new DPI frameworks rather than being completely replaced, requiring careful coordination.

What are the findings and lessons from Brazil’s implementation of data protection frameworks in the context of DPI?

Speaker

Mariana Rielli

Explanation

A new report was mentioned that proposes integration of data protection rights into DPI discussions, but the specific findings and recommendations need to be shared and analyzed.

How can cross-border data movement be structured within DPI to enable AI innovations while maintaining governance?

Speaker

Amin (online participant)

Explanation

Seamless cross-border data flow is needed for AI model development, but this needs to be balanced with appropriate governance frameworks.

How can DPI systems address exclusion issues faced by marginalized populations (people with disabilities, chronic diseases, stigmatized conditions)?

Speaker

Erum (online participant via Anita Gurumurthy’s research)

Explanation

Real-world implementation in India’s healthcare DPI shows significant exclusion of vulnerable populations, violating the principle of equitable access to services.

What are the implications of data storage location and cross-border data flow rules in DPI governance?

Speaker

Malik Payal

Explanation

Questions about where data is stored, level of private vs government control, and cross-border data flow regulations are critical for DPI governance but need further examination.

How can privacy-preserving technologies like data clean rooms be implemented in sensitive sectors like healthcare within DPI frameworks?

Speaker

Andrew Vennekotter

Explanation

Technical solutions exist for sharing sensitive data without compromising privacy, but their integration into DPI systems needs further exploration.

Summary

This discussion focused on exploring how technology can enhance understanding of public and societal challenges, rather than simply providing solutions. The session was a collaborative workshop between Lithuania and Norway, examining tech-driven approaches to complex governmental problems. Lithuania’s Ambassador for Digital and Technological Diplomacy highlighted the country’s impressive achievements in digital governance, ranking 6th in the European Commission’s 2024 e-government benchmark and operating the successful GovTech Lab Lithuania, which has solved over 100 real-world public sector challenges through partnerships with startups and innovators.

Norway’s Chief Public Procurement Officer emphasized the importance of opening procurement processes to diverse suppliers, from startups to large tech companies, while noting challenges in working across bureaucratic silos for mission-oriented solutions. The interactive workshop portion involved participants working in groups to analyze specific public sector challenges using randomly assigned technology cards, encouraging them to think from a technological perspective about problem-solving approaches.

Two main challenges were discussed in detail: the exclusion of marginalized voices in digital service co-creation, and supporting people with intellectual disabilities in financial transactions. For the first challenge, participants explored how technologies like quantum computing, process mining, and agentic AI could free up public service employees to engage more directly with constituents while providing proactive government services. The second challenge involved developing personalized AI solutions that could adapt to individual conditions and capabilities, potentially incorporating medical data and stress indicators, while using augmented reality or metaverse environments for safer interactions.

The workshop revealed important ethical considerations, particularly regarding decision-making autonomy for vulnerable populations and determining appropriate levels of government, medical, or financial institution involvement in personal choices.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Technology as a lens for understanding problems rather than just solving them**: The session explored how technological perspectives can enrich understanding of societal challenges themselves, moving beyond the typical approach of viewing technology solely as a solution.

– **Digital governance achievements and GovTech ecosystems**: Lithuania’s success in digital transformation was highlighted, including their 6th place ranking in EU e-government benchmarks and the GovTech Lab’s role in connecting government institutions with startups to solve over 100 public sector challenges.

– **Procurement challenges and market engagement**: Discussion of how public sector procurement functions need to effectively engage with diverse suppliers, from startups to large tech companies, emphasizing the need for simple, predictable, and fast processes while building trust and cooperation between different organizational cultures.

– **Cross-governmental collaboration and structural barriers**: The challenge of addressing complex societal issues that don’t fit within traditional bureaucratic silos, requiring cooperation across ministries, local governments, municipalities, private sector, and NGOs.

– **Inclusion of marginalized voices in digital services**: Workshop groups explored how to include people who are not active in digital spaces in policy and institutional feedback loops, discussing solutions like proactive public services using AI and diverse channels to reach underserved populations.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to explore how technological perspectives can enhance understanding of public and societal challenges, facilitate knowledge sharing between Lithuania and Norway on digital governance and innovative procurement, and engage participants in collaborative problem-solving through interactive workshops.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a consistently collaborative and optimistic tone throughout. It began formally with welcoming speeches that were informative and achievement-focused, then transitioned to an energetic, interactive workshop atmosphere. The tone remained constructive and solution-oriented, with participants actively engaging in co-creation exercises. Even when discussing complex challenges like marginalization and ethical dilemmas, the conversation stayed focused on possibilities and learning rather than dwelling on obstacles.

Speakers

– **Liucija Sabulyte**: Workshop moderator/organizer, appears to be involved in organizing discussions on technology and societal challenges

– **Dag Stromsnes**: Norwegian Chief Public Procurement Officer, Agency for Public and Financial Management, expertise in public procurement and working with startups

– **Participant**: Role/title not specified, expertise not mentioned

– **Magne Hareide**: Workshop assistant/moderator, appears to be from DFO (Norwegian organization), expertise in innovative public procurement

– **Lina Viltrakiene**: Lithuania’s Ambassador for Digital and Technological Diplomacy, expertise in digital governance and GovTech

– **Dovile Gaizauskiene**: Workshop moderator/facilitator, colleague of Liucija Sabulyte, expertise in workshop facilitation and co-creation sessions

**Additional speakers:**

– **Lena Viltraitenė**: Lithuania’s Ambassador for Digital and Technological Diplomacy (Note: This appears to be the same person as Lina Viltrakiene, likely a transcription variation of the name)

# Workshop Report: Technology as a Lens for Understanding Public and Societal Challenges

## Executive Summary

This collaborative workshop between Lithuania and Norway explored an innovative approach to public sector challenges, positioning technology not merely as a solution provider but as a lens for enriching problem understanding. The session brought together participants to examine how technological perspectives can transform the way we perceive and address complex governmental problems, featuring insights from both countries’ digital governance experiences.

## Welcome Speeches and National Perspectives

### Lithuania’s Digital Governance Achievements

Lina Viltrakienė, Lithuania’s Ambassador for Digital and Technological Diplomacy, presented Lithuania’s impressive digital transformation achievements:

– 6th place in the European Commission’s 2024 e-government benchmark

– 8th position in the World Bank’s GovTech Maturity Index

– 10th ranking in the OECD’s Our Data Index

She highlighted GovTechLab Lithuania’s success in solving over 100 real-world public sector challenges through partnerships with startups and innovators, with 70% of institutions continuing to operate these solutions. Viltrakienė emphasized Lithuania’s approach of balancing “sovereignty and cybersecurity with interoperability and open innovation.”

### Norway’s Procurement Innovation Perspective

Dag Strømsnes, Norway’s Chief Public Procurement Officer, shared insights from Norway’s experience with innovative procurement, particularly highlighting the Startoff project that won a European prize. He emphasized the importance of opening procurement processes to diverse suppliers while acknowledging significant challenges in working with startups.

Strømsnes identified key barriers startups face: “They don’t have time, they don’t have resources, they don’t have knowledge, they don’t have leadership.” He stressed the need to make processes “simple, predictable and fast” for startup engagement, while also noting the cultural differences between public sector buyers with permanent contracts and entrepreneurs who “don’t know if they have a salary in two months.”

He advocated for cross-governmental cooperation, noting that “bureaucratic structures are not designed for mission-oriented challenges that span multiple organizations.”

## Workshop Framework and Methodology

### Foundational Approach

Workshop moderator Liucija Sabulytė articulated the core premise: “Usually we think of technologies as a solution to the problem. And this time we try to explore how technological perspective can enrich the understanding of problem itself. And for those of you who are working on societal challenges, you probably know that understanding problem well is the key part of solving it.”

### Workshop Execution

The practical component, facilitated by Dovilė Gaižauskienė, involved participants working in small groups to analyze specific public sector challenges using randomly assigned technology cards. The facilitator noted during the session the natural tendency of participants to jump to solutions: “We already have a feeling that you started, instead of discussing problem, thinking of solutions. That’s very natural and now we are moving actually to that part of the workshop.”

The workshop faced some technical and audio challenges, and the discussion period was somewhat rushed, limiting the depth of participant feedback that could be captured.

## Participant Reflections

### Challenge Analysis: Marginalized Voices in Digital Services

One group examined how to include people who are not active in digital spaces in policy and institutional feedback loops. A participant reflected on their group’s evolution in thinking: “We did not see how the technology would contribute significantly to solving this challenge because we had a lot of, for example, from my case it was process mining, quantum computing or agentic AI but then after discussing together with the colleagues we started discussing maybe… these technologies like quantum computing or process mining can first of all help overall public service employees to deal with their issues more that do not necessarily require human interaction so then they would have more time to engage actually with their constituents.”

The group also considered agentic AI for creating proactive public services that reach out to citizens rather than waiting for them to engage.

### Supporting Vulnerable Populations

Another group briefly discussed supporting people with intellectual disabilities in financial transactions, with some mention of ethical questions about decision-making authority when implementing AI solutions for vulnerable populations.

## Key Themes Discussed

### Cross-Organizational Cooperation

Both speakers emphasized the critical importance of cooperation across governmental silos. Sabulytė noted that “cooperation, moving through silos and building mutual trust is key to digital transformation impact,” while Strømsnes highlighted the need for coordination across “ministries, local governments, municipalities, private sector and NGOs.”

### Technology as Problem-Understanding Tool

The workshop successfully demonstrated how examining challenges through technological perspectives can reveal new dimensions of problems, particularly the insight that technology could free public servants from routine tasks to enable more direct citizen engagement.

### Public-Private Collaboration Models

The discussion revealed different but complementary approaches: Lithuania’s structured GovTechLab model focusing on startup partnerships, and Norway’s broader market engagement strategy including both startups and established suppliers.

## Future Directions

Participants were invited to continue the discussion at the GovTech Leader Conference on October 23rd in Vilnius, focusing on “GovTech dilemmas.” The session concluded with encouragement for continued cooperation between Lithuania and Norway on sharing experiences in digital governance and innovative procurement.

## Conclusion

The workshop demonstrated the value of reframing technology’s role from solution provider to problem-understanding enhancer. While the session faced some practical challenges in execution, it successfully illustrated how technological perspectives can reveal new approaches to complex societal challenges. The collaborative approach between Lithuania and Norway showed the potential for international cooperation in digital governance, while highlighting the ongoing challenges of cross-governmental coordination and public-private partnership in digital transformation initiatives.

Liucija Sabulyte: Liucija Sabulytė, Magne Hareide, Liucija Sabulytė, Dovilė Gaijauskienė Today we are going to explore how technologies can help us understand public and societal challenges better. This time we took a bit different road from what we usually do. Usually we think of technologies as a solution to the problem. And this time we try to explore how technological perspective can enrich the understanding of problem itself. And for those of you who are working on societal challenges, you probably know that understanding problem well is the key part of solving it. So I want to start by inviting two representatives of Lithuania and also Norway to give welcoming speeches. And then we will move to more interactive session and invite you all to share your thoughts and insights. So firstly, I would like to invite Lena Viltraitenė to the stage. Lena is Lithuania’s Ambassador for Digital and Technological Diplomacy. Lena, the floor is yours.

Lina Viltrakiene: Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Liucija, and good morning everyone. It is my great pleasure indeed to welcome you to this session on tech-driven solutions to societal challenges. No doubt, complex challenges in today’s world require innovative and out-of-the-box thinking and solutions. So, particularly the public sector needs to improve efficiency, enhance services, foster transparency. For this to happen, it is crucial to adopt new technologies and processes and to equip employees with skills. I am glad to open this session where there will be a possibility to learn from the experiences of two countries, and in particular from the experience of Lithuania. As in recent years, my country, Lithuania, has emerged as a European leader in digital governance. Let me share a few ratings. We rank 6th in the European Commission’s 2024 e-government benchmark. We are 8th in the World Bank’s GovTech Maturity Index, reflecting our strong public sector digital transformation. And we are 10th in the OECD’s Our Data Index, recognising our leadership in open, useful and reusable data. At the heart of this transformation is the award-winning GovTech Lab Lithuania. It’s a team in the innovation agency Lithuania that connects government institutions with startups and innovators to co-create solutions. GovTechLab has proven to be an indispensable point of contact when public sector organizations are eager to innovate. Through GovTech Challenges series, over 100 real-world public sector challenges were solved. For example, in one city in Lithuania, Šiauliai, a startup developed an urban monitoring tool that helps the city assess and manage public maintenance work more effectively. Our communication regulatory authority partnered with a startup to build an AI tool for detecting illegal online content, and it scanned over 288,000 websites, flagged violations, and even led to criminal investigations. In education, a collaboration between a school and a tech company produced a student achievement tracking tool that saves teachers time and helps tailor inventions. These are not just pilot projects. They are scalable, impactful solutions that improve lives and save time, and also build trust in government. It’s important to say that 70% of our institutions continue to operate. What sets Lithuania apart is the culture of experimentation and collaboration. We have a vibrant GovTech ecosystem, host international conferences, and also help other countries launch their own GovTech labs. And I am happy to say that we have in our delegation people who can share all this experience from an innovation agency, but also a company, NRD companies, that really work, cooperate closely with other countries to build their GovTech labs. And today I am also pleased to invite you to save the date for our annual GovTech Leader Conference, being held on 23rd of October in Vilnius. This year’s topic is GovTech dilemmas. And indeed, digital governance is a battleground where nations must balance sovereignty and cyber security on one hand, and interoperability and open innovation on the other. The rise of AI-driven disinformation, cyber warfare, and global tech decoupling deepens these dilemmas. So in this conference, there will be an opportunity to explore how governments can navigate these challenges, ensuring resilience, national security, and public trust. Let’s innovate not just for efficiency, but for equity. resilience and trust. And let’s see GovTech not as a niche but as a powerful engine for societal progress. So I wish you to have a very fruitful and inspiring workshop. Thank you very much.

Liucija Sabulyte: Thank you Elena so much for sharing a bit about Lithuanian achievements in the digital capital and GovTech space. I think these achievements wouldn’t be possible without openness and ability to cooperate. And speaking about cooperation, actually we met this workshop partners, DFO, during Lithuanian public sector representatives visit in Norway where DFO was really open and shared their experience in the innovative public procurement. And we are really grateful for that. And I think it helps us to strengthen as a whole. So with that, I really want to invite Dag Strømstøn, Norwegian Chief Public Procurement Officer, to give his welcoming speech.

Dag Stromsnes: Good morning everyone and thanks a lot for the invitation to participate on this important event. I’m very happy on behalf of Norway to give a welcoming remark from the Agency for Public and Financial Management. I think that the program description is very good, talking about the rapid We have seen rapid advancement of technology, rising public expectation for effective services and ever-expanding pool of data. Governments around the world are pressured to tackle complex societal issues with innovative solutions. This is a huge challenge and I think all countries in the Western world are struggling with this challenge. We see this in the OECD community that we are facing these challenges in different ways. From my point of view, I think it is very important to emphasize how the procurement functions are approaching this challenge. The key point from my point of view is how we open our challenges to the market. How do public sector authorities approach the market to get the best result of the suppliers? It is a huge challenge and we need to focus on getting the results from a huge variety of suppliers. From the start-ups and the very small suppliers to the huge tech companies. Some key words about how to work with the start-ups. I think we have seen from our practice, we have a project called Startoff that we actually got a European winning prize for two years ago. But approaching the start-ups represents some key challenges for the public sector. There is a lack of time and resources. We see there is a lack of innovation, knowledge and competence. and we also see there’s a lack of leadership involvement in how to go how to are going to approach this market. I think if you’re going to work with these startups that often are small, they don’t have a lot of resources, you need to make it simple, predictable and fast. I think that is really really important for these types of suppliers. I think our experience is that both the public sector that are going to buy these solutions and the startups need to have help and support throughout their procurement process. I think it’s important to create a good framework for trust and cooperation and we also need to develop a sort of respect for each other. I think a public sector buyer and a grinder have a very different approach. The grinder he doesn’t know if he has a salary in two months, a public sector buyer knows he has a permanent contract in an agency and these two cultures, these two approaches are going to meet in a cooperation that we really really need to work hard to establish. It’s important to know that the effects take time, the processes take time, you don’t see the results right away, you need to be patient. I think this procurement process that is documented both by us in start-up and the Go-Tech lab in Lithuania shows that. But I think it’s also important to keep in mind that we could get much more innovation from the huge suppliers like Capgemini, IBM, Accenture and these types of companies. I think it’s important to keep in mind that the public sector buyer does not have the solution in his head. I think we also need to open the process for the experiences that the big suppliers have made maybe in other parts of the world. So I think it’s very important to just focus on your need and then use the creativity from the supplier to develop the good solutions. So then we need to do market sounding. We need to be aware of our needs. We need to formulate that in a way that the suppliers could transfer this into some good systems. And it’s really important to take the big companies’ experiences into the account and open the procurement process to that. So we need to include all the potential good ideas in the market in a good way. The third challenge I would like to mention is that the problem we actually are facing is not following the bureaucratic structure. In Norway we have 19 ministries and I think the projects that fit into one ministry are well taken care of. But if there are more cross-governmental challenges, we need to cooperate. You maybe need to cooperate with local governments. You need to cooperate with municipalities. You need to cooperate with private sector and you need to maybe to cooperate with NGOs. Our bureaucratic structures are not made and we are struggling to make the good cooperation in this more mission oriented challenges. So it’s important to understand and learn from this. experiences and we need to work across the the world to learn what is working and what is not working that that well. But my key point is that we need to be creative in the way we are approaching the market. I really hope that this workshop can inspire to see the opportunities in using technologies in new ways and establish a good cooperation with the market. We will not succeed unless we are facing this challenge. I wish you a great workshop. Thank you.

Liucija Sabulyte: Thank you for sharing your thoughts. Definitely cooperation moving through silos and building mutual trust is key to making impacts for digital transformation and building strong economies through the power of GovTech. Now we’re going to move to more interactive part, the workshop part. People who are joining on Zoom can also scan the code and work together with us. This part is going to be moderated by my colleague Dovila with the help of our DFO colleagues Magne and Matijas. So Dovila is here on the side and we can start.

Dovile Gaizauskiene: Hello everyone. I hope you can hear me. Yes, okay. I see people nodding. Super excited to be here to see you all in our workshop. Now I will introduce very briefly what will happen, but at first you need to group yourselves because it will be some group work. How it will happen? You need to look for For paper sheets like this, it might be even behind you. So now it’s time to very, very quickly find these tables with paper sheets. Leave your computers behind, leave all your belongings behind. Just look for the paper sheets like this, with some more material. We are expecting to see six, seven groups. Just turn your chairs around and just make some round tables for now. I see that it’s happening, good. And for those who are online, we really want you to scan the code and you will find this working material in MiroBoard. So you need to register there. Now I see the groups are there. Okay. So what is happening now? We will have a very short workshop. It will be a little bit rushed, but it’s good to be rushed in the morning. It will be like training for your brains, preparation for an entire day. So it will consist of three steps. Please follow instructions, which I will be giving to you. There are not so many, we hope it will be very intuitive. It will be group work, some individual work, and group work again. Basic rules for this session are co-creation. So really, co-creation requires listening to each other. So we want you to listen to each other. At some point, you will have to take off headphones in order to be able to… but then I will show you signs so you can hear me again and you will have to put headphones. I really encourage you to think that there are no wrong answers and no wrong questions here because it’s really a co-creation session, very very short but that’s the approach we want you to have. And you also see some post-it notes or like small colorful paper sheets so please make sure that you write one idea on one post-it. And now it’s not a good time to be sustainable because later we will be grouping these ideas so it’s really important to have one idea, one concept in one post-it note separately. That’s basically the rules. Let’s move. So we will have, as I said, three steps. First of all, you will have to familiarize with public sector challenge and the challenges are printed out on these paper sheets. My colleagues will help you if you cannot find. And we pointed the challenge, you cannot choose, we already chose for you the challenge we want you to focus. You will have now ten minutes to read the challenge and talk a little bit about it, what you know. The main question for you while reading is to understand where is the real problem. Okay? So you will have ten minutes to read the challenge and discuss a little bit in the group how you understand and maybe exchange ideas how you see where is the real challenge. The time starts now. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay, now it’s time to maybe, maybe you can ask. Okay. Please put the headphones, I see that people are coming back to give attention to me a little bit. We already have a feeling that you started, instead of discussing problem, thinking of solutions. That’s very natural and now we are moving actually to that part of the workshop. It will be a little bit less time for this part and you will have to work a little bit like for 10 minutes individually. On the tables you see technology cards. You see these cards with blue color. Now it’s time to randomly pick three cards for each participant. Three cards for each participant, randomly. On this tech card you will see technology and an example how it was used by a public sector institution. Can you share cards already? Start reading through. What will happen now? You have to read the text about the technology and produce at least three ideas stemming from the technologies that you randomly picked, which would show the possible solution of the challenge you were discussing. Familiarize with technology and think of how it could be used for solution of the challenge that you were discussing in the group. This has to be done individually, so not too much sharing in this part, sorry. But we really want you to think individually, a little bit from the technological perspective. So at least three different ideas. It doesn’t have to be like real solution, but more like of technology. We have an idea of how this technology could be used to tackle this challenge. Time starts now. Ten minutes again. As I said, we will be rushed a little bit. Ten minutes again. Ten minutes again. Ten minutes again. Ten minutes again. Ten minutes again. Ten minutes again. Ten minutes again. Ten minutes again. Ten minutes again. Ten minutes again. Ten minutes again. Ten minutes again. Don’t forget to SUBSCRIBE!!!! We can see some discussions happening. You already moved very intuitively to the third part of our workshop. Now it’s the time to present the ideas you had from reading about the technologies, different examples, and discuss in the groups what you actually produced. Now it’s time to discuss actually. Try to merge ideas, try to discuss why some technologies maybe couldn’t be used in your opinion, and so on. You will have 10 minutes for this discussion, and after that we will want you to actually give us reflections of how you feel after this exercise. So last 10 minutes to share in the group the ideas you produced, the insights you got, and the most important question here is to discuss how your perception of maybe challenge itself changed. 10 more minutes, and then we will be very much pleased to hear from you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. That was great. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. and the first public debate on agentic AI and AI. Cosmic computing is a highly relevant topic, but agentic AI and the idea was that a disabled person or an AI agent could recognize the world, and also, depending on how incapacitated or how little intellectual capacity they had, the world could be a way of understanding you. It could be a dog, it could be a guy, it could be a human being, it could be a human being. And it had to be trained for your own personal interests. It could be trained to detect data, it could be set to research the data, it could be about similarities. It would have to be very personalized and adjusted. It had to be… Someone has the role in that, but that has to be a public debate. It has to be a society debate, it has to be a private debate. I’m sure there will be a firm representing that person. So I think agentic AI has a big role in that. Again, thank you very much for this discussion. Thank you very much for the discussions which are happening now. It’s time to really, as I said, to move to the reflection session. Our time is running very fast. And now we would like to hear from you. And we have three questions for the discussion. And we really encourage you to get the microphone which Magne can bring to you and try to answer what have we learned from this exercise. Maybe you would like to reflect. Maybe you can reflect on certain technologies which you discussed maybe more deeply. And maybe I heard in some groups you discussed some nuances. Maybe you built some arguments why not to use technologies. It would be great to hear from you now. So who wants to just raise your hands and we will bring a microphone for you to be heard. Who wants to be first? Just sharing what was happening at your table and reflecting what you’ve learned from this.

Participant: Okay. Yes, okay. We were the first group. We had the first challenge which was focused on the exclusion of marginalized voices in digital service co-creation. And I believe one thing to absorb is that first we saw it as a very, very complicated challenge. There was a lot of statistics and data. And overall marginalization of people is a very multifaceted issue whether you are rural, low-income or overall not digitally fully able person. So the key challenge that we saw is how do we include more of voices of people who are not as active in digital spaces in, for example, policies and institutional feedback loops. So that is the focus of the challenge. And I believe at the beginning we… We did not see how the technology would contribute significantly to solving this challenge because we had a lot of, for example, from my case it was process mining, quantum computing or agentic AI but then after discussing together with the colleagues we started discussing maybe, you know, these it’s a mostly faceted issue, so maybe we need to see how these technologies like quantum computing or process mining can first of all help overall public service employees to deal with their issues more that do not necessarily require human interaction so then they would have more time to engage actually with their constituents or the citizens and then for example certain aspects like agentic AI could act as something what we in Lithuania call proactive public services where the government could reach out to you and basically identify that you are entitled to certain public services whether, you know, it’s a renewal of your passport or social benefits or some other aspects that maybe colleagues would like to contribute. Okay, thank you very much. So basically the topic of inclusion of the marginalized voice in terms of bringing those individuals that are not opportune to, you know, access to the digital platforms and, you know, part of the conversations I’ve had involved, you know, so in different rural areas different locations people finding difficult to actually access those digital platforms and part of the solutions that, you know, we looked at is, you know, trying to, you know, look for diverse channels to actually take digital solutions to people. You know, there are some persons that can actually read and write but they can’t speak. You know, how do you get those people involved and people that can, you know, that can speak fluently. Dovilė Gaižauskienė, Liucija Sabulytė, Dovilė Gaižauskienė Dovilė Gaižauskienė, Liucija Sabulytė, Dovilė Gaižauskienė Dovilė Gaižauskienė, Liucija Sabulytė, Dovilė Gaižauskienė

Dovile Gaizauskiene: Dovilė Gaižauskienė, Liucija Sabulytė, Dovilė Gaižauskienė

Magne Hareide: Dovilė Gaižauskienė, Liucija Sabulytė, Dovilė Gaižauskienė while paying and that would identify the risks and that would hopefully lead us to the solutions one of which was use of agentic AI and and tailoring the the data into the in the algorithm into the into the model of AI that would have a personalized solution based on the condition of the person on on his use cases to to pay safely to pay reliably and as well to meet his budget because the the conditions are very very different across across people and one of the things that as well we would have the the medical component let’s say the variables that would bring more medical data let’s say is it the stress level elevated by you know because of the the heart rate being elevated because this the situation that stays very stressful that the person is is is anxious for some reason and that would bring more components to the solution and then as well there’s other things let’s say in the digital space it could be metaverse if if if it’s completely online we would have more control let’s say if it’s online to do the payments of some of some digital transactions and some people are very visual let’s say which may be not not so into social interactions but very visual so metaverse could help online or it could be augmented reality and in real life let’s say they would have certain visual guidances to help them to to connect with people more safely so that is one of the solutions but the the nuance we found as well that the person has very limited possibility to decide on himself how much to spend how many how what do things cost and then who who has the say in that so is it the government is in the bank is it his medical professional so that is a an ethical thing that has to be decided and it’s I think a very very thin line Where is the right and wrong in this?

Dovile Gaizauskiene: Thank you everyone for joining this session. Please meet us, come to our stand where we are this day and upcoming days and discuss with us more. Thank you very much for participation.

Agreement points

Cross-organizational cooperation is essential for addressing complex societal challenges

Speakers

– Liucija Sabulyte
– Dag Stromsnes

Arguments

Cooperation, moving through silos and building mutual trust is key to digital transformation impact

Cross-governmental challenges require cooperation across ministries, local governments, municipalities, private sector and NGOs

Summary

Both speakers emphasize that breaking down organizational silos and fostering cooperation across different entities and levels of government is crucial for successful digital transformation and addressing complex challenges

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

Technology should enhance understanding of problems rather than just provide predetermined solutions

Speakers

– Liucija Sabulyte
– Dag Stromsnes
– Dovile Gaizauskiene

Arguments

Understanding problems well is key to solving them, and technological perspective can enrich problem understanding

Public sector buyers should focus on needs rather than predetermined solutions, allowing suppliers to use their creativity and global experience

Workshop demonstrated how technological perspective can change perception of challenges themselves

Summary

All three speakers advocate for an approach where technology is used to better understand and frame problems rather than imposing predetermined solutions, emphasizing the importance of open-ended exploration

Topics

Development | Sociocultural

Innovation requires balancing multiple stakeholder needs and building trust between different organizational cultures

Speakers

– Lina Viltrakiene
– Dag Stromsnes

Arguments

Digital governance requires balancing sovereignty and cybersecurity with interoperability and open innovation

Both public sector buyers and startups need support throughout procurement processes, requiring trust and respect between different cultures

Summary

Both speakers recognize that successful innovation requires navigating tensions between different priorities and building trust between stakeholders with different cultures and approaches

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize that addressing complex challenges requires innovative approaches and engaging with diverse market participants to achieve public sector transformation

Speakers

– Lina Viltrakiene
– Dag Stromsnes

Arguments

Complex challenges require innovative and out-of-the-box thinking, particularly in public sector efficiency and transparency

Public sector authorities need to open challenges to the market and get results from diverse suppliers, from startups to large tech companies

Topics

Development | Economic

Both speakers focus on AI applications for people with disabilities, with one exploring technological possibilities and the other raising critical ethical considerations about implementation

Speakers

– Participant
– Magne Hareide

Arguments

Agentic AI can enable proactive public services and personalized solutions for people with disabilities, including stress monitoring and visual guidance through AR/metaverse

Ethical questions arise about decision-making authority when implementing AI solutions for vulnerable populations – whether government, banks, or medical professionals should have control

Topics

Human rights | Development | Legal and regulatory

Unexpected consensus

Structural limitations of bureaucratic systems in addressing cross-cutting challenges

Speakers

– Dag Stromsnes
– Liucija Sabulyte

Arguments

Bureaucratic structures are not designed for mission-oriented challenges that span multiple organizations

Cooperation, moving through silos and building mutual trust is key to digital transformation impact

Explanation

It’s unexpected that both Norwegian and Lithuanian representatives openly acknowledge the limitations of their own bureaucratic structures, showing remarkable institutional self-awareness and willingness to critique existing systems

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Technology as a lens for problem understanding rather than just solution provision

Speakers

– Liucija Sabulyte
– Dovile Gaizauskiene
– Dag Stromsnes

Arguments

Understanding problems well is key to solving them, and technological perspective can enrich problem understanding

Workshop demonstrated how technological perspective can change perception of challenges themselves

Public sector buyers should focus on needs rather than predetermined solutions, allowing suppliers to use their creativity and global experience

Explanation

The consensus on using technology as a diagnostic and analytical tool rather than just an implementation tool represents an unexpectedly sophisticated approach to technology policy that goes beyond typical solution-focused thinking

Topics

Development | Sociocultural

Overall assessment

Summary

The speakers demonstrate strong consensus on the need for cross-organizational cooperation, technology-enhanced problem understanding, stakeholder engagement, and acknowledgment of structural limitations in current systems

Consensus level

High level of consensus with complementary perspectives rather than conflicting viewpoints. The agreement spans both strategic approaches (cooperation, problem-first thinking) and practical implementation challenges (cultural differences, ethical considerations). This consensus suggests a mature understanding of digital transformation challenges and creates a solid foundation for collaborative policy development and implementation.

Different viewpoints

Approach to supplier engagement – startup-focused vs. inclusive market approach

Speakers

– Dag Stromsnes

Arguments

Public sector authorities need to open challenges to the market and get results from diverse suppliers, from startups to large tech companies

Public sector buyers should focus on needs rather than predetermined solutions, allowing suppliers to use their creativity and global experience

Summary

While Stromsnes advocates for engaging both startups and large suppliers equally, emphasizing that big companies like Capgemini, IBM, and Accenture can provide significant innovation from global experience, the Lithuanian model presented by Viltrakiene focuses primarily on startup partnerships through GovTechLab

Topics

Economic | Development

Unexpected differences

Ethical decision-making authority in AI implementation for vulnerable populations

Speakers

– Magne Hareide
– Participant

Arguments

Ethical questions arise about decision-making authority when implementing AI solutions for vulnerable populations – whether government, banks, or medical professionals should have control

Agentic AI can enable proactive public services and personalized solutions for people with disabilities, including stress monitoring and visual guidance through AR/metaverse

Explanation

While the participant enthusiastically presented AI solutions for people with disabilities, Hareide raised fundamental ethical concerns about who should have decision-making authority over these individuals’ lives. This disagreement was unexpected as it emerged from what appeared to be a collaborative workshop discussion and highlighted deep ethical tensions in implementing seemingly beneficial technologies

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory | Sociocultural

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion showed relatively low levels of direct disagreement, with most conflicts being methodological rather than fundamental. The main areas of disagreement centered on procurement approaches (startup-focused vs. inclusive market engagement) and ethical considerations in AI implementation for vulnerable populations

Disagreement level

Low to moderate disagreement level. Most speakers shared common goals of improving public sector innovation and digital transformation, but differed on implementation approaches. The ethical disagreement about AI decision-making authority represents the most significant tension, as it touches on fundamental questions of autonomy and control that could impact policy development and technology implementation strategies

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize that addressing complex challenges requires innovative approaches and engaging with diverse market participants to achieve public sector transformation

Speakers

– Lina Viltrakiene
– Dag Stromsnes

Arguments

Complex challenges require innovative and out-of-the-box thinking, particularly in public sector efficiency and transparency

Public sector authorities need to open challenges to the market and get results from diverse suppliers, from startups to large tech companies

Topics

Development | Economic

Both speakers focus on AI applications for people with disabilities, with one exploring technological possibilities and the other raising critical ethical considerations about implementation

Speakers

– Participant
– Magne Hareide

Arguments

Agentic AI can enable proactive public services and personalized solutions for people with disabilities, including stress monitoring and visual guidance through AR/metaverse

Ethical questions arise about decision-making authority when implementing AI solutions for vulnerable populations – whether government, banks, or medical professionals should have control

Topics

Human rights | Development | Legal and regulatory

Key takeaways

Technology should be used not just as a solution but as a lens to better understand societal problems themselves

Successful digital governance requires balancing sovereignty/cybersecurity with interoperability and open innovation

Lithuania has achieved significant digital governance success (6th in EU e-government benchmark) through GovTechLab partnerships with startups, solving over 100 public sector challenges

Public procurement innovation requires making processes simple, predictable and fast for startups while leveraging creativity from large suppliers

Cross-governmental cooperation is essential but challenging due to bureaucratic structures not designed for mission-oriented challenges spanning multiple organizations

Marginalized voices in digital services can be addressed through diverse technological approaches including AI agents, process mining, and AR/metaverse solutions

Building mutual trust and respect between different organizational cultures (public sector vs. startups) is crucial for successful collaboration

Workshop methodology demonstrated that examining challenges through technological perspectives can change understanding of the problems themselves

Resolutions and action items

Save the date for GovTech Leader Conference on October 23rd in Vilnius focusing on ‘GovTech dilemmas’

Participants encouraged to visit the organizers’ stand for continued discussions during the event

Continued cooperation between Lithuania and Norway on sharing experiences in digital governance and innovative procurement

Unresolved issues

Ethical questions about decision-making authority when implementing AI solutions for vulnerable populations – unclear whether government, banks, or medical professionals should have control

How to effectively balance the thin line between right and wrong in automated decision-making for people with limited capacity

Specific mechanisms for achieving cross-governmental cooperation given existing bureaucratic structural limitations

How to scale successful pilot projects beyond initial implementation

Concrete methods for including diverse marginalized voices (rural, low-income, digitally disadvantaged) in digital service co-creation

Suggested compromises

Using technology to free up public servants from routine tasks so they have more time for human interaction and citizen engagement

Combining multiple technological approaches (AI agents, AR, metaverse) to address different aspects of accessibility challenges

Engaging both startups and large tech companies in different capacities to leverage their respective strengths

Requiring public debate and societal discussion before implementing AI agents for vulnerable populations

Usually we think of technologies as a solution to the problem. And this time we try to explore how technological perspective can enrich the understanding of problem itself. And for those of you who are working on societal challenges, you probably know that understanding problem well is the key part of solving it.

Speaker

Liucija Sabulyte

Reason

This comment is insightful because it fundamentally reframes the relationship between technology and problem-solving. Instead of viewing technology as merely a tool for solutions, it positions technology as a lens for deeper problem analysis. This represents a sophisticated understanding that proper problem definition is often more critical than solution implementation.

Impact

This opening comment set the entire tone and framework for the workshop. It established the unconventional approach that would guide all subsequent activities, moving participants away from their natural tendency to jump to solutions and instead focusing on problem understanding first.

The key point from my point of view is how we open our challenges to the market. How do public sector authorities approach the market to get the best result of the suppliers? It is a huge challenge and we need to focus on getting the results from a huge variety of suppliers. From the start-ups and the very small suppliers to the huge tech companies.

Speaker

Dag Stromsnes

Reason

This comment is thought-provoking because it highlights a critical but often overlooked aspect of public sector innovation – the procurement process itself as a barrier or enabler. It recognizes that innovation isn’t just about having good ideas, but about creating systems that can effectively engage with diverse supplier ecosystems.

Impact

This comment introduced a practical, systemic perspective that complemented the more theoretical framework. It grounded the discussion in real-world implementation challenges and set up the importance of understanding different stakeholder perspectives in problem-solving.

I think a public sector buyer and a grinder have a very different approach. The grinder he doesn’t know if he has a salary in two months, a public sector buyer knows he has a permanent contract in an agency and these two cultures, these two approaches are going to meet in a cooperation that we really really need to work hard to establish.

Speaker

Dag Stromsnes

Reason

This observation is particularly insightful because it identifies a fundamental cultural and psychological barrier that goes beyond technical or procedural issues. It recognizes that successful innovation requires understanding and bridging vastly different risk tolerances, time horizons, and motivational structures.

Impact

This comment added a human dimension to the technical discussion, highlighting that technology solutions must account for human and organizational psychology. It influenced the workshop’s later focus on understanding multiple perspectives and stakeholder needs.

We already have a feeling that you started, instead of discussing problem, thinking of solutions. That’s very natural and now we are moving actually to that part of the workshop.

Speaker

Dovile Gaizauskiene

Reason

This meta-observation is insightful because it captures a fundamental human tendency that often undermines effective problem-solving. By acknowledging this natural inclination to jump to solutions, it validates the difficulty of the exercise while reinforcing its importance.

Impact

This comment served as a crucial course correction that reinforced the workshop’s core methodology. It helped participants become more self-aware of their problem-solving approaches and emphasized the value of the structured process they were following.

We did not see how the technology would contribute significantly to solving this challenge because we had a lot of, for example, from my case it was process mining, quantum computing or agentic AI but then after discussing together with the colleagues we started discussing maybe… these technologies like quantum computing or process mining can first of all help overall public service employees to deal with their issues more that do not necessarily require human interaction so then they would have more time to engage actually with their constituents.

Speaker

Participant

Reason

This comment demonstrates a sophisticated evolution in thinking – moving from direct technology application to indirect, systemic impact. It shows how technology can solve problems by freeing up human capacity for higher-value activities, representing a more nuanced understanding of technology’s role.

Impact

This insight demonstrated the workshop’s effectiveness in changing participants’ perspectives. It showed how the structured approach led to more creative and systemic thinking about technology applications, moving beyond obvious solutions to more strategic approaches.

Someone has the role in that, but that has to be a public debate. It has to be a society debate, it has to be a private debate. I’m sure there will be a firm representing that person… Where is the right and wrong in this?

Speaker

Magne Hareide

Reason

This comment is thought-provoking because it introduces the critical ethical dimension that often gets overlooked in technology-focused discussions. It recognizes that technical solutions for vulnerable populations raise fundamental questions about autonomy, representation, and decision-making authority.

Impact

This comment elevated the discussion from technical problem-solving to broader societal and ethical considerations. It demonstrated how deeper problem analysis reveals complex stakeholder dynamics and ethical dilemmas that must be addressed alongside technical solutions.

Overall assessment

These key comments collectively shaped the discussion by establishing a sophisticated framework that moved beyond traditional technology-as-solution thinking. The opening reframe set an unconventional approach, while the procurement and cultural insights grounded the discussion in real-world implementation challenges. The facilitator’s meta-observations helped maintain focus on the methodology, while participant reflections demonstrated the evolution in thinking that the workshop achieved. The ethical considerations raised toward the end showed how proper problem analysis reveals complex societal dimensions that pure technical approaches might miss. Together, these comments created a progression from theoretical framework to practical challenges to demonstrated learning outcomes, illustrating how technology can indeed enrich problem understanding rather than simply provide solutions.

How do we include more voices of people who are not as active in digital spaces in policies and institutional feedback loops?

Speaker

Participant from first group

Explanation

This addresses the core challenge of digital exclusion and marginalized voices in service co-creation, which is fundamental to creating inclusive digital governance

How do you get people involved who can read and write but can’t speak, and people with different communication abilities?

Speaker

Participant discussing inclusion challenges

Explanation

This highlights the need for diverse communication channels and accessibility solutions for people with different abilities and limitations

Who has the say in financial decisions for people with limited capacity – is it the government, the bank, or medical professionals?

Speaker

Participant discussing payment solutions for people with disabilities

Explanation

This raises critical ethical questions about autonomy, guardianship, and decision-making authority for vulnerable populations in digital financial services

Where is the right and wrong line when it comes to making decisions for people with limited capacity to decide how much to spend?

Speaker

Participant discussing ethical considerations

Explanation

This addresses the ethical boundaries and moral considerations in developing AI-assisted financial management tools for people with cognitive or other limitations

How can diverse channels be developed to take digital solutions to people in rural areas and different locations who have difficulty accessing digital platforms?

Speaker

Participant discussing rural access challenges

Explanation

This addresses the digital divide and the need for alternative service delivery methods to reach underserved populations

How can agentic AI be personalized and adjusted for individual needs while maintaining ethical boundaries?

Speaker

Participant discussing agentic AI applications

Explanation

This explores the technical and ethical challenges of creating personalized AI agents that can assist people with disabilities while respecting their autonomy and privacy

Summary

This discussion focused on the digitalization and development of the Arctic region, presented by Alim Khapov from the Center for Global IT Cooperation in Moscow at an Internet Governance Forum session. Khapov emphasized that the Arctic is both a zone of collaboration and competition, home to nearly 4 million people including 10% indigenous populations, representing a fragile ecosystem and culture that requires careful consideration during development. He highlighted Russia’s efforts to bridge the digital divide through initiatives like “IT camps” that provide internet access to nomadic indigenous communities in remote Arctic regions where traditional infrastructure cannot reach.

The presentation extensively covered energy solutions for Arctic development, particularly Russia’s implementation of nuclear power plants including floating nuclear facilities like the Academic Lamanosov Power Plant, which operates as a mobile power source in the Chukotka region. Khapov discussed how climate change is making Arctic routes more accessible, particularly the Northeast Passage, which offers significantly shorter shipping times compared to traditional routes through the Suez Canal. He also explored alternative energy sources including hydrogen and wind power, citing AI analysis that suggested these could serve as clean alternatives to diesel power in remote Arctic communities.

The discussion addressed infrastructure challenges, including the construction of data centers in Arctic conditions and the deployment of undersea cables like the Polar Express project. During the Q&A session, Khapov clarified that while climate change presents opportunities for Arctic exploration through melting ice, he views this as an inevitable reality rather than an advantage, emphasizing the need for responsible, collaborative development that protects indigenous communities and the environment. He concluded by urging international cooperation on ethical Arctic digitalization despite geopolitical tensions.

Keypoints

**Major Discussion Points:**

– **Arctic Digitalization and Infrastructure Development**: The speaker discussed Russia’s efforts to bridge the digital divide in Arctic regions through initiatives like “IT camps” that provide internet access to indigenous communities living nomadic lifestyles, emphasizing the need to connect remote populations while protecting their cultural heritage.

– **Energy Solutions for Arctic Development**: Extensive discussion of nuclear power implementation in the Arctic, including floating nuclear power plants like the Academic Lamanosov, small nuclear reactors, and alternative energy sources like hydrogen and wind power to support sustainable development in harsh Arctic conditions.

– **Climate Change Impact on Arctic Accessibility**: The melting ice caps are making Arctic regions more accessible, opening new shipping routes like the Northeast Passage that significantly reduce travel time compared to traditional routes, while also revealing new territories for exploration and development.

– **Technical Challenges of Arctic Infrastructure**: Discussion of the complexities involved in building data centers in Arctic conditions, laying undersea cables under ice, and the maintenance challenges these present, along with the geopolitical considerations of where infrastructure crosses territorial boundaries.

– **Balancing Development with Environmental and Cultural Protection**: The tension between inevitable Arctic development driven by resource extraction and climate change, versus the need to protect fragile ecosystems and indigenous communities who have lived in these regions for millennia.

**Overall Purpose:**

The discussion aimed to highlight the importance of responsible Arctic digitalization and development, advocating for international cooperation in creating ethical approaches to Arctic exploration while balancing technological progress with environmental sustainability and indigenous rights protection.

**Overall Tone:**

The tone was informative and diplomatic, with the speaker presenting a balanced perspective that acknowledged both opportunities and challenges. The speaker maintained a collaborative tone throughout, consistently calling for international cooperation despite geopolitical tensions. The tone remained measured and academic, even when discussing controversial topics like nuclear power and climate change impacts, with the speaker acknowledging limitations in expertise on certain environmental topics while advocating for responsible development practices.

Speakers

– **Alim Khapov** – Center for Global IT Cooperation, Moscow, Russia based research center, analytical center created by Russian Coordination Center for TLD.RU.RF. Operates within the IGF and ITU ecosystems, actively engages in Internet Governance Forums, hosts and co-hosts Russian Internet Governance Forum and Youth Russian Internet Governance Forum.

– **Audience** – Multiple audience members asking questions during the session (roles and expertise not specified).

Additional speakers:

No additional speakers were identified beyond those in the provided speakers names list.

# Arctic Digitalization and Development: A Comprehensive Discussion Report

## Introduction and Context

This report examines a discussion on Arctic digitalization and development presented by Alim Khapov from the Center for Global IT Cooperation at an Internet Governance Forum session. The Center for Global IT Cooperation is a Moscow-based research and analytical center created by the Russian Coordination Center for TLD.RU.RF, which has operated within the IGF and ITU ecosystems for over five years.

This session was originally supposed to be hosted by colleagues who unfortunately didn’t have time and didn’t make it to Oslo, to Lillestrom. The discussion centered on the complex challenges and opportunities surrounding the digitalization of the Arctic region, emphasizing the balance between technological advancement, environmental protection, and cultural preservation. Khapov presented the Arctic as both a zone of collaboration and competition, home to almost 4 million people including 10% indigenous populations, representing a fragile ecosystem and culture requiring careful consideration during development.

## Major Discussion Points and Arguments

### Arctic Digitalization and Infrastructure Development

The presentation covered Russia’s efforts to bridge the digital divide in Arctic regions through innovative approaches to connectivity. Khapov highlighted the implementation of “IT Stoybyshe” (literally translating to “IT Kettle Camp”) that provide internet access to indigenous communities living nomadic lifestyles in remote Arctic regions of the Republic of Sakha, Yakutia, where traditional infrastructure cannot reach. These initiatives represent a targeted approach to connecting isolated populations while attempting to preserve their traditional ways of life.

The discussion addressed the technical challenges of building digital infrastructure in Arctic conditions, including the potential for establishing data centers in these regions. Khapov noted that while the cold climate could provide advantages for data center operations, citing examples like Iceland, such projects would require substantial supporting infrastructure. This assessment was partly based on AI analysis from a chatbot that Khapov and colleagues had designed for a previous IGF in Riyadh.

The conversation also covered undersea cable projects, particularly the Polar Express initiative, which aims to bring enhanced connectivity from Murmansk, near the Norwegian border, via the entire northern sea route to Arctic regions despite the significant operational challenges of laying and maintaining cables under ice.

### Energy Solutions for Arctic Development

A substantial portion of the discussion focused on energy solutions necessary to support Arctic digitalization and development. Khapov discussed Russia’s implementation of nuclear power in the Arctic, including floating nuclear facilities such as the Academic Lamanosov Power Plant, created in 2020 and operating in the Chukotka region. He explained that nuclear-powered icebreakers “can operate as an icebreaker, but it can also operate as a small nuclear power plant when it landed onto the shore,” demonstrating the dual functionality of these vessels as mobile power sources.

The presentation also explored alternative energy sources, including hydrogen and wind power. Khapov cited AI analysis from their chatbot suggesting these could serve as clean alternatives to diesel power in remote Arctic communities. He discussed wind power implementations in Sweden and Norway, and mentioned Kodiak Island as an example, though he admitted not knowing much about that specific case. These renewable energy opportunities were presented as part of a diversified approach to energy provision that could support sustainable development.

### Climate Change Impact on Arctic Accessibility

The discussion addressed how climate change is making Arctic routes more accessible, particularly the Northeast Passage, which takes half the time compared to standard routes. Khapov noted it takes “twice the time to travel via the standard route… than it would take via the Northeast Passage.”

When challenged by an audience member about whether ice melting should be viewed as advantageous, Khapov provided a measured response: “I wouldn’t pose this as an advantage. Rather, it is a fact. It is an ongoing process which we, well, we international community, try to abate… But so far, I think that the global temperature is still rising. And this isn’t something we can avoid. Therefore, I wouldn’t say that it is an advantage. It is an inevitable reality.”

### Technical Challenges and Geopolitical Considerations

The discussion revealed significant technical challenges associated with Arctic infrastructure development. An audience member raised specific concerns about “sub-cable under the ice” and the difficulties of repairing and maintaining undersea cables under ice conditions. The conversation acknowledged that while Arctic data center development is technically feasible, it requires substantial infrastructure investment and careful planning.

Khapov also addressed geopolitical considerations affecting infrastructure placement, noting that territorial boundaries and disputes in the Arctic could complicate development projects, requiring careful navigation of international relations and territorial claims.

## Balancing Development with Environmental and Cultural Protection

A central theme throughout the discussion was the tension between Arctic development and the need to protect fragile ecosystems and indigenous communities. Khapov emphasized the importance of responsible development, stating: “We cannot just, it would be wrong I think, by all means to just exploit those unique regions which were untouched by human hands for millennia using the same old techniques and technologies which were used prior in humanity’s history.”

He further elaborated on the complexity of digital inclusion for indigenous communities: “It is important that local communities of the Arctic are included, connected to the rest of the world, but it is also important to protect those communities from all sorts of threats which are currently online.”

## Key Insights and Observations

Several comments during the discussion provided particularly insightful perspectives. Khapov’s observation about the need for new approaches to Arctic development established an ethical framework that guided the conversation, shifting it from purely technical considerations to include moral dimensions.

The recognition that connectivity without protection can be harmful, especially for indigenous communities with traditional lifestyles, demonstrated understanding of responsible digitalization that goes beyond simple connectivity metrics.

Khapov’s call for international cooperation despite geopolitical tensions was notable: “Even throwing aside all geopolitical struggles and security matters, which were always there and which will always remain… I would urge all the colleagues to unite on that question of responsible digitalization responsible exploration and responsible Infrastructure construction in the Arctic because it’s underway.”

## Unresolved Issues and Future Considerations

The discussion highlighted several unresolved issues requiring further attention. Geopolitical tensions regarding territorial boundaries and undersea cable placement in disputed Arctic regions remain a significant challenge for infrastructure development. The technical difficulties of maintaining and repairing undersea cables under ice conditions require ongoing innovation and international cooperation.

Long-term environmental impacts from Arctic development projects need continued study. Khapov acknowledged this as an area outside his expertise requiring input from biologists and environmental experts. The challenge of balancing economic development with protection of fragile Arctic ecosystems and indigenous cultures remains complex, requiring ongoing dialogue about protecting indigenous communities’ rights and traditional lifestyles while implementing digitalization projects.

## Conclusions and Call for Action

The discussion concluded with emphasis on the need for international cooperation in Arctic digitalization efforts. Khapov urged colleagues to unite on responsible digitalization and exploration of the Arctic, calling for international cooperation in creating ethical approaches to Arctic infrastructure development despite existing geopolitical tensions.

The session positioned Arctic digitalization as requiring collaborative approaches that prioritize sustainability and respect for both natural ecosystems and indigenous communities. The call for international cooperation, despite existing tensions, framed Arctic development as an opportunity for the global community to demonstrate responsible stewardship of one of Earth’s most pristine and vulnerable regions.

The overall assessment suggests that while Arctic digitalization is inevitable and ongoing, driven by climate change making the region more accessible, it must be approached through responsible development using sustainable technologies that do not disturb traditional lifestyles of indigenous communities.

Alim Khapov: Alem Khapov, Center for Global IT Cooperation, Moscow, Russia based research center, analytical center created by Russian Coordination Center for TLD.RU.RF. We operate within the IGF and ITU ecosystems now for more than five years. We actively engage in all IGF since IGF in Poland. We also host and co-host Russian Internet Governance Forum and Youth Russian Internet Governance Forum. Originally this session was supposed to be hosted by colleagues of ours, but unfortunately they didn’t have time and didn’t make it to Oslo, to Lillestrom to visit the IGF, and we have decided to support them in this session and host it ourselves. That’s pretty much the beginning. The topic we, our colleagues decided to pick up and we also supported them in this endeavor is concerning the digitalization of the Arctic and generally speaking development of the Arctic region. We believe that this topic is of great importance and relevance nowadays and especially in forums such as IGF. Perhaps there should be more time spent on issues concerning the Arctic as a part and active member of the Arctic Council and generally speaking has a lot of projects especially near the Svalbard area which are connected to digitalization. Several things about the Arctic region. It definitely is a zone of collaboration and a zone of competition especially nowadays. We always hear here and there the talks about Greenland, about militarization of the Arctic, about resource chase concerning the Arctic oil and gas fields. But we should always keep in mind that Arctic is a fragile region. Currently it has almost 4 million population. 10% of that population is of indigenous origin, meaning people who lived and inhabited Arctic region before European countries started the process of colonization, before the modern states arrived there. It is a fragile ecosystem. It is also a fragile culture. But progress is unstoppable and it is moving on especially with the processes such as global warming. The Arctic is rapidly changing. The new passages and routes are opening. Therefore the ships are moving in, the infrastructure moves in and people also settle. As I was saying, representing the organization which operates from Moscow, from Russia, we also have a large portion of our country located in the Arctic region and ourselves we know on our own example about migration from certain parts of the country to the Arctic, about the challenges that arise there and about local communities and how they feel, how they change and adapt to new processes which go hand in hand with digitalization. For example, one of the major initiatives right now which is supported by our government and by the Ministry of Digital Affairs is the creation of certain IT camps. Interestingly enough, even there is a special phrase for it which goes as IT Stoybyshe, literally translating to IT Kettle Camp, because of the distance of certain regions of the Arctic and even inability to access those regions by the road. There are no roads, there are no railways which would lead to these regions and people especially. There are still people, there are still citizens and they still have to be connected to the Internet and that is why recently government has launched 100 plus more IT camps in certain areas of the Arctic where people, especially indigenous people who live in nomadic lifestyle, they can arrive to these IT camps, have access to Internet, free access to Internet. It is one of the efforts to combat the so-called digital divide and I believe this initiative is important and I know that it is also implemented in various other countries of the Arctic Council and initiatives like that I think should be supported and paid attention to. It is important that local communities of the Arctic are included, connected to the rest of the world, but it is also important to protect those communities from all sorts of threats which are currently online. We are not leaving them just simply open to the web, we also need to protect their rights online and I think that the first step is already done. We bring those communities, we connect them and next step is to protect those communities, protect them online. There is also an issue of energy. We not only bring digital infrastructure, examples of IT camps to Arctic, we also bring massive projects, we also bring infrastructure. We develop those regions because obviously they have massive resources which need to be used and it is important for us to use them responsibly, using technologies which do not harm the environment and people in these regions. We cannot just, it would be wrong I think, by all means to just exploit those unique regions which were untouched by human hands for millennia using the same old techniques and technologies which were used prior in humanity’s history. That is why for instance corporations like Rosatom implement decisions such as nuclear power plants in the far north. There is a long-standing debate about the security and actual greenness of nuclear technologies. There were several important infamous cases of nuclear power going out and bringing destruction, but I think the majority of experts right now agree that nuclear power plants, when managed correctly and with responsible design, can produce ample volumes of energy, supply them and be a sustainable force. As you can see, Russia has a lot of nuclear power plants, we have a lot of resource infrastructure. History of that infrastructure will also develop nuclear power plants abroad. We have a lot of international partners with whom in collaboration we build nuclear power plants and one of the particularly interesting examples of nuclear power plants built in the Arctic is the recent, there is also a nuclear-powered icebreaker fleet which I believe is also an integral part of the Arctic exploration. It is also a part of the nuclear-powered program, so for instance a nuclear-powered icebreaker can operate as an icebreaker, but it can also operate as a small nuclear power plant when it landed onto the shore. The next step of the development of this idea is the creation of the floating nuclear power plants. The first one was created in 2020, I believe, and it is called Academic Lamanosov Power Plant, an ingenious design really. It is a single reactor power plant which is used in the high north, currently it operates in Chukotka region which is on the border with Alaska and the Republic of Sakha. Depending on the energy needs of certain Regions and towns in the up north the power plants moves depending on the season And operates as a mobile power plant This is single example of this new Technological thinking applied to the exploration of the Arctic and even now there are talks of expanding this program and building more floating nuclear power plants and there are also projects of small nuclear power plants which are expected to be built in the Arctic such as the one in the Republic Republic of Sakha Yakutia far north And there is a lot of debate concerning this project right now in Russia and as well as internationally because as I was saying Projects like that They bring a lot of opportunities for local communities Aside from the clean energy and energy as such. They also may provide the Fundament for infrastructure. So whenever we build an SNPP in the high north, we need certain power grid We need roads. We need connections. We need we build entire new cities in the high north. We also employ workers We are employed local population But it can also create serious problems aside from the threats of ecological disaster We can also endanger communities which have a certain lifestyle that they have that they would like to preserve and it is very important I believe to take this into account when building such projects in the high north to provide opportunities for those who require opportunities But not to disturb the lifestyle of communities that have lived there for thousands of years There’s also an interesting debate right now going on concerning the hydrogen energy Potential in the Arctic and together with my colleagues from Rosatom we had For one conference also for IGF, but it was the IGF which took part in Riyadh. So the past year we designed our own chatbot which we asked to think on the aspects of development of the Arctic and digitalization of the Arctic and one of the interesting things with this which this chatbot offered us is to think about the hydrogen energy and how hydrogen energy can be used in the exploration of the Arctic region and there were several questions which we asked the AI and I would like to showcase you the examples of the AI thinking concerning the Arctic exploration so one of the questions was concerning the use of the hydrogen energy in the Arctic and the artificial intelligence Decided that the region has abundant renewable energy potential and indeed it is in part true. So aside from the nuclear Energy, there is a potential for wind and hydropower we resources which will be harnessed to produce green hydrogen through electricity and Interestingly, there are still countries there right now countries which actively use wind power. So for instance, I think Sweden and even Norway In certain areas implement wind turbines there was also concern concern of decarbonization of remote communities So many Arctic communities rely on diesel for electricity, which is true and heating which is expensive and environmentally harmful Hydrogen can serve as a clean alternative for power generation and heating reducing greenhouse gas emissions and improving air quality So this is one of the interesting ways in which AI thinks about hydrogen energy and about alternative energy sources in application to the Arctic exploration It also highlights the opportunities industrial application geopolitical and economic potentials and of course future prospects Get sometimes I think it fantasize too much, but still there is also a debate about AI wind energy and The AI is also quite positive Concerning the implementation of wind energy in the Arctic providing us examples of the Kodiak Island I do not know about the Kodiak Island, but I do know about the large volume of wind farms in Sweden so potentially in some areas it can be used there were also examples I think of Smart data centers which were built in the Arctic region. I think Iceland has a very good experience concerning the Concerning the building of infrastructure in the high north so they apply certain technologies which are based in responsible and Sustainable power generation and apply them to the Arctic X actually there was a long debate concerning the question of can we build data centers in the Arctic because it’s so cold up there and We would not need to spend a lot of energy To you know to cool up our Cool up data centers and on paper. It seems like a great idea But there is a lot of infrastructure which needs to be taken into account and Arctic is still a very hard region to develop digital infrastructure in my view, but the climate change is ongoing and We can see in the future How it all changes? So that’s it. I would like also to once again highlight the prospects of the usage of Arctic in terms of Northeast passage and this northern sea route, I think these one these routes are essential when we are thinking about the Arctic exploration and development, especially when it comes to digitalization because These routes they serve as a fundament for all future infrastructure and development for economic activities And my view on the lines of these routes will soon be soon will Appear settlements and all those settlements will require basic infrastructure and it is our responsibility to take into account safety sustainability and Security when we are developing the Arctic region and especially collaboration even in terms of geopolitical struggle I think it is important to cooperate and stick together when it comes to such matters as the Arctic and If we lose time and if we do not cooperate on this issue if we do not work together In exploring in combining our efforts in creating ethical and responsible approaches to digitalization Exploration of the Arctic we may simply lose time and it will be far gone So I would urge all the colleagues to unite on that question of responsible digitalization responsible exploration and responsible Infrastructure construction in the Arctic because it’s underway and I think it is our responsibility and our job to work together Even throwing aside all geopolitical struggles and security matters, which were always there and which will always remain So I think that’s pretty much it I would actually very much like for someone from Norway to participate or for our colleagues We were initially supposed to host this session to be here. But unfortunately, that’s it yet We have 15 minutes and I would really encourage some sort of discussion on Dialogue with you. That’s it. Thank you Yeah, sure we can do it like this I think if we still have time What do you think that that climate change might have an impact on Arctic digitalization Sorry climate change might know what kind of effect do you think that it might have? I think it already had an effect in a sense that it made Arctic more accessible We have known for the potential Director of the Institute of Geophysics and Atmospheric Sciences of the Russian Academy of Sciences There was a very famous comparison that from the port of, I think, Tokyo or Vladivostok to Antwerp, it takes twice the time to travel via the standard route via Malacca Strait and Suez Canal, than it would take via the Northeast Passage. So it’s just simply, this knowledge has always been there, but what the climate change has done is that the ice caps are melting, and the routes are becoming more accessible. There is also the entire fleet of icebreakers, which is built in Russia. There are also icebreakers built in Scandinavian countries, and the United States is currently on the way building the entire fleet. So all these developments combined with the melting of the ice, it also reveals new territories which can be explored. So I believe that is the biggest contribution of the global warming in relation to the Arctic. If there are no more questions, maybe there will be questions of the panel, so-called informal discussions. Anyway, thank you very much for this opportunity, and once again, thank you for the organizers. Oh, yeah, sure, there are questions online, that’s great.

Audience: First off, is he asking if it is possible to build data centers on the Arctic?

Alim Khapov: Well, yeah, as I was saying, it is a very debatable question. There are currently several examples of that. In Iceland, they actively build data centers, and they use the Arctic climate as an advantage, but because they have the necessary infrastructure. I think maybe in the future, for instance, the Svalbard would be a perfect place to build data centers, because there are already some storages and facilities on the island, and there is some basic infrastructure which would help. Iceland would also perfectly be… There is also an issue of undersea cables. So currently, there are not a lot of undersea cables. There is one which is called Polar Express, which is currently built in the Russian Federation from Murmansk, near the Norwegian border, via the entire northern sea route. So it is also a question of the sea cables. Whenever we bring that connection to the North Pole, there will be data centers there. So I think that is also significant.

Audience: Okay, sorry about that. I missed maybe the beginning by just mentioning about cable. Could you elaborate a little bit more on the challenge specific to operate sub-cable under the ice? I guess this is also in terms of resiliency. If anything happens below the ice, I suppose it is not very easy to maintain or to repair.

Alim Khapov: True, true. It is very true that it is hard to repair and maintain sea cables when they are under the ice. But as I was saying, the ice is melting, the climate is changing. There is also, I think, an issue of geopolitics, because certain lines in the Arctic are not drawn… Not all countries agree on the lines right now in the Arctic region. So when sea cables will be laid down in this region, we need to take into account the possibility of geopolitical tensions when it comes to where these cables lie and where they cross. So it is an entirely new dialogue. But concerning the hardships which are environmental, yeah, it is true. But construction is underway. There are several projects. I know very well about the Russian project. And I’m absolutely sure that there are some projects of Canada and US probably as well concerning the sea cables in the Arctic. It is becoming quite relevant. Thank you. We’re getting one final question from online. He’s logging on and will be on screen. Thank you.

Audience: I would like to ask. You say that the melting ice will pave the way for us to explore other regions. So are you saying it’s an advantage for the ice to melt and it won’t cause any damages in the future? I wouldn’t pose this as an advantage.

Alim Khapov: Rather, it is a fact. It is an ongoing process which we, well, we international community, try to abate. We try to reverse this process of global warming by introduction of green technologies, by reducing carbon emissions. But so far, I think that the global temperature is still rising. And this isn’t something we can avoid. Therefore, I wouldn’t say that it is an advantage. It is an inevitable reality. And of course, there will be challenges when the ice melts. There will be challenges connected to the global warming. Definitely, there are some parts of the world which will experience floods because of that. And there are rising sea levels. And when it comes to Arctic as well, there are some regions which may suffer greatly. Some biological issues which also need to be taken into account. There are certain species of animals and plants which may be harmed. But I’m not a biologist. Nor am I a great expert in environmentalism. So I don’t think it’s up to me to judge. But I would rather say this is an inevitable process. And we need to adapt to this process and do as much as we can to preserve the Arctic and to reduce the potential damage in the region. So that would be my answer. If you have any comments, I would look forward to answering to them as well. All good? Thank you. NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology

Agreement points

Arctic infrastructure development faces significant technical challenges

Speakers

– Alim Khapov
– Audience

Arguments

Data centers could potentially be built in Arctic regions due to cold climate advantages, but require proper infrastructure

Building data centers in Arctic regions is technically possible but requires addressing infrastructure challenges

Repairing and maintaining undersea cables under ice presents significant operational difficulties

Summary

Both speakers acknowledge that while Arctic infrastructure development (data centers, undersea cables) is technically feasible, it presents substantial challenges requiring careful planning and robust supporting infrastructure

Topics

Infrastructure | Development

Climate change impacts on Arctic accessibility require careful consideration

Speakers

– Alim Khapov
– Audience

Arguments

Climate change is an inevitable reality that requires adaptation rather than being viewed as advantageous

Ice melting raises concerns about future environmental damages and challenges

Summary

Both speakers recognize that while melting ice makes Arctic regions more accessible, this should not be viewed as purely advantageous due to potential environmental consequences and future challenges

Topics

Development

Similar viewpoints

Arctic data center development is feasible but requires substantial infrastructure investment and careful planning to overcome harsh environmental conditions

Speakers

– Alim Khapov
– Audience

Arguments

Data centers could potentially be built in Arctic regions due to cold climate advantages, but require proper infrastructure

Building data centers in Arctic regions is technically possible but requires addressing infrastructure challenges

Topics

Infrastructure | Development

Climate change effects on Arctic accessibility should be approached with caution and environmental responsibility rather than opportunistic exploitation

Speakers

– Alim Khapov
– Audience

Arguments

Climate change is an inevitable reality that requires adaptation rather than being viewed as advantageous

Ice melting raises concerns about future environmental damages and challenges

Topics

Development

Unexpected consensus

Balanced approach to Arctic development opportunities and environmental concerns

Speakers

– Alim Khapov
– Audience

Arguments

Climate change is an inevitable reality that requires adaptation rather than being viewed as advantageous

Ice melting raises concerns about future environmental damages and challenges

Explanation

Despite the speaker representing Russian interests in Arctic development, there was unexpected consensus with audience concerns about environmental impacts, showing shared recognition that Arctic accessibility should not be viewed purely as an advantage

Topics

Development

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion showed agreement on the technical feasibility but practical challenges of Arctic infrastructure development, and shared concern for environmental responsibility in Arctic exploration despite economic opportunities

Consensus level

Moderate consensus exists on the need for responsible Arctic development that balances technological opportunities with environmental protection and infrastructure challenges. This suggests potential for collaborative approaches to Arctic digitalization that prioritize sustainability and technical viability over purely economic exploitation.

Different viewpoints

Whether melting ice should be viewed as advantageous for Arctic development

Speakers

– Alim Khapov
– Audience

Arguments

Melting ice caps make Arctic routes like the Northeast Passage more accessible for shipping and development

Ice melting raises concerns about future environmental damages and challenges

Summary

Khapov presents melting ice as an inevitable reality that creates accessibility opportunities, while audience member questions whether this should be considered advantageous given potential environmental damages

Topics

Development

Unexpected differences

Framing of climate change impacts on Arctic development

Speakers

– Alim Khapov
– Audience

Arguments

Melting ice caps make Arctic routes like the Northeast Passage more accessible for shipping and development

Ice melting raises concerns about future environmental damages and challenges

Explanation

The disagreement is unexpected because both speakers seem to understand the environmental consequences of climate change, yet they differ significantly on how to frame the discussion. The audience member’s challenge suggests a fundamental disagreement about whether discussing accessibility benefits is appropriate when addressing climate change impacts

Topics

Development

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion shows minimal direct disagreement, with only one clear point of contention regarding the framing of climate change impacts on Arctic accessibility

Disagreement level

Low level of disagreement with limited implications. The session was primarily a presentation format with few audience interactions, resulting in limited opportunity for substantive debate. The main disagreement centers on environmental ethics and communication framing rather than technical or policy substance, suggesting broad alignment on most practical aspects of Arctic digitalization

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Arctic data center development is feasible but requires substantial infrastructure investment and careful planning to overcome harsh environmental conditions

Speakers

– Alim Khapov
– Audience

Arguments

Data centers could potentially be built in Arctic regions due to cold climate advantages, but require proper infrastructure

Building data centers in Arctic regions is technically possible but requires addressing infrastructure challenges

Topics

Infrastructure | Development

Climate change effects on Arctic accessibility should be approached with caution and environmental responsibility rather than opportunistic exploitation

Speakers

– Alim Khapov
– Audience

Arguments

Climate change is an inevitable reality that requires adaptation rather than being viewed as advantageous

Ice melting raises concerns about future environmental damages and challenges

Topics

Development

Key takeaways

Arctic digitalization is an inevitable and ongoing process driven by climate change making the region more accessible

Digital infrastructure development must balance connectivity with protection of indigenous communities and their traditional lifestyles

Multiple energy solutions are being implemented in the Arctic including nuclear power plants, floating nuclear facilities, and renewable energy sources like wind and hydrogen

IT camps are successfully providing internet access to nomadic indigenous communities in remote Arctic regions

International cooperation is essential for responsible Arctic development despite existing geopolitical tensions

Climate change is creating new opportunities for Arctic exploration through melting ice caps and accessible shipping routes like the Northeast Passage

Technical challenges exist for Arctic infrastructure including undersea cable maintenance under ice and data center construction requirements

Resolutions and action items

Urged colleagues to unite on responsible digitalization and exploration of the Arctic

Called for international cooperation in creating ethical approaches to Arctic infrastructure development

Emphasized the need to work together despite geopolitical struggles and security matters

Unresolved issues

Geopolitical tensions regarding territorial boundaries and undersea cable placement in disputed Arctic regions

Technical challenges of maintaining and repairing undersea cables under ice conditions

Long-term environmental impacts and potential damages from Arctic development projects

Balancing economic development with protection of fragile Arctic ecosystems and indigenous cultures

Debate over the safety and environmental impact of nuclear power plants in the Arctic region

Infrastructure requirements and feasibility of large-scale data center construction in Arctic conditions

Suggested compromises

Adapting to climate change as an inevitable reality while working to reduce potential environmental damage

Developing Arctic regions responsibly using sustainable technologies rather than exploitative old techniques

Providing opportunities for those who need them while not disturbing traditional lifestyles of indigenous communities

Combining international efforts for Arctic exploration while respecting different national interests

We cannot just, it would be wrong I think, by all means to just exploit those unique regions which were untouched by human hands for millennia using the same old techniques and technologies which were used prior in humanity’s history.

Speaker

Alim Khapov

Reason

This comment is deeply insightful because it frames Arctic development as an ethical imperative rather than just a technological or economic opportunity. It acknowledges the pristine nature of these regions and calls for a fundamentally different approach to development that respects their unique character. This perspective elevates the discussion beyond mere resource extraction to consider moral responsibility.

Impact

This comment established the ethical framework that guided the entire discussion. It shifted the conversation from purely technical considerations to include moral dimensions, setting up the tension between development needs and environmental/cultural preservation that became a central theme throughout the session.

It is important that local communities of the Arctic are included, connected to the rest of the world, but it is also important to protect those communities from all sorts of threats which are currently online. We are not leaving them just simply open to the web, we also need to protect those communities, protect them online.

Speaker

Alim Khapov

Reason

This comment reveals the complex dual nature of digital inclusion – it’s not just about providing access but also about protecting vulnerable communities from digital harms. It shows sophisticated understanding that connectivity without protection can be harmful, especially for indigenous communities with traditional lifestyles.

Impact

This comment introduced the concept of responsible digitalization, moving beyond simple connectivity metrics to consider the holistic impact on communities. It added nuance to the discussion by highlighting that digital inclusion must be coupled with digital protection.

But it can also create serious problems aside from the threats of ecological disaster. We can also endanger communities which have a certain lifestyle that they have that they would like to preserve and it is very important I believe to take this into account when building such projects in the high north.

Speaker

Alim Khapov

Reason

This comment is thought-provoking because it acknowledges the potential for cultural destruction alongside environmental risks. It recognizes that indigenous communities have agency in wanting to preserve their lifestyles and that development projects pose threats beyond just environmental damage.

Impact

This comment deepened the discussion by introducing the concept of cultural preservation as equally important to environmental protection. It shifted the conversation to consider the rights and autonomy of indigenous communities, adding a human rights dimension to Arctic development.

I wouldn’t pose this as an advantage. Rather, it is a fact. It is an ongoing process which we, well, we international community, try to abate… But so far, I think that the global temperature is still rising. And this isn’t something we can avoid. Therefore, I wouldn’t say that it is an advantage. It is an inevitable reality.

Speaker

Alim Khapov

Reason

This response is particularly insightful because it demonstrates intellectual honesty and nuanced thinking. When challenged about whether ice melting is advantageous, Khapov carefully distinguishes between acknowledging reality and endorsing it. This shows sophisticated understanding of the difference between adaptation and approval.

Impact

This comment was crucial in maintaining the credibility of the discussion. It prevented the conversation from being dismissed as climate change denial or opportunism. By clearly stating that climate change is not advantageous but rather an inevitable reality requiring adaptation, it kept the focus on responsible response rather than ideological positioning.

Even throwing aside all geopolitical struggles and security matters, which were always there and which will always remain… I would urge all the colleagues to unite on that question of responsible digitalization responsible exploration and responsible Infrastructure construction in the Arctic because it’s underway.

Speaker

Alim Khapov

Reason

This comment is thought-provoking because it calls for transcending geopolitical divisions for a greater cause. Given that this comes from a Russian representative during a time of significant international tensions, it represents a bold call for cooperation that prioritizes environmental and ethical concerns over national interests.

Impact

This comment elevated the entire discussion to a global governance level, framing Arctic digitalization as a shared human responsibility that transcends national boundaries. It positioned the Arctic as a commons requiring collaborative stewardship rather than competitive exploitation.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shaped the discussion by establishing it as a multidimensional conversation that went far beyond technical considerations. Khapov’s insights created a framework that balanced technological possibility with ethical responsibility, environmental protection with development needs, and national interests with global cooperation. The comments collectively transformed what could have been a narrow technical presentation into a nuanced exploration of responsible development in fragile ecosystems. The speaker’s willingness to acknowledge complexities and contradictions – such as the reality of climate change creating opportunities while not being advantageous – gave the discussion intellectual credibility. Most importantly, the call for international cooperation despite geopolitical tensions positioned Arctic digitalization as a test case for humanity’s ability to collaborate on global challenges, making the discussion relevant beyond its specific geographic focus.

What kind of effect might climate change have on Arctic digitalization?

Speaker

Audience member

Explanation

This question seeks to understand the broader implications of climate change on digital infrastructure development in the Arctic region

Is it possible to build data centers in the Arctic?

Speaker

Audience member (online)

Explanation

This question explores the technical feasibility and practical considerations of establishing data centers in Arctic conditions

What are the specific challenges to operate sub-cables under the ice, particularly in terms of resiliency and maintenance?

Speaker

Audience member

Explanation

This question addresses the technical and logistical difficulties of maintaining underwater cable infrastructure in Arctic conditions

Are you saying it’s an advantage for the ice to melt and it won’t cause any damages in the future?

Speaker

Audience member (online)

Explanation

This question challenges the framing of ice melting as beneficial and seeks clarification on potential negative consequences

How can geopolitical tensions regarding territorial boundaries in the Arctic affect the placement of undersea cables?

Speaker

Implied by Alim Khapov’s response

Explanation

This area needs further research as disputed territorial lines could complicate infrastructure development and international cooperation

What are the biological and environmental impacts of Arctic development on local species and ecosystems?

Speaker

Implied by Alim Khapov

Explanation

Khapov acknowledged this as an area outside his expertise that requires input from biologists and environmental experts

How can indigenous communities’ rights and traditional lifestyles be protected while implementing digitalization projects?

Speaker

Alim Khapov

Explanation

This represents a critical balance between technological progress and cultural preservation that requires further study and dialogue

What are the safety and security implications of nuclear power infrastructure in the Arctic?

Speaker

Implied by Alim Khapov’s presentation

Explanation

The debate around nuclear power plants and floating nuclear facilities in the Arctic requires ongoing research and international dialogue