Uncategorized

Summary

This discussion focused on the implementation of Article 29C of the Global Digital Compact, which commits to preventing internet fragmentation. The panel, consisting of representatives from government, technical community, and civil society, explored how to operationalize this commitment and address risks of fragmentation.

The speakers emphasized that internet fragmentation occurs at different levels – technical, governance, and user experience. While the technical layer remains largely unfragmented, there are emerging risks like alternative naming systems and restrictive national policies. The user experience is already fragmented in many ways, with access and content restrictions varying globally.

Panelists stressed the importance of multi-stakeholder cooperation in addressing fragmentation risks. They suggested leveraging existing frameworks like the Policy Network on Internet Fragmentation (PNIF) and Internet Governance Forum (IGF) to facilitate inclusive dialogues. Capacity building and education were highlighted as key strategies.

The discussion touched on the need for measurable indicators to track progress on preventing fragmentation. Speakers proposed developing a framework to assess the state of fragmentation by the next IGF in 2025, which could inform the WSIS+20 review process.

Participants also raised concerns about proposals for new internet protocols that could enable centralized control and surveillance. They emphasized the importance of civil society engagement in technical standard-setting processes.

Overall, the panel agreed on the continued relevance of addressing internet fragmentation risks. They called for strengthened multi-stakeholder collaboration, increased capacity building, and development of assessment frameworks as next steps in operationalizing the GDC commitment.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– The importance of Article 29C in the Global Digital Compact, which commits to preventing Internet fragmentation

– Different perspectives on Internet fragmentation, including technical, governance, and user experience layers

– The need for metrics and measurement to track progress on preventing fragmentation

– The role of multistakeholder cooperation and the IGF in addressing fragmentation risks

– Opportunities to engage on this issue leading up to WSIS+20 and IGF 2025

The overall purpose of the discussion was to examine how to interpret and operationalize the commitment to prevent Internet fragmentation in Article 29C of the Global Digital Compact, and to explore next steps for the Policy Network on Internet Fragmentation.

The tone of the discussion was constructive and forward-looking. Participants acknowledged the complexity of the issue but expressed optimism about opportunities to make progress through multistakeholder cooperation. The tone became more action-oriented towards the end as participants discussed concrete next steps and “dreams” for the future.

Speakers

– Wim Degezelle: Consultant with the IGF Secretariat

– Bruna Martins dos Santos: Global Campaigns Manager at Digital Action | Member of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group to the United Nations Internet Governance Forum (IGF)

– Sheetal Kumar: Co-facilitator of the session (remote)

– Gbenga Sesan: Paradigm Initiative

– Amitabh Singhal: ICANN Board of Directors

– Alisa Heaver: Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate in the Netherlands

Additional speakers:

– Anriette Esterhuysen: Association for Progressive Communications, South Africa

– Hosein Badran: Member of Canadian IGF and Arab IGF

– Kunle Olorundare: Nigerian IGF

Internet Fragmentation: Operationalising the Global Digital Compact Commitment

This discussion focused on implementing Article 29C of the Global Digital Compact (GDC), which commits to preventing internet fragmentation. The panel, consisting of representatives from government, technical community, and civil society, explored how to operationalise this commitment and address fragmentation risks.

Understanding Internet Fragmentation

The speakers emphasized that internet fragmentation occurs at different levels – technical, governance, and user experience. While there are over 70,000 networks, there is currently no fragmentation at the technical level. However, Anriette Esterhuysen from the Association for Progressive Communications argued that fragmentation already exists at the user experience level, stating, “How you, whether you think of the Internet as fragmented or not, really depends on whose Internet you think it is”. She highlighted that for billions of users, the internet is already fragmented due to access limitations and content restrictions.

Gbenga Sesan from Paradigm Initiative emphasized that fragmentation contradicts the goal of connecting everyone by 2030, underscoring the tension between technical unity and user experience fragmentation.

The Global Digital Compact Commitment

Alisa Heaver from the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate in the Netherlands emphasized the importance of Article 29C in providing a basis for preventing fragmentation. She stressed the need for a framework to measure progress on the GDC commitment by the 2027 review.

Implementation Strategies

The speakers agreed on the crucial role of multi-stakeholder cooperation in addressing fragmentation risks. They suggested leveraging existing frameworks like the Policy Network on Internet Fragmentation (PNIF) and the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) to facilitate inclusive dialogues. Wim Degezelle presented the PNIF framework at the beginning of the session, highlighting its relevance to the discussion.

Amitabh Singhal from the ICANN Board of Directors highlighted that the IGF platform bridges technical and policy discussions on fragmentation. He also mentioned the potential renewal of the IGF’s mandate, emphasizing its continued importance in addressing internet governance issues.

Gbenga Sesan emphasized the importance of civil society engagement in technical standard-setting processes and suggested that governments should include diverse stakeholders in technical delegations. This view was echoed by audience members who stressed the need for private sector involvement alongside government and civil society.

Measuring and Tracking Fragmentation

A key theme that emerged was the need for measurable indicators to track progress on preventing fragmentation. Alisa Heaver emphasized the necessity of measuring and tracking fragmentation to assess progress, stating, “My dream would very easily be that we wouldn’t have to have this discussion on Internet fragmentation and everyone would perfectly be fine with this Internet that we have. But more realistically, a takeaway for me is that the research that we want to do as governments, as Dutch government, we really should do and that the need to start measuring Internet fragmentation is more necessary than ever”.

Heaver also highlighted the need for research on the economic impacts of fragmentation.

Future Work and Next Steps

The panel agreed on several action items and next steps:

1. Develop a framework to measure progress on the GDC commitment by the 2027 review

2. Conduct research on the economic impacts of internet fragmentation

3. Utilize national and regional IGFs (NRIs) to facilitate local discussions on fragmentation

4. Prepare for the upcoming IGF in 2025, which was mentioned as a significant milestone by multiple speakers

Sheetal Kumar, a co-facilitator of the session, emphasized the importance of utilizing national and regional IGFs for ongoing fragmentation discussions.

Conclusion

The discussion highlighted the continued relevance of addressing internet fragmentation risks. The panel called for strengthened multi-stakeholder collaboration, increased capacity building, and development of assessment frameworks as next steps in operationalising the GDC commitment. While there was general consensus on the importance of preventing fragmentation, the discussion revealed the complexity of the issue and the need for ongoing dialogue and research to address emerging challenges.

The panelists concluded with their dreams or takeaways from the discussion, emphasizing the importance of continued work on preventing internet fragmentation and the need for inclusive, multi-stakeholder approaches to address this global challenge.

Bruna Martins dos Santos: Internet Governance, and what should happen on things such as the GDC implementation and other things. So it might feel sometimes that it’s a session about the GDC, but it’s the other way around. We want to take a look at what happened with the Global Digital Compact based on the PNIF framework that discusses within other things the fragmentation of coordination spaces. I’m joined today by an amazing set of speakers. Their names are all in the screen right now. I’ll introduce them later. But I’ll also say hello to my co-facilitators Wim and Shitao, who is joining us remotely as well from London. And without further ado, I’ll hand the floor to you, Wim.

Wim Degezelle: Thank you, and good morning to everyone. No, she’s there. Now we can say hi to Sheetal, our co-facilitator, waving to us from a very early hour in London. So my name is Wim De Gezelle. I’m actually a consultant with the IGF Secretariat and supporting this policy network. No, I can do it. Thank you. So policy networks are inter-sessional activities of the IGF. That means in the beginning of the year, the MAG decides on a number of topics where they want the community to work on during the months and the weeks before the IGF meeting. They come together, organize meetings, organize sessions, and then my role as a consultant with the Secretariat is to help support the work. The positive thing about inter-sessional activities is that we have a little bit more time. to prepare for the IGF meeting, and as you will see, where we are today with the Policy Network is actually the result of three webinars we had during the year, where we discussed more or less the same questions, but in a way that they build up, build up, build up until the meeting today. And we hope to share some of the findings, some of the input we received during those webinars and share it with the audience, with the panel, and so in a way get new input, but also get the feedback and confirmation that we understood things right. So the Policy Network on Internet Fragmentation is in its third year already. It was started as an initiative suggested from the community or as a follow-up on an existing initiative in the community that aims to raise awareness of actions and measures that risk to fragment the Internet. The Policy Network itself wants to serve as a platform to foster a holistic and an inclusive discussion on fragmentation and, more important, how to avoid fragmentation of the Internet. On the next slide, you will see the framework for discussing fragmentation that is the output of the PNF work in the previous two years. Just take a minute, because we have been discussing this for two years. This framework is built on the input we get and the discussions we had with the community, and it’s a little bit different than the normal approach you would take. We tried at the beginning, at the first meeting of the PNF two years ago or three years ago, to come up with a definition of what fragmentation is, what fragmentation isn’t. is not. Very quickly, we ran into long discussions, discussions that were turning around, focusing just on that question, black, white, yes, no, what is fragmentation, what is not, and we had a feeling that we didn’t move forward. Therefore, we came up with a framework that we can use to discuss fragmentation, a framework where we say, well, there are different views, different ideas on what is fragmentation or what could be fragmentation of the internet, and we put them, but we can somehow put them in different baskets, and that’s why we came up with this framework where we say, based on the conversations we had, you can make a difference between fragmentation of the user experience, from people using the internet, fragmentation of internet governance and coordination, and fragmentation of the internet’s technical layer. As you will see, we don’t see that as very fixed categories, because there are the relations between all those baskets, because one, there can be, the baskets can be, there might be some overlap, but there’s also definitely a relation between those things, and more important, there is also the relation between technical, political, and commercial developments, things that can be decided that might influence different kinds of fragmentation. I wanted, we thought that it would be important to have this framework, show it again at the beginning of our session, but the aim of our session is not to have that discussion again. The aim is to, as it was intended, to use this framework as a background, so if we have a discussion, and if people do not necessarily agree, or not necessarily talk about the same definition of fragmentation, we still have it in the background that we can park, or situate where the people are, but continue. the discussion and that was exactly why also we call it a framework for discussing fragmentation and not a framework for defining fragmentation. So the PNF in 2024, like I said we have been discussing for two years building up that framework. In 2024 we wanted to discuss something else, we wanted to make a step further. But we started the year with the questions what is fragmentation or is avoiding internet fragmentation still a matter of concern in 2024 and how should a PNF contribute to having an inclusive discussion and holistic dialogue. When we asked that question we really wanted to hear from the people participating in the policy network should we actually continue the work. It was almost an existential question we were asking. Does it make sense? We because there were in documents also UN documents that were published two years, three years before mention of fragmentation but at that moment we were asking is this still a topic on people’s agenda. Already in initial discussions we got the feedback well it is maybe not that on top of all discussion but the discussion is still relevant. Then of course through the years we had the summit of the future and the global digital compact and you will see on the next slide that there is a very interesting commitment that let’s call it accidentally is exactly the same I would say job description the PNF was given for itself a commitment that member states took. So that’s how we end the year at this meeting with having, as one of the important questions we have, how should we understand the commitment that was taken by the GDC or in the GDC and how can the PNF further contribute to this operationalization? It’s in very small print, but I have it a little bit larger. So in the Global Digital Compact that was agreed in September, one of the commitments the Member States take says, it’s Article 29C, a commitment to promote international cooperation among all stakeholders to prevent, identify and address risks of fragmentation of the Internet in a timely manner. I will leave it there, because that’s exactly the point where we want to start the discussion, see how this relates to our work as a PNF, but also how we have to interpret and how we have to understand this commitment. But then I hand it over back to Bruna and the panelists to share their thoughts. Thank you.

Bruna Martins dos Santos: Thanks. And as Wim was saying, the goal is really discussing the operationalization and to understand what 29C means and how actually the multistakeholder community can work together towards its implementation. So this is also going to be an interactive session. We do hope to hear some input from all in the audience, but starting to introduce our panelists, just a quick mention to their names, because I do trust they have some more things or hats to add. But we have joining us today Alisa Heaver from the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate in the Netherlands, Amitabh Singhal from the ICANN Board of Directors, welcome, and Gbenga Sesam from the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate in the Netherlands. from Paradigm Initiative. Thanks a lot for joining us. And I guess my first question to you is how do you react to what PNIF participants said regarding the GDC commitment? What is your view as to how we should interpret and operationalize it and ensure implementation of the commitment in Article 29C? And if there are inventory examples useful in that sense. So I don’t know who wants to take the floor first, but I’ll leave it free for you.

Amitabh Singhal: So should I go?

Bruna Martins dos Santos: Yes, please take some time.

Amitabh Singhal: Good morning, and thank you for having me here. And thank you, Wim, for the summarization of the discussions that PNIF had during the webinars. Gives us a background to go on and to consider things going forward and how the multi-stakeholder, if I understand your question correctly, how does the multi-stakeholder community go forward and how does it operationalize or look at operationalizing the GDC commitment mentioned in Article 29C. So I think in Article 29C, the UN member states commit to promote international cooperation among all stakeholders to prevent, identify, and address risks of fragmentation of the internet in a timely manner. I think as an ICANN board member and as a part of the technical community, I would say that we are very supportive of such a commitment by the UN member states. We all have a role to play in preserving the internet. We acknowledge that the GDC’s Article 29C involves elements that the technical community has actually addressed in the past and has been working on for some time. The risk of internet fragmentation on a technical level has been steadily increasing in recent years due to geopolitical tensions. This trend is reflected in regional and national legislations on data protection, for example, evolving concepts. of digital sovereignty, and some of the discussions we see at multilateral and international fora. Speaking for the technical community, ICANN’s mission is to ensure a stable, secure, and unified global internet. When the technical community works together in support of this mission, it helps to avoid internet fragmentation and advances the multi-stakeholder model of internet governance, which is where the multi-stakeholder model actually has a contribution going forward. ICANN has been facilitating inclusive dialogues and collaboration since its foundation. The technical community has expertise and extensive experience in working with and advising governments, civil society groups, and commercial entities on the technical aspects of the internet. It employs inclusive multi-stakeholder governance processes that include diverse and relevant perspectives. These organizations exemplify the GDC principles and elements dealing with the internet governance. So there are some concrete steps we have already taken, and we encourage other stakeholders to do so, which is aligned with the text of the paragraph 29C. The multi-stakeholder community plays a central role by fostering inclusive discussions that represent diverse regional perspectives, particularly from the global south and marginalized communities. This includes leveraging the IGF platform as a bridge between technical expertise and policymaking to foster common understandings of internet fragmentation risk and ways to address them. So we are happy to see that the UN member states are committed to promote such international cooperation, and we are happy to share our expertise and experience with them. Capacity building programs provide training to policymakers and stakeholders, equipping them to navigate internet governance challenges effectively. These programs support informed decision making and promote sound policies that support the internet’s continuous development. So ICANN has initiated and is engaged in such programs through the work we do regionally, including through the Coalition of Digital Africa. So the multi-stakeholder community has been doing a lot of work described in Article 29C as well, for example, promoting open standards and collaboration and cooperation with standards organizations and other relevant entities, organizing briefings for policymakers to better understand the technical and economic consequences. of measures that risk fragmentation, developing monitoring frameworks to track Internet fragmentation risks and the effectiveness of global and local measures. So I’ll stop there for the time being and then we’ll carry on the conversation. Let’s hear from other participants and panels. Thank you.

Bruna Martins dos Santos: Thanks. Thanks a lot for joining. Yeah. And especially for highlighting the role of the multistakeholder community in that sense. Fragmentation is a key part of this community, right, and the long-term contribution to the Internet governance space and being one of the main models of multistakeholder model we have been addressing and quoting as an example. It’s really good to highlight. So thanks a lot for joining us. Alisa, can I hand it to you? Thanks.

Alisa Heaver: So good morning, everyone. Good evening or afternoon. Yeah, so I’m coming from the Dutch government and I’ve been working there for four years now, or at least at the Ministry of Economic Affairs where I’ve been dealing with Internet governance issues. And the PNIF has also inspired us partly in our international cybersecurity strategy that was published last year. So in the Dutch international cybersecurity strategy, we mentioned Internet fragmentation specifically and we said that interference with the structure, management and administration of the Internet jeopardizes global interoperability. We saw that if a country or a group of countries would no longer recognize the authority of multistakeholder organizations, we didn’t mention any specifically, but well, to be specific here at least, I would definitely mention ICANN, or if countries no longer recognize the importance of the multistakeholder model, we believe that this could lead to to fragmentation to the core of the internet. And the Netherlands has always been very focal on protecting the public core of the internet, which the cyber ambassador, Mr. Ernst Norman, spoke on a panel about this week. And so the internet fragmentation, not recognizing the multi-stakeholder model, it would lead to a coexistence of different internet systems, as we said, a free one. And a free one, and one that is more state controlled. We think that such a split would significantly disrupt interstate communications and internet services, such as email or messaging apps. And that’s obviously then on a different layer, and more focusing on user experience. But if that fragmentation would become so deep, it could affect, as I said, the user experience. And another part that we don’t touch upon very often is the possible economic effects of internet fragmentation. If we could not email freely together anymore, or not use the same messaging apps, we very much believe that that could have a significant effect on global trade. I think I’d like to leave it here, but we’ll get back to the GDC article, so I’ll touch upon that later.

Bruna Martins dos Santos: Thanks, Elisa. And also for, I think, the fact that we have you here is also another proof of government’s long-term commitment to this space, and to digital cooperation, broadly speaking. And also to helping avoid internet fragmentation for that matter. So we do appreciate you joining us. and we’ll come back to you soon. Benga, I’ll bring the question to you as well. Just as a reminder for everyone, since I asked it a couple of seconds ago, how do you react? The question is, how do you react to the PNIF participants’ ideas around the GDC commitment? And what’s your view as to how we should interpret it and operationalize it?

Gbenga Sesan: Thanks. Thank you. So I had a chance to participate in the webinars, and that, for me, was very useful, not just to share what my own thoughts are, but also to listen to what people are saying. And in the spirit of multistakeholderism, I think there are three different sides of me sitting on the stage today. There’s the engineer in me thinking, the entire reason for the internet is to have an international network of networks. So if, for any reason, there is a threat to that, then what we then have is not the internet. In fact, when you fragment and create a national internet, it is not the internet. It is not an internet. And so I think the idea behind fragmenting and scaling to a level where you can have more control, and to be honest, there’s a reason why 29D talks about shutdowns. One of the very likely things that would happen with a segmented, fragmented, and disconnected, in quotes, internet is that you can flip the switch at any point in time. And that is not the essence of it. What that does is it disconnects people from opportunities, disconnects people from even reaching services that could be critical to their lives. And so for me, looking at the original design of that, it is strange to have ideas of fragmentation as a proposal of making progress by any government. That’s one side of it. The other side of it is. is I’m looking at this as over the last 19 years, we’ve had conversations at the IGF. When the leadership panel was set up, the first thing we did was to summarize all of the conversations that we had had for 16 plus years. And all of that conversation is what informed what eventually became the Internet We Want paper. And the Internet We Want paper summarized all that stakeholders have been asking for in five broad areas. And the first one is a complete or whole and open Internet. You cannot speak of a complete or whole or open Internet if we have conversations around fragmentation. And when we had this conversation earlier in the year, and the question was posed, do you think it is still a threat? One of the things I was thinking was, well, we’ll find out during the GDC conversations. And then during the GDC conversations, as we were saying yesterday, with women, others, the question is, was this 29C, was it not controversial because people were not paying attention or because everybody actually agrees that, well, to be honest, this is a challenge. This is a threat to the real definition of the Internet. And I think it’s the latter. I think that even people who have made proposals for fragmentation know themselves that when you fragment, what you have is not the Internet. When you fraction things, you don’t have the whole. The third stakeholder in me sitting on the stage today is the user. I’m an Internet user myself. I’ve got kids who learn online, coming in this morning, it’s two hours ahead here. I had to say good morning to my family. I’m using the Internet. So as a user, my user experience and the user experience that everyone has is very different. In an environmental, we talk about fragmentation. We do know in real terms that there are communities in our world today where people are prevented from seeing what is happening in other sides of the world. And it is one of the strongest instruments of manipulation. You can literally tell people various. things about other parts of the world, let me crack a joke. And I hope this is funny. Parking for Saudi Arabia, somewhere in the corner of my head, and I suspect this happened to many other people, somewhere in the corner of my head was, well, it’s Saudi Arabia. It’s going to be warm. And then I got here. Bam. This, and I said to someone, this is not the weather that we ordered. But that was based on my perception of Saudi Arabia that I’d been to only once. Imagine that on a grander scale, where someone is fed with certain information about certain processes, about certain geographies, about certain things over and over again and prevented from seeing the whole or the complete Internet. That is dangerous. I’ll stop there for now.

Bruna Martins dos Santos: Thank you very much, Benga. I think you answered a question we had for you guys. We promised there would be no surprises on this stage, but I think we, what we had in mind as you guys were doing your initial interventions is whether you had different perceptions what an unfragmented Internet was. But maybe, like, going forward on that, I would maybe ask you guys, and I know you want to come back on the floor, Amtab, but before you come in, I would just maybe ask you if you still think that the initial idea of the Internet is still valid, right? And I think the reason why we’re asking that is not just because user experiences tend to be very different, but policymakers’ approaches to the Internet is also very different, right? Especially if you look at spaces like trust and safety or platform regulation, people tend to refer to Meta or Facebook platforms as the Internet when we know there is a much broader aspect to the conversation than just that. But just food for thought, and I’ll hand the floor back to you, Amtab.

Amitabh Singhal: Thank you for that question, Bruna, and I think I will take my cue from what Benga said about the network of networks. So we all know that, and I think it’s important to understand. and be very clear about when we talk about fragmentation, what is really the fragmentation. And you talked about technical fragmentation and other stuff. So let me just kind of get to that first and make it very clear as to what we think about what fragmentation is and whether it should be a concern now. So I think, as you rightly put, it’s transformative technology that has become such an integral part of our daily lives that we can go online and we expect it to work all the time. So a fragmented Internet is not an Internet and contradicts the technical community’s perception of what an Internet should be or a globally interoperable, single, open Internet should be and is. Internet fragmentation occurs when the Internet breaks down at the technical layer, resulting in a loss of interoperability among various networks. We know there are 70,000-plus networks, and any break between the two which are speaking the same language, that would be Internet fragmentation. However, technically speaking, there is no Internet fragmentation at that level. So let me qualify further. There are threats that undermine the interoperability of the Internet. So for ICANN, avoiding Internet fragmentation remains a critical concern, and therefore it closely monitors emerging risks that could potentially threaten or undermine and technically impregnate the domain name system, that is, the DNS. And you refer to emerging government legislations and stuff, so I’ll come to that. So for example, there are technologies like alternative namespaces based on blockchain technologies. Now widespread adoption of these technologies could result in disparate and compatible Internet ecosystems. Further, increased consideration of restrictive national legislations, policies, and regulations attempting to assert digital sovereignty at the technical layer can undermine the seamless functionality of the Internet. We have seen examples in certain regions where they are trying to control the root servers and stuff like that. I’m not going into details there, but those are the kinds of risks that one has to keep track of. And these complicated efforts to sustain a unified Internet ecosystem are not going to network. For example, top-level domain names could stop resolving or resolve differently within the borders of a country, and that could be the result of some of these control mechanisms that are discussed at the national and government levels. There are also risks posed by having duplicative Internet standards, which could subsequently result in compatibility and interoperability issues across various networks during implementation. These are some of the risks that we need to be very, very clear about. And I think from that standpoint, your framework is very clear, and I think it makes it very clear that there’s a technical layer, there’s a user experience level of fragmentation, as you can understand it, which Benga referred to, and also at the governance level. So we have to see those silos and then decide what inter-fragmentation is and how it should be read or understood.

Bruna Martins dos Santos: Thank you very much. Alisa, Benga, do you guys want to come back on this question? Just feel free to, but you don’t have to as well. But just giving you both the opportunity, because I think it’s a little bit of what Amitabh was saying, right? The framework talks about different perspectives around this issue, right? So when we started the PNIF, I think the whole idea was to see what are the perspectives that were besides just the technical community perspective on fragmentation, and how could we implement those ideas into the broader aspect. And I think you spoke a little bit, you both spoke a little bit on that, as to how the actors, they might have their own role, but also, as you were saying, Benga, how certain types of interventions on access to the internet can also be meaningful or could also harm users in a broader sense. So if you guys want to come back, just flag to me. Yeah, Alisa?

Alisa Heaver: Thank you. Well, maybe coming back to the Article 29C first, when it was negotiated in the GDC, if you look closely, between So there have been five versions of the GDC before the final one was published. This paragraph has not been changed, and I think that’s what Gbenga was referring to, and just to clarify a bit more, I honestly don’t know if everyone agreed or if everyone just didn’t care, but I hope to say that everyone agreed, because in the end everyone has agreed with the GDC, and I think it’s a very important international document now that we can use. Also, if we see countries, well, mostly countries, taking steps towards fragmentation, that we can say, hey, that’s something we agreed upon with each other that you should not do. And maybe looking forward towards WSIS, I hope that maybe something of this could also be used for the WSIS action lines, because the WSIS obviously focuses on connecting everyone to the internet, so the other way around, disconnecting, that’s something we definitely do not want, and maybe 20 years ago people were not thinking about this fragment, or this integrating with the internet, and nowadays I do still think it is an issue, and it’s good that we’re talking about it, and when we look at the framework that the PNIF produced, I can definitely agree with ICANN, or with Amital on behalf of ICANN, that technical internet fragmentation, or on the technical layer, we still use TCPIP, so in that sense, we’re not fragmented, but definitely at a user experience there is fragmentation. In some countries you cannot use TikTok, you cannot use WhatsApp or other messaging apps or any other app, and that definitely affects your internet experience. So yeah, I think it’s an important article to have in the GDC, and I really commend the work of the PNIF on this.

Bruna Martins dos Santos: Thanks, Alisa, and thanks for mentioning the magic work for the week that is WSIS, right? And how will this part play a role in WSIS, and I think the question in the room is also like how do we promote better coordination between the GDC process and its implementation, and what’s going to happen next year? But Benga, I know you also want to come in. Yes, thanks.

Gbenga Sesan: I’m thinking of the three key words in 29C again. The first is to prevent, identify, and then address the risks of fragmentation. And I think, I mean, those three words play various roles, but in terms of addressing the risk of fragmentation, one of the risks is that it is a direct attack on one of the major goals of inclusion, which is that we’ve given ourselves, and to be honest, we all agreed on this. It’s too late for anyone to say, oh, I didn’t agree. We set a target to say that by 2030, and yesterday I did put another date to it, the last day in 2030 is December 31, right? So by December 31, 2030, to connect everyone. If we say we want to connect everyone to a global Internet, then any attempt, or as my colleagues in the university would say at the time, attempted attempt, to walk towards fragmentation or to do that will be a direct contradiction of what we have agreed on. And I think it’s really important. While this, you know, as we’ve both, you know, mentioned, while this wasn’t exactly one of the most popular phrases in, you know, in all the various versions, it’s one of those things that you look at all versions and you’re like, oh, this one didn’t change, but the others are changing in length and in words. Even if it’s not as popular, it is a direct message to everyone that we have agreed So, I think it’s important for us to make sure that we don’t have a fragment of the Internet. Literally, not a fragment.

Bruna Martins dos Santos: Thanks, Benga, and I think it’s safe to say that in the same way the Internet wouldn’t work without the CIP or the multi-stakeholder wouldn’t work without one of the stakeholder groups, it shouldn’t, you know, we shouldn’t think that the mission has been achieved if there are still people facing financial matter. First I want to come to Lisa since her microphone was connected. Lisa, do you want to come back?

Alisa Heaver: So, Benga mentioned addressing the the risks of fragmentation and article . Lisa is going to address that. » So yes, I believe we should reply to which link do we find important in English. » Yes, that’s nice. ≫ I’m from APLASA. Later on I would like to try the diagram from the saving of the land. Because as it is, fragments have been looked in to often. If one would fragment, what would be the cost of fragmenting? And maybe, well, in the end, I think that it could be a possibility that the land would be lost. And so, I think that we have come across a study that has already mentioned this. So, if anyone knows this study, please come up to me. Then we can save ourselves some money. And that’s very welcome always. But if not, then we hope to do this study. Thanks.

Wim Degezelle: Yes, it’s a call for more studies in that sense as well, right? Thanks, Elisa. Sheetal, I know we have a comment from remote, right, so I’m bringing you to the floor as well.

Sheetal Kumar: Thank you, Bruna. Good morning, everyone. It’s a pleasure to see you there in Riyadh and I hope you’ve all had an excellent IGF so far. It’s also been a pleasure to be a co-facilitator of the PNIF over the last few months and to see this discussion progress and to be so relevant as well to the ongoing multi-stakeholder and multilateral processes happening and really great to hear the discussion mature even more there on the stage today. Looking forward to taking it forward even further, we do have a couple of comments from remote participants which I can convey over to you in case you do want to react to it as I know we’re also moving forward to the next part of the session considering the implementation mechanism for that commitment on avoiding internet fragmentation. So we have input which states a multi-stakeholder approach to internet governance enables more voices to be heard and coming together as a community amplifies our message. The importance of educating and raising awareness amongst communities about internet governance processes has been emphasized as a vital role and there was this outcome of multi-stakeholder and intergovernmental internet governance marked a success and then we have a response which says we need to examine if those among the unbalanced of the multilateral and lobbying actors influence the design and flow of the IGF sessions so as to leave the multi-stakeholder participatory process as that of being an appearance only where there are substantively different points of view. So I think those really speak to the importance of maintaining the multi-stakeholder approach and the value of the IGF in that regard which we’ve heard of course a lot of this week and and this morning as well. And then we also have someone saying greetings from Pakistan where my humble view, fragmentation of low-income countries without digital culture, proper infrastructure affects all private sectors. We have a question actually that’s just come in about how building the digital divide, how do we achieve the 100% connectivity by all in 2030? So I think that speaks to Benga’s recent point about the fact that if we’re moving towards the target of connecting everyone by 2030 as is a global commitment, that is directly in contradiction of course to fragmentation trends and so it’s very important to keep that in mind as well. Okay, so back to you on the stage Bruna and happy to come in later. Thank you. I hope that has complimented the discussions there.

Wim Degezelle: Thanks a lot Sheetal. I would like to give the opportunity to the folks in the audience as well. If anyone would like to add a comment or a view as to how we should be operationalizing or implementing Article 29C. We have two microphones on both sides of the stage. The two podiums. So if anyone would like to comment, feel free to come to it and just add your thoughts. If not, then I think we’re gonna move on with the session but just taking some time to see if anyone comes to the stage. But then that brings us to part two then and hopefully folks in the audience can join in part two. And my question to all of you is also what are the opportunities to engage in future discussions and how are you guys looking at yet another pivotal year, yet another inflection point that’s gonna be 25 and all of the implementation conversation around. I’m going to ask you to take the floor. I think we have a lot of questions coming in from the audience, not just the GDC but what might happen in this space as well. I don’t know who wants to take the question first, but let’s go with you, Benga. Thanks.

Gbenga Sesan: You had me at 2025. It’s probably going to be one of our most interesting, and I use the word interesting vaguely, years in terms of many conversations, conversations, but specifically on the opportunities we have, I had assumed in making a recommendation earlier that we would have about a year, you know, between two IGFs. Now we have six months. And while that sounds like a short time, I think it is still possible, and this is my proposal, that now there’s a global agreement on a conversation we’ve been having for a very long time. So, I think, you know, we have a lot of opportunities. We have a lot of opportunities to address risks, and IGF-29C is very clear. Prevent, identify, address risks. We have an opportunity to return to the next IGF with a report that speaks to the exact state and compares where we are at as of May or June 2025, and where we were by June 2025. So, I think, you know, we don’t have as much, you know, details as it would be if it was an entire year, but I think, as a community, we need to start measuring, because, if we don’t measure, we will make assumptions, or we may not be able to grow what needs to grow or what needs to be reduced. So, I think we have a unique opportunity of asking ourselves what is the state of proposed fragmentation by various countries right now? What is the state of the world? What is the state of the world in the next five years, and convert to PDF. In those five months, has anything changed? Are we sliding towards less conversations? Are we sliding towards more people agreeing with 29C? I think that is an opportunity. And one other thing we must do is to to name names. And what I mean is the report should identify who is still talking about fragmentation. Because I think in naming names, in identifying who is talking about it, we can get the view of why they are talking about it. In fact, for all you care, they may not be thinking of it as fragmentation. And I say this from research that we have done at Paradigm Initiative, where we’re talking to certain governments who have shut down the internet. And in their explanation, they absolutely had no idea. Well, to be honest, they did. But in their diplomatic responses, they, in quotes, had no idea what the risks were. They were doing this to protect the same people that we were asking them to respect their rights. And I think it’s a very valid view to see. Because then you can have a real conversation. Otherwise, we’re going to be talking at ourselves. We’re going to say, no fragmentation. Someone is going to say, it’s not fragmentation. But we must have those difficult conversations. I mean, this is reality. Why are you intent on doing this? And is there another option? We’ve got all those principles of legality, necessity, proportionality. Is it legal? To be honest, right now, it’s not. Is it necessary? Let’s have that conversation. And is it proportional? Is it worth disconnecting everyone, literally, just because you want to address something that could be addressed culturally or in another way?

Bruna Martins dos Santos: Thank you, Benga. And I think, just as a comment, as a come back in that point, I think the observation or the, let’s say, KPIs part on this conversation is really relevant. Especially because when the GDC review comes up, we will also address what’s the stage of the commitments with 29C. So that’s the point that’s important. Sorry, Amitabh, please come in.

Amitabh Singhal: I think I would underline what Benga said about continuing the conversation, which is very important going forward. And I think the PNF’s role is very important here. I mean, it could actually help deepen the dialogue on the internet fragmentation with the IGF stakeholder community. The network’s framework for discussing internet fragmentation provides a good foundation for the dialogue there. And you can build on these efforts by promoting inclusive participation, encouraging diverse perspectives. For example, ensuring that all relevant stakeholders are engaged in discussions to identify risks to fragmentation, as Benga said. And contribute meaningful suggestions on how to prevent it, or you can also do something like facilitating multi-stakeholder exchanges. a knowledge exchange, for example, and by supporting policy coherence, because people have different understanding of what fragmentation is. So there’s a certain amount of coherence that one can bring about in terms of understanding what it is all about. And then capacity building. So this is where PNF’s role is pretty important. And it can also facilitate the sharing of impact assessment tools which exist, resources and best practices, for example. Internet Society has an Internet Impact Assessment Toolkit. And the ICANN’s organization provides assessment on emerging technologies and tracks proposed legislations and regulations that could have implications on the DNS. So these are some of the ways to consider going forward for PNF to meaningfully engage its stakeholders to deepen discussions on fragmentation. So that’s a good way to move forward towards 2025.

Bruna Martins dos Santos: Amazing. Thank you. And just on the impact assessment as well, I think, although it wasn’t mentioned yet, the Sao Paulo Motor Stakeholder Guidelines are another of the mechanisms or tools that we can also use to assess exactly this point about inclusion and diversity that’s so relevant. And it’s going to be relevant for next year’s IGF and for the mandate renewal or for the IGF to be set, hopefully, as a permanent mechanism. But Alice, I’ll hand the floor to you as well.

Alisa Heaver: Yes, thanks. This discussion made me think. So we have the 2027 review of the GDC. And that will have to review, actually, what has been done to prevent, identify, and address fragmentation. But I guess today here, well, we’re also slightly struggling on measure. We don’t have any statistics here with us today. So I’m kind of wondering, how will, actually, the UN review this article 2027? So, I think it would be really interesting to see if, in the next six months, until the next IGF, we could put down a framework to actually measure, or to install kind of a KPI for the UN to be able to measure what has happened in the last six months, and what has happened in the next six months. So, I think it would be really interesting to see if, in the upcoming six months, until the next IGF, we could put down a framework to actually measure, or to install a framework to be able to measure what has happened in the last six months, and what has happened in the last six months, and what has been done to prevent, identify, and address those risks of internet fragmentation.

Bruna Martins dos Santos: the community should do in terms of like given the 29th, oh, we have Henriette, please introduce yourself, Henriette.

Anriette Esterhuysen: Thank you very much, Bruna and everyone on the panel and the organizers and the policy network on Internet fragmentation. My name is Henriette Esterhuisen, I’m from South Africa and I work with the Association for Progressive Communications. Just a quick sort of cross-cutting comment. Maybe addressing ICANN, but not only. How you, whether you think of the Internet as fragmented or not, really depends on whose Internet you think it is, and I think if we think of it as the Internet of people who can access all aspects, all applications, all content, then the Internet is fragmented. If you think of the Internet as people who can afford mobile data, who have good infrastructure, who don’t just depend on using hand-held devices to interact with the Internet, then that’s a very different picture, and I think we just have to be very careful , I mean, I agree with the definition of fragmentation and the dimensions of fragmentation that the policy network has identified, but I think we as an Internet governance community need to also be aware of our own elitism, the own privilege, how our experience of the Internet shapes how we see Internet fragmentation, and be very careful that that doesn’t actually make us blind to the extent that that user experience fragmentation is the reality for billions of people.

Bruna Martins dos Santos: Thank you very much, Henriette. I have Amitabh.

Amitabh Singhal: I think we also made it very clear that when we say that Internet is not fragmented, there was a technical layer, it could be a DNS layer, a unique identifier system layer, but what is helpful is to also look at the PNF’s framework, where you actually create these frameworks, and then you can actually use those frameworks, and then you can use those PNF’s framework, where you actually create these three different baskets and the layers, and, you know, there would be issues about fragmentation at the user level and at the governance level, and I did allude in my So I think it’s very important to make sure that there is a clear understanding of what is happening and what is not happening, and I think the earlier points that I made in the first point was about the emerging legislations and the other technical developments of alternate name systems, which could create a problem of fragmentation even at the technical layer, but those are emerging risks one has to keep track of, and not necessarily currently affecting the technical layer.

Audience: The third thing that has crossed my mind is that the internet’s strength is heterogeneity. Any ideas about fragmentation must go hand in hand. If I may be permitted to use the term geopolitics as the best envelope on heterogeneity, because even money is fragmented, it is also fragmented in the sense of the way the political groupings of the nations are forming. Thank you, Gopal. Thanks for the comments, and thanks, everyone, for the comments so far. I don’t know if the microphone cut in the middle, or if you would like to add anything, but if you would like to, please type on the chat, and I’m sure Shitao will be able to add some more things in case your comment was cut in the middle of it. Also, thanks to our panellists. I don’t know if you would like to add any last kind of comments in that sense, but I do think we had a fairly good discussion. question in terms of what are the challenges, what are the questions that everyone is asking each other, and again, if there is anyone in the audience still that would like to add on what can we as different groups of stakeholders can do into this conversation and so on, please come to the mic. We have two microphones on both sides of the stage. Thank you. And remember to introduce yourself. Actually, I have a different idea about the Internet governance and fragmentation. I think if we more practice governance, Internet governance, and fragmentation, I think we’ll stop the innovation. If we want to manage the future, we have to make little rule about control anything in content of Internet. Thank you.

Bruna Martins dos Santos: Thank you very much. Have we got a second comment?

Audience: Yes. Okay. Yes, thank you so much. I’m sorry for waiting until the last minute to come up to the mic. My name is Hossain Badran. I’m a member of the Canadian IGF and the Arab IGF. My comment relates to the technical layer and its relationship also to the governance of the Internet. We have seen over the last several years that there are proposals coming to centers organisations, particularly the ITU-T, that will result to a new protocol stack, new addressing scheme, new QS allocation scheme, identification scheme of end users and full visibility of content, so really non-interoperable approaches. to the global Internet architecture. Of course, this will cause fragmentation at the technical layer, but not only this. The capability to completely identify end users and their content, make it very visible to a central authority, makes it a mass surveillance mechanism set in by default. So I think this is a danger that we, in compliance with this paragraph, need to look into very closely and also follow its development under different names, under different keywords or buzzwords, because such approaches to standardize new protocol stacks and also their implications on how the Internet is governed, instead of a decentralized, heterogeneous architecture being governed by a central authority that has full visibility on the content and the end users, and also embed mass surveillance to be done by default, is very dangerous. Thank you.

Bruna Martins dos Santos: Thank you very much. Sheetal, how is the remote? Oh, we have another speaker here. Yes, please. Can you introduce yourself?

Audience: All right. Thank you very much. So my name is Kunle Olorundari from Nigerian IGF. I’m so much excited about this conversation, and I think one good thing about the IGF is the fact that we’re able to come together to have a conversation about issues like this. And I think this is a very important issue, and I can see that we are trying to balance what the GDC is saying with respect to the SGD number 16. And for me, I think if we’re going to have this kind of conversation, it is very important, not just important, very important, mark the word very, to have, you know, the government involved in this kind of conversation. What I’m saying is that, yeah, we are talking about preventing Internet fragmentation, and eventually if there’s going to be anything that has to do with, you know, fragmenting the Internet, you know, most of the time it comes from the government side, and the arguments, one of the arguments would be, yeah, maybe because of security, you know, reasons and so on. So I think we need to advance this conversation and we need to start looking at, okay, yeah, if the issue that is always coming when it comes to fragmentation is about the security, so how do we solve the problem of, you know, security without tampering with the Internet? I think that’s one of the things we really need to be looking at. So what I’m proposing is, okay, let’s do what we call reverse engineering. I’m an engineer, I’m sorry, so let’s do reverse engineering. If we’re talking about the problem, then let’s try and focus on the solutions while we’re trying to solve the problem. I think that will make a lot of sense and that will add value to this conversation. Thank you very much.

Bruna Martins dos Santos: Thank you, I appreciate it. Do I see a live speaker here? Please come in and introduce yourself.

Audience: Okay. Can you hear me? I’m a youth representative from Sudan. I’m a youth representative from Sudan. I actually have a question. So the global digital compact commitment is operationalized, so how do you see the collaboration evolving between government, the private sector and civil society to prevent fragmentation?

Bruna Martins dos Santos: Thank you. Do we have any quick answers to this question? Would anyone like to take the implementation and the role of stakeholders in the GDC and so on?

Alisa Heaver: Sorry. Okay. Maybe to start with the last question about collaboration between government, private sector and I think it was civil society. For me in the Netherlands, I’m also part of the Netherlands IGF and there we come together every, well, at least every year and also we have in between, well, we have moments that we meet each other in between and very recently we had a multi-stakeholder discussion about Internet fragmentation, so we sat together with approximately 20 people from academia, from civil society, the public sector and the private sector and there we discussed what to do about Internet fragmentation, and we were discussing the research that we will be commissioning very soon. And I would definitely encourage all NRIs to organize such a debate on Internet fragmentation and bring in all stakeholders. And obviously internationally, well, we’re having this debate here, and the Dutch government has been chairing the Freedom Online Coalition over the past year. The focus may not have been Internet fragmentation, but it has definitely been the flip side of Internet fragmentation, addressing the risks of not working or not collaborating with each other and ensuring that the Internet remains open, free, and secure. And maybe regarding the new IP, I interpreted it as new IP question, my colleagues are definitely following this discussion in ITUT, and we’re very much in favor of keeping this protocol, the IPv4, IPv6 protocol that we have right now, and we’re not in favor of changing that protocol.

Wim Degezelle: Thanks. And Benga, you wanted to add something?

Gbenga Sesan: I was thinking a bit more about the security question, and I know that we do not have an immediate answer. There’s no magic wand to solve all security problems, but one way not to solve it is fragmenting. Because to be honest, if you’re trying to solve cross-border problems, because many of those problems are cross-border. you do not isolate networks, because when you do that, what you may be doing is you may be chasing things into the shadows, and I think that is even more dangerous. So while we do not have all the answers about how there are challenges, you know, there are challenges with the Internet, there are bad actors, but while we’re looking at how communities can get better in identifying and, you know, isolating, while we’re looking at community standards that would make people call out bad practices, we do not. And this is why I mentioned earlier the three-part test. Is it legal? Is it proportionate? Is it necessary? I think that when you even apply the necessity test, fragmentation is not at all on the table of solutions when it comes to security. In fact, I think what we need is even more cooperation across silos, and speaking of across silos, the question about what is happening at the ITUT and the implications of that, I think increasingly in this year 2024, we saw a lot more interest by civil society in technical conversations, and I think we need a lot more of that, because it is one thing for you to suddenly find out that there is a change in the standards by the ISTARs, and then you on the ground as an advocate now need to start fighting with governments and say, hey, respect human rights, but instead of doing that, we could, you know, rewind a bit and participate in certain conversations, including technical standards. Yes, it’s a bit complex, because the conversations are not, I mean, the ITUT is not a multi-stakeholder, you know, body, but increasingly we have governments who include civil society on their delegations, so that you can have a complete view, and I think this is really important, and I will make this case very strongly again, that governments should remember that the mandate you have is to represent the people, and the people you represent are made up of government, private sector, civil society, technical community, and others, so government delegations need to stop being government alone, because when you do that, it gives you only a myopic view of the issues you’re trying to address at these technical conversations, and I think one of the things we must see in 2025 is many more governments must include a wholesome perspective, because it is in your own interest. In fact, reality is, you’re literally getting free consultants when you include other stakeholders on your delegation.

Bruna Martins dos Santos: Thanks.

Amitabh Singhal: I think that is the reason why I think IGF platform is a bridge between the technical expertise and the policy-making and make us to foster common understanding of the Internet fragmentation, you know, and the ways to address them. And that’s, I think, a conversation that has been happening, as I heard, about the fact that whether the IGF mandate itself will be extended or not. And I think going forward, we would fully support that IGF gets the mandate to continue and it’s a platform where all these elements of academia, technical community, policy-makers, the governments, for example, the private sector, they all converge together to exchange knowledge. And that’s going to be very important to clear some of these issues around understanding of Internet fragmentation and how to address that issue going forward.

Wim Degezelle: Thank you all for the comments and inputs and thanks to the folks in the audience too. I’m going to hand the floor back to Sheetal as she’s going to do a short summary of our conversation and hopefully we’ll have time to bring it back to you, to the three panelists on the floor. Sheetal?

Sheetal Kumar: Thank you so much, Bruna, and no pressure there to try and keep it short so that we can hear some last thoughts from the panelists. This has been, I think, a really great discussion building on what the webinars in the Policy Network already discussed. So what I’ve heard is a few key points, really reiterating the importance of the commitment in the compact of Article 29C and the point was made regarding how much support and consensus there was on that commitment, which provides a really good basis for moving forward, but not just that commitment. It’s also connected to others, like the target to connect everyone by 2050. And then another key set of points related to the risks that we’re seeing at the technical layer to the Internet and to the unfermented Internet, but the very real and ongoing fragmentation of the user experience, and the importance of also realizing that there are risks by, for example, proposals for standards at the technical layer as well, that really reinforce the importance of addressing this issue. And finally, we spoke quite a lot here about what the policy network can do and what the wider multi-stakeholder community can do, and the importance of 2025 in that regard is a key here, and so we don’t, as we often heard during the conversation, need to start from scratch. We have the policy network’s framework as well to utilize, to assess the state of fragmentation as we work towards the next IGF in 2025, but also the WSIS Plus 20 review. We also had heard ideas of the importance of using the NRIs, national and regional IGFs, as a space for continued discussion on the topic. So I hope that was helpful, simply a very important article and a strong basis. There continue to not only be risks, but real lived experiences of fragmentation, lots of opportunities to address this in a role for the IGF and for the policy network within that. So back to you, Bruna, and to the panelists.

Bruna Martins dos Santos: Thank you very much. Maybe just as a closing remark, I’ll ask the three of you to share with us probably either one takeaway from this discussion or perhaps a dream or a wish for next year as we go into WSIS Plus 20 review, we go into new discussions around the IGF mandates renewal and many of those things around the GDC implementation still unanswered but hopefully will be a year of answers in a lot of ways. So if each of you could share with us either a dream or a takeaway based on this conversation, I would be very happy to hear.

Amitabh Singhal: I think just to summarize from whatever we have discussed, going back to the webinars and what the participants have said at the time, I think what comes out to me clearly is we need more collaboration, we need to strengthen capacities, we need to ensure accountability, stakeholders can contribute to meaningful discussions during the WSIS 20 review and beyond. So this is all going to be very, very useful in our efforts to maintain a resilient, interoperable and globally connected Internet and that is aligned with the commitment of the UN Member States also as outlined in 29C.

Bruna Martins dos Santos: Thank you. Alisa?

Alisa Heaver: Well, you asked different questions. What would be my dream? Well, my dream would very easily be that we wouldn’t have to have this discussion on Internet fragmentation and everyone would perfectly be fine with this Internet that we have. But more realistically, a takeaway for me is that the research that we want to do as governments, as Dutch government, we really should do and that the need to start measuring Internet fragmentation is more necessary than ever.

Bruna Martins dos Santos: So, I’m going to turn it over to you, Alisa, and I’m going to hand it over to you, Benga. Thanks, Alisa. Two dreams. First, the, I can already see in my hands the report from the PNI. I’m flipping through the report and June 2025, that’s a dream. My second dream is a truly, truly multi-stakeholder model, and I’m hoping that we can have a conversation, learn from ICANN multi-stakeholder model, the IGF multi-stakeholder model, and truly get the best of all aspects of our society when we have these conversations. Thanks, and thanks for dreaming high as well. It’s important in these days. Thanks for everyone that was with us in the room or remotely. Thanks to our panellists, Wim, as usual, thanks a lot to both of you for being great and amazing partners. And most of all, thanks to the PNIF community for giving us such a great year. We hope to continue this conversation in 2025 as we go into new steps and a new report that Benga is looking forward to reading, and I’ll just give the floor to you, Wim, if you want to add anything.

Wim Degezelle: No, the only thing I wanted to add, not that we don’t forget, to thank you, Bruna, for leading the panel and also the work during the year. Thank you. And, of course, Sheetal for doing the same online. So, thank you. And we finished exactly right on time. So, perfect. Thank you.

Agreement Points

Importance of measuring and tracking Internet fragmentation

Alisa Heaver

Gbenga Sesan

Need to measure and track fragmentation to assess progress

Opportunity to measure and report on fragmentation state by IGF 2025

Both speakers emphasize the need for concrete measurements and reporting on the state of Internet fragmentation to track progress and inform future actions.

Significance of Article 29C in the Global Digital Compact

Amitabh Singhal

Alisa Heaver

IGF platform bridges technical and policy discussions on fragmentation

GDC Article 29C provides basis for preventing fragmentation

Both speakers highlight the importance of Article 29C as a foundation for addressing Internet fragmentation and fostering collaboration among stakeholders.

Need for multi-stakeholder collaboration

Amitabh Singhal

Gbenga Sesan

Unknown speaker

IGF platform bridges technical and policy discussions on fragmentation

Governments should include diverse stakeholders in technical delegations

Importance of multi-stakeholder collaboration in implementation

Multiple speakers emphasize the importance of involving diverse stakeholders in discussions and decision-making processes related to Internet fragmentation.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers highlight the existing disparities in Internet access and use, emphasizing how fragmentation affects user experiences and contradicts global connectivity goals.

Anriette Esterhuysen

Gbenga Sesan

User experience fragmentation already exists for billions due to access limitations

Fragmentation contradicts goal of connecting everyone by 2030

Unexpected Consensus

Role of national and regional IGFs in addressing fragmentation

Alisa Heaver

Sheetal Kumar

National IGFs can facilitate local discussions on fragmentation

Utilize national and regional IGFs for ongoing fragmentation discussions

There was unexpected agreement on the potential of national and regional IGFs to play a crucial role in facilitating discussions on Internet fragmentation at local levels, suggesting a decentralized approach to addressing the issue.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement include the need for measuring and tracking Internet fragmentation, the importance of multi-stakeholder collaboration, and the significance of the Global Digital Compact’s Article 29C in addressing fragmentation. There is also consensus on the role of IGFs at various levels in facilitating discussions on this issue.

Consensus level

There is a moderate to high level of consensus among the speakers on the importance of addressing Internet fragmentation and the need for collaborative, multi-stakeholder approaches. This consensus suggests a strong foundation for future work on preventing and mitigating Internet fragmentation, particularly in the context of implementing the Global Digital Compact and preparing for the WSIS+20 review.

Different Viewpoints

Current state of Internet fragmentation

Amitabh Singhal

Anriette Esterhuysen

Technical fragmentation risks from alternative naming systems and restrictive national policies

User experience fragmentation already exists for billions due to access limitations

While Singhal focuses on potential technical risks to fragmentation, Esterhuysen argues that fragmentation already exists at the user experience level for many people due to access limitations.

Unexpected Differences

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement revolve around the current state of Internet fragmentation, approaches to measuring and addressing fragmentation, and the role of different stakeholders in preventing fragmentation.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among the speakers is relatively low. Most speakers agree on the importance of addressing Internet fragmentation and implementing the GDC commitment. The differences mainly lie in their focus areas and proposed approaches, which could be seen as complementary rather than conflicting. This level of disagreement suggests a generally unified direction in addressing Internet fragmentation, with potential for collaborative efforts in developing comprehensive solutions.

Partial Agreements

Both Sesan and Heaver agree on the need to measure and track fragmentation, but they propose different approaches. Sesan suggests creating a report by IGF 2025, while Heaver emphasizes the need for a framework to measure progress by the 2027 GDC review.

Gbenga Sesan

Alisa Heaver

Opportunity to measure and report on fragmentation state by IGF 2025

Need to measure and track fragmentation to assess progress

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers highlight the existing disparities in Internet access and use, emphasizing how fragmentation affects user experiences and contradicts global connectivity goals.

Anriette Esterhuysen

Gbenga Sesan

User experience fragmentation already exists for billions due to access limitations

Fragmentation contradicts goal of connecting everyone by 2030

Key Takeaways

Internet fragmentation remains a significant concern, with risks at both technical and user experience levels

The Global Digital Compact (GDC) Article 29C provides an important commitment to prevent fragmentation

Multi-stakeholder collaboration is crucial for addressing fragmentation risks

There is a need to develop frameworks and metrics to measure and track fragmentation

The IGF platform plays a vital role in bridging technical and policy discussions on fragmentation

Resolutions and Action Items

Develop a framework to measure progress on the GDC commitment by the 2027 review

Conduct research on the economic impacts of internet fragmentation

Utilize national and regional IGFs to facilitate local discussions on fragmentation

Prepare a report on the state of fragmentation for IGF 2025

Strengthen civil society engagement in technical standards discussions

Unresolved Issues

How to balance security concerns with preventing fragmentation

Specific implementation mechanisms for the GDC commitment on fragmentation

How to address ongoing user experience fragmentation while maintaining technical unity

The role of emerging technologies like blockchain in potential fragmentation

How to ensure truly inclusive multi-stakeholder representation in technical discussions

Suggested Compromises

Governments should include diverse stakeholders in technical delegations to balance perspectives

Focus on addressing security concerns without resorting to network isolation or fragmentation

Use the PNIF framework to accommodate different views on fragmentation while advancing discussions

Internet fragmentation occurs when the Internet breaks down at the technical layer, resulting in a loss of interoperability among various networks. We know there are 70,000-plus networks, and any break between the two which are speaking the same language, that would be Internet fragmentation. However, technically speaking, there is no Internet fragmentation at that level.

speaker

Amitabh Singhal

reason

This comment provides a clear technical definition of fragmentation while also noting that it’s not currently occurring at the technical level. This helps frame the discussion by distinguishing between technical fragmentation and other types.

impact

This comment shifted the conversation to focus more on user experience fragmentation and policy/governance fragmentation rather than purely technical fragmentation. It provided a foundation for discussing different types of fragmentation.

How you, whether you think of the Internet as fragmented or not, really depends on whose Internet you think it is, and I think if we think of it as the Internet of people who can access all aspects, all applications, all content, then the Internet is fragmented.

speaker

Anriette Esterhuysen

reason

This comment challenges the panel to consider fragmentation from different perspectives, particularly those of users with limited access. It introduces an important equity dimension to the discussion.

impact

This comment broadened the conversation to include considerations of user experience and access inequalities. It prompted reflection on how fragmentation is defined and experienced differently by various groups.

We have seen over the last several years that there are proposals coming to centers organisations, particularly the ITU-T, that will result to a new protocol stack, new addressing scheme, new QS allocation scheme, identification scheme of end users and full visibility of content, so really non-interoperable approaches to the global Internet architecture.

speaker

Hosein Badran

reason

This comment highlights specific technical proposals that could lead to fragmentation, providing concrete examples of potential risks. It also connects technical standards to governance and surveillance issues.

impact

This comment refocused the discussion on emerging technical risks and their broader implications. It prompted consideration of how technical standards processes relate to fragmentation concerns.

My dream would very easily be that we wouldn’t have to have this discussion on Internet fragmentation and everyone would perfectly be fine with this Internet that we have. But more realistically, a takeaway for me is that the research that we want to do as governments, as Dutch government, we really should do and that the need to start measuring Internet fragmentation is more necessary than ever.

speaker

Alisa Heaver

reason

This comment balances idealism with pragmatism, emphasizing the need for concrete research and measurement of fragmentation. It moves the discussion from theoretical concerns to practical next steps.

impact

This comment helped conclude the discussion by pointing towards future actions, particularly the need for research and metrics to assess fragmentation.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by refining the definition of fragmentation, broadening perspectives on how fragmentation is experienced, highlighting specific technical risks, and emphasizing the need for concrete research and measurement. The conversation evolved from defining fragmentation to considering its various dimensions (technical, user experience, governance) and finally to discussing practical steps for addressing and measuring fragmentation risks. The comments collectively deepened the analysis by introducing nuance to the concept of fragmentation and connecting it to broader issues of equity, governance, and technical standards.

How will the UN review Article 29C of the Global Digital Compact in 2027?

speaker

Alisa Heaver

explanation

This is important to establish a framework for measuring progress on preventing, identifying, and addressing risks of internet fragmentation.

What is the current state of proposed fragmentation by various countries?

speaker

Gbenga Sesan

explanation

This is crucial to establish a baseline and track changes in fragmentation trends over time.

How can we measure the economic effects of internet fragmentation?

speaker

Alisa Heaver

explanation

Understanding the economic impact is important for assessing the full consequences of fragmentation.

Is there an existing study on the cost of internet fragmentation?

speaker

Alisa Heaver

explanation

This research could provide valuable data on the economic implications of fragmentation.

How can we solve security problems without fragmenting the internet?

speaker

Kunle Olorundare

explanation

This is important to address government concerns about security while preserving an open internet.

How will collaboration evolve between government, private sector, and civil society to prevent fragmentation?

speaker

Audience member (youth representative from Sudan)

explanation

Understanding this collaboration is crucial for implementing the Global Digital Compact commitment.

Summary

This discussion focused on aligning Internet-based technologies with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and ITU’s digital innovation strategy. Panelists emphasized the importance of effective multistakeholder governance models to ensure inclusive and responsible innovation. Key points included promoting transparency, accountability, and collaboration among diverse stakeholders.

The conversation highlighted challenges in stakeholder engagement, particularly the need for greater involvement of technical communities and civil society in ITU initiatives. Participants stressed the importance of capacity building and knowledge sharing to empower youth and underserved communities in the digital space. The role of NGOs in stimulating innovation and bridging gaps between different sectors was discussed, with emphasis on the need for better collaboration between NGOs, governments, and the private sector.

Strategies for addressing skills gaps and building human capacity were explored, including promoting digital literacy, incentivizing youth participation, and creating community internet hubs. The discussion touched on initiatives like the ITU’s Partner to Connect coalition and the Giga Project as examples of effective investment strategies for connecting the unconnected.

Participants also addressed the importance of including marginalized communities, particularly women and rural populations, in digital innovation efforts. The need for equitable access to technology and capacity building in underserved regions was highlighted as crucial for achieving the SDGs. The discussion concluded by emphasizing the importance of multistakeholder engagement in informing decisions made in multilateral spaces and the need for continued efforts to bridge digital divides.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– The importance of inclusive multistakeholder governance models for aligning internet innovation with sustainable development goals

– Challenges in stakeholder engagement, particularly for youth and civil society, in ITU and other multilateral processes

– The need for capacity building, digital skills training, and knowledge sharing to empower youth and underserved communities

– Strategies for NGOs and youth to meaningfully participate in and influence internet governance processes

– Investment and policy approaches to drive innovation for sustainable development, including public-private partnerships

The overall purpose of the discussion was to explore how to align internet-based technologies and innovation with the UN Sustainable Development Goals and ITU’s digital innovation agenda through multistakeholder collaboration.

The tone of the discussion was constructive and solution-oriented. Panelists and audience members shared insights on challenges but focused on proposing concrete strategies and mechanisms to improve inclusivity and drive innovation for sustainable development. There was an emphasis on the importance of youth engagement and empowerment throughout.

Speakers

– Athanase Bahizire: Moderator, from DRC

– Jasmine Ko: Affiliated with HKYIGF, ISOC Hong Kong, and Asia

– Umut Pajaro Velasquez: AI researcher on ethics and governance, coordinator of Jude IGF, from Jude Coalition on Internet Governance

Additional speakers:

– Peter Joziasse: Founder of Digital Child Rights Foundation

– Nermin Selim: Secretary General of Creators Union of Arab, expert on intellectual property

– Matilda Mashauri: African Youth Ambassador in Internet Governance

Expanded Summary of Discussion on Aligning Internet Technologies with Sustainable Development Goals

Introduction

This discussion focused on strategies for aligning Internet-based technologies with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and ITU’s digital innovation agenda. The panel, moderated by Athanase Bahizire from the Democratic Republic of Congo, featured speakers from diverse backgrounds in Internet governance, youth advocacy, and digital rights. The conversation explored challenges and opportunities in multistakeholder governance, youth inclusion, and investment strategies to drive innovation for sustainable development.

Key Themes and Discussion Points

1. Multistakeholder Governance for Sustainable Development

A central theme of the discussion was the importance of effective multistakeholder governance models in aligning Internet innovation with sustainable development goals. Umut Pajaro Velasquez, an AI researcher on ethics and governance, emphasised that such models must promote inclusivity of all stakeholders, ensure transparency and accountability in decision-making, and foster collaboration.

Jasmine Ko, affiliated with HKYIGF, ISOC Hong Kong, and .Asia, highlighted the need for increased engagement of the technical community and civil society in ITU initiatives and other multilateral processes. Ko introduced the Technical Community Coalition for Multistakeholder (TCCM) form, an initiative aimed at enhancing the technical community’s participation in global digital policy discussions. This addresses a critical gap in stakeholder engagement, as the technical community has often been underrepresented in important global digital policy forums.

Ko also mentioned the eco-internet index (EII) research project as an example of the technical community’s contribution to sustainable development. This project aims to measure the environmental impact of internet infrastructure and usage, demonstrating how technical expertise can directly contribute to sustainability goals.

2. Youth Inclusion and Capacity Building

The discussion emphasized the critical role of youth engagement and capacity building in driving innovation and achieving the SDGs. Speakers unanimously agreed on the importance of empowering young people but proposed different strategies to achieve this goal.

Umut Pajaro Velasquez advocated for providing digital skills training and capacity building for youth, emphasising the need to include young people in decision-making processes. Jasmine Ko suggested creating youth-focused initiatives like regional Internet Governance Forums (IGFs) to engage young people directly in governance discussions. She specifically mentioned the Asia Pacific Internet Governance Academy (APIGA) and netmission.asia as examples of successful capacity building initiatives for youth.

Ko made a thought-provoking comment challenging the notion of youth as passive beneficiaries, stating, “Everything for youth has to be by youth, have to be with youth.” She provided specific examples of how youth can contribute to achieving SDGs, such as recycling e-waste and taking personal actions to promote sustainability.

Matilda Mashauri, African Youth Ambassador in Internet Governance, stressed the importance of ensuring equitable access to technology and capacity building in underserved regions, particularly for rural youth. Ko suggested that youth map their resources, identify areas of influence, and set priorities based on their interests and capacities.

3. Role of NGOs in Advancing SDGs and Innovation

The discussion explored the potential for NGOs to play a crucial role in stimulating innovation and bridging gaps between different sectors. Athanase Bahizire and Peter Joziasse highlighted the challenges faced by NGOs in engaging with governments and multilateral processes, emphasizing the need for improved collaboration mechanisms.

Jasmine Ko suggested creating platforms for NGOs to connect with partners and focused on the importance of community-driven agendas. She encouraged local actors to create their own platforms for collaboration if none exist, stating, “If there is no platform or scenario that NGOs and other potential partners can come together, maybe consider create one.”

Dr. Nermin Selim, Secretary General of Creators Union of Arab and an expert on intellectual property, highlighted the importance of protecting the intellectual property rights of innovators in this context. She also emphasized the need for awareness-building before implementing any innovation or project.

4. Investment Strategies for Innovation and Sustainable Development

The panel discussed various approaches to investing in digital innovation for sustainable development. Athanase Bahizire highlighted initiatives like ITU’s Partner to Connect coalition and the Giga Project as examples of effective investment strategies for connecting the unconnected, particularly focusing on connecting schools.

Peter Jozsa mentioned the D4D Hub and Global Gateway as examples of initiatives he’s involved with, demonstrating the range of investment strategies being employed globally.

Jasmine Ko emphasised the need to prioritise and set achievable goals within limited resources. She suggested using design thinking and systems thinking approaches to map ecosystem challenges and solutions, promoting a more systematic approach to addressing development issues.

Challenges and Unresolved Issues

Despite the constructive nature of the discussion, several challenges and unresolved issues emerged:

1. Bridging the gap between NGOs and government/private sector stakeholders remains a challenge.

2. Specific mechanisms for ensuring equitable access and capacity building for youth in underserved regions need further development.

3. Addressing interoperability challenges between different technologies and systems, including AI, remains an ongoing concern.

4. Balancing rapid innovation with responsible implementation and awareness-building requires careful consideration.

Conclusion

The discussion provided valuable insights into the complexities of aligning Internet-based technologies with sustainable development goals. There was a strong consensus on the importance of inclusive multistakeholder governance, youth engagement, and capacity building. The conversation highlighted the need for continued efforts to bridge digital divides and ensure that technological innovation serves the needs of all communities, particularly those historically marginalised.

Moving forward, the key takeaways suggest a focus on promoting inclusivity and transparency in governance models, increasing engagement of diverse stakeholders (especially the technical community), providing targeted digital skills training, and developing partnerships to expand Internet access. The discussion underscored the importance of balancing rapid innovation with responsible implementation and awareness-building, emphasising the need for thoughtful, collaborative approaches to harnessing technology for sustainable development.

Athanase Bahazire: and ITU’s innovation agenda. In this workshop, we are going to, the aim of this session actually is to facilitate a strategic dialogue among key stakeholders to assess and optimize alignment of Internet-based technology with the United Nations Sustainable Digital Goals and the ITU’s digital innovation strategy. The objective actually is to create an environment of collaboration, whereby diverse backgrounds will be coming together, industry leaders, civil society organizations, academia, to assess these two critical frameworks and then also to see how the IGF can contribute to it. So, in this session, we have two speakers, one here on site and one online. So I’m going to give the floor to my panelists to introduce themselves before we go deep into the matter. Jasmine, you have the floor.

Jasmine Ko: Good morning, everyone. Thank you for making it here at the very early morning. My name is Jasmine Koh. I’m from Hong Kong. I’m affiliated with HKYIGF, ISOC Hong Kong, and also .Asia. Thank you for coming here.

Athanase Bahazire: Thank you, Jasmine. Umut, can you please introduce yourself? Umut, can you hear us? You are muted. Can you hear us? As we are trying to fix some technicalities, by the way, my name is Athanase Bahazire, I’m from the DRC, and I’ll be your moderator for this session. Umut, are you able to speak now?

Umut Pajaro Velasquez: Yes. Hello, everyone. Thank you, Atanas, for being the moderator today. And I wasn’t able to hear you at the beginning, I wasn’t able to speak, but now I can do it. So, yeah, my name is Umut Pajaro Velazquez, I’m from the Jude Coalition on Internet Governance. I’m also one of the coordinators of the Jude IGF, and I work as an AI researcher on ethics and governance. So, yeah, today I’m going to speak a little bit about digital cooperation in the case of ITU and the Internet Governance Forum. It’s a pleasure to be here.

Athanase Bahazire: Thank you so much, Umut. Very interesting. Now we can get deep into the matter. I promise this session will also be interactive at some point, too. I’m going to be coming back to the audience for any comments and any questions. So straight into the matter, Umut, I have a question for you. How can effective multistakeholder governance models be designed to ensure that the Internet enables innovation, aligns with the SDG principles, promotes inclusivity, mitigates potential risk and unintended consequences?

Umut Pajaro Velasquez: Okay, before to answer that, we actually have to remember that there are some core elements of sustainable development in the case of any model that we want to propose. And those core elements… aims to meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability or to have a future for our own needs. To achieve this, it is crucial to harmonise three core elements that are economic growth, social inclusion and environmental protection. These three elements are interconnected and crucial well-being of individualized societies and internet governance can contribute to these three elements in different ways. And the multi-stakeholder model actually is one of the ways that we can contribute to it. So effective multi-stakeholder governance models, in this case, are essential to ensure that internet-enabled innovation aligns with these sustainable development goals, principles. This model, in this case, in order to comply with having a design that actually can protect and can be responsible, has to, first of all, promote inclusivity. That means that all stakeholders, including governments, private sector, civil society, medical experts, academia, should have a voice in internet governance. This inclusivity ensures that diverse perspectives are considered and that the needs of all stakeholders are addressed in the development of these goals. A rights-based approach to internet governance is crucial for ensuring inclusivity and mitigating risks. And this approach of promoting inclusivity emphasises not only human rights, but also in fundamental freedoms, social justice and social justice in the development and governance of the internet in general. So, the Intermediate Art Tool can be a tool for the three elements that I said before. The other element that should be taken into consideration in these different multi-stakeholder models is ensuring transparency and accountability. The decision-making processes on these different models should be transparent and accountable to all stakeholders, not just to one part, but to all stakeholders. So the decisions that are taken in place are actually based in having all the information that we need to get to these different goals that we have in the SDG, and to actually have an innovation that actually benefits all. Because transparency actually builds trust and legitimacy in the internal governance. The other principle is fostered collaboration. Multi-stakeholder governance models should encourage collaboration among stakeholders to address complex challenges and develop innovative solutions. We try to align the innovative part of the ETUs with the multi-stakeholder model of the Internet Governance Forum. So if we want to actually be able to get to that point of having this goal in these different SDGs to be reached by the time that we want it to be reached, we have to have this forced collaboration between different stakeholders. So when we have more voices, actually it’s easier to get more innovative ways to address complex issues and challenges as are these goals. And the last one is mitigate risk, governance models as this one that we are proposing the multi-stakeholder should proactively identify and mitigate potential risk and unintended consequence on internet-enabled innovations, social service security, threats, privacy evaluation, spread the misinformation, and another stuff that we actually discussed in general in forums like this one that we’re having right now, the Internet Governance Forum, the different problems that we are discussing as we are a multi-stakeholder with different approaches from different perspectives is actually one of the things that help us to mitigate risk and actually create a pathway for innovation that actually benefits all. That would be my answer to this first question. Thank you.

Athanase Bahazire: Thank you so much, Umut. Thank you especially for emphasizing on inclusivity and how we can mitigate risk. It’s very important that stakeholders are transparent and accountable in decisions they take. Very insightful comments actually. So I’m going to go to Jasmine. So Jasmine, from a technical community perspective, what infrastructure or regulatory frameworks, regulatory gaps actually in the alignment of the ITU’s innovation agenda and the sustainable development goals?

Jasmine Ko: Thank you very much for the questions. So actually ITU’s innovation agenda have been putting effort, they have their own digital innovation ecosystem portfolios which they empower their members to. unlock their digital potential but you also have to notice that ITU is more like a multilateral structure itself. So the gap that there is from technical community member that our community that see is there is not the level of stakeholder engagement it’s a little bit it’s a little bit behind or there’s a gap between the reality and and our expectation. The way we’re saying that it’s because we find that it’s there are some in the ethical involvement of key stakeholder including us the technical community and also the civic society in some process when it comes to design of implementation of the ITU innovation initiative. So in a way this could lead to the solution that may not fully adjust the diverse needs and priorities that are aligned in the SDGs and in a wider beyond ITU if you notice if someone some of you follow the GDC the global digital compact and also the wishes plus 20 process there was in you know like during the long period of time when that the you know the GDC keep keep there is a different version keep changing and then like discussing consultation a lot of thing happening and there was a moment that technical community it’s not being well recognized so there’s actually at some point there is a disappearance of technical community in a paper in something so actually you could refer to blog that is published by a statement by APNIC and also ICANN to address the issue and the gap. And therefore, seeing the potential risk and gaps in here, in terms of stakeholder engagement lacking enough participation from technical community, there has been a TCCM form, which is Technical Community Coalition for Multistakeholder. And there was a launch yesterday in the IGF village, and as part of the coalition, we talk about what we have observed as potential risks. And therefore, what kind of process have we been involved in the business fraternity and also GDC input when there’s a consultation open, in a way that we want to be a collective voice of our members of technical community who were not able or lack the bandwidth to reflect on how this kind of global agenda and process is affecting them. So feel free to go into the TCCM website to learn more why the establishment of these coalitions is a different thing. And second, it’s about the interoperability challenges, because between different technologies and systems, there are some issues that have been created. In a way that it is difficult to integrate the innovation solution, and it might hinder some seamless exchange of data and information critical to achieve the SDG targets. There was also a session earlier about AI interoperability. you see the perspective from both China and UK, how, you know, like, the other, like, how the diverse perspective have been present from academia and also from government, civil society view on about the potential infrastructure or regulation gaps between the ITU and SDG agenda. So it’s something that I I’m trying to explore and also example that I try to give that I think is relevant when we talk about the gaps.

Athanase Bahazire: Jasmine, very important, you just mentioned the low participation or low involvement of different stakeholders in processes that are chaired by multilateral organizations such as the ITU and you also highlighted the GDC in the different reviews we have seen consultation but at some point it was closed. So it’s very important and very crucial actually to engage stakeholders. And one of the other things that was very interesting, you see there is a way the technical community can come together, collaborate and actually advance the agenda. Very, very important. So I wanted to follow up on this. As you’re talking about stakeholders engagement in various agendas and various development projects, I was wondering what is the place of the youth? How can young leaders actually and youth stakeholders be considered to contribute to achieving this SDG agenda since actually it’s for the youth because they are representing the future, they present the future leaders, they are representing the one actually to benefit. meaning, to benefit mainly from this perspective, so how can we include them and consider them in these processes? Back to you, Jasmine.

Jasmine Ko: Okay, actually before jumping into this question directly to youth, let me just elaborate a little bit on the role of technical community, because not just because I’m from there, but I just want to share, you know, my and also the other stakeholder perspective on technical community. What have technical community contribute to the agenda and also in a way that we could help youth as well? So it’s part of the ITU agenda on innovation, it’s about innovation for development. So in a way that we have initiated a research and efficacy project on something called the eco-internet index, EII. So we emphasize on do more and waste less. So that means we do more when there’s off-peak traffic, so that we could, you know, like we have to acknowledge that there is a carbon footprint for whatever internet activity and the devices that we’re using here, and also how, you know, the way we behave actually have a consequence and impacts in different way. Just to at least start with the awareness and you could always have a thought and reflection and also to adjust your own behavior. And we emphasize about the replacement of carbon-heavy trade by digital economy and also on energy that could empower the network, because we are the registry, right? So we are part of the internet infrastructure ecosystem, therefore we think that sustainability and meaningful connection is critical in a way that also digital inclusion should come hand in hand, especially when connecting those off-grid who doesn’t have connectivity. And second thing about the role and it’s also relevant to youth, because it’s about capacity building and knowledge sharing. Technical committee come together to facilitate capacity building programs to empower individuals and organization with the skills that need to leverage technology for a sustainable development. Example, APIGA, the Asia Pacific Internet Governance Academy. So it’s led by ICANN, which we have been part of the academy, running the program, being a mentor and being the trainer for several years. And also netmission.asia, it’s a very first youth network, I would say, from the internet governance space, focusing on the region of Asia Pacific. So it’s our own initiative. I’m actually an alumni of mission.asia as well. So this is how I actually get into learning what’s happening in the internet governance network, because it was not a major agenda of any, I think, any university course agenda. So there’s actually a gap that haven’t been plugged into university teaching curriculum. And this is how I got into learning this. And moving on now to youth, what youth can do, right? So youth, and actually not just youth, actually to all of you, it is more about when we think about how we could contribute effectively, right? Effectiveness is actually equal to being productive, being smart, and smart in a way that what is your goal in smart, like with the smart principle? Like how is it specific, personalized, achievable in your own capacity, in your own interest of area? It has to be very, for me, I feel like it has to be very tailor-made for yourself, starting from knowing yourself well. I talk about the… your interest area, your capacity, your network. Think about you have many resources, actually. You just have to map your resources out, identify the area of influence of your own, and set priority. In my case, I’ll leave it out with my case, I love nature, I’m curious to learn more about innovations and the internet world. Therefore, I care about, if I become to SDG, it’s 13, nine, 17, you know, about the industry innovation and about climate action. So how do these two things intersect together? It’s coming to my research and efficacy on eco-internets. And in my daily life, I also recycle my own e-waste and other waste as a person. So I’m trying to bring it down to a very personal level so that you would not just think about, oh, it’s a very off-ground, you know, high-level goals, but actually when you put it, trying to put it down to the ground, you have things to do as a youth and post-youth, you know.

Athanase Bahazire: Thank you so much, Jasmine, for mentioning this. You just mentioned something very important for us to include the left-behind stakeholders such as the youth, it’s capacity building and knowledge sharing. And some of these technologies, you find out that they are developed in spaces that are too technical and the decision makers don’t have enough technical understanding to actually take the good decision for the future of these technologies. So it’s very important that we should build capacity of different stakeholders. Before I move back to you, my panelists, I’m going to give the floor to the audience. If at this point you have any question or comments to give on this perspective. Any question, the audience, or just a comment?

Peter Jozsa: I’m Peter Jozsa, founder of the Digital Child Rights Foundation. It’s about innovation and the agenda of the SDGs. I’m an NGO and I was wondering how could an NGO, all the NGOs in the world, stimulate the innovation, especially the involvement of youth?

Athanase Bahazire: Thank you. I have a comment on this one, but I’m going to start by you, Umut. Umut, do you have a comment on this? How can NGOs, you that you are involved, I mean, you are working in the civil space with NGOs and civil organizations. Any comment on this?

Umut Pajaro Velasquez: Well, actually, I had to explain my case because my case is like in the case in Latin America, we actually focus on including youth in order to be innovative, especially in investing more in creating capacity building, digital skills, training for the youth in general, because most of the NGOs here in Latin America actually believe that not only it’s important to bring access to the technologies to the young people in different places, especially in some marginal areas, but also it’s really important to give them the proper training to use those technologies in order to change their lives and have a really good impact on not only with them, but also with the community and try to innovate in a way that is not only innovate and create solutions for the communities. So for us, it’s important in Latin America, especially the NGOs, to create capacity, promote, to create capacity in digital skills. So we had a really investment on that. Also, we promote a lot of digital literacy, and we try to get along the private sector in order to incentivize employers to have people, to have young people involved in their, in their, in some part in the, in the, in the digital training skill or some part of the workforce. So it’s pretty much that we do here in Latin America because that’s the specific case of my region, that the region that I don’t know, and I really work more for NGOs from this region. So yeah, that’s what I can say.

Athanase Bahazire: Umut. Yes.

Jasmine Ko: Thank you, Peter, for your questions. It’s, so when it comes to NGO perspective, so actually you’re not in the right place because now we have many stakeholders. You might find your, you know, colleagues who’s from also at NGO, maybe from your region or not from your region, but it’s, I think it’s a good platform here. You could start to see if any common agenda or prioritized area that you could potentially collaborate on. Second thing could be, this is a global one, right? So I’m not sure where you’re based in, but perhaps there’s a regional or national IGF you could join because usually in national and regional level, it’s more, I would say, more region specific. And it’s a different kind of engaged, it may be a different kind of engagement level that you can have there. And, in our case, in Asia-Pacific Regional IGF, as part of the secretariat team, we open up a chance for, you know, for everyone, including the NGOs, that they could submit their session proposal so that it’s a very community-driven agenda of the regional IGF that you could have your own session proposal in the IGF and then have a potential collaboration with it. So, as I echo to what Umut said, it also could be collaboration with other stakeholder groups, so I encourage you to continue your work and thank you very much for engaging with us.

Athanase Bahazire: Thank you. Okay, before I give you back the floor, I was having just one comment from an African perspective. What has happened in Africa is that the NGO and civil society organizations tend not to work directly with the government, not to engage directly, and as you can imagine, the ITU, the UN, and all these multilateral processes, it’s our governments that actually represent our voices or have the last word to say. So, what can be the approach here, I’ve seen it in some countries, is that we don’t always have to be, even if we have different point of view or different ways of seeing things from the NGO and the government, but it’s important to advance our local agenda, to work together and engage, actually, the government. From the human perspective, the NGO, since they are on ground, they are working closer to the community. They used to have expertise that the government doesn’t have, but then because sometimes ideas are not matching. the engagement is not sufficient. So I believe what I can encourage to the NGOs actually is to work with the government. Yeah, you can have diverging perspective today, but tomorrow for a great common, work together and advance this agenda so that whenever they go to this ITU and other multilateral processes, they can carry your perspective. In some point I’ve seen in my country, at some point they’ve got the government representation at the UN, but it’s no, the government delegation is not only full of government or ministry expert, but in the delegation they have a stakeholder from the technical community, one from the civil society, and there it should be insightful and very interesting.

Peter Jozsa: Yeah, thank you for your answers. I live in the Netherlands, in Europe, and we are a member of the ITU Parter to Connect Digital Coalition, and also a member of the advisory group, Civic Society and Academia of the D4D Hub in Europe, the Global Gateway, and yes, it’s about digital skills, but what I mean is that here we are talking, and in the end, a country must accelerate and there is a gap, I believe, between the NGOs and also the private sector who wants to help concrete, and there is a gap, I believe, so how can we close the gap? Yeah, so it’s not only the country, but children, young people in the school wanted to be supported, and we want to help, but it must be done by the local community, but how do we connect to each other? It’s not only… in the way by having talks with the government. We need NGOs also on the ground and I think that’s going too slow.

Athanase Bahazire: Thank you so much. Very good comment. Actually, definitely we need NGOs on the ground. And maybe recalling from what Jasmin was saying, everybody should play his role in ensuring, okay, I’m on the good track. I’m contributing to fastening this processing. That’s going very slow. So I believe, yeah, from your personal perspective or your organization’s perspective, yeah, please try to push exactly and work on your personal capacity to advance this agenda. But very good comments. Thank you so much. We have a question. Okay, one comment from Jasmin.

Jasmine Ko: Yeah, just one sentence from me. Of course, there are gaps and as for your case, it must be specific enough that maybe other country and other region could not give you the exact example because you are the right person to know about your community. So when you ask about how, so I challenge you back, how would you try to understand the problems and the gaps? And if there is no platform or scenario that NGOs and other potential partner can come together, maybe consider create one. Scenario, occasion that people could brainstorm and, you know, get their buy-in to try to collect and really draw the symmetry. So that’s last one from me. But I also see the lady in the back have maybe comment on question, please.

Nermin Selim: Hello, everyone. I appreciate all speakers. I just have two comments. The first one is an advice for your great work to connect the intellectual property rights. to innovation, because any innovator, he needs to protect his rights. Because I’m an expert of intellectual property, I set this advice for all innovators. By the way, I didn’t, you didn’t know me, I’m Dr. Nermen Salem. I’m Secretary General of Creators Union of Arab. It’s an NGO. It’s a member in United Nations Economic and Social Council. And we are working in the NGO since 23 years. And I agree with my colleague about not supporting the NGO. I have attended a lot of conferences in all the community all over the world. Even it’s governmental or non-governmental organization. They support and encourage NGO to be collaborate in their works. But actual, in the real ground, it’s not effective. But since we have a member in United Nations, it gave us an opportunity to share with all collections in the United Nations. And we are encourage all entities if they want to contact with us and make a cooperation about anything we are concerning on innovation and intellectual property and training and so on. Thank you very much.

Athanase Bahazire: Thank you so much for the comment. And definitely, what is good about the discussion is that collaboration can unfold during these discussions. Thank you so much. We have also a question online. If you can unmute yourself for the question online, then after we have Umut speaking. The question online.

Matilda Mashauri: Yes, hello, can you hear me?

Athanase Bahazire: Yes, we can. Please.

Matilda Mashauri: Okay. Good morning. My name is Mathilde Mujes Mashawiri. I am an African Youth Ambassador in Internet Governance and a proud advocate in inclusion in shaping for the digital future of Africa. Well, I have two questions. One is how can we, how can a youth-led initiative and the young innovators be meaningfully included in the multi-stakeholder processes that are discussed in this workshop in order to ensure that the Internet-based and technology are effectively contributing to the Sustainable Development Goals, and also particularly in addressing peace, economic empowerment, and the environmental sustainability? And also, how can we as the youth leaders play a pivotal role in driving the innovative solutions for a better and more inclusive future? You know, because we are trying so much as the youth also to also engage, but then we do not know some of the ways. That is what I’m trying to know, like how we are the youth leaders, because we do play a pivotal role in driving the innovation, but we need for the inclusive future. But then how can we do that? And how can we also lead to the development goals and particularly in addressing the peace and economic empowerment for the environmental sustainability? Thank you very much.

Athanase Bahazire: Thank you for the question. Any other questions online so we take both together? Okay, if there is no question, I see there is. Okay, there is no question for this at this time. So Umut, can you comment on this question?

Umut Pajaro Velasquez: Um, well, actually, that is a question that I’m thinking really a lot this year, especially with the GDC processes and how we actually can do in can be included. in all this process, because we actually, with that process, I start to realize how we can actually be influential somehow and can actually be, how is outreach in all this, in all this conversation, in all these processes, and how actually we can collaborate to this and what is our role in all of this. And one of the things that I conclude at the end of all of that, it was that actually at the beginning, we’re going to feel that we are lost, that pretty much as seen is the question or that’s where your question is coming, is that we are at the beginning, we are feeling lost about what we should do, but actually the fear of actually not knowing at the beginning what we’re going to do is actually the drive for the answer that we want to, and the answer that we want to, in the way that we actually, after that, we start to identify all the gaps that in these different processes that we’re having, and how is, how we as young people, actually can provide the solution to those gaps. So when we find that thing, we actually start to know exactly what is our place in all of this, and how actually we’re going to be innovated in all these processes, because if we don’t actually start to identify exactly what is the inconsistency, for example, or the thing that we don’t like, or the sadly, the special aspect that is particularly to a region or particular to all different populations or is related to a specific SGD, we actually we don’t going to make innovative ideas or solution for the different processes. So that’s the way that, as I said, so I don’t know if on the floor is one to compliment on something.

Athanase Bahazire: Thank you, Umut. I think, yeah, the youth is very, it’s a very crucial stakeholder. And thank you so much, actually, for responding and giving this perspective. We are going to proceed. I have a couple of questions for you two before we conclude. So we have seen a lot of discussion in the Summit of the Future last September in New York about the place of the youth in this process. And at this particular time, it was special because the Declaration for the Future, they included a specific annex just for the youth. But then we were saying it’s all about discussions and provisions. So I’m wondering, what are the policies and investment strategies that are essential, actually, to address the skills gap and build necessary human capacity to create, deploy and manage Internet technologies for a sustainable digital, sustainable development goal, especially when it comes to the youth as the future of the world, the youth as the future leaders? So what are the strategies and investment, what are the policy and investment strategies we need to put in place? for this to be effective, not only just papers or a decision, but on the ground, we want to see the change and how this can help. So I’m going to start by Oud, then Jasmine.

Umut Pajaro Velasquez: Well, the question is related to exactly policies and how to address the issue in the path of the future and everything else. Well, when I read the part of the future, I had to say that one of the things that got to my attention is that it’s actually mentioned as a part of the future solutions, and we are actually doing more than that. One of the things that I consider that should be addressed and in that aspect, in general, is a couple of things that were already mentioned here, like not only promote digital skills, promote the being accountable or clarify data ownership, promote digital literacy, incentivize the participation of not only the governments in alliance with the private sector and NGOs, and also another thing that should be addressed in all these cases is include the jury in the decision-making processes and having promote communities or internet hosts, for example, that can provide access to different technology and digital skills for training you in diversity on this idea. So yeah, there is a lot of ways that we can be included in this.

Athanase Bahazire: Thank you so much, Umut. So I’m going to give back to Jasmine. What are the investment and policy strategies we need to put in place to achieve this innovation technology for the Sustainable Development Goals?

Jasmine Ko: Okay, before I go directly to the answer, I just want to clarify when you talk about investment and policy, is there a certain target group you’re talking about who will action and implement on this, or by you, or by government, or by who?

Athanase Bahazire: Basically very, actually that’s what I was expecting from you, who is there to invest and to put investment in place so that we can achieve actually the innovation we want to see in order to align the technologies with the SDGs. So the youth are the future, the present, the future, and they’ll be the beneficiaries actually of this investment and these policies that are harmonized, but then who to invest and at which level they should invest and in which way?

Jasmine Ko: Well, then it is actually a very high level question. Actually, well, it’s not an easy question to answer, because when it comes to, if you highlight that youth is the beneficiary, they cannot just be beneficiary themselves. They have to be the one who also put effort, right? Because I believe in that mission, it’s always about nothing for youth is not by youth. I mean, everything for youth has to be by youth, have to be with youth. So that means that when it comes to strategy setting and also agenda setting, the way that you can put into actually a lot of effort because the thing is, you’ve definitely, if you need to compare the life experience and also network, it’s not as much as people who have been working in the field for many decades, many years, so like myself. So the things that we need to put a lot of effort is to really understand what is our prioritize area and agenda and to be smart enough to know what kind of, in the stakeholder map that we have, what kind of collaboration and people and scope that we want to focus on because we have limited time, we have limited resources, but then what can we do in a reasonable scope and then achievable outcome in a certain timeframe? It’s always a problem about goal setting and this is why it is called strategic because it involve prioritization, it involve a collective process of youth, perhaps, and perhaps we could also have other, like it’s good to have other stakeholder groups together. What I like to do, the design thinking and also systems thinking approach that we map out within the ecosystem, we map out each problem like a spider map and then we map out the flow, how does it, what is the impact and what is the reason and then we make the arrow and then we see what is the relationship between different issues and then we try to be, we try to use different tools to understand how we could move on.

Athanase Bahazire: Thank you so much, Jasmine. Very important dimension, it’s prioritization in strategy development is very important. I have a comment on this, but I’m going to first give the floor to the audience. Do you have, anyone has an idea on what are the… strategies, policy and investment strategies we need to put in place in order to achieve actually innovation and technology for the sustainable development goals. Any comments in the room? Okay, great. I see, when it comes to investment, when it comes to all these actions, many people tend to get back. We have seen the same thing in the Global Digital Compact recently. When it comes to investing or putting resources into place, you see the different stakeholders are pushing for voluntary actions, voluntary investment and yeah, how will it be sustainable when it’s voluntary? That’s a big question for all of us. But yes, there are solutions we have seen. The ITU has initiated a certain initiative they call Partner to Connect. A very important coalition whereby different stakeholders pledge a certain amount of money or a certain resource to actually contribute to the efforts to partner together to connect the unconnected, to connect the next billion. And this is some of the effective solutions to this. In the Partner to Connect coalition, last year, they got up to 30 billion dollars of pledge from different stakeholders, some from the private sector, some from the government, some from some non-governmental organization. And these inputs are actually, we are seeing the income. The ITU and UNESCO have initiated an initiative they call the Giga Project. that aim to connect every single school on the internet. Some of you from the global north may not understand why is it important to connect every single school, but in some part of the world like where we are from, some schools don’t have access to internet. So you imagine in today’s world, how can you learn without the internet? You don’t have access to all these resources that are available on the internet. So such kind of investment and partnership strategies are very important. And we have seen on the ground very big impact on the schools that are connected to the internet because people are actually able to leverage the different resources, do their SQL jobs when they finish, do their projects, document also their work they are doing so that the wider world can view it. So this is very important and I think we should encourage initiatives like this. I’m going to give the floor to my panelists for the parting remarks because we have less than 10 minutes now. Any from online, any from internet? Okay, we have a comment here then we get back to you.

Nermin Selim: I’m just want to emphasize on before any implementing of any innovation solution or anything, you should make awareness, a very good awareness about any project to be successful. And my advice, my personal advice from Corona COVID-19 when I teach for the students in the level on university, They opened the online and they didn’t hear me. So we should make a very good awareness for any initiative before we can implement it to get the success of this initiative.

Athanase Bahazire: Thank you. It’s very important actually to get to test the technologies. So I was saying it’s very important actually to document and to test the technologies before we can implement them. And some of these tests are done by pilot projects that tend to start from a certain level, certain country to get input and now implement the project wider. But it’s very important. The COVID actually surprised us and we have seen many challenges, but also a very fast innovation environment, many technologies developed very fast during COVID as also challenges were there. So I think we should always seek balance. I wanted to ask if there is a comment or question online. If you have a question online or comment, please have the floor. We just have two minutes for this, so you can be fast. Ah, okay, I’m back.

Matilda Mashauri: Okay, one last question. So they have talked about the internet-based technologies. So given the critical role of these internet-based technologies in achieving the SDU. Now, what specific mechanism can be put in place to ensure the equitable access and capacity building for the youth, and particularly in the underserved regions, so they can actively participate in and benefit from the digital innovation for the sustainable development? Since I’m engaged to working with the youth in this marginalized community in the rural areas, so I have seen their challenges, I have seen their, I also faced the same challenges when I went there. You know, we got to give this capacity building. So what can we, what mechanism exactly that we can put into place for the equitable access for this capacity building, especially for the youth, particularly in underserved regions, and especially in brackets, females, so they can actively participate in and benefit from these digital innovations, you know, for the sustainable development for now, for the coming future, things like that. So thank you very much.

Athanase Bahazire: Yeah, thank you, Mathilde. Good question. How can actually the strategies being put in place to include the women and marginalized communities or rural area to benefit from the, or to leverage from all the benefits the digital technology gives us? I’m going to give the floor to Umut and Jasmine to comment on this. Umut, you have the floor.

Umut Pajaro Velasquez: Well, actually this question has to do a lot with my final remarks. So part of the solution that is actually believed in this, the multifaceted approach that involves effective multistakeholder governance and creative digital skills and responsible policies and expand the internet access. So these spaces, for example, like the IGF or the E2, actually are crucial to foster this kind of alignment and ensuring that internet contribute to more equitable future for everyone. because we’re not only having conversation here for different people, between different stakeholders. We also are people that are working on the ground, most of us, from different aspects. Some are in technical communities, some are in rural areas. So others are, for example, myself, I work with gender diverse people and black people in my country. So yeah, so we are working with the community and we’re trying to find solutions, not only bringing our expertise into these spaces, but also articulating our experience with this. So it’s not only believe that the multi-stakeholder process, that the multi-stakeholder is just conversation, but also is actions and solutions. Yeah.

Athanase Bahazire: Thank you. Yeah, Jasmine, any comment or your parting remark?

Jasmine Ko: Actually, not much. I just want to be brief, because it’s writing on Umu’s input about the multi-stakeholder models slash mechanism. And one way with that, we’ve been actually a good example that already been doing and can be strengthened. It’s the youth IGF that there’s national and also regional one that we’ve been into running for. So actually the thing is how we could ensure, like improve the equitable access of youth is to, I think it’s about the outreach, about to understand what could be the people and marginalized communities that haven’t been part of this yet and really put effort on, such as in Asia Pacific, we try to put more effort to link up with the Pacific islands. So this is a very concrete example. So think about in your region and place, who are the marginalized communities and then try to get them on board. That’s it. Thank you very much.

Athanase Bahazire: Thank you so much. Very wonderful discussion. And as we are concluding this session, I wanted to thank my panelists for the very insightful comment and also the audience for their great participation. And what I can say is, last comment, it’s very important if you want to align the multilateral initiatives that is the ITU’s digital development program with the spirit of the multistakeholder forums or multistakeholder initiatives at the IGF, it’s important to build capacity and involve different parties. I believe the multistakeholder engagement forums and discussion must actually document the decisions that will be taken in multilateral spaces. So with that I say thank you so much and have a wonderful, yeah, have a wonderful rest of the evening, of the day. So we are going to have a group photo. Sorry technicians, can you please put Umut on the screen, maybe we have a, yeah, you ping also Matilda if she’s there.

Agreement Points

Importance of inclusive multistakeholder governance

Umut Pajaro Velasquez

Jasmine Ko

Promote inclusivity of all stakeholders

Increase engagement of technical community and civil society

Both speakers emphasize the need for inclusive participation of all stakeholders, including the technical community and civil society, in internet governance processes.

Focus on youth engagement and capacity building

Umut Pajaro Velasquez

Jasmine Ko

Athanase Bahizire

Provide digital skills training and capacity building

Create youth-focused initiatives like regional IGFs

Invest in connecting schools through initiatives like the Giga Project

The speakers agree on the importance of engaging youth through capacity building, digital skills training, and initiatives that connect them to internet governance discussions and resources.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize the importance of collaboration and partnerships between different stakeholders, including governments, to advance digital development agendas.

Jasmine Ko

Athanase Bahizire

Collaborate with government and other stakeholders

Promote voluntary pledges and partnerships like ITU’s Partner to Connect

Unexpected Consensus

Importance of awareness before implementing new technologies

Nermin Selim

Jasmine Ko

Promote awareness before implementing new technologies

Use design thinking to map ecosystem challenges and solutions

While coming from different perspectives, both speakers unexpectedly agree on the importance of understanding and mapping out challenges before implementing solutions, emphasizing awareness and thoughtful planning.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement include the importance of inclusive multistakeholder governance, focus on youth engagement and capacity building, collaboration between different stakeholders, and the need for thoughtful planning and awareness in implementing technological solutions.

Consensus level

There is a moderate level of consensus among the speakers on key issues related to internet governance and sustainable development. This consensus suggests a shared understanding of the challenges and potential solutions in aligning internet-based technologies with sustainable development goals. However, there are still areas where more specific strategies and implementation details need to be developed.

Different Viewpoints

Approach to youth inclusion

Umut Pajaro Velasquez

Jasmine Ko

Provide digital skills training and capacity building

Create youth-focused initiatives like regional IGFs

While both speakers emphasize youth inclusion, Umut focuses on digital skills training and capacity building, while Jasmine emphasizes creating youth-focused initiatives like regional IGFs.

Unexpected Differences

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement were minor and primarily focused on different approaches to achieving similar goals, such as youth inclusion and stakeholder collaboration.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among the speakers was relatively low. Most speakers presented complementary rather than conflicting viewpoints, which suggests a general consensus on the importance of multistakeholder approaches, youth inclusion, and capacity building in aligning internet-based technologies with sustainable development goals.

Partial Agreements

Both speakers agree on the importance of collaboration, but Jasmine focuses on NGOs working with governments, while Athanase emphasizes voluntary pledges and partnerships at a larger scale.

Jasmine Ko

Athanase Bahizire

Collaborate with government and other stakeholders

Promote voluntary pledges and partnerships like ITU’s Partner to Connect

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize the importance of collaboration and partnerships between different stakeholders, including governments, to advance digital development agendas.

Jasmine Ko

Athanase Bahizire

Collaborate with government and other stakeholders

Promote voluntary pledges and partnerships like ITU’s Partner to Connect

Key Takeaways

Effective multistakeholder governance is crucial for aligning internet technologies with sustainable development goals

Youth inclusion and capacity building are essential for driving innovation and achieving the SDGs

NGOs play an important role in advancing the SDGs and innovation agenda, but face challenges in engagement

Investment strategies and partnerships are needed to address the digital divide and promote equitable access to technology

Resolutions and Action Items

Promote inclusivity, transparency, and collaboration in multistakeholder governance models

Increase engagement of technical community and civil society in ITU and other multilateral processes

Provide digital skills training and capacity building for youth, especially in underserved regions

Create and strengthen youth-focused initiatives like regional IGFs

Develop partnerships and investment strategies to connect schools and expand internet access

Unresolved Issues

How to effectively bridge the gap between NGOs and government/private sector stakeholders

Specific mechanisms to ensure equitable access and capacity building for youth in underserved regions

How to balance voluntary vs. mandatory investment strategies for sustainable development initiatives

Ways to address interoperability challenges between different technologies and systems

Suggested Compromises

NGOs working more closely with governments to advance local agendas, despite potential differences in perspective

Using a multifaceted approach that combines multistakeholder governance, skills development, responsible policies, and expanded internet access

Balancing rapid innovation with proper testing and awareness-building before implementing new technologies

Effective multi-stakeholder governance models, in this case, are essential to ensure that internet-enabled innovation aligns with these sustainable development goals, principles. This model, in this case, in order to comply with having a design that actually can protect and can be responsible, has to, first of all, promote inclusivity.

speaker

Umut Pajaro Velasquez

reason

This comment introduces the crucial concept of multi-stakeholder governance models and emphasizes inclusivity as a key principle. It sets the tone for discussing how to align internet innovation with sustainable development goals.

impact

This comment shaped the subsequent discussion by establishing inclusivity and multi-stakeholder collaboration as central themes. It led to further exploration of how different stakeholders, including youth and NGOs, can be involved in internet governance and innovation processes.

So in a way this could lead to the solution that may not fully adjust the diverse needs and priorities that are aligned in the SDGs and in a wider beyond ITU if you notice if someone some of you follow the GDC the global digital compact and also the wishes plus 20 process there was in you know like during the long period of time when that the you know the GDC keep keep there is a different version keep changing and then like discussing consultation a lot of thing happening and there was a moment that technical community it’s not being well recognized so there’s actually at some point there is a disappearance of technical community in a paper in something

speaker

Jasmine Ko

reason

This comment highlights a critical gap in stakeholder engagement, particularly the lack of recognition for the technical community in important global processes. It brings attention to the challenges of inclusive representation in international digital policy discussions.

impact

This observation led to a deeper discussion about the importance of involving all stakeholders, including the technical community, in shaping digital policies. It prompted consideration of how to ensure diverse perspectives are included in global digital governance processes.

Of course, there are gaps and as for your case, it must be specific enough that maybe other country and other region could not give you the exact example because you are the right person to know about your community. So when you ask about how, so I challenge you back, how would you try to understand the problems and the gaps? And if there is no platform or scenario that NGOs and other potential partner can come together, maybe consider create one.

speaker

Jasmine Ko

reason

This comment shifts the perspective from seeking external solutions to empowering local actors to create their own platforms for collaboration. It emphasizes the importance of local knowledge and initiative in addressing community-specific challenges.

impact

This comment changed the direction of the discussion from a top-down approach to problem-solving to a more bottom-up, community-driven approach. It encouraged participants to think about how they can take initiative in their own contexts to foster collaboration and address gaps.

Well, then it is actually a very high level question. Actually, well, it’s not an easy question to answer, because when it comes to, if you highlight that youth is the beneficiary, they cannot just be beneficiary themselves. They have to be the one who also put effort, right? Because I believe in that mission, it’s always about nothing for youth is not by youth. I mean, everything for youth has to be by youth, have to be with youth.

speaker

Jasmine Ko

reason

This comment challenges the notion of youth as passive beneficiaries and reframes their role as active participants in shaping their digital future. It introduces a powerful principle of youth engagement in digital development.

impact

This perspective shifted the conversation about youth involvement from one of providing benefits to one of active participation and co-creation. It led to a more nuanced discussion about how to meaningfully involve youth in digital innovation and policy-making processes.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by consistently emphasizing the importance of inclusive, multi-stakeholder approaches to internet governance and digital innovation. They challenged participants to think beyond traditional top-down models and consider how to actively involve diverse stakeholders, particularly youth and underrepresented communities, in shaping digital policies and innovations. The discussion evolved from identifying gaps in current processes to exploring concrete ways to foster collaboration, empower local initiatives, and ensure that digital development efforts are truly inclusive and responsive to diverse needs. Throughout the conversation, there was a clear shift towards recognizing the agency and potential contributions of all stakeholders, especially those who have been historically marginalized in these discussions.

How can NGOs stimulate innovation and involve youth?

speaker

Peter Joziasse

explanation

This question highlights the need to explore concrete ways for NGOs to contribute to innovation and youth engagement in the context of sustainable development goals.

How can we close the gap between NGOs, the private sector, and local communities to support children and young people?

speaker

Peter Joziasse

explanation

This follow-up question emphasizes the need to investigate strategies for better collaboration between different stakeholders to support youth on the ground.

How can youth-led initiatives and young innovators be meaningfully included in multi-stakeholder processes?

speaker

Matilda Mashauri

explanation

This question highlights the need to explore specific mechanisms for including youth voices in discussions and decision-making related to internet governance and sustainable development.

How can youth leaders play a pivotal role in driving innovative solutions for a better and more inclusive future?

speaker

Matilda Mashauri

explanation

This follow-up question suggests the need to investigate concrete ways for youth to contribute to and lead innovation efforts.

What specific mechanisms can be put in place to ensure equitable access and capacity building for youth, particularly in underserved regions?

speaker

Matilda Mashauri

explanation

This question highlights the need to research strategies for improving digital access and skills development for marginalized youth, especially in rural areas.

Summary

This panel discussion focused on contextualizing fairness in AI governance for diverse cultural contexts, particularly in Asia and the Global South. The speakers explored how fairness in AI is understood and implemented differently across cultures. Tejaswita Kharel highlighted that in India, fairness encompasses equality, non-discrimination, and inclusivity, with unique considerations like caste that may not be relevant in Western contexts. Yik Chan Chin presented research on narratives of digital ethics, showing how concepts of fairness vary between cultures, such as China’s emphasis on harmony and role adequacy versus Western focus on individual rights.

Milton Mueller cautioned against overstating AI’s capabilities and emphasized the importance of understanding the technology’s limitations. He noted that many issues of contextualization have existed in computing for decades. The panel discussed challenges in creating representative datasets and evaluation frameworks for AI systems, with Chin suggesting that different regions could contribute best practices to develop an interoperable framework for fairness.

The discussion touched on concerns about hyper-contextualization and the feasibility of adapting AI to all cultural nuances. Mueller argued that market forces would largely determine the level of contextualization in AI applications. The panel also addressed issues of gender bias in AI datasets and the complexities of “cleaning” biased data. Overall, the conversation highlighted the need for nuanced, context-sensitive approaches to AI fairness that consider diverse cultural perspectives and practical implementation challenges.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– The need to contextualize AI fairness and ethics principles for different cultural contexts, especially in the Global South

– Challenges in developing representative and inclusive evaluation frameworks for AI systems

– The tension between global AI governance principles and local/regional implementation

– Limitations of current AI training data and models in representing diverse perspectives

– Practical challenges in “cleaning” biased data vs. expanding datasets

Overall purpose:

The goal of this discussion was to explore how AI fairness and ethics principles need to be adapted for different cultural contexts, particularly in Asia and the Global South. The panelists examined challenges in developing culturally-appropriate AI governance frameworks and evaluation methods.

Tone:

The tone was academic and analytical, with speakers presenting research findings and theoretical perspectives. There was general agreement on the need for contextualization, though some debate emerged around practical implementation challenges. The tone became slightly more urgent when discussing representation of marginalized groups in AI systems.

Speakers

– Nidhi Singh: Moderator

– Tejaswita Kharel: Project Officer at the Center for Communication Governance at the National University Delhi. Works on information technology law and policy, including data protection, privacy, and emerging technologies.

– Yik Chan Chin: Associate Professor in the School of Journalism and Communication at Beijing Normal University. Research interests include internet governance, digital ethics, policy, regulation and law, and AI and data governance.

– Milton Mueller: Professor specializing in the political economy of information communication. Co-founder of the Internet Governance Project.

Additional speakers:

– Emad Karim: Representative from UN Women’s Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific

Contextualising Fairness in AI Governance: A Global South Perspective

This panel discussion, part of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), explored the complexities of contextualising fairness in AI governance for diverse cultural contexts, with a particular focus on Asia and the Global South. The conversation delved into how fairness in AI is understood and implemented differently across cultures, highlighting the challenges in developing culturally-appropriate AI governance frameworks and evaluation methods.

Understanding Fairness Across Cultures

The panellists presented varied perspectives on how fairness is conceptualised in different regions. Tejaswita Kharel, from the Center for Communication Governance at the National University Delhi, emphasised that in India, fairness encompasses three key aspects: equality, non-discrimination, and inclusivity. She noted that unique considerations, such as caste, may be relevant in the Indian context but not in Western settings.

Yik Chan Chin, Associate Professor at Beijing Normal University, shared insights from a two-year research project on digital ethics narratives. While many countries accept a core set of ethical principles, Chin highlighted that the major differences lie in the narratives surrounding these principles. For instance, Chinese narratives of fairness focus on harmony and role ethics, contrasting with Western narratives that emphasise individual autonomy and formal equality. She provided specific examples of how concepts like privacy and data protection are understood differently in various Asian contexts.

Challenges in AI Fairness and Governance

Milton Mueller, a professor specialising in the political economy of information communication, introduced a sceptical perspective on AI, questioning its existence as a distinct entity and emphasizing that many issues attributed to AI are actually longstanding challenges in computing technology. He cautioned against overstating AI’s capabilities and noted that many issues of contextualisation have existed in computing for decades.

The panel discussed several challenges in creating representative datasets and evaluation frameworks for AI systems:

1. Bias in training data: Mueller pointed out that AI models are predominantly trained on English-language data, leading to inherent biases.

2. Limitations of bias measures: Existing bias measures can be gamed and may not truly address cultural issues.

3. Exclusion of diverse perspectives: Emad Karim, representing UN Women’s Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, highlighted that women’s perspectives are often excluded from AI datasets.

4. Difficulty in “cleaning” biased data: Mueller argued that historical data inherently reflects past biases and cannot be easily “cleaned”. He suggested focusing on expanding and diversifying datasets rather than attempting to remove bias retroactively.

Mueller also discussed the CAML (Cultural Appropriateness Measure Set for LLMs) framework, highlighting its potential and limitations in addressing cultural biases in AI systems.

Approaches to Improving AI Fairness

The panellists proposed various approaches to enhance AI fairness and governance:

1. Collaboration: Kharel emphasised the need for collaboration between ethics experts and AI developers to bridge the gap between ethical principles and practical implementation.

2. Interoperable frameworks: Chin suggested developing interoperable frameworks that incorporate regional best practices.

3. Market-driven approach: Mueller proposed a market-driven approach to contextualisation based on demand.

4. Community-based models: Chin mentioned the potential of community-based small models to serve specific needs.

Tensions and Debates

The discussion revealed several areas of tension and debate:

1. Hyper-contextualisation: Concerns were raised about the feasibility of adapting AI to all cultural nuances, with Mueller arguing that market forces would largely determine the level of contextualisation in AI applications.

2. Data cleaning vs. expansion: While some advocated for “cleaning” biased data, Mueller emphasised the importance of expanding datasets to improve representation.

3. Global principles vs. local implementation: The panel grappled with the tension between developing global AI governance principles and adapting them for local or regional implementation.

4. Definition and measurement of fairness: The speakers diverged significantly in their definitions and approaches to fairness in AI, highlighting the complexity of implementing fairness across different cultural contexts.

Mueller also discussed Google’s Fairness in Machine Learning program and the controversy surrounding it, illustrating the challenges in implementing fairness measures in practice.

Practical Implications

Nidhi Singh raised an important point about the potential impact of AI on resource allocation in India’s public distribution system, highlighting the need to consider practical implications of AI fairness in governance contexts.

Conclusion and Future Directions

The discussion underscored the need for nuanced, context-sensitive approaches to AI fairness that consider diverse cultural perspectives and practical implementation challenges. Key takeaways include:

1. The importance of understanding local priorities and concerns when contextualising AI fairness.

2. The need for collaboration between ethics experts, AI developers, and regional stakeholders.

3. The potential for developing interoperable frameworks that incorporate best practices from different regions.

4. The ongoing challenge of addressing bias in AI systems, particularly in data collection and representation.

The panel acknowledged time constraints that limited the depth of discussion on some topics. Nidhi Singh suggested longer panels for future events to allow for more comprehensive exploration of these complex issues.

Future research and dialogue should focus on bridging cultural and methodological gaps in AI ethics and fairness, developing more sophisticated approaches to bias mitigation, and exploring ways to increase representation of marginalised groups in AI datasets and outputs.

Nidhi Singh: you Hello everyone. Hi and welcome to our session on contextualizing fairness AI governance in India. I know that this is the last session on the third day of the IGF. So we’re very thankful for all of the people who’ve come. I also know it’s quite late considering all of our Asian participants are joining us quite late. So we’re very thankful you could all be here. We have a very interesting panel and a very interesting discussion that’s happening today. So I would like to keep some time at the end for audience participation. So I will be enforcing time limits a little strictly during our introductory remarks by the panel. So we can just I think we’ll jump right into it. I’m just going to talk a little bit about how this panel is based around the idea that while there’s a lot of work that’s happening around AI ethics and AI governance, but there’s no real one size fits all approach that can be directly implemented into all of the context. As we start looking into AI applications and how the use of these applications can benefit societies, we have to consider that a lot of these applications are in fact made in the Global North according to Global North norms and directly introducing them into the Global South tends to have a lot of problems. It leads to a lot of exclusion. So in this context, we are specifically talking about what fairness means, and then how you can make these systems fair, specifically to something as diverse as the Asian context, where a lot of countries in the Asia there from the Global South, a lot of them have larger populations. There are a lot of them might be developing economies that are linguistic barriers. So in these cases, how would you make something like an AI ethic work in these kind of cultural contexts? So I’m going to give a very brief remark here, and then I’m just going to introduce all of our panelists really quickly, and then we’ll move on to a quick round of questions. So to start with, we have Yik Chan Chin. She’s an Associate Professor in the School of Journalism and Communication at Beijing Normal University. She has previously worked at the University of Nottingham and the University of Oxford School of Law. Her research interests include internet governance, digital ethics, policy, regulation and law, and AI and data governance. Her ongoing projects include digital governance in China, and global AI and data governance. Dr. Chin is a co-leader of the UN IGF policy network on artificial intelligence. We have an excellent report that was released yesterday. So if you haven’t checked it out, I highly recommend you check that out as well. She’s a member of the Asia Pacific Internet Governance Forum and a multi-stakeholder steering group member of China Internet Governance Forum. Online we have with us Tejaswita Kharel. Tejaswita is a project officer at the Center for Communication Governance at the National University Delhi. Her work relates to various aspects of information technology law and policy, including data protection, privacy, and emerging technologies such as AI and blockchain. Her work on ethical governance and regulation of technology is guided by human rights-based perspectives, democratic values, and constitution principles. And finally, a more recent addition to our panel is Milton Miller. Professor Miller, so when we were looking through your bio, it was so long that I think we would have taken most of the panel just going over your work. We have had to greatly cut it down. So please check him out. You can just Google him. There are several links that pop up. We’ve just got a very brief bio introducing him here. Professor Miller is a prominent scholar specializing in the political economy of information communication. He has written seven books that we could find on Google Scholar and many, many articles and journals. He’s the co-founder of the Internet Governance Project, a policy analysis center for global internet governance. His areas of interest include cybersecurity, internet governance, and telecommunications and internet policy. So now I will just jump right into the questions. We’ll start with you, Jaswita. So when we’re talking about the entire conversation today is based around AI and bias and how you contextualize fairness. So can you talk to us a little about what fairness means specifically in the Indian context? So what are the kinds of contextual bias that you see in India, which are perhaps not fully accounted for

Tejaswita Kharel: in global conversations around AI bias at the moment? Every speaker strictly has five minutes and we want to have time in the end. So I will be sort of enforcing it. Thank you, Jaswita. All right. Hi, I’m Jaswita. So I’m going to be breaking this question into two parts. The first being, how do we look at fairness in AI in context of India? And then I’ll talk about what contextual biases there are in India. So to start, fairness is in terms of its own concept, it is a very subjective thing. There is no specific understanding of or like a definition of what fairness can even mean, which means that we must look at other factors that will guide our understanding of what fairness can mean, which in Indian context is three aspects. The first being equality, the second being non-discrimination and the third being inclusivity. Equality in the Indian context, especially for AI, will now come in from the constitution, which guarantees the right to equality. So when we look at equality in AI, the expectation of an AI system is that number one, it treats individuals equally under the same circumstances and it protects human rights. The second being that it ensures equitable technology access and third, that it guarantees equal opportunities and benefits from AI. And now when we move on to the second part, which is non-discrimination, non-discrimination addresses predominantly the question of biases in AI, which is more of the technical aspect in the sense that we’re trying to ensure that the data we have when we’re ensuring that when we’re creating AI systems, they are not biased. So when we look at non-discrimination, what we’re trying to do is we’re trying to prevent AI from deepening existing, like let’s say deepening historical and social divisions that may be based on various factors in India, such as religion, caste, sex and other factors that may be deeply rooted in the complex social fabric. Then when we look at the third aspect of what fairness means, it is inclusivity. When we consider inclusivity, we’re looking at it in the sense that it prevents exclusion from access to services and benefits that AI tools can guarantee. And it’s also in the context of ensuring that your grievance redressal mechanisms are inclusive. You want to ensure that whenever you’re creating a fair system, it is equal in terms of it’s treating all persons equally, it’s providing access to everyone in the same manner, it is ensuring that the data is not biased and therefore not perpetuating existing biases or even exacerbating them. And it’s also ensuring when you’re creating fair AI, it must ensure that each person has access to grievance redressal. So overall, the idea of fairness in AI, when we look at the Indian context, it’s encompassed by these three factors. Now I’ll go to the second aspect of the question, which is, what are the contextual biases that you see in India that may not already be there in the global north, or what the differences might be? So I will talk about this in the Indian context as well as slightly more genetic context, which is that I think the existing idea of what biases are comes from the global north, in the sense that till date, when we talk about AI bias, we predominantly use examples from the US. One such example is the COMPASS case study, where we realized that race was a very important factor when we were considering bias in AI. So a lot of the discussion around what AI fairness is, what AI bias is, is predominantly revolving around harms that have already showed up in the global north, which is now starting to translate in the global south. However, these factors that we’ve already identified, they may not apply in the same manner. What I mean by that is that there, of course, there are existing factors that may be similar in the context of the US or the other global north countries, which will also exist here, such as gender, religion, ability, class, ethnicity. But what is different in the Indian context is perhaps caste, not just in India, but also in other regions, such as Nepal, Bangladesh, Pakistan, there may be other factors which are not necessarily limited only to ethnicity, gender, religion, etc. So in specifically the Indian context, caste is a major factor which does not really show up when we’re considering biases in AI when we look it in the context of the Global North. So what the harm is when we’re considering AI bias or like, sorry, what the harm is when we’re considering factors of fairness only from the Global North perspectives is that we lose out on a lot of existing context, which means that the AI systems will not actually work. For example, if you tried to simply adopt an existing AI tool in the Indian context, which is, let’s say, created in the US, it would not work, because the existing context has not been taken into account, the data is not taken into account, which means that it will simply cause a lot of harm, and it will also be extremely ineffective. So that being said, the larger point that I’m trying to make right now is that when we’re looking at AI ethic principles, and I think in this context, specifically fairness, we have to ensure that these principles are tailored to the specific national context. And even within national context, there may be regional context, because especially in a country like India, where there’s so much diversity is important to consider all of the different contexts that are going to affect an AI system, which means that we cannot just have a one size fits all approach. And this approach is the key point of our broader discussion on contextualizing AI fairness, which is that we cannot just develop a general theory of algorithmic fairness, solely based on global north understandings. Each nation, with its own unique historical, cultural and social dynamics, has to carefully consider how fairness translates into its specific context when it’s intending to develop and or deploy any AI system. That is my point. Thank you for your attention. I look forward to hearing from the other panelists now.

Nidhi Singh: Thanks, Tejaswita. So I’ll move to one of our in person panelists right now, Yik Chan, you work extensively on AI in China, and from a more global perspective as well. So can you tell us a little about how you go about conducting this sort of research and what your methodology is? So what I mean is, in practical terms, contextualizing ethics to individual context is resource intensive for several countries. So how do you look at this in your work?

Yik Chan Chin: Yeah, I’m going to share presentation because it’s a bit complicated. So can I share now? Can you hear me? Okay, can I share it? Okay. Okay, can you see the presentation now? Okay, so thank you for inviting me. And so I’m going to present a work, which is a methodology about how to do it. So I hope this can clarify it, or maybe helpful from the academical point of view. And just a moment. So basically, this work is about narratives of digital ethics is conducted by the Austrian Academy of Science is a two year project, we collaborated with the Austrian Academy of Science, which actually fitted to today’s topics really well. So that’s why I use it as example. So what this project actually is about, actually, what we found is that in terms of digital ethics, you know, there’s not much difference in terms of the values, the core value, but what are the differences in narratives? So what is narratives? Narratives are stories that are told repeatedly, consists of a series of selective events, which have a particular character, so which will shape people’s understanding, you know, collective behave, or particular society. So this is what we call the narratives. So what we found from our two years research is that, and that’s not most of the country accept a core set of the principle, like a theorist, but what are the major difference is narratives. Okay, so in terms of fairness, and what what fairness means, globally, there’s a global consensus, fairness means non-discrimination, which includes a prevention of bias, inclusiveness in design impact, representatives and a high quality of data, and as well as equality. So this is from global consent. And, but with from our research, because it’s a bottom up research, we found actually we need a contextualized the principle of the digital ethics. So therefore, especially from the cultural dimensions, and so we, so we use the approach, probably, you know, it’s a situate situatedness. So which is a very common methodology, I think a mutant know well, in the STA’s research, science and technology study research. So we should actually focus on the differences in the social, cultural, political, and economical, and the institutional conditions. So they look at the differences instead of the commonalities. Okay, so this is what we are going to, we use in this, our research, we look at the differences, we use the situatedness approach, and especially, we get a lot of evidence from global south, because there’s a lack of the voice. So here is the methodology, we did a kind of semi-structural expert interview, if I remember correctly, it’s a 75 expert interview, and then it’s a workshop series, we’ve invited the talks, and we use also user cases discussion, like a panel discussions. And so this is how do we generate our data. So this is a building block of digital ethics narratives. So when we look at that, if you look at this site, we look at the key dimensions of the digital ethics, for example, what is the notion of good in different society, for example, like a harmony, virtual as a good, denotological, and the consequentialist as a good, and what the fairness means. So there are different building blocks, like a role adequacy as a fairness, and the material equality as a fairness, and the formal equality as a fairness. So then we have like a reference point, so who is the major actor, is whether community, or individual, or ecosystem, and whether the technology is beneficial, or victim, or actors opportunities, whether the technology, what the ethical concern is marginalization, safety, or autonomy, whether the actor is a government, or technical industry, or others, whether what kind of tools government should use, like education, law, regulation, or technology, or whether the legitimacy should be organically involved, or determined by the able, or self-determination. So we use these measures to analyze the narrative of the ethics. So then, so if you look at the fairness, that actually there’s three different categories of the narrative of fairness. The first one is called the role adequacy. What role adequacy means? It means your role, what is fair or not fair, is not determined by the society, but by someone, you know, some kind of, often based on an assumption that different role has been assigned by power outside of human society, such as God, or religions, you know. So like we have a lot of examples from the African tribes. So what do they mean? Fairness actually is determined aside by the God, by the religions, nature, or faith, or even the spiritual world, okay. So the second one is called material equality. What material equality means? The idea of equality is a result, okay. So we look at the result, whether the result is equal or not, and the otherwise formal equality, which is look at equal treatment procedures. So we accept, because we have a different starting point, so maybe the result is unfair, but at least the procedure, the treatment is equal. So they have three different narratives about the fairness. So look at the Chinese case. So we look at a different case around the world. So I just use China, but if you look at the, if you read our report, you can see cases around the world, from Europe, from Africa, from Japan, from India, from USA. So I just look at the Chinese case. What are they, the features? So they feature the fundamental ethical assumptions, harmony, and then it’s a role ethic, means it’s determined by the tradition, you know, what kind of traditions, or belief, and the whole, they look at, actually look at the equality, the whole system, the digital ethical system, and also they think that the technology is the opportunities, not a kind of threat. So they look at the technology as opportunities, and the conflict, the major conflict is marginalization, whether technology can bring the prosperities, and the major role to shape all this development is by government, and whether, what kind of tools the government should use is education, and the culture, and who should make decision is determined by the able, which is wisdom people. Okay, so this is a kind of harmony of type of the Chinese narratives in terms of fairness. And so, but actually recently there’s some new development with in China regarding to these narratives. The major change is about here. So what is changing recently, two or five years, we have a Chinese guest, so you can ask their opinion as well. So it’s actually, they do not, no longer see the technology purely as opportunities. They start to realize the risk and the victim, and they may become a victim of the new technology. And then before they are more focused on prosperity development, and now they’re also shift a little bit to safety and harm. And also now it’s more and more and more wars come from the technical industry, instead only from the government, and start to use law and the regulation, the ethics of the digital, for example. But still, they’re still determined by the able, and still the fundamental ethical assumptions, harmony and the role adequacy. So if we look at the American, the Silicon Valley types, so we can see very different, okay? So they are more look at the consequentialist, which is result, why is that this kind of technology will result in the fairest, okay? And the formal equality, which means the procedure, we have equal treatment to everybody, but it doesn’t, not necessarily look at the result, okay? And then it is up to individual to decide, and they see the technology as opportunities rather than the threat. And the main concern is autonomy, lack of freedoms, and also the self-determination. So it’s the individual to regulate themselves rather than government, and the economy, the market-driving approach rather than the culture and education. So we can see quite different, you know? So I think I stop here because I take too much time, and I leave for the question, okay? Thank you.

Nidhi Singh: Thank you so much for that. That was so interesting to see how fairness very practically is being defined in different contexts and how it’s changing over the last couple of years. That was a very useful intervention, and I think it’ll form the basis of our conversation. Milton, we’ll turn to you, speaking of practicality. You have a lot more practical experience with AI applications. So how far is AI going to go? And how far is it going to go? And how far is it going to go? So how far is it possible to contextualize an AI application to a cultural context? So far, we’ve been talking about ethics, but how far is it actually feasible to take these AI applications and contextualize them to culture? Have you seen any of these systems that have worked out well? Like, how have they worked exactly? Thank you.

Milton Mueller: Can you hear me? Am I on? Okay, thank you very much. Yeah, I am going to, yeah, first issue you a few sort of caveats of generally framing the topic. So first of all, I’m a, what you might call an AI skeptic. That is to say, I don’t really believe AI exists. I think the people have created this monster around it and mostly don’t know what the technology actually is or what it does. So one thing to keep in mind is that most of the time, we’re just talking about computing technology and many of the issues of contextualization have been around in computing for a long time. So think of the keyboard, for example, the whole keyboard was designed for the Roman alphabet, right? And what do Chinese or Arabic people do about this? Well, they have to deal with all kinds of workarounds based on their different scripts. And what impact does this have? Well, in some ways it excluded, but people adapted and they came up with workarounds or they just learned the Roman script, right? Another example are multilingual domain names, right? Where again, the domain names were an ASCII script. We went through some processes in ICANN to try to come up with a way of representing Arabic or Chinese script in the domain names Arabic or Chinese script in the domain name system. And we thought we were extending access by doing this, making the domain name system available to everybody. Turns out we were not. It turns out that people in these countries with different scripts don’t adopt these alternative domain names and it actually reduces their visibility and access to people who don’t speak that language. So it would have fragmented the domain name system. These multilingual domains exist, but they’re just not being adopted and not being used. So now let’s turn to AI. I got some notes here that I need to see. So a lot of what I’m gonna say is based on research at Georgia Tech, particularly by an Arabic AI specialist in our computer science department. Oh my God, this is recording everything I say. So the first thing you have to know about AI is that all of these big models were trained on what we call common crawl, right? Which is a way of crawling the internet and picking up all of this textual and image information. And the top languages on common crawl, English, 46%. Next is Russian, seven, German and Chinese, 6%. You get down to Arabic, it’s 1%. So Tarek, who by the way, I have to ask the other panelists since he’s working in Georgia Tech, is this knowledge coming from the global North or because he’s Arabic, is it coming from the global South? But we’ll deal with that question later. So he’s just explored the way that this rootedness in English text produces AI applications that produce bad outputs for Arabic cultural context. I’ll give you an example. You ask it to fill in a word. And let’s say you say, my grandma is Arab. For dinner, she always makes us fill in the blank. Now a standard AI application is gonna fill in something like lasagna because it’s all based on statistical prediction, right? But it should say something like Majboos or some kind of Arabic dish, right? So another interesting example is he says, GPT-4 is generating a story about a person with an Arab name. And if you use an English name or a French name, a European name, the story will be something like, oh, Philippe was this very smart boy who grew up and did this. If you use an Arab name, it’s sort of like Alas was a poor family where life was a daily battle for survival, right? So, you know, that can be very irritating. So what Tarek has done, he’s developed a measure set for LLMs that tries to determine the cultural level of appropriateness as he calls it. And it’s called CAML, Cultural Appropriateness Measure Set for LLMs, CAML. And again, this is not my research. This is Tarek Naus and Georgia Tech computer scientist team. So, and there’s also somebody at CDT named Alia Bhatia who’s done some research on how AI affects very small language groups, very small linguistic groups. And you can see how they kind of get erased. And again, you have to go back to other forms of information technology like the English language was homogenized by the invention of the printing press, right? So similar processes are going to happen with the massive scalability of AI, but also, and this is something we discussed with Tarek, you know, people are going to develop different models based on different training sets, right? And so the part of the solution to that is for, this is actually an opportunity as well as a threat for the so-called global South, which means that if they develop using their own resources, training sets and models that are trained on their cultural context, then they will have a product differentiation, a marketable difference with these big platform products, and they might be able to out-compete them in certain markets. So I think, again, these kinds of disparities and hiccups occur across the development of technology. And I think it’s bad to look at this kind of discrimination as a static thing that is some form of oppression. It’s more like a, a obvious flaw in the training set of the data sets used to train these systems. And it’s a remediable flaw. It can be fixed. It will be fixed. It’s a matter of investing in the resources to do so. I think that’s all I have time to say, right?

Nidhi Singh: Thank you so much. Yes, I think we are out of time. For the second question, we’re going to go a lot faster where everybody’s getting cut off for three minutes, because then we can have a little bit more time for questions. So speaking of how we can work towards fixing this, Tejasvita, I’ll address the question to you. How do you think we can have more representative and inclusive evaluation frameworks for these AI systems? Like, I think Mishra talked about the CAMEL framework. But are there any other ways that you know from your work on ethics in India that we can have these frameworks?

Tejaswita Kharel: Thank you. I think when we’re thinking of how we can create these frameworks, I think the issue is more of how there is disjointedness between people who want ethics and the people who can possibly deliver it in the actual AI system. So I think the first step to dealing with this problem is by actually resolving that problem, where when I’m saying equality, then we look at how you make things equal. How do you ensure that if equality means that you’re ensuring that your AI application treats everybody the same, then you must ensure that your AI system is being able to do that. Similarly, when we’re looking at non-discrimination, the major factor is bias, which means that we first need to remove bias from the data sets, which again is something that we will speak about, but the ones who are working on the AI systems will be the ones who create or work on creating clean databases. We will access these and then work towards implementing our ideas of AI fairness, which means that I think my main recommendation is that we understand bias, fairness, and all of these ethical principles and factors from the perspectives of the ones who actually do the work and get them to understand it from our side of things so that we can implement it in a way that’s actually reasonable instead of just demanding AI ethics and AI fairness. Yeah. Thank you.

Nidhi Singh: Thank you so much, Tejaswita. That actually leads me really nicely to my question because your point on how the ethics of AI or the ethics of anything and the practicality of how it’s delivered, that gap seems to be widening. So I’ll turn to Yukcha now. My question to you is somewhat related. AI governance right now, the ideas that you have around it are centered around principles and best practices and ethics. And yes, you have a few laws, but most of the world is going with best practices and ethics. Do you really think these are enough to guide issues like fairness? But if we weren’t using this, then what would we use as central tenet to guide fairness?

Yik Chan Chin: Yeah, I think the other work we are doing at the PNAI is interoperability. So first of all, we have to respect the regional diversity. And for example, when I say the fairness in the Chinese context, so a lot of the fairness we talk about in the Western society, for example, in Britain, we’re talking about gender, age, all this racial discrimination bias. But this will never be a problem. It’s not a major problem in China. We do not address gender, racial. It’s not a major concern. So what is a major concern at the moment, actually, first of all, is more about the consumer protections. So we have the algorithms, the provisions, which regulate what kind of algorithms, the automatic decision-making, the preference you can give. So basically, they have a special provision that says that you cannot damage people’s consumer rights. For example, you cannot discriminate people in terms of the price. So if I buy a ticket from one website, I got 800. Then I use the other different mobile, maybe Apple. Then I got 1,000. So this kind of discrimination is more from the consumer protections, but not from racial, gender. So this is one of the major concerns at the moment. We call it the protection of the consumer rights. The other one China is doing now is antitrust, because they want to, oh, this is also a major concern in terms of fairness. But this is not a major concern in most of the Western countries at the moment, in Britain, in America. But in China, it’s a major concern, how to provide a fair play field for everybody, for all the air company and the digital platform. So they are pushing forward the antitrust regulation and implementation in China. So I think we can see each society have different priorities. But if you ask what is the best practice, so it’s really difficult. So we also want to choose the best practice from all these case studies. So I think in the end, every country, they can contribute their best practice. For example, China can contribute their best practice in terms of how to address the consumer protection, or even antitrust. Maybe from the Western, I mean, Europe, they can contribute in terms of the discrimination against the racial or the gender issue. And so I think the best practice has to be coming from different regions. And in the end, we need to have an interoperable framework in terms of fairness. So each country, they have different priorities. But in the end, we probably have a minimum consensus on what are the building blocks of the fairness. OK, I think that’s the approach I would recommend. Thank you.

Nidhi Singh: Yes, thank you so much. I think that’s actually a very important conversation that we’ve sort of been having, I think, all week now, where we’re talking about maybe having more collaborative platforms where countries can come up. There’s no real point to, I think, building all of these solutions in isolation if we’re not going to share them. A lot of the countries do share commonalities. And then I think a lot of them are actually, they’re probably something that we can all look at when we’re looking at our own solutions. So for my final question before we open up to the audience, this is going to be, I think, a slightly different question from where the conversation’s going so far. So today, we’ve been talking for the last, I’d say, 40 minutes about contextualization. There are, however, some concerns around hyper-contextualization. So we can always say that, yeah, it’s great that you should always contextualize things to all of the contexts. Is that really even possible to contextualize to all of the concepts? There’s so many cultures. There’s so many languages. Would it actually be feasible to have an idea of fairness or AI systems or any sort of a computer system that’s contextualized to all of the cultural contexts and nuances that you have?

Milton Mueller: I turned the mic on. I just turned it on. That helps, right? So can we get too hyper-contextualized? And I think when we talk about, we’re talking about this in a governance context, right? So unfortunately, almost everybody in the IGF and in the UN system, when they talk about governance, they’re talking about hierarchical regulation by government. And they’re almost never talking about bottom-up regulation by markets, which is actually what’s going to be doing most of the governing. I mean, I just hate to inform you of this if you’re not aware of it already. But we get these AI applications produced because somebody thinks they’re going to get making money on them, right? So how much contextualization will we get? Will we get too much? Well, it depends on what the market will provide. If there is intensive demand for incredibly micro-contextualized applications, and I think there will be eventually. It will build up over time, of course. Then we will get micro-contextualized things. Think of a business in Indonesia in some very specific industry sector. Maybe these companies are building machine screws for nuclear power plants. I don’t know. That’s highly specialized. And the AI decisions, the inputs and outputs that would be relevant for those industrial players would be extremely contextualized. To be useful, they would have to be. And just a word about discrimination. So one of the things we have to understand is that so many of the mistakes and biases that you’re talking about have to do with the fairly primitive early origins. Like I said, we’re using Common Crawl to look at 46% English. Our facial recognition training has been based on US populations with 80% to 70% white people. So of course, the facial recognition. recognition is not the greatest, but again, that database will be expanded in multiple countries around the world, and the applications will have the potential to get better. The most famous case of facial recognition bias, racial bias, is actually not a case of racial bias. It was a police search in Detroit, Michigan, where we had a very grainy bad picture of a man who stole things from a store, and it was a black man. They went off and they told them that the record matched some guy that was innocent, so they went off and arrested this innocent black man. Now, the point was, the real person who stole the stuff was, in fact, black, so it was not racial discrimination. It was not racial bias. It was bad accuracy. Then, even more important than the bad accuracy was bad police practice. This guy did not go off and check whether this person he arrested had an alibi, which he had an airtight alibi. He could prove he wasn’t there in that store, and yet he arrested him anyway just because he was lazy. A lot of what we, again, talk about embeddedness and situatedness, look at the way AI fits into a specific context and how it’s used, and that is going to be determining how harmful or how beneficial its uses are going to be.

Nidhi Singh: Thank you so much. That’s actually really, I think, interesting. We’ve also been sort of looking at where the AI use sometimes, I think, depending on how it’s being used, it may not necessarily be just the AI, but it can magnify things that are already happening. You’re just rubber stamping those decisions along. Maybe you’re not using the human in the loop isn’t really being human enough to be counted there, so these problems are something that is coming up. Okay, I had another question, but I’m not going to ask it. We will move on to audience questions because we have 15 minutes, and I’m cognizant that a lot of people in the room seem to want to ask questions. If you have a question, you can just put your hand up, and Fawaz can help bring the mic around. Otherwise, Jaswita, if there are any questions in the chat, please let us know. Please introduce yourself once before you

Imad Karim: ask the question. Thank you. Can you hear me? Yes. My name is Imad Karim. I’m from UN Women’s Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, and I’m going to put my UN Women hat and also considering that whole perception of fairness. We are also excluding half of the population on their perspective on AI. There is a lot of research coming out to say that there is a lot. Women’s perspective, history, narratives are not even included in those datasets because we inherited 10,000 years of civilization that was written by men for men, and that creates a huge gap in the AI outputs related to women and for women. Where do you see this as well? The more we go into those layers, we’re talking about women, but also women in remote areas, women with disabilities. The more you get into those layers, the less that will be represented in AI infrastructure datasets and outputs. I wonder if you have any reflection into how we can increase and fix those datasets or even have better roles when it comes to women’s representation in AI.

Yik Chan Chin: In our two-year workshop, we actually had a discussion on this question for a long time. We have a lot of representatives from Australia and from Africa, especially from the community village. The approach that they propose is community-based. In the end, you have those big, big models like open AI. Then, probably in China, they have Tencent, Alibaba. Also, I think it’s already happening in India. They have the India model, the small model. We do not call it a big model. It’s a small model. We have one example from the Australian Aboriginal community. They use their own language to develop their own dataset and develop their small model. In the end, I think there’s a diversity at a different level. We don’t need a big model. If you just serve your community, you can simply divide a small model, which does not really consume a lot of data and energies. That’s a specific model. I think this is how, in the end, just like Newton said, there’s a demand, then there’s a supply. I think that will be the way to tackle it in the end.

Nidhi Singh: Are there any other questions?

Audience: Hello, this is Xiao from the CENIC. I’m also a MAG member. I think it’s really a very interesting topic and a good discussion. I have a question. I think the bias of the AI in the data is closely linked with the culture and the nation’s history. Your bias is not my bias. My question is, because you have to, the data is already the past data. It’s already rooted with the history, with the culture. It’s biased. The data is already biased. How would you use your methodology or something else, your regulatory, to make the bias data no bias, make it fair? Thank you.

Milton Mueller: Yeah, I think the idea that you govern bias in AI by making, I think, what did she say was, Tejewada said something about, we need to clean the data. You’re going to go in and you’re going to scrub the bias out of the data. The data is like the dirty spots has it and you’re going to scrub them out. That’s just not how the system works, not at all. The data is the data. The data is a record of something that happened in an information system somewhere at some time. What you are going to change is you’re going to look at other collections of data, bigger collections of data. In that sense, you can engage in AI output governance via data governance by saying, well, for example, many people have spoken about being transparent about what data sets you have used. Then you have these metrics, these measures that the Georgia Tech researcher, Tarek, he does a critical analysis of these measures and points out how some of the main measures can be gamed. It’s just like if you know how Google will rank, what their algorithm uses to rank you in the search results, then you can put a bunch of junk into your website that pushes you up in those standings so people can game whatever metric is out there to optimize it, but they still may not have good results from a cultural bias perspective. One thing I would emphasize is that you’re dealing partly with the inherent limits of machine learning. Machine learning is taking all of these records, a whole bunch of them, processing them into a neural network that identifies patterns in the data. The data can be changed to change the outputs, or you can retroactively look at the outputs and say, we’re going to change them. I know Google has a whole program called Fairness in Machine Learning, which is somewhat controversial, but I think everybody here would kind of like it. Their idea is, we know that existing data will be biased. If you ask a straightforward question of a search engine, show me a CEO, most of the pictures, if not all of them, will be men. They said, we’re going to tweak our algorithm so that we will show more women in response to this question. They will deliberately make an inaccurate, from a statistical sense, an inaccurate representation of the data set based on tweaking their algorithms. That’s one. They even call this their Fairness in AI program. So they’re very concerned with fairness and the definition of fairness, which means some form of equal… representation. Now, that sort of got them into trouble because somebody asked their image generator to show a picture of the American Constitution, and their fairness algorithm had black people and Asian people in the Constitutional Convention of 1783, which is a complete misrepresentation of reality, but from a diversity representation standpoint is kind of cool, right? Oh, maybe there was a Chinese American there writing the Constitution, and there wasn’t, but wouldn’t it be kind of interesting to show that as happening? So that was a very controversial output, and a lot of criticism of Google came because of that, and as you probably know in the US now, DEI is very controversial and on the defensive, if you know what DEI is. So there’s two sides to this question, and the deeper question, the philosophical almost question is like, if you have a statistical regularity, you don’t necessarily know how it got there, but you definitely have a statistical regularity, is it biased? Is it unfair to act upon that statistical regularity? So if it is in fact true that German origin Georgia Tech professors are more risky driving their car, if it’s a statistical fact, let’s say my risk is 10% more than an Asian woman, can the insurance company charge me higher premiums, right? And you can say, oh, you’re biased against me. No, they’re saying, no, you’re more risky. So that’s the big deal.

Nidhi Singh: That’s a really interesting perspective, actually, because I think this is something that we’ve been working on, and I think this also circles back to a lot of the conversations around cultural context, because I think for a large part when we were having conversations about AI, for us, a lot of it is about things like the public distribution system, and how if you don’t have records, then certain villages get lesser allotment of rations, because they’re not counting women in the public distribution system. But it’s actually really interesting to see how you have metrics for fairness. And if you didn’t fake that metric for fairness, like you’re saying, then you just won’t have enough grains going to that village, which is like some of the issues that we’ve been seeing. So clearly, there needs to be some work done in this. I’m also just going to let Tejaswita come in really quick on this, because you were talking about fairness as well. Really quick, Tejaswita, because I think there are some questions in the chat, and I want to take at least one online question before we close.

Tejaswita Kharel: So I would say, when I’m talking about cleaning up data, I think it comes firstly in the sense of number one, before you start using it, if you know that your data is likely to be biased, for example, if you’re trying to create, like Nidhi said, public distribution, and you know that you don’t have enough information on certain people, or you know that there’s going to be issues arising out of it, or there’s proxies involved, you’ve cleaned that in the sense that I know it’s difficult to clean data with like foresight as to what’s going to happen next, in the sense that it’s very closely linked to possible harms, right? If you know that your data is like, if you know that your AI system is likely to be biased against people from certain groups, then you have to ensure that you’re cleaning your data set in a manner that removes certain proxies and makes everyone seem equal before the system. So I sort of agree in what you’re saying, in the sense that it’s not really easy to clean the data beforehand, because you can’t really identify what you’re supposed to clean, you can’t just be like, okay, these are the issues, it usually comes out of identifying what’s gone wrong, and then fixing it later. But now that we have seen a lot of things happen in the sense of, we’ve recognized what these larger harms are going to be, we know, to a large extent, who these harms are going to be against, there are possible ways to identify what’s going to happen next, and therefore clean this data beforehand, and work on it accordingly. Yeah, I’ll just limit to that much, because I see there’s one, I think there’s two questions online. Should I read them out? Okay. The first question is, given that fairness itself is subjective, and varies not just in regional contexts, but also in the application or use of AI in question, what may be some of the ways to reconcile these differences in the development of the tech of these technologies? So yeah, we got the second one as well. And then I think we literally have one minute to answer that. The second question is what emerging technologies or methodologies show promise in creating more nuanced context sensitive AI fairness assessments? Okay, I’m going to give

Nidhi Singh: all of our speakers like 30 to 45 seconds to answer. Sorry, I know that’s not enough time, but I think we’re literally at the close of the session. Yixuan, would you like to go first?

Yik Chan Chin: Yeah, I think in the end, we know, if you look at, even we have a global framework, like a two UN resolution and the UNESCO ethics guidance. So in the end, there’s still every country set up to that. So we have, we do have a minimum agreement on that. So the other thing that I think we’re not talking about is not a language model, but that may not be the only AI, you know, that’s a different AI system. So in the future, we may have a reason-based AI, so logical-based AI. So I think there’s a transitional period, we will see.

Milton Mueller: I don’t know how to answer either of those questions. Really, not in 30 seconds. So I’ll just pass.

Tejaswita Kharel: I mean, I do think they’re very difficult questions to answer real quick. But I think the first question, in terms of what may be some of the ways to reconcile the differences, when you’re looking at the context-based AI applications, when you’re looking at the context-based AI application, I think the answer is in the question, which is that you contextualize the AI fairness based on your specific AI use. If it’s being used a certain way, you identify how it’s being used and then identify what factors are important and therefore implement fairness into it. Yeah, unfortunately, I think I don’t have enough time to answer the other one. Thank you. Thank you so much, everyone. I think we all

Nidhi Singh: learned a lot. Please, for the people who are here, you can just come up to us and talk to us later. I think my main learning from today is that we should apply for a 90-minute panel next time, just so that there’s more time for everybody to ask questions. Thank you so much. That was an extremely interesting discussion. We will definitely be following up on a lot of the things that have come up. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Agreement Points

Need for contextualization in AI fairness

Tejaswita Kharel

Yik Chan Chin

Milton Mueller

Fairness in India means equality, non-discrimination, and inclusivity

Chinese narratives of fairness focus on harmony and role ethics

Contextualizing AI requires understanding local priorities and concerns

All speakers agreed that AI fairness needs to be contextualized to different cultural and regional settings, recognizing that fairness has different meanings and priorities in various contexts.

Challenges in addressing bias in AI systems

Milton Mueller

Tejaswita Kharel

Emad Karim

AI models are predominantly trained on English-language data, leading to biases

Need to identify potential harms before cleaning data

Women’s perspectives are often excluded from AI datasets

Speakers acknowledged the challenges in developing unbiased AI systems, particularly due to limitations in training data and the need to proactively identify potential harms.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers suggest that the development of AI fairness frameworks should be driven by regional needs and market demands, rather than a one-size-fits-all approach.

Yik Chan Chin

Milton Mueller

Developing interoperable frameworks with regional best practices

Market-driven approach to contextualization based on demand

Unexpected Consensus

Limitations of current bias mitigation approaches

Milton Mueller

Tejaswita Kharel

Existing bias measures can be gamed and may not truly address cultural issues

Need to identify potential harms before cleaning data

Despite coming from different perspectives, both speakers unexpectedly agreed on the limitations of current approaches to addressing bias in AI systems, emphasizing the need for more nuanced and proactive methods.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement centered around the need for contextualizing AI fairness, recognizing the challenges in developing unbiased AI systems, and the limitations of current bias mitigation approaches.

Consensus level

Moderate consensus was observed among the speakers on the importance of contextualization and the challenges in addressing AI bias. This implies that future discussions on AI fairness and governance should prioritize regional and cultural considerations, as well as more sophisticated approaches to bias mitigation.

Different Viewpoints

Approach to addressing bias in AI data

Tejaswita Kharel

Milton Mueller

Need to identify potential harms before cleaning data

Difficulty in “cleaning” inherently biased historical data

Kharel advocates for proactively identifying potential harms to guide data preparation, while Mueller argues that historical data inherently reflects past biases and cannot be easily ‘cleaned’.

Role of market forces in AI contextualization

Milton Mueller

Yik Chan Chin

Market-driven approach to contextualization based on demand

Developing interoperable frameworks with regional best practices

Mueller proposes a market-driven approach to AI contextualization, while Chin suggests developing interoperable frameworks that incorporate best practices from different regions.

Unexpected Differences

Definition and measurement of fairness in AI

Tejaswita Kharel

Yik Chan Chin

Milton Mueller

Fairness in India means equality, non-discrimination, and inclusivity

Chinese narratives of fairness focus on harmony and role ethics

Tension between statistical accuracy and fair representation

The speakers unexpectedly diverge significantly in their definitions and approaches to fairness in AI. This highlights the complexity of defining and implementing fairness across different cultural contexts, which is a crucial challenge in global AI governance.

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement revolve around approaches to addressing bias in AI data, the role of market forces in AI contextualization, and the definition and measurement of fairness in AI across different cultural contexts.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among the speakers is moderate to high, particularly on fundamental issues such as the nature of fairness and how to address bias in AI systems. These differences highlight the significant challenges in developing globally applicable AI governance frameworks and underscore the need for continued dialogue and research to bridge cultural and methodological gaps in AI ethics and fairness.

Partial Agreements

Both speakers agree on the need for collaboration and integration of diverse perspectives in AI development, but differ in their specific approaches. Chin focuses on regional best practices, while Kharel emphasizes collaboration between ethics experts and AI developers.

Yik Chan Chin

Tejaswita Kharel

Developing interoperable frameworks with regional best practices

Need for collaboration between ethics experts and AI developers

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers suggest that the development of AI fairness frameworks should be driven by regional needs and market demands, rather than a one-size-fits-all approach.

Yik Chan Chin

Milton Mueller

Developing interoperable frameworks with regional best practices

Market-driven approach to contextualization based on demand

Key Takeaways

Resolutions and Action Items

Unresolved Issues

Suggested Compromises

Fairness is in terms of its own concept, it is a very subjective thing. There is no specific understanding of or like a definition of what fairness can even mean, which means that we must look at other factors that will guide our understanding of what fairness can mean, which in Indian context is three aspects. The first being equality, the second being non-discrimination and the third being inclusivity.

speaker

Tejaswita Kharel

reason

This comment introduces a nuanced framework for understanding fairness in the Indian context, breaking it down into three key aspects. It challenges the notion of a universal definition of fairness and emphasizes the need for contextual understanding.

impact

This set the tone for the discussion by highlighting the complexity and subjectivity of fairness, especially in diverse cultural contexts. It led to further exploration of how fairness is understood and implemented in different regions.

What we found from our two years research is that, and that’s not most of the country accept a core set of the principle, like a theorist, but what are the major difference is narratives.

speaker

Yik Chan Chin

reason

This insight from a two-year research project reveals that while there may be broad agreement on core principles of digital ethics, the major differences lie in the narratives surrounding these principles. It introduces the concept of ‘narratives’ as a key factor in understanding cultural differences in AI ethics.

impact

This comment shifted the discussion towards examining how different cultures and regions construct narratives around AI ethics, rather than focusing solely on the principles themselves. It deepened the conversation by adding a layer of cultural analysis.

I’m a, what you might call an AI skeptic. That is to say, I don’t really believe AI exists. I think the people have created this monster around it and mostly don’t know what the technology actually is or what it does.

speaker

Milton Mueller

reason

This provocative statement challenges the fundamental assumptions about AI that underpin much of the discussion on AI ethics and governance. It introduces a skeptical perspective that questions the very nature of what we’re discussing.

impact

This comment introduced a critical perspective that encouraged participants to question their assumptions about AI. It led to a more grounded discussion about the actual capabilities and limitations of current AI technologies.

The data is the data. The data is a record of something that happened in an information system somewhere at some time. What you are going to change is you’re going to look at other collections of data, bigger collections of data.

speaker

Milton Mueller

reason

This comment provides a pragmatic perspective on dealing with bias in AI, challenging the notion that we can simply ‘clean’ data of bias. It emphasizes the importance of expanding and diversifying data sets rather than trying to retroactively remove bias.

impact

This shifted the conversation from idealistic notions of removing bias to more practical approaches of managing and mitigating bias through data governance and collection practices. It added complexity to the discussion of fairness in AI.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by introducing nuanced perspectives on fairness, cultural narratives, and the nature of AI itself. They moved the conversation beyond simplistic notions of AI ethics to explore the complexities of implementing fairness in diverse cultural contexts. The discussion evolved from theoretical concepts to more practical considerations of data governance and bias mitigation. Overall, these comments deepened the analysis, introduced critical perspectives, and encouraged a more nuanced understanding of the challenges in contextualizing AI fairness across different cultures and regions.

How can we increase and fix datasets to better represent women, especially those from marginalized groups, in AI?

speaker

Emad Karim

explanation

This is important to address the exclusion of women’s perspectives and experiences in AI datasets and outputs, which can perpetuate biases and inequalities.

How can we make biased historical data fair for use in AI systems?

speaker

Xiao

explanation

This is crucial for addressing inherent biases in existing datasets that reflect historical and cultural prejudices, which can lead to unfair AI outputs.

What are some ways to reconcile differences in fairness across regional contexts and specific AI applications?

speaker

Online participant

explanation

This is important for developing AI systems that can be ethically applied across diverse cultural and regional settings while maintaining fairness.

What emerging technologies or methodologies show promise in creating more nuanced, context-sensitive AI fairness assessments?

speaker

Online participant

explanation

This is crucial for advancing the field of AI ethics and ensuring that fairness assessments can accurately capture and address the complexities of different contexts.

How can we bridge the gap between those who want ethics in AI and those who can actually implement it in AI systems?

speaker

Tejaswita Kharel

explanation

This is important for ensuring that ethical principles are effectively translated into practical implementations in AI systems.

How can different countries contribute their best practices to create an interoperable framework for AI fairness?

speaker

Yik Chan Chin

explanation

This is crucial for developing a global approach to AI fairness that respects regional diversity while establishing common standards.

Summary

This networking session focused on empowering African parliamentarians in shaping digital policies and frameworks. The discussion centered around three main pillars: code as legislation, collaboration and multi-stakeholder engagement, and Africa’s unique challenges and opportunities in the digital realm.

Participants highlighted the need for African countries to develop comprehensive digital frameworks, noting that many current laws are not adapted to the rapid evolution of digital technology. They emphasized the importance of parliamentarians engaging with scientists, technologists, and other stakeholders to create inclusive and practical policies. The lack of dedicated science and technology committees in many parliaments was identified as a gap to be addressed.

Key challenges discussed included limited internet access, especially in rural areas, expensive data costs, and the need for capacity building in digital skills. Participants stressed the importance of public participation in the legislative process and suggested using social media and other digital platforms to engage younger generations.

The discussion also touched on the borderless nature of the internet, highlighting the need for regional and global collaboration in addressing issues like cybercrime. Participants emphasized the importance of aligning educational curricula with digital needs and investing in digital infrastructure.

In conclusion, the session underscored the critical role of parliamentarians in driving digital transformation in Africa through informed policymaking, multi-stakeholder engagement, and addressing unique regional challenges while leveraging opportunities for growth and development.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– The need for African parliaments to engage more with technologists, scientists, and other stakeholders when developing digital policies and legislation

– The importance of building digital infrastructure and improving internet access across Africa, especially in rural areas

– Challenges around cross-border internet governance and cybercrime given the borderless nature of the internet

– The need to update curricula and build digital skills/capacity across African populations

– The role of parliamentarians in shaping inclusive digital policies that empower all citizens

The overall purpose of the discussion was to explore how African parliamentarians can effectively shape digital policies and legislation to support inclusive digital development across the continent.

The tone of the discussion was collaborative and solution-oriented. Participants shared challenges faced in their countries but focused on identifying opportunities and strategies to address them. There was an emphasis on the need for greater cooperation between parliamentarians, technologists, and other stakeholders. The tone remained constructive throughout as participants built on each other’s ideas.

Speakers

– Millenium Anthony: Coordinator from Youth IGF in Tanzania, ITU Generation Connect Youth Envoy, founder of STEM Heart Network

– Catherine Mumma: Senator from Kenya, member of the Speaker’s Panel, vice chair of the Devolution and Intergovernmental Relations Committee and the Justice, Legal and Human Rights Committee, representative of Kenyan Senate on the Inter-Parliamentary Union, member of APNIC (African Parliamentary Network on Internet Governance)

– Lekhotsa Mafatle: Member of parliament from Lesotho, member of APNIC

– Daniel Molokele: Member of Parliament from Zimbabwe, member of APNIC

– Ke Gong: Former parliamentary member of China, serves the World Federation of Engineering Organizations

– Susan Dossi: Member of Parliament for Malawi

Additional speakers:

– Ayoban Ngao: Member of parliament in DRC

– Panelist 1: Gambia

Expanded Summary of Parliamentary Discussion on Digital Policies in Africa

This networking session brought together parliamentarians from across Africa to discuss the critical role of legislators in shaping digital policies and frameworks for the continent. The discussion centered around three main pillars: code as legislation, collaboration and multi-stakeholder engagement, and Africa’s unique challenges and opportunities in the digital realm.

1. Code as Legislation: Digital Frameworks and Policies in Africa

A key focus was the urgent need for updated and comprehensive digital frameworks across African nations. Senator Catherine Mumma from Kenya highlighted, “While Africa has laws guiding all sectors, digital technology is evolving much faster than policy.” She emphasized the need to review existing sector laws in light of digital advancements, citing telemedicine as an example: “We need to review our public health laws to accommodate telemedicine.”

Lekhotsa Mafatle, a Member of Parliament from Lesotho, cautioned against adopting pre-modelled laws from Western countries, stressing the importance of developing Africa-specific policies. Daniel Molokele, a Member of Parliament from Zimbabwe, identified the lack of comprehensive data on internet penetration as a significant challenge, stating, “This data gap hinders targeted government interventions and effective policy-making.”

2. Collaboration and Multi-stakeholder Engagement in Policymaking

The importance of engaging diverse stakeholders in the policy-making process was a recurring theme. Catherine Mumma shared an insight from the Inter-Parliamentary Union Working Group on Science and Technology: “Parliaments rarely engage with scientists.” This observation highlighted a critical gap in the policy-making process.

Daniel Molokele proposed innovative approaches to public engagement, suggesting that parliaments invest in communications teams utilizing social media platforms and community radio stations. Susan Dossi emphasized the need for parliamentarians to be involved in the law-making process from the beginning.

Ayoban Ngao, a Member of Parliament from the Democratic Republic of Congo, suggested making parliamentary work calendars and processes more accessible to the public to increase transparency.

3. Africa’s Unique Challenges and Opportunities in the Digital Realm

The discussion touched on several challenges and opportunities specific to the African context. A panelist from Gambia mentioned the implementation of the African Union’s Digital Strategy 2020-2030, which provides a roadmap for the continent’s digital transformation. They also highlighted the need for mutual legal assistance laws and collaboration in cybersecurity.

Catherine Mumma pointed out the borderless nature of the internet as a significant challenge for policy-makers, stating, “While legislation is typically localized to a country, internet governance requires thinking beyond national borders.” She also raised concerns about potential exploitation in digital labor markets, particularly for African workers engaged in global digital platforms.

The need for investment in digital infrastructure and capacity building was emphasized. Catherine Mumma stressed the importance of investing in digital public infrastructure and providing basic digital skills training for all community members. Ke Gong, a former parliamentary member from China, mentioned the World Federation of Engineering Organizations’ initiative for engineering capacity building in Africa.

A panelist from Gambia highlighted the need to update education curricula to align with digital needs, underscoring the importance of preparing the workforce for the digital economy.

Catherine Mumma also emphasized the need for judiciary training on internet-related crimes to ensure effective enforcement of digital policies.

Conclusion

The discussion underscored the critical role of parliamentarians in driving digital transformation in Africa through informed policymaking, multi-stakeholder engagement, and addressing unique regional challenges.

Key takeaways included the need for updated and Africa-specific digital policies, the importance of multi-stakeholder engagement in policy-making, the critical need for investment in digital infrastructure and capacity building, and the necessity of regional and global collaboration in internet governance.

Moving forward, participants suggested developing a ‘model law’ through the African Parliamentary Network on Internet Governance (APNIC) to establish minimum standards for digital governance legislation. Catherine Mumma highlighted APNIC, ICANN, and IPU as platforms for parliamentarian engagement in digital governance. The implementation of the African Digital Strategy 2020-2030 was also emphasized as a guide for digital transformation efforts across the continent.

Millenium Anthony: Good morning. I hope everyone, I’m audible enough, and I hope the online participants can hear me. Welcome to the networking session titled Codes and Constitution, Empowering African Parliamentarians. My name is Millennium Anthony. I am the coordinator from Youth IGF in Tanzania, but I’m also an ITU Generation Connect Youth Envoy, but also a founder of STEM Heart Network. And today I’m going to be a facilitator for this roundtable discussion today. So this session is designed to foster a meaningful dialogue between African parliamentarians, multi-stakeholder participants, and policy experts as we explore the intersection between code and constitution principles. Our goal is to share insights, highlight challenges, and identify opportunities to create a robust digital framework for Africa. So first of all, just to give a highlight of the session overview, how we are going to conduct it. So first we’ll have introduction from our speakers here, and then we’ll have the two speakers here will give just a brief presentation, I mean, a brief contribution on the topic that we’re going to be discussing. And then after that, I’ll open the floor to the participants, and then we can have different areas that we are going to be discussing. And then in the end, we’re going to close by having a summary of key takeaways and next steps. So now I open the floor to my panelists here. If you are going to introduce yourself in the first round, and then I’ll open the floor for you to contribute. Thank you very much.

Catherine Mumma: Thank you very much. My name is Catherine Mumma. I’m a senator from Kenya, nominated senator. And at the Senate, I am a member of the Speaker’s Panel. I am also a vice chair of the Devolution and Intergovernmental Relations Committee and the Justice, Legal and Human Rights Committee. But I also represent the Kenyan Senate on the Inter-Parliamentary Union. And I’m a member of the Working Group on Science and Technology in the Inter-Parliamentary Union Working Group. I am also a member of APNIC. APNIC is the African Parliamentary Network on Internet Governance, which is, I think I can speak about that a little later. But that is what I am, who I am. Thank you very much.

Millenium Anthony: Thank you very much, Honorable.

Lekhotsa Mafatle: Hi, my name is Honorable Khoza Mafete, a member of parliament from Lesotho, a member of APNIC as well, African Parliamentary Internet Governance Network. In my parliament, I sit on a portfolio of prime minister’s ministries, which hosts ministry of ICT, labor, public service and others. Thank you.

Millenium Anthony: Thank you very much. So I would now like to welcome the floor to you, Honorable Catherine, if you’re going to tell us how is the current state of digital frameworks in Africa? What is the role that parliamentarians do in supporting the digital development and growth in Africa?

Catherine Mumma: Thank you very much. Now, that’s a good question asking about how are the digital frameworks in Africa. Now, Africa is currently has laws that are guiding all sectors. But as you are aware, digital technology is a technology that is cross-cutting. It is going to be relevant in every sector. And it has evolved much faster than policy has evolved. And as it has evolved, we have national executives that are trying to do something about it. But parliaments, I think world over, not just in Africa, parliaments are lagging behind. In the sense that as policies are made, as those who work in digital technology engage, they engage largely with the executive governments. And then the parliaments are now playing catch-up. And the legislative process usually takes a lot of time. It means somebody, the government will bring in a law, and the legislative process will take time, sometimes a year, even more. Or a private member bill will come, will address a particular issue. So you will find that currently, because of the levels of competences of parliaments, which is low, and I believe this is world over, the competences of parliaments on digital technology concerns are low. And because of that, the legal frameworks on digital technology matters are limited in many countries. So if you look at Africa… there is a variation. You’ll find that Tanzania will have different laws, Kenya will have different laws, Lesotho will have different laws, South Africa will have different laws. For instance, we have countries that have data protection laws, we have others that don’t have any. We have countries that have access to information laws, others don’t have any. So that is why when we started realizing the magnitude and the importance of actually engaging as parliaments on issues of policy, parliamentary policy, on digital technology, we formed the African Parliamentary Network on Internet Governance, precisely to share our views across board and to agree on the best way that we can actually share experiences, learn from each other. So APNIC is made of members from across Africa, East Africa, Southern Africa, Western Africa, North Africa, of members who are passionate about trying to do something about policy on Internet Governance. We have come together and we are now looking to do capacities for our members. We are now looking to developing what we are calling a model law, quote unquote. And a model law is just about getting in place standard minimum, minimums that we think would make sense for purposes of legislation around digital governance. But bearing in mind, legislation is across board. So we want to learn, we want to engage in forums like the IGF, ICANN and any other so that as parliamentarians, we can have the capacities to be able to. from an informed point of view, contribute in our debates and be part of the solution in accelerating any law that would facilitate the proper facilitation of growth in Internet digital technology, as well as provide the safeties, the securities that are required within the sector.

Millenium Anthony: Thank you very much, Honorable, especially for highlighting institutions, I mean, organizations such as the APNIC, where we see that’s a platform for parliamentarians to engage themselves in all these digital works. And coming to you, Honorable, what are the unique challenges that we currently have when it comes to shaping, in Africa especially, digital policies across the continent? Are there any challenges that we currently have in Africa?

Lekhotsa Mafatle: Thank you. I think there’s a lot of challenges, she’s highlighted quite a few. But in my view is that for most of the laws that were expected to be put in place, most of them, they come in pre-modeled from Western countries, from wherever, as opposed to what Africa has been supposed to be doing. So like now we’re talking about capacity buildings, we’re talking about inclusivity, we’re talking about redoing whatever the system that we’re doing, especially now that we’re into AI or going into AI and digital policies. So my take is, what we need to do right now is, we just need to, as much as we can do a little freeze, but we now need to start. Getting in all stakeholders in point and Africa should be put on the forefront of whatever Plannings that are there as opposed to getting what is done. And then yeah, I think basically that’s that’s my take on On the challenge that we have we get things that are already done And now we cannot adopt to them because they are not modeled for what Africa is is doing. Okay

Millenium Anthony: Thank you very much. Honorable Okay. Now since this is a networking session, I wanted it to be most engaging and interactive and now I’ll open this floor to the participants both online and on site here and we’re gonna have a discussion and I would like to take contributions from each one of you and Our discussion is going to be on three main pillars. So the first pillar we’re going to be discussing is on code as Registration and then the second that we will take is collaboration and multi-stakeholder engagement as Honorable has said the importance of multi-stakeholder engagement and then the last pillar that we’re going to be discussing is on The Africa unique challenges and opportunities. So now I’m going to start with the first pillar Which is called as registration and my question to you My participants is how can African parliamentarians effectively shape technology driven legislation to ensure inclusivity and innovation So if any of you is open and ready to contribute on this question, I Can pass the mic to you Yeah You have the same question Yes, so if I don’t have now I guess that maybe with my part here with the panelists and then we can come back to you.

Catherine Mumma: Okay. Thank you. I think that the answer to that question in my view lies in the question. She made reference to multi-sectoral or multi-stakeholder engagement. And my view is that this is the one area where as a legislator, I cannot purport to know what is right and just prepare a bill and take it to parliament. This is the one area where we need greater consultation among all affected stakeholders to define for ourselves what inclusion means. From the statistics that we were given in the opening plenary and from this forum, I think you will have realized that Africa has the least connectivity and also the most expensive. So access is quite limited for Africa. So as parliaments, we need to start asking ourselves, one, what should the role of government be in facilitating greater access? And what can we do as parliaments in that role? Now, parliaments have the role of representation, of legislation, of oversight, and we also have authority over budgetary allocation. So I think if we define for ourselves what is digital public infrastructure and what role government can play in that, the parliaments can help to invest, to deploy more resources towards facilitating digital public infrastructure across. the countries in order to have greater coverage and we must deliberately start picking the data that will tell us who is unconnected, who is under connected, whether it is women, whether it is senior citizens, whether it is those in the rural areas, whether it is the urban poor and define solutions but put budgetary allocations to ensure that we we get that. My view is that if we facilitate as government the digital public infrastructure then we leave the rest to the private sector and other stakeholders to actually move with it but similarly for us to do that policy we need to understand from the stakeholders on the key needs. So as we make this legislation we also need to find a way of not just moving as Parliament alone, as the executive alone, we need to find a ways in which we can get the experts to contribute and guide us on what looks like good law, what is good regulation, what is bad regulation so that we are able to to facilitate. That’s my view on that.

Millenium Anthony: Thank you so much Hanarabo. I mean I think for me I really like the point when you mentioned about data I think for me maybe taking for example in my country I think that’s really a serious issues like there are some areas that we still do not know like how to what extent has the internet penetrated in specific areas so even like when the government is trying to like to help those areas they do not know like what specific area, how much resources do we need to invest in a specific area for us to I mean help in providing internet access and wait we have any contributions now here

Daniel Molokele: Yes, my name is Daniel Molokele, Member of Parliament from Zimbabwe and a member of APNIC. I just want to contribute one or two points. In terms of parliamentarians facilitating inclusivity, I think one of the easiest ways is to make sure that the legal and policy framework is updated to the level that it accommodates all those who are excluded, making it obligatory for the state to set up the necessary infrastructure to increase access, especially to the internet. I have in mind our rural populations that are normally excluded. I think internet access is a big issue for them. Also that there can be mobile internet facilities in some rural areas so that people can access the internet. Also that MPs can fight during the budget period to make sure that the budget allocation towards ICT is increased in such a way as to advance some of the issues around infrastructural support for those who are traditionally excluded from the internet, access to the internet. The other issue which is big in my country, Zimbabwe, is the pricing of data. Data has traditionally been expensive, although I need to concede that Zimbabwe… They gave a license to Starlink and that has started to create a little bit of competition to the traditional internet service providers. But for the average citizen in Zimbabwe, especially those in local communities, and also in rural areas, data remains very expensive. And we have to push for policies that force the pricing of data to come down so that more average people, citizens, can have access to the internet. The other thing that we need to do is to increase, or call for policies that force especially the Ministry of Primary and Secondary Education to create awareness and education around internet. You will find that some people don’t even know how to use the internet, so around access to the internet, we need awareness. Even also through the Ministry of Communications or the Ministry of Broadcasting Services. Thank you so much.

Millenium Anthony: Wow, thank you so much, Honorable. Do we have any contribution here? Another contribution that someone would love to contribute before we move to our second pillar? Okay, so let me check with online. Do we have any online participants that want to contribute? Okay, I don’t have any hand raised, so I guess we can move to the second pillar. So our second pillar is on collaboration and multi-stakeholder engagement. So we know collaboration is the key to impactful digital policies. So now my question is, how can parliamentarians engage with technologists? civil societies, and private sectors to ensure policies are both practical and inclusive. So now maybe I can start from the audience. I can repeat the questions. How can parliamentarians engage with technologists, civil societies, and private sector stakeholders to ensure policies are both practical and inclusive? Yes, Harubo.

Lekhotsa Mafatle: Thank you. I think in that, my simple thought is hostility towards regulators from the private sector and hostility towards consumers from regulators, that’s where we have to start of where we have to find each other, where we say as parliamentarians and as developers, as people who are therefore pre-consumers, that we find a common ground where we say no amount of legislative law, it is intended to oppress the other, but it is rather to benefit everybody across the board. So as lawmakers in parliament, I think for most of the time we’re always open to receiving whatever input we’re getting from developers who are quite actually most resourceful as opposed to what we’re doing. So I think it is only a give or take situation where those on the one end provide to us and us on this end we receive and we give back to them what is most relevant to the public. I think that’s where we need to find each other. We just need to find inclusivity in everything that we do.

Millenium Anthony: Thank you very much, Harubo.

Catherine Mumma: So, when it comes to multi-stakeholder engagement, one of the things we found out at the Inter-Parliamentary Union Working Group on Science and Technology is that our parliaments hardly engage with scientists. So, you’ll find that parliaments have various committees, but we were yet to find a parliament that has a committee on science and technology. So, you will find the scientists in our country are doing their thing, innovating, moving ahead, and parliament is making policies that sometimes impact them, but we hardly have forums where you have parliamentarians and scientists meeting and talking, and what we are saying in IPU, and IPU is now developing a charter on the ethics of science and technology, what we are saying it is important now for parliaments to deliberately find the scientists and technocrats within their countries to engage with them so that as we do policies, we are able to factor aspects that are facilitating the growth of science and technology. But we are also able to engage on the ethical issues of human rights, of safety, so that the science, as the innovation happens, the innovation does not harm human life. So, one of the things we need to do, or one of the most important multistakeholders that we need to engage with as parliaments are the scientists and the technocrats. We also need to engage… with other interest groups and the example of Kenya and I believe it’s the example of many places in South Africa the principle of public participation is a key principle within Parliament where Parliament are supposed, even as they pass their laws, to conduct public participation so that members of the public whom they represent are able to the laws that they are passing. So if meaningful public participation is done by the Parliamentary teams as they pass legislation and policy, it means that we are then able to have that collaboration But there is also a trait that sometimes when we call for public participation, which we normally put in the newspaper You will find only maybe five people have sent in a memorandum So we want You cannot blame us for not taking on what the youth have done when we have advertised for a view on a draft bill on ICT and the youth have not sent in any any memorandum. The women have not sent in any memorandum. A particular interest group has not sent in any Memorandum. So that engagement means not just the Parliament, but even other stakeholders must be ready to do the homework and to be able to then when we want to pass a law, to bring in a petition and say in this law we cannot see a clause that is including women. In this law, we think what you have provided here is not good It’s going to to be obstructive to the growth of innovation. We think this regulation is unnecessary. So we need everybody to engage properly on both ends in order for this to work

Millenium Anthony: Wow, thank you so much. I think so from my take from your contribution is first engagement like engage the stakeholders parliamentarians needs to engage with the techno technocrats and the scientists you have another point okay but you wanted to add another point no okay here you go

Daniel Molokele: i think one of the ways that parliament um what happened one of the ways in which um parliament can improve or increase access to engaging other stakeholders especially local communities and thematic groups let’s say for disability for women for youth for rural communities and so on is to also accept that the traditional methods of meeting are no longer enough so we normally say people must submit position papers must submit petitions they must attend public meetings but that is not enough a lot of people now have to be engaged using the new media technologies so parliaments must invest in public relations departments or communications teams that then use uh facilities such as facebook such as twitter such as instagram such as tiktok because tiktok is where the young people are and they have to have a staff member who is youthful enough who engages young people for their views through live sessions on instagram or facebook or tiktok and that way they are able to engage those communities. WhatsApp groups are very popular. Telegram is popular. So we must go to where the people are, and then we’ll be able to access them easily. Because if we just use the traditional methods, it won’t work. Also now we’ve got community radio stations. We can use them also to have live sessions where people can even phone in. It increases our ability to engage the communities. Thank you so much.

Millenium Anthony: All right. Thank you. I hope you can hear me. I can’t hear myself, but I hope you can hear me. Yes. Yeah. So I think my take to you is like, look at our current status, our current needs, how much resources we have, and then utilize them to reach our people. Like the social media, if we want, let’s say, to engage with the young people, we have to look at where young people are now, which is like the social media, and then engage them. Do we have any other contribution? Yes. It’s not working. It’s not working. It’s OK? Yeah. I have no signal. Just switch it on. Switch it. Switch it on. It’s OK? I can start? OK. Switch it on. Yeah. It’s OK. It’s fine. Yeah.

Panelist: My name is Ayoban Ngao. I’m Ayoban Ngao, member of parliament in DRC. And… It’s OK, no? You can get it. OK. So, for me, as I know, the work of, in our parliament, the major work we work in commission. The technical work is done in commission before we go on the vote process. So, the commission work is normally open to the public. But the problem we have is… the public is not informed when and what we are commissioned. Even us, ourselves, as members of parliament, I’m a member of the Telecom Commission, but I’m not informed when the Agricultural Commission is doing their work. Even if I’m allowed to participate, but I don’t get the information. So first of all, we have to make it transparent. To put a public calendar, to show the public what we are doing, when we are doing, this commission is sitting on which law. So anyone who is interested will get the information and come. When we are doing the work in the commission, we have our experts who help us to understand the law. But those experts, they are becoming like staff of the parliament. They don’t give us a really genuine idea. They don’t even challenge us, as they are supposed. But if the information of our work, of our calendar is public, then those people who are really interested on those topics can come and join, and participate and contribute in those discussions. Sometimes it happens, some of the law, we find people who get the information, they come, and they really challenge us. And some of the MPs change their mind based on the input they receive from those ones. So I think to improve the participation, the collaboration, it’s better to make our working calendar public, and inform that everyone is allowed to come and contribute.

Millenium Anthony: Wow. Thank you so much. So transparency. Yes, Honourable Catherine?

Catherine Mumma: Now, a very important point that I did not raise. Now, when it comes to Internet, Internet does not have borders. So even as we plan to do legislation, legislation is localized to a country, we must start thinking out of the box to see what we need to do, not just in your own country, but what we need to do regionally and also globally to factor the legislative requirements that can deal with the fact that open internet means there are no borders. Therefore, how do we deal with the issue of passing a law over a situation that is not just local? And so we will need to allow innovation to happen, but when it comes to passing laws that must protect human rights, must ensure safety, must ensure security, we need to start thinking out of the box. For instance, when you have the abuse or child abuse facilitated through internet, just to use the example of that as one of the harms that are coming with engagement on the internet, we would need to start thinking out of the box. How do you deal with the fact that the pedophile is in America, the server is in Asia, and the child who is being molested is in Tanzania? How does the criminal law protection for such a situation look like? So we will need, beyond just doing a law for Kenya, a law for Zimbabwe, we will need, that way we are saying in APNIC, what are these minimums that we can put in every country to provide protections while ensuring that what we have around innovation in our own specific countries may be different, will be different, but we must factor the fact that internet does not have borders. And that is a conversation that IGF, the United Nations, the regional bodies, AU, and the other sub-regional bodies, and globally, must start thinking in order to guide. And as I said, for instance, in IPU, we are developing a charter on ethics, the ethics of science and technology. So that we then are able to agree on minimums that can ensure such protections.

Millenium Anthony: Thank you very much, for adding that point. And because of time, allow me to please move to the third pillar, which is on Africa-unique challenges and opportunities. So given the Africa-unique context, what strategies can address geopolitical challenges and infrastructure gaps while ensuring digital policies empower all citizens? To the audience and to my online participants, anyone who wants to give a contribution on that, feel free. This is the networking session. Yeah, where’s the mic? Oh, turn it on. Okay, could you hear me? Yes. Yes. My name is Kei Gong. I was a parliamentary…

Ke Gong: My name is Kei Gong. You hear me? Yeah. Okay. I was a parliamentary member of China and now I serve to the World Federation of Engineering Organizations. And we think engineering capacity is a key factor for the development, especially in Africa, to grace the big opportunity of digital technology to develop Africa continent. So the World Federation of Engineering Organizations is working on an initiative, ten years long initiative called for… called of Engineering Capacity Building for Africa, supported by UNIDO, UNESCO, and so on and so forth. We’re going to launch this program next year in Africa. Perhaps we’re starting from Kenya, Ethiopia, South Africa, and we’re going to build a number of engineering capacity building centers in African countries. So we really need your support. Because in China, our experience is that to develop a country we need hard and soft side. For the hard part, we need infrastructure. We need invest to infrastructure, especially the digital public infrastructure. It’s so important. The capacity building in education should also be emphasized to give more investment into this domain and to build the capacity to make full use of those infrastructure to make… economic growth. So we, I just talk about this and we need your support. Thank you.

Millenium Anthony: Thank you. Thank you for sharing the opportunity for the collaboration of initiatives. So I believe we have Panaraba here. Yes, I guess Panaraba, Hajji.

Panelist 1: Thank you very much and good morning to everyone, Honorable Members and everyone here. Now, you know, with Africa, there are very unique challenges when we talk about the digital transformation. But the good thing about it, the African Union actually has created a pathway, which is a master plan called the African Digital Strategy 2020-2030. That is in very clear terms, tells countries or member states, what do we need to do? And the key thing in that area is the digital infrastructure. That must be in the forefront. Because any building that doesn’t have a good foundation, you are bound to fail. And this critical infrastructure is fundamental, it’s at the bottom. Which means countries actually have to ensure that those critical infrastructure is in place. Then every other thing else is the building block can come on top of that. And the other one aspect is about education, like the capacity building my colleague has just spoken about. We must look at our the way we teach in our curriculum. I keep saying this all the time, but even if you have the infrastructure, but the curriculum in our senior secondary school, in our universities do not match really where we want to go. We will not get there very quickly. So the infrastructure we build, together with the curriculums we teach in our schools must match. So that those students that are graduating, the professor, etc. can actually help to align everything so that we can get to where we need to get to. So the capacity building, which is the education, is actually crucial. The other one also is about collaboration. We live in a world where collaboration is necessary. My colleague previously talked about security. But security is everybody’s business. You cannot secure Kenya and you leave Tanzania. You cannot secure Tanzania and you leave Gambia. You cannot secure Gambia and you leave Senegal. It doesn’t work. Now, the trend now in Africa is about creating laws called mutual legal assistance. That’s what we have done in Gambia, where we collaborate with our neighbor in case something happens in the Gambia. But the person who committed the crimes in Senegal, because of that law called mutual legal assistance, Gambia and Senegal can work together to ensure that person is apprehended. Now, with the way things are going now, you will see that somebody is going to be in one country, use another system in a different country to commit a crime in a third country. Now, how do we ensure that we work together? And this is exactly where we members of parliament, we have to take interest in the mutual legal assistance laws that we actually have, or if you don’t have, you need to think about it. We already passed ours like two years ago in the Gambia. But it’s very essential, the region that you work in, the region that you are in, to ensure that you actually have that. And cross-regional and also then intercontinental. We have the Interpol, yes, but we also have the AFRIPOL. The AFRIPOL is really very active in the cyber fighting cyber crimes, capacitizing the police forces across the continent and at the same time helping also in the investigation. But they cannot prosecute, they investigate and give to member country and we move on. Thank you very much.

Millenium Anthony: Thank you, Honorable. So capacity building and collaboration. Any other contribution? Let me see if I have any contribution from online. I don’t. So any other contribution from on-site? No contribution? Okay, so since there’s no contribution on that. Now, I would like us to have a closing takeaway session, right? Yeah, so we had a long discussion, we have discussed about a lot of things and we had like the three pillars that we had different questions that we discussed on. So now, I am opening again the floor to the audience. So what are the key takeaway that you have taken from today’s discussion? The key takeaway, something that you want to take back at your home country, something that you have learned, something that you want to take to your organization. What is something that you have learned from the discussion? Yes, can I get assistance to pass the mic?

Panelist: On my floor, what I learned is that as a parliament, we have to know that when you are dealing with internet governance, we are not putting law just for our own pleasure. We are putting law that will impact other people’s life. So we have to make sure that we are getting the input and we have to be the one to make the first step toward them, going and look for them, not just working in our room and waiting for them to come to us. We have to make that approach to look for them, to make sure that we have all input from them and that will be able to put in place a better governance that will be better for all of us because even if we are young, we are women, we are also part of that world. So it’s better for us to be the one to make the first step and to go toward those other stakeholders and to make sure we get their input before working on the law.

Millenium Anthony: Thank you. That was a very good takeaway. Thank you very much. Maybe just to add on what he has said.

Susan Dossi: My name is Susan Dossey, Member of Parliament for Malawi. Just to mention that we really need to collaborate more because if we do it alone we will not get there. As Africa we really need to have one voice. As parliamentarians we have to work with other stakeholders to make sure that we come up with laws which will really help us as Africa. Maybe just to mention that most of the time parliamentarians are left aside. When it comes to coming up with laws, we are at the receiving end. When we receive that law, when we go and maybe do some consultations, it’s at the end of everything. I remember one time we had a conversation with the Ministry of Justice in Malawi where we were told we have done this already and what we just want to hear from you as members of parliament is what’s your take. But it was at the end. They have already done benchmarking, they have already done everything and they are coming to us at the end. They want our input, which we even said, even whatever we can say at this point won’t be taken seriously. So I think we have to be concerted, we have to work together from the start up to the end so that whatever we input in these laws that we even pass in parliament we are able to know that this is what we are passing. Because it’s not good to come to parliament and then we say we are passing this law. At the end of the day, we are the ones who do oversight. At the end of the day, compliance is not there. People are not complying, they’re not doing anything. They are not following the laws that we have made because even us as members of parliament, we were sidelined maybe in the development of those laws. So we really need to work together, collaborate more with other stakeholders and have one voice as a team. Thank you.

Millenium Anthony: Okay, so engagement and consultations from the beginning, engaging the parliamentarians. So to my panelists now, any closing, something that you want to say before we close?

Catherine Mumma: Thank you very much. A number of things I would want to say. One, all sectors have laws that are currently guiding the sectors, but with the digital technology, my view is that all those sector laws would have to be reviewed. For instance, now telemedicine. The current public health law in Kenya provides for all matters medicine, but it has not contemplated how liability would look like where a consultant in Tokyo is providing services to the clients. So we will need to relook at that. It is the same thing with the criminal. We’ve always had cross-border collaboration around criminal matters, but crimes committed through the internet, we have not thought through that properly. So usually you’ve had bilateral agreements where you agree with country X on dealing with each other, but our laws have not yet provided that. So one of the things that was happening in Kenya, even the judiciary has to be trained on how to innovate and adjust and adapt to deal with crimes that are committed over the internet. So what I’m saying is that with the digital technology, we will need adjustments and policies cross board. I like the point that has been made by the World Engineering Organization, that we also need capacities to be enhanced in Africa, not just within the school curriculum, but even with other communities, even basic digital skills. We will need to provide that basic education, for instance, to the traditional mother in the village who is selling vegetables, but is using the man next door’s mobile to receive the money and is being paying a commission on something very small. So if we start doing communities around of internet to actually give that basic education to that mother, to the senior citizens, one, we will grow the economies, we will also protect them from local little frauds that actually undermine them. And then if you look at the sector, like the employment sector, we also need to start looking at the exploitation. We have young people employed in Africa being paid $2 an hour, and they are doing exactly the same job of somebody in America being paid $20 or $30 for the same thing. So we will need to start bringing in ethics so that we don’t have exploitation of the fact that the African or other countries labor regimes are not good. So my view is that there is plenty for us to do, and there is plenty for us to learn, and we hope that as you bring in parliamentarians and give them capacities. You will help to fast-track getting the correct Frameworks that we need in order to to enhance digital technology in Africa. Thank you very much

Millenium Anthony: You anything you want to say you’re good Okay, so I’d like to thank each one of you including my online participants for engaging actively in this session I’m looking forward to seeing you Around in other sessions and engage with you. Have a great day You You You You

Agreement Points

Need for updated legal frameworks

Catherine Mumma

Lekhotsa Mafatle

Panelist 1

Need for updated legal frameworks across sectors to address digital technology

Importance of developing Africa-specific policies rather than adopting Western models

Addressing cross-border cybercrime through mutual legal assistance laws

Speakers agree on the necessity of updating and adapting legal frameworks to address the challenges posed by digital technology, with an emphasis on developing Africa-specific policies and addressing cross-border issues.

Importance of multi-stakeholder engagement

Catherine Mumma

Daniel Molokele

Panelist

Importance of engaging scientists and technocrats in parliamentary processes

Utilizing social media and new technologies to engage youth and communities

Need for transparency in parliamentary work to enable public participation

Speakers emphasize the importance of engaging various stakeholders, including scientists, technocrats, youth, and the general public, in the policymaking process through diverse means of communication and increased transparency.

Investment in digital infrastructure and capacity building

Catherine Mumma

Ke Gong

Panelist 1

Need for investment in digital public infrastructure

Initiative for engineering capacity building in Africa

Implementing the African Digital Strategy 2020-2030

Speakers agree on the critical need for investment in digital infrastructure and capacity building initiatives to support Africa’s digital transformation.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize the importance of improving digital access and skills for all members of society, including rural and underserved populations.

Catherine Mumma

Daniel Molokele

Need for basic digital skills training for all community members

Need for policies to reduce data costs and increase internet access

Unexpected Consensus

Addressing exploitation in digital labor markets

Catherine Mumma

Addressing exploitation in digital labor markets

While not explicitly echoed by other speakers, Catherine Mumma’s point about addressing exploitation in digital labor markets represents an unexpected focus on labor rights within the broader discussion of digital policies. This highlights a potential area for future consensus-building among African parliamentarians.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement among speakers include the need for updated legal frameworks, the importance of multi-stakeholder engagement in policymaking, and the necessity of investing in digital infrastructure and capacity building.

Consensus level

There is a moderate to high level of consensus among the speakers on the broad challenges and opportunities facing African countries in the digital age. This consensus suggests a strong foundation for collaborative efforts in developing and implementing digital policies across the continent. However, there are still areas where more specific agreement and coordination may be needed, particularly in addressing unique African challenges and opportunities.

Different Viewpoints

Approach to developing digital policies

Catherine Mumma

Lekhotsa Mafatle

Need for updated legal frameworks across sectors to address digital technology

Importance of developing Africa-specific policies rather than adopting Western models

While Mumma emphasizes updating existing frameworks, Mafatle argues for developing entirely new Africa-specific policies rather than adapting Western models.

Unexpected Differences

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement revolve around the approach to developing digital policies and the specific focus areas for improving digital access and infrastructure.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among the speakers is relatively low. Most speakers agree on the overall goals but have slightly different approaches or focus areas. This suggests a general consensus on the importance of digital development in Africa, with minor differences in implementation strategies.

Partial Agreements

Both speakers agree on the need to improve digital infrastructure and access, but Mumma focuses on government investment in public infrastructure, while Molokele emphasizes policies to reduce data costs.

Catherine Mumma

Daniel Molokele

Need for investment in digital public infrastructure

Need for policies to reduce data costs and increase internet access

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize the importance of improving digital access and skills for all members of society, including rural and underserved populations.

Catherine Mumma

Daniel Molokele

Need for basic digital skills training for all community members

Need for policies to reduce data costs and increase internet access

Key Takeaways

There is a need for updated and Africa-specific digital policies and legal frameworks across sectors

Multi-stakeholder engagement, especially with scientists and technocrats, is crucial in shaping effective digital policies

Investment in digital infrastructure and capacity building, including updating education curricula, is essential for Africa’s digital development

Regional and global collaboration is necessary to address cross-border challenges in internet governance

Transparency and public participation in the legislative process need to be improved

Resolutions and Action Items

Develop a ‘model law’ through the African Parliamentary Network on Internet Governance (APNIC) to establish minimum standards for digital governance legislation

Increase parliamentary engagement with scientists and technocrats on digital policy issues

Implement the African Digital Strategy 2020-2030 to guide digital transformation efforts

Review and update existing sector laws to account for digital technology impacts

Unresolved Issues

How to effectively balance innovation with human rights and safety concerns in digital policies

Addressing the lack of comprehensive data on internet penetration in many African countries

Finding ways to reduce high data costs and increase internet access across Africa

Addressing potential exploitation in digital labor markets, particularly for African workers

Suggested Compromises

Balancing government involvement in digital infrastructure development with private sector innovation

Finding a middle ground between adopting international best practices and developing Africa-specific digital policies

Africa is currently has laws that are guiding all sectors. But as you are aware, digital technology is a technology that is cross-cutting. It is going to be relevant in every sector. And it has evolved much faster than policy has evolved.

speaker

Catherine Mumma

reason

This comment highlights the fundamental challenge of regulating rapidly evolving digital technologies within existing legal frameworks.

impact

It set the tone for much of the subsequent discussion about the need for updated and harmonized policies across sectors and countries.

For most of the laws that were expected to be put in place, most of them, they come in pre-modeled from Western countries, from wherever, as opposed to what Africa has been supposed to be doing.

speaker

Lekhotsa Mafatle

reason

This insight challenges the practice of adopting foreign models without adaptation, emphasizing the need for Africa-specific solutions.

impact

It shifted the conversation towards discussing more localized and contextually appropriate approaches to digital policy in Africa.

One of the things we found out at the Inter-Parliamentary Union Working Group on Science and Technology is that our parliaments hardly engage with scientists.

speaker

Catherine Mumma

reason

This observation reveals a critical gap in policy-making processes, highlighting the disconnect between lawmakers and technical experts.

impact

It led to a discussion about the need for more structured engagement between parliamentarians and scientists/technologists in the policy-making process.

Parliaments must invest in public relations departments or communications teams that then use facilities such as facebook such as twitter such as instagram such as tiktok because tiktok is where the young people are

speaker

Daniel Molokele

reason

This comment introduces an innovative approach to public engagement, recognizing the changing landscape of communication.

impact

It broadened the discussion on stakeholder engagement to include modern, digital-first approaches to reaching constituents, especially youth.

Internet does not have borders. So even as we plan to do legislation, legislation is localized to a country, we must start thinking out of the box to see what we need to do, not just in your own country, but what we need to do regionally and also globally

speaker

Catherine Mumma

reason

This insight highlights the transnational nature of internet governance and the limitations of purely national approaches.

impact

It elevated the discussion to consider international collaboration and harmonization of digital policies across borders.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by highlighting several critical challenges and opportunities in digital policy-making for Africa. They emphasized the need for Africa-specific solutions, better engagement between policymakers and technical experts, innovative approaches to public participation, and international collaboration. The discussion evolved from identifying local challenges to considering broader, more systemic approaches to digital governance that could be effective across the continent and beyond.

How to improve data collection on internet penetration in specific areas?

speaker

Millenium Anthony

explanation

Lack of specific data on internet penetration hinders targeted government interventions and resource allocation.

How can parliaments effectively engage with scientists and technocrats?

speaker

Catherine Mumma

explanation

There’s a gap between parliamentarians and scientists/technocrats, which impacts the creation of informed policies on science and technology.

How to increase public participation in the legislative process, especially from youth and underrepresented groups?

speaker

Catherine Mumma

explanation

Low public engagement in policy-making processes leads to less inclusive and representative legislation.

How can parliaments leverage new media technologies to engage with different stakeholder groups?

speaker

Daniel Molokele

explanation

Traditional methods of engagement are no longer sufficient; new approaches are needed to reach diverse communities, especially youth.

How to make parliamentary work calendars and processes more transparent and accessible to the public?

speaker

Ayoban Ngao

explanation

Lack of transparency in parliamentary processes limits public participation and input in lawmaking.

How to develop legislative frameworks that address the borderless nature of the internet?

speaker

Catherine Mumma

explanation

Current localized legislation struggles to address issues that transcend national borders, such as cybercrime.

How to align educational curricula with digital transformation goals?

speaker

Panelist 1 (unnamed)

explanation

Mismatch between education and digital needs hinders progress in digital transformation.

How to strengthen regional and international collaboration on digital policies and cybersecurity?

speaker

Panelist 1 (unnamed)

explanation

Effective digital policies and cybersecurity require coordination beyond national borders.

How to review and update existing sector-specific laws to accommodate digital technology advancements?

speaker

Catherine Mumma

explanation

Current laws in various sectors may not adequately address challenges posed by digital technologies.

How to address potential exploitation in digital labor markets across different countries?

speaker

Catherine Mumma

explanation

Disparities in pay for similar digital work across countries raise ethical concerns and need policy attention.

Summary

This discussion focused on Azerbaijan’s digital government transformation, particularly the MyGov platform and related initiatives. Orkhan Ismayilov introduced the country’s digital transformation concept, which encompasses digital government, society, and businesses. He highlighted key products like Digital Bridge, MyGov, and digital login systems that form the backbone of Azerbaijan’s e-government services.

Laman Akbarova then detailed the marketing strategy for MyGov, positioning it as a user-friendly platform that simplifies citizens’ lives and strengthens government-citizen relationships. The communication approach included a 360-degree marketing campaign utilizing TV, outdoor advertising, social media, and influencer partnerships. Akbarova emphasized the importance of translating functional benefits into emotional ones to increase user adoption and digital literacy.

Elvin Hajiyev discussed the innovation aspect of Azerbaijan’s digital development, focusing on the Azerbaijan Innovation Center (AIM). He outlined five pillars for building a sustainable innovative society: market access, funding, infrastructure, talent, and culture. Hajiyev described various initiatives to support these pillars, including startup programs, venture fund establishment, educational scholarships, and cultural events to promote innovation.

The speakers highlighted Azerbaijan’s progress in e-government development, noting significant improvements in UN rankings. They also addressed challenges such as digital literacy and cultural adaptation to new technologies. Overall, the discussion showcased Azerbaijan’s comprehensive approach to digital transformation, combining technological infrastructure, user-centric services, and ecosystem development to drive innovation and improve government-citizen interactions.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– Overview of Azerbaijan’s digital government transformation strategy and key components (digital government, digital society, digital businesses)

– Details on MyGov platform – a unified digital government portal providing various e-services to citizens

– Marketing and communication strategy for MyGov, positioning it as a product to simplify citizens’ lives

– Azerbaijan Innovation Center (AIM) and efforts to build a startup/innovation ecosystem in the country

Overall purpose:

The purpose of this discussion was to provide an in-depth overview of Azerbaijan’s digital transformation initiatives, particularly the MyGov platform, and efforts to foster innovation and a startup ecosystem in the country. The speakers aimed to showcase Azerbaijan’s progress in e-government services and highlight their strategies for citizen engagement and ecosystem development.

Tone:

The overall tone was informative and promotional. The speakers were enthusiastic about sharing their country’s digital transformation journey and achievements. The tone remained consistent throughout, with each speaker maintaining a professional yet engaging demeanor as they presented their respective areas of focus.

Speakers

– Ilaha Baghirova, Moderator/Introducer

– Orkhan Ismayilov, Head of Strategic Partnership and International Cooperation Department at IDDA

Expertise: Digital government transformation, MyGov platform

– Laman Akbarova, Head of Marketing and PR Department at IDDA

Expertise: Communication strategy for MyGov

– Elvin Hajiyev, Head of the Azerbaijan Innovation Center

Expertise: Innovation ecosystem, Azerbaijan Innovation Center (AIM)

Azerbaijan’s Digital Transformation: A Comprehensive Approach to E-Government and Innovation

This discussion provided an in-depth overview of Azerbaijan’s digital transformation initiatives, focusing on the MyGov platform and efforts to foster innovation and a startup ecosystem in the country. The speakers, representing key departments involved in this transformation, shared insights into the strategy, implementation, and challenges of digitizing government services and building an innovation-driven economy.

Digital Government Transformation Strategy

Orkhan Ismayilov, Head of Strategic Partnership and International Cooperation Department at IDDA, introduced Azerbaijan’s digital transformation concept, built on three pillars: digital government, digital society, and digital businesses. This comprehensive approach aims to create a fully integrated digital ecosystem that enhances government services, citizen engagement, and economic growth.

Key components of the digital government strategy include:

1. Digital Bridge: A system facilitating information exchange between 42 government agencies, with over 200 million transactions conducted.

2. MyGov Platform: A unified portal for government e-services, serving as the primary interface between citizens and the government. It offers services such as birth registration, marriage registration, and digital ID usage.

3. Digital ID and Documentation Services: Enabling secure online identification and access to digital documents.

4. Proactive Government Services: Automating processes for life events, streamlining citizen interactions with the government.

Ismayilov emphasized the importance of developing hard infrastructure, updating laws and regulations, improving AI strategies, and investing in human capital to support these initiatives.

MyGov Platform and Communication Strategy

Laman Akbarova, Head of Marketing and PR Department at IDDA, detailed the marketing and communication strategy for MyGov. The platform is positioned as a user-friendly service that simplifies citizens’ lives and strengthens government-citizen relationships.

The communication approach included a comprehensive 360-degree marketing campaign utilizing:

1. Television advertisements

2. Outdoor advertising

3. Social media campaigns

4. Partnerships with influencers

Akbarova highlighted the success of their marketing efforts, noting a 300% increase in MyGov usage and a 400% increase in digital ID usage following the campaign.

A key aspect of the MyGov platform is its digital consent management feature, allowing citizens to control how their data is shared between government agencies, addressing privacy concerns and building trust in the digital ecosystem.

Innovation Ecosystem Development

Elvin Hajiyev, Head of the Azerbaijan Innovation Center (AIM), discussed the innovation aspect of Azerbaijan’s digital development. He outlined five pillars for building a sustainable innovative society: market access, funding, infrastructure, talent, and culture.

To support these pillars, AIM has implemented various initiatives:

1. Startup programs to generate ideas and develop Minimum Viable Products (MVPs)

2. Government support for establishing venture funds, including AzVC and NEXT

3. Educational scholarships to develop tech talent, including the Azerbaijan Cyber Security School

4. Physical infrastructure through AIM centers in Baku, Ganja, and Sheki, with plans for 14 more centers

5. Cultural events, awards, and PR activities to promote innovation

Hajiyev also highlighted tax benefits for IT Park residents, including a 0% corporate tax rate for 10 years, and soft landing programs for foreign companies interested in entering the Azerbaijani market.

Challenges and Progress

The speakers addressed several challenges in implementing the digital transformation strategy:

1. Digital literacy: Ongoing efforts to educate citizens about digital services and their benefits.

2. Cultural adaptation: Encouraging the adoption of new technologies and digital-first mindsets.

3. Balancing physical and digital infrastructure: Maintaining some physical service points while promoting digital alternatives.

Despite these challenges, the speakers noted Azerbaijan’s progress in e-government development, including improvements in UN rankings such as the E-Government Development Index.

Conclusion

The discussion showcased Azerbaijan’s ambitious and well-coordinated approach to digital transformation. By addressing technological, societal, and economic aspects simultaneously, the country aims to create a robust digital ecosystem that enhances government efficiency, citizen satisfaction, and innovation-driven economic growth.

As Azerbaijan continues its digital journey, key focus areas will include expanding the MyGov platform, opening additional AIM centers, continuing educational efforts to increase digital literacy, and further developing the startup ecosystem. While challenges remain, particularly in long-term sustainability and cultural adaptation, the comprehensive strategy and collaborative approach presented by the speakers indicate a promising future for Azerbaijan’s digital transformation efforts.

For further information, the speakers provided their contact details:

– Orkhan Ismayilov: [email protected]

– Laman Akbarova: [email protected]

– Elvin Hajiyev: [email protected]

Ilaha Baghirova: Great. So I just want to shortly introduce what is GovPlatform. Today we’ll have three speakers, we’ll give detailed information to you. So my GovPlatform is a pioneering government concept that seamlessly integrates citizens, state entities, state entities’ businesses into a unified e-services platform. This innovative system aims to provide a comprehensive array of cutting-edge digital services, fostering collaboration and efficiency. Through my GovPlatform, citizens gain access to innovation provided by government agencies, enabling them to engage with services electronically, acquire e-documents, verify the accuracy of their information and seamlessly manage the process of sharing their data with other institutions. This innovative system aims to provide a comprehensive array of cutting-edge digital services and fostering collaboration and efficiency. So I would like to introduce our first speaker today, Mr. Orhan Ismailov, he’s the head of Strategic Partnership and International Cooperation Department at IDDA. Please give applause to him and he will shortly introduce you about my GovPlatform. Thank you very much, Laha.

Orkhan Ismayilov: Actually today I will talk about not only my Gov, I will try to share our Azerbaijan digital government transformation conception and my Gov is the one biggest part of this strategy. But firstly we should fix our clicker. Can you change slide please? Yes, this is our digital transformation concept. There are three main components. The first one is digital government, the second one is digital society, and the last one is digital businesses. We are understanding that there are three main components, and that’s why we try to establish our digital nation on these components. There are some GNL enablers which can enable to the digital development. The first one is hard infrastructure, the second one is laws, regulations, and policies, and we are also trying to improve our AI data and cybersecurity strategy, and the last one is human capital. Human capital is so crucial for us because we understand that without proper human pool we cannot enable our digital transformation strategy. That’s why we are trying to improve digital awareness and digital literacy in our country, so there is a digital academy program and digital leadership program which we are trying to make our CDOs, our ambassadors in all government entities which we can speak the same language with them. These are our some main strategic GPIs for the program 2024 and 2026. We are trying to create live events services, we are trying to digitalize all intergovernmental processes, correspondence, and other things, and we are trying to establish open government, and our new strategy is after implementing both open data portal, we are Our main aim is to shift our strategy from open data portal to the open API. And these are our some strategic GPIs in the field of digital society and digital businesses. We have Digimate program which we are trying to help the SMEs to digitalization of the SMEs. And we have digital library which we provide this type of SMEs with the digital tools. And now I will talk about our digital government products. The first one is Digital Bridge. Digital Bridge is the backbone of the digital government. You cannot imagine digital government without the Digital Bridge. This is our national information exchange system between the government entities. If you want to establish digital government, firstly you should create your information bridge system. Then you can establish your digital government on the top of this system. And as you know, we are the environmental friendly country. We hosted COVID-19 in our country this year. And that’s why this type of services to help us to save trees and environment in this way. And these are main statistical statistics about digital bridge systems. There is more than 71 government agencies who integrated to our system. From the beginning of the implementation of digital bridge to this day, more than 1 billion transactions have been conducted through our system. And as I mentioned already, this system helped us to save more than 10,000 trees annually. And there is a big botanical garden in our country, in our capital city. As our calculation through this system, we saved two times our botanical garden risk. And I will show a brief video about digital bridge, which will make our vision more clear. Yes, there is no voice of the video, but there is subtitles. I think so you can catch it from subtitles. Yes, our next product is MIGO. MIGO is Unified Digital Government Portal, which is to ensure a secure, transparent and user-friendly digital connection between citizens and government and businesses. And in our country, there is more than 2,000 digital acts changed, and now in our country, the digital ID is officially accepted by all of government entities and businesses. It means that in our country, physical documents is equal to digital documents. Citizens can get any type of governmental and private services without their physical ID. There is not only ID card, there is driver’s license, foreign passport and other information in the system. And we are providing this information system, this information and citizen certificates through the MIGO portal. And we are trying to establish our digital public services on the basis of MIGO. of the live events because we understand that at the previous time, not only in our country but the digital government services created on the basis of the services. But we now understand that it’s so easy for citizens to find the proper services which meet them on the basis of live events like, for example, birth, death or marriage registration is already digitalized in our country. And we are trying to create proactive services. It means that, for example, when a citizen reaches the pension age, there is no need to collect any documents or apply any government entities. Government proactively sends just notification to the citizens that you have reached your pension age and you can take your bank card, for example, from the sound bank. And this is the next video about my goal. I hope the sound problem is fixed already. Let’s check. Yes? Okay. And our next product is digital login. This is the single sign-on system. So the system citizens can enter any integrated public and private digital portals. And it means that it helps us to avoid… to use the several passwords and login information in the several portals. There is only one registration need to enter all integrated governmental services. These are the statistics about this product and the next video is about digital login. Yes, this is the CIMA, CIMA is a new generation of advanced digital signature of Microsoft. Thank you. And this is working on actually the face recognition technologies and AI-based. And these are the main things about usage of this product. And the last one is digital document circulation subsystems. Through this subsystem, all our intergovernmental official correspondence is fully digitalized. And there is no need to send any letters between governmental entities. And my last video is about this product. Yes, at the end, I would like to say that these are not all our digital governmental solutions. There are other solutions like e-social, e-court, e- procurement. health care, agro, e-policy, ecology and etc. And at the end of the day, due to our all this type of efforts, we have increased our places nine times in the UN e-government development indexes. So thank you very much for your participating, thank you very much for your attention and now the stage is yours.

Ilaha Baghirova: Thank you Mr. Ismailov for giving information about e-government in Azerbaijan. Now, Laman Akbari will continue the interesting session. He is the head of the marketing and PR department at IDDA. So welcome Laman

Laman Akbarova: Now? Okay, hi, nice to meet you all. So we’re gonna be talking about the communication strategy of the same products that Mr. Orhan has mentioned and we’re gonna go with the main product, MyGov, which we have represented and positioned as a ready product for our audience and applied the 360 marketing communication strategy. So yeah, that’s me. I’m the head of brand and marketing communications in our agency. So basically we are working with all kinds of the products with B2B, G2B and G2C, all kinds of products that were mentioned by Orhan. So we will briefly start with what’s MyGov. I bet you guys already know from the presentation but we will just go so that you could catch the whole concept in here. MyGov is a unified open government platform that via digitalization will simplify the life of our citizens, the citizens of Azerbaijan. Why? Why there is MyGov in there? Of course, like there can be a lot of reasons but the main reasons that we have indicated for ourselves in order to build a nice communication strategy is of course to provide the product that will ease the life of our citizens in Azerbaijan. And also, as we’re a government sector, we need to sustain and develop the relationship between our citizens and our government. And true to say, there are not a lot of products like ours. And the government was never, I would not say never, but seldomly connecting and representing the products straightforwardly to the citizens. So this is something new that we’re bringing in Azerbaijan. So were there any challenges? Of course. Of course, there is no country without the challenge. There is no product without the challenge. And same goes with MyGov. I have listed three of them. There are more of them. But the main ones that we have indicated for ourselves are strong presence of offline services. We’re kind of conservative as a country, as a population. We pile up our documents. If you go to my grandmother’s house, you will see the special place she collects her documents. If you go to any person over 50 years old, they will never accept the digitalized docs equal to the physical ones. So offline service provider, which is working very fast and has eased the life of population 10 years ago, is there. And this is our main competitor and the main, let’s say, government body that we’re competing with. Also, I mean, thoughts of population. I mentioned about my grandmother and the general population that goes on in Azerbaijan. And integration of services and documentation in timely manner. So when we talk about MyGov, it’s not just an app which you can open and have everything inside. It’s an ongoing process. We bring one documentation, kind of documentation. Then we bring the second kind of services. And it has to be communicated in the right target audience on the right channels. So as I said, we had to create the anticipation. We didn’t want to just say, hi, hello, this is MyGov, just download it. We wanted to make it interactive. interesting for our citizens, something exciting, something that they would wait for. And that’s why we started with looking into the concept of the whole app. And what we came up with is that the MyGov is a point of connection, OK, if we talk about the abstract of the whole app, a point where citizens means government, and the point where processes start and will eventually end. And this is something that only we will give on the market. The application, where you will get in, start your process, and you will end your process without going anywhere physically, without spending your time on things that doesn’t matter, like traffic. And instead, spend time with your family, spend time with your friends, and live just, let’s say, developed, happy life. And that’s where exactly we took it as the main point, where the process start and where it will end. And our creative idea was the start here. I will explain what we mean by start here. You may ask, what starts here? MyGov starts here. So this is the point where life without queue starts, where birth registration starts, where comfort starts, where digital starts, and where the future of government services starts. Of course, in order to make the communication successful and not only, but generally, it’s very important to have both of the functional and emotional benefits, and especially in our case. So when we talk about the simplification of life, we’re talking about being free, when we translate it, that we will give to our citizens. When we talk about staying connected, we’re talking about feeling connected. When we have a good user experience, we’re saying that the citizen stays in control, the user stays in control of the app. Why it’s important? of course. We have researched and we, of course, we’re not the first country who is, and we never said we were the first country who is bringing up some product like this, so we researched and researched, and as it turned out, a lot of governments, they believe and they have adopted it that the benefits, as I said, the functional benefit, they have to be translated into material and into emotions in order to make it successful. So, and it’s very important to position government as responsive, protective, and transversal, and that’s what exactly what we did. We are positioning, positioned as responsive, protective, transversal. We are not saying that this is the app for you, we’re saying that this app makes you feel something. I will tell you more about this in the next slide, and what’s really mattered in here is that government, here, I, as a government, am by your side wherever you are, because I care, and this is the I care moment is something crucial, and if we will go to the mission statement, you can see that MyGov mission is to enhance the quality of life of citizen and reflect our commitment into caring for each and every citizen. That’s what we wanted to portray as an agency, and if we will go in here, again, whatever started here, saving time, comfort, and this is something that the government actually has an umbrella. The care started here. The moment that the government cares about just starts with MyGov. So, when we go back to the product, MyGov is not only about the digital documentation, it’s not only about the starting and ending point, it’s about the services it’s bringing. So, digital documentation, the ones that Orhan has mentioned before, digital ID, and there is a driving license. When we go to the live events, there are three live events that we have started communicating, and we have right now, and we’re having an upcoming plan for the next year for three more. I will talk about them in more detail, and digital services. There are lots of them, these digital services. services, and I will show you the examples of communication in here. So yeah, as I said, we went to the MyGov as a physical FMCG product, OK? We decided to communicate it in 360 and show that the government can communicate not worse than the private sector. And that’s why we have a TV copy. We’re going to out of home. We have radio placement. We have BTL that is starting in the regions as well. We are massive in PR, both for our minister side and also from the influencing side in the e-news and on TV, and also social media, which everyone knows is a powerful tool in any country right now. So I will show you also the piece of content because, of course, the digital literacy is mainly developed in the capital city and less developed in the rural, let’s say, places. We are creating the how-to videos in order for them to understand how to use the service. Should I play it like this? OK, I think you can hear it in Azerbaijan, but we have added the lines in here. I’m not going to show the whole one. OK. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . they can come to the pickup, drop shipping, they can come to the railway station and use the digital ID instead of the physical one. So there are no need to carry it around. Also, there are services that I mentioned before. So conviction certificate, notarial certificate, and everything that you can actually, communal services within our application that you can use without any physical presence at any other government body. So we’re communicating them as well. And for each of them, we have the separate content, as you can see, as a key visual, and also how-to videos, plus the PR coverage that I mentioned before. This is the kind of also how-tos that we basically do with my in-house team. These guys are working in marketing as well. So we’re recording them, we’re post-production them ourselves as well in order to create more simple content for our citizens. Yeah. Also, of course, as I said, it’s very important to work with social media and influencers, super important, because if we go to statistics, 86% of Azerbaijan population is watching TV, okay? Even though the social media is here, 86% of people still watch TV, so that’s why we are on TV. And the rest, more young generation, let’s say, they’re online, okay? So people in my age, they don’t have the TV, the national TV set in their homes. They use YouTube, they use Netflix, and that’s it. So that’s in order to tackle them as well, and tackle them within the social media, and of course, through YouTube and et cetera, we have influencers, so we’re using someone. on with the high, of course, high engagement rates. And they’re doing this how-to, very regular and very simple how-to videos as well. Here I’m going to have the TVC, OK, the main copy, but it’s in Azerbaijan. It’s not going to be with sounds, I hope. It’s in Azerbaijan, and it’s very long, so I’m going to skip it. I will just try to show you the content that we have for our TV and the banners that we created. So during some series or during some shows on TV, we have bought the place as a banner in order to communicate my goal. So this is how it goes. Here we’re, again, communicating the notarial services, and we’re having the call to action for people to download it. Same goes for the general educative digital ID communication. And here, the main idea of our TVC here, it’s very emotional, right? So we’re showing the use of our grandparents, how they used to have this documentation and piling them up, and how many difficulties they were going through. For example, this guy is trying to buy a car, and he cannot because he has his documentation left at home. And then we’re transferring and showing everyone that now you don’t need to have it. You have MyGov, which is simplifying your life. MyGov, always with you. MyGov is closer to the government. These are two live events that also are out. So one is to be a parent, which you get the certificate of your child, newborn child, through MyGov. You can give the name of your child, register, and get your physical, then, certificate at the point of physical office. And then also get married. In order to get married, now Azerbaijan population doesn’t need to go anywhere. You write the code of your ID, and the code of ID of the person you want to get married with, and they just get the notification. that someone wants to marry you, and you simply accept it. And the whole process on the back is going. And then you have a physical wedding, you get your certificate, and everyone is happy. So this is like super, super cool thing for Azerbaijan and super innovative thing that we have launched. And also, other than this kind of cool features and content, we also have educative content. As I said, digital literacy is not on the point as in Europe or maybe in some very developed countries. So this is part of our job as well in order to actually increase the digital literacy. And this kind of key visuals, and we have long captions to them or long interviews that we’re giving on social media, is about the consultant management, for example. MyGov is the first app in Azerbaijan that brings this feature to citizens. People can actually control what kind of data they’re sharing with government bodies, with the banks. For example, I have a mortgage, right? I do. And bank asks for my permission once. And then they can use my data as much as they want. And for example, before MyGov, I didn’t know about that. Now I can access it, and I can actually stop them using my data. And they will have to call me again and ask for it if they need it. So in order to deliver this message, because if you ask the general public, they would say, why do I need it? OK, my data is government data. They can use it. In order to increase the importance of this, in order to explain why it’s important, we have this separate kind of informative educational content that we’re sharing within the MyGov platform. Yeah, and in the end, this is just the numbers for the last 25 days. I just wanted to show you how we’re doing. It’s not the final numbers, and also not the final report. But as you can see, as I said, YouTube YouTube, OLVs, everything placed for young generation. This is a digital marketing number. So we brought almost 35,000 downloads last month in 20, 25 days, which is a super high number because we have compared this to the funnel of our competitors or other public sectors, and this is a very high number. And we have high amount of impressions, which are going for 70% of them are organic right now, which is a great number. And YouTube views, which is over the million. Same goes for meta ads, more than 8 million impressions, more than 30,000 clicks, and total views almost for 4 million. What we’re trying to do in the next year and trying to actually update is our strategy within the YouTube because there are a lot of shorts, a lot of TikTok stuff that we have not activated yet. And we believe that it will give us even more numbers that we’re looking for and more exposure to the target audiences that we’re working with. So that’s the last slide of my presentation. And I hope you enjoyed it. And I would be happy to answer any of your questions. Follow us, please follow us on Instagram. We’re going as a MyGov. I can share the page if you’re interested. And I hope you will enjoy the next speaker. And we’re going to talk about AIM. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Ilaha Baghirova: Thank you very much, Laman Khanem. Now, Elvin Hajiyev, the head of the Azerbaijan Innovation Center will talk about another part of the story. Welcome. Thank you.

Elvin Hajiyev: Thank you, Laha. The clicker, Laman. Laman, clicker. Did you switch? My slide. Yes. Hello, everyone. Thank you for staying with us. Unfortunately, I don’t have those fancy videos, but I will try to explain what our agency does in terms of the innovation. So from the name, you can understand it’s Innovation and Digital Development Agency. My colleagues have been talking about what we do most in the digital part, which is basically building the products. And I would slightly touch on what we do for the innovation. And I will talk to you about the Azerbaijan Innovation Center that we have recently launched. So studying the best practices around the world or among the countries, it comes clear that in order to have a sustainable, well-functioning, innovative society, there are five main pillars that we have to foresee. And we identify them as following, which is the market access for the startups and the companies, having access to funding, access to infrastructure, access to talent and culture. And I will go a little bit in the details with each of these pillars and explain what we do for each of these pillars as the agency. So obviously, when you want to have this ecosystem functioning, you have to have some sort of access to the market for the startups, for the investors, for the foreign companies, IT companies to work with. For that to happen, we have to create the ecosystem to emerge. And in order to do so, we work with lots of universities within the country, third-party vendors. And we do lots of programs throughout, not only in Bakur, the capital city, throughout other cities of the country. So for the last two years, out of these programs, we managed to get more than 600 unique ideas, out of which we achieved to get to 165 MVPs, which is the minimum viable products for the startups. And out of that, obviously, we go to the incubation and the acceleration programs for these MVPs to grow further. And once that happens, we kind of try to have the match with the market. to our investors and the venture funds to get them to the next steps. Parallel to that, we take our startups, it’s not just about in the country, and we go to international events. So last two years, we have taken probably 18, close to 20 events globally, whether it’s the Middle East, MENA region, Europe, Asia, and we sponsor these events and we take our startups and our IT companies and we take them to international global markets so they can build the communications, collaborations, and networking in order to grow their businesses. Access to funding. So when it comes to funding of the startups and ecosystem, it’s a bit closed box for Azerbaijani society because, you know, being part of the Soviet Union for 70 years and now trying to open up, modernize the economy and the system, and it’s not that very easy task. So the government took the first steps to initiate the venture funds establishment in Azerbaijan. The very first fund that, with our support and help, is established is the Caucasus Ventures, and there is another private company that established the Sabah Fund, and recently we seen the emergement of the InMerge Fund established, which is currently around 35 million USD under the management. The number is not that big yet, but the ecosystem is relatively new, so we understand that in the coming years it’s going to grow to probably more than 50 million, and once we have a few more success stories coming up, it will eventually grow further. So we help and invest our startups through these venture funds, not directly. Access to talent. Obviously, once you have the market access and you have the investment and the money in place, you need to have the people who will work in these companies and the startups. And the education part, as my colleagues also mentioned, we take it very seriously as an agency, as a ministry. So far we have managed to provide scholarships. to more than 9,000 students in the last two years. And we are trying to create this pool of talents that can be accessible to foreign companies when they come to Azerbaijan to open their subsidiaries or recreate or use this pool as the outsource for their projects. Also, we have created the Azerbaijan Cyber Security School, which is graduating and the graduates start to work in the government entities and organizations that foresee the cyber security issues or the processes in the country. And we also support several schools, which is like Holberton Schools, and it’s a national franchise, peer-to-peer coding school that has probably two cohorts throughout the year and gives graduates to the ecosystem. Culture. Culture is a big issue, I would say, for us, because as I mentioned, as a former Soviet Union country, when you talk about startup innovation, it’s a very close phenomenon for our people. Still, a significant number of our community and society, I don’t wanna say don’t get it, but probably doesn’t have the necessary tools and understanding of what it should be. So as an agency, we try to change this culture. Resources that we have, we make lots of events, we make the community events, networking events, and recently, last week, we actually had the second EDA Awards, which we select like the main ecosystem players and startups, and we, during the, for the 11th nomination, and we do this event, so we kind of, like mini Oscar events for our innovation ecosystem, which stimulate the companies and the individuals to take part here. Lots of meetups, and we do international PR as well to change that culture. And last pillar is obviously access to the infrastructure. So when you have the market in the place. moving, and then you have the talent pool, and then you have to provide the necessary for them to grow. This is where I particularly participate mostly. And so our ministry does kind of a broader scale of infrastructure support, which is the access to the fixed line of networks, building the data centers, and all these global scale projects. But as an agency, we do mostly on the physical space for our startups to come and operate. So this is where I’m shifting to the project that I mentioned, which is the Azerbaijan Innovation Center. We call it Azerbaijan Innovation Merkazi. Merkazi stands for the center. But we decided to keep it as AIM, because it serves for our purpose, and it describes what we want to get achieved easily. So this is the building that we have opened very recently. Actually, our first opening was on the 2nd of October. So what we try to achieve here is basically, it’s going to be a network of physical spaces. But we don’t want to limit it just with the physical space. So yes, we are going to have the co-working office spaces, meeting rooms, and several resources that are required for the startups and the companies and the mentors to come, sit, and work together, which you can see from the photos. The first space that we opened in Baku very recently. And we are planning to open the second store, I mean, not store, the branch next week. And for the next year, we are planning to do three more locations throughout the country. And it’s not just like innovation centers. We are also supporting to build R&D labs and centers in one of the universities this year. Already started doing that. And next year, we are sponsoring to financing to build R&D center. within the universities. So it’s going to be branded as like powered by AIM. And it’s not just like innovation center. It’s going to be different formats as well. So what we do here, it’s not obviously, as we say, just our goal is not to send the tables or the desk or the meeting rooms to our residents, right? We want to make it to become as the new epicenter of the ecosystem. And we have been open for then two months. And we already have probably more than 35 events took place in our centers. And we do the meetups, the workshops, the trainings. We have the conferences. And during COP 29, we had two big events took place in our centers, where innovators, business people come together. They discuss. They do networking. And they do celebrations for the graduations. This is the photo from the Halberton School cohort, the graduation. It’s becoming a vibrant place, which makes us very happy. The collaboration and networking is very important for the ecosystem growth. And lastly, other than providing the physical space and doing all these events, we also planning to build several products within AIM. One of the main tools that the IT Park residency startups are companies. So mostly in the IT Parks, you have to be physically present there. But in our case, we have the mandate to give virtual residency to our residents. So you may have your own office in different parts of the country. But you can still apply for the residency. And you will still get the tax benefits, the social taxes, the property taxes, the personal income tax. You get tax deduction on your dividends that you make. So all these benefits that you may get on the physical techno parks or IT parks, some countries call, you can get virtually as well. We do soft landing programs dedicated to working on this. This is relatively new, by the way. We recently started doing that. And Soft Landing is going to work for the foreign companies who want to come to Azerbaijan and get into the market. And when you come to Azerbaijan, it’s not just us per se, but you can work with the region as well, which is South Caucasus. And you can have the access to the Central Asian through our connections and the government bodies. Business support, we will provide technical or mentorship or any kind of business support that our newly established businesses or startups that will require along the road. And we are also creating these excellent centers in different verticals. So we are closely working with different industries in the country, whether it’s the financial sector, whether it’s the defense sector. And our goal is to kind of stimulate and grow the ecosystem around the specific verticals that are growing organically and are ready to support us along the road. Obviously, we have the future plans. I’m not going to go into details in each of them. But as a country, as an organization, as a state organization, we want to stimulate this growth. So three years IDA has been supporting. We play as a state agency, as an ecosystem enabler. So we try to help the ecosystem so that it grows. But we have seen that it’s not enough. The ecosystem is very young, very immature. So we felt the necessity to step in and create another brand that will work with the ecosystem players hand-to-hand to help the growth of whether it’s the startups, whether it’s the IT companies, whether you put the country on the map in the regional progress, et cetera. So in the next two years, probably, we want to become stronger within the country, open our spaces, and then grow regionally and internationally. I put my contacts in case you want to take the ESP. In case you have any questions you want you can this is my whatsapp telegram number as well and my email Please please feel free to contact me. I’ll be more than happy to assist you guys and Thank you for your attention and bearing with us

Agreement Points

Digital transformation strategy

Orkhan Ismayilov

Laman Akbarova

Elvin Hajiyev

Digital government strategy based on three pillars: digital government, digital society, digital businesses

Communication strategy to promote MyGov and increase digital literacy

Azerbaijan Innovation Center (AIM) to support startup ecosystem

All speakers emphasized the importance of a comprehensive digital transformation strategy that encompasses government services, society, and businesses, with specific initiatives to support each area.

Importance of digital literacy and cultural change

Laman Akbarova

Elvin Hajiyev

Educational content to increase digital literacy

Building innovation culture through events, awards, and PR

Both speakers highlighted the need to increase digital literacy and promote a culture of innovation in Azerbaijan through various educational and promotional activities.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the importance of MyGov as a central platform for digital government services and the need for a comprehensive communication strategy to promote its adoption.

Orkhan Ismayilov

Laman Akbarova

MyGov platform as unified portal for government e-services

Communication strategy to promote MyGov and increase digital literacy

Both speakers recognized the challenge of changing traditional mindsets and the need for targeted efforts to promote digital adoption and innovation culture.

Laman Akbarova

Elvin Hajiyev

Overcoming preference for offline services and physical documents

Building innovation culture through events, awards, and PR

Unexpected Consensus

Importance of physical infrastructure alongside digital services

Orkhan Ismayilov

Elvin Hajiyev

Digital Bridge for information exchange between government agencies

Physical and virtual infrastructure through AIM centers

While focusing on digital transformation, both speakers unexpectedly emphasized the importance of physical infrastructure to support digital initiatives, showing a balanced approach to development.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The speakers demonstrated strong agreement on the need for a comprehensive digital transformation strategy, the importance of MyGov as a central platform, the need to increase digital literacy, and the importance of supporting innovation and startups.

Consensus level

High level of consensus among speakers, indicating a well-coordinated approach to digital transformation in Azerbaijan. This alignment suggests a strong potential for successful implementation of the discussed initiatives.

Different Viewpoints

Unexpected Differences

Overall Assessment

summary

No significant areas of disagreement were identified among the speakers.

difference_level

The level of disagreement appears to be minimal or non-existent. The speakers presented complementary information about different aspects of Azerbaijan’s digital government transformation and innovation ecosystem development, suggesting a unified approach and strategy.

Partial Agreements

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the importance of MyGov as a central platform for digital government services and the need for a comprehensive communication strategy to promote its adoption.

Orkhan Ismayilov

Laman Akbarova

MyGov platform as unified portal for government e-services

Communication strategy to promote MyGov and increase digital literacy

Both speakers recognized the challenge of changing traditional mindsets and the need for targeted efforts to promote digital adoption and innovation culture.

Laman Akbarova

Elvin Hajiyev

Overcoming preference for offline services and physical documents

Building innovation culture through events, awards, and PR

Key Takeaways

Azerbaijan is implementing a comprehensive digital government transformation strategy based on three pillars: digital government, digital society, and digital businesses

The MyGov platform serves as a unified portal for government e-services, aiming to simplify citizens’ interactions with government

A multi-channel marketing approach is being used to promote MyGov and increase digital literacy among citizens

The Azerbaijan Innovation Center (AIM) has been established to support the startup ecosystem and foster innovation

Key digital government products include Digital Bridge for inter-agency information exchange, digital ID and documentation services, and proactive government services for life events

Challenges in digital adoption include overcoming preferences for offline services and physical documents, especially among older generations

Resolutions and Action Items

Expand the MyGov platform to include more services and life events

Open additional AIM centers throughout the country

Continue educational efforts to increase digital literacy

Further develop the startup ecosystem through funding, infrastructure, and talent development programs

Unresolved Issues

Long-term sustainability of the digital transformation efforts

Measuring the impact of digital services on citizen satisfaction and government efficiency

Addressing potential cybersecurity concerns as more services move online

Suggested Compromises

Maintaining some physical service points while promoting digital alternatives to ease the transition for less tech-savvy citizens

Offering both virtual and physical residency options for startups in the AIM program

We are understanding that there are three main components, and that’s why we try to establish our digital nation on these components. There are some GNL enablers which can enable to the digital development. The first one is hard infrastructure, the second one is laws, regulations, and policies, and we are also trying to improve our AI data and cybersecurity strategy, and the last one is human capital.

speaker

Orkhan Ismayilov

reason

This comment provides a comprehensive framework for digital transformation, highlighting key components and enablers. It’s insightful because it demonstrates a holistic approach to digital development, considering not just technology but also legal, policy, and human aspects.

impact

This set the tone for the rest of the discussion by establishing the broad context of Azerbaijan’s digital transformation efforts. It led to more detailed explanations of specific initiatives within this framework.

We are positioning, positioned as responsive, protective, transversal. We are not saying that this is the app for you, we’re saying that this app makes you feel something.

speaker

Laman Akbarova

reason

This comment reveals a sophisticated marketing approach that focuses on emotional connection rather than just functionality. It’s thought-provoking because it shows how government services are being marketed more like consumer products.

impact

This shifted the discussion towards the importance of user experience and public perception in government digital initiatives. It led to a detailed explanation of the communication strategy for MyGov.

So studying the best practices around the world or among the countries, it comes clear that in order to have a sustainable, well-functioning, innovative society, there are five main pillars that we have to foresee. And we identify them as following, which is the market access for the startups and the companies, having access to funding, access to infrastructure, access to talent and culture.

speaker

Elvin Hajiyev

reason

This comment introduces a structured approach to building an innovation ecosystem. It’s insightful because it breaks down the complex task of fostering innovation into specific, actionable areas.

impact

This comment shifted the discussion from specific digital products to the broader innovation ecosystem. It led to a detailed explanation of each pillar and Azerbaijan’s efforts in these areas.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by providing a comprehensive view of Azerbaijan’s digital transformation and innovation efforts. They moved the conversation from high-level strategy to specific implementations, and from technology-focused discussions to considerations of user experience, culture, and ecosystem development. The speakers demonstrated a sophisticated understanding of both the technical and human aspects of digital transformation, revealing Azerbaijan’s ambition to not just digitize services, but to fundamentally transform its economy and society through technology and innovation.

Summary

This forum focused on deepening cooperation in digital governance to bridge the global digital divide. Speakers from various organizations and countries discussed strategies for promoting digital inclusion and leveraging technology for sustainable development. The discussion emphasized three key themes: inclusiveness, innovation, and international cooperation.

Several speakers highlighted China’s efforts in expanding digital infrastructure and services, including nationwide 5G coverage and programs to bring connectivity to rural areas. Representatives from ICANN and Huawei Cloud shared initiatives to make the internet more accessible through internationalized domain names and cloud-based solutions for underserved regions. The importance of cloud computing as a foundation for digital infrastructure was stressed, with examples from Saudi Arabia’s investments in cloud services.

Speakers also addressed the challenges of digital inclusion for elderly populations, sharing strategies like simplified interfaces and training programs. The need to accelerate digital transformation across sectors was discussed, with emphasis on quantifying both tangible and intangible benefits of digital technologies. Participants agreed on the importance of multi-stakeholder cooperation in global digital governance.

The forum concluded by calling for collaborative efforts to seize opportunities in the digital era and build a shared future in cyberspace. Speakers emphasized that bridging the digital divide requires ongoing innovation, inclusive policies, and international partnerships to ensure the benefits of digitalization reach all populations.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– Promoting digital inclusion and bridging the digital divide through infrastructure development, emerging technologies, and international cooperation

– China’s efforts and achievements in expanding digital access and capabilities, especially in rural areas

– The importance of cloud computing infrastructure and AI in accelerating digital transformation

– Addressing the digital divide for elderly populations through accessible design and education initiatives

– The need for multi-stakeholder cooperation in global digital governance

Overall purpose:

The goal of this forum was to discuss ways to deepen international cooperation on digital governance and bridge the global digital divide, with a focus on promoting digital inclusion and leveraging emerging technologies for sustainable development.

Tone:

The overall tone was collaborative, optimistic and forward-looking. Speakers shared positive examples and experiences from their countries/organizations, while emphasizing the need for continued cooperation to address remaining challenges. The tone remained consistent throughout, with all participants expressing a shared commitment to creating a more inclusive digital future.

Speakers

– Liu Yue: Moderator from China Academy of Information and Communications Technology

– Wang Jianchao: Deputy Director-General, International Corporation Bureau, Cyberspace Administration of China

– Theresa Swinehart: SVP of Global Domains and Strategy at ICANN, expert on global internet governance

– Echo Li: Vice President of Marketing and Solution at Huawei Cloud Saudi Arabia

– Talal Albakr: General Manager for Digital Advisory and Strategic Programs at Saudi Cloud Computing Company

– Dai Wei: Deputy Secretary General of the Internet Society of China, Deputy Director of China IGF

– Saad Haj Bakry: Professor from the College of Computer and Information Sciences at King Saud University

– Dai Lina: Deputy Director of the Journalism Institute of the Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences

Additional speakers:

– Long Kai: Deputy Director-General, Information Development Bureau, Cyberspace Administration of China

– Huang Chengqing: Vice President of Internet Society of China and Director-General of China IGF

Expanded Summary of Digital Governance Forum

Introduction

This forum focused on deepening cooperation in digital governance to bridge the global digital divide. Speakers from various organisations and countries discussed strategies for promoting digital inclusion and leveraging technology for sustainable development. The discussion emphasised key themes of inclusiveness, innovation, and international cooperation.

Key Discussion Points

1. Digital Infrastructure and Inclusion

The importance of digital infrastructure as a foundation for development and bridging the digital divide was a central theme. Wang Jianchao, Deputy Director-General of the International Corporation Bureau at the Cyberspace Administration of China, stressed the need for global cooperation to address this issue. Theresa Swinehart from ICANN highlighted her organisation’s role in coordinating global internet infrastructure, emphasising the importance of a multi-stakeholder approach to internet governance.

Echo Li, Vice President of Marketing and Solution at Huawei Cloud Saudi Arabia, showcased Huawei Cloud’s global presence and shared specific cases of digital transformation. These included a weather prediction model for fisheries in Africa and an education cloud in the UAE. Li emphasised the critical role of cloud computing as a foundation for digital infrastructure and innovation.

Talal Albakr, General Manager for Digital Advisory and Strategic Programs at Saudi Cloud Computing Company (SCCC), highlighted Saudi Arabia’s investments in cloud infrastructure. He explained how SCCC is accelerating digital transformation in the Saudi market, stating, “Cloud allows agility and quick time to value… for any AI use case, you need three months to implement. Imagine with the legacy stuff, with the legacy you need at least 18 months.”

2. Emerging Technologies and Innovation

The discussion also focused on the potential of emerging technologies to drive innovation and development. Echo Li spoke about AI and big data applications across various sectors, while Talal Albakr emphasised how cloud computing enables the adoption of AI and other emerging technologies.

Professor Saad Haj Bakry from King Saud University provided insights on digital benefits and technology transfer. He raised a thought-provoking question: “Are we doing enough or are we utilising enough the beautiful digital technology for our benefits?” This self-reflective query encouraged a more critical examination of current digital transformation strategies.

3. Digital Inclusion for the Elderly

A significant focus of the discussion was on addressing the digital divide for elderly populations. Dai Wei, Deputy Secretary General of the Internet Society of China, discussed efforts to promote information accessibility and improve digital literacy among the ageing population. He highlighted initiatives to make websites and mobile applications more accessible to elderly and disabled users.

Dai Lina, Deputy Director of the Journalism Institute of the Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences, shared Shanghai’s comprehensive efforts to help seniors cross the digital divide. She stated, “Shanghai prioritises the elderly and disabled in the digital transformation of the city and strives to turn itself into a city with a better human touch.” Specific initiatives included:

– Establishing digital literacy classes for seniors

– Creating elderly-friendly versions of popular apps

– Providing one-on-one assistance for seniors at government service centers

– Maintaining traditional service methods alongside digital options

4. International Cooperation on Digital Governance

The need for international cooperation in digital governance was a recurring theme. Wang Jianchao highlighted China’s participation in global digital governance initiatives. Theresa Swinehart emphasised the importance of a multi-stakeholder approach, stating, “We need to remember that the inclusive Internet involves all of us, and it should continue to be one that considers and hears the voices of all stakeholders who are involved and maintain and operate and use the Internet.”

Areas of Agreement

There was broad consensus among speakers on several key points:

1. The critical role of digital infrastructure, including cloud computing and internet governance systems, in fostering development and bridging the digital divide.

2. The importance of making digital services accessible and user-friendly for elderly populations.

3. The view of cloud computing as a crucial foundation for digital infrastructure and enabler of emerging technologies like AI.

4. The necessity of international cooperation and involving multiple stakeholders in addressing digital governance challenges.

Areas of Difference

While overall consensus was high, there were some differences in approach and emphasis:

1. Approaches to bridging the digital divide varied, with some speakers emphasising global cooperation (Wang Jianchao) while others focused on specific technological solutions like cloud computing (Echo Li and Talal Albakr).

2. There were differences in focus regarding the role of stakeholders, with Theresa Swinehart emphasising internet governance while Saad Haj Bakry stressed the general societal benefits of digital technologies.

Key Takeaways and Action Items

1. Continue efforts to expand internet access and digital infrastructure globally.

2. Develop more elderly-friendly versions of digital applications and services.

3. Increase investment in cloud computing infrastructure, especially in developing countries.

4. Provide more digital literacy training programmes, particularly for elderly populations.

5. Strengthen international cooperation on digital governance issues.

Unresolved Issues

Several important issues remained unresolved, including:

1. Balancing data sovereignty concerns with the benefits of global cloud infrastructure.

2. Establishing specific metrics or targets for measuring progress on bridging the digital divide.

3. Determining funding mechanisms for expanding digital infrastructure in underserved regions.

4. Addressing potential job displacement from increased AI and automation.

Conclusion

The forum concluded with a call for collaborative efforts to seize opportunities in the digital era and build a shared future in cyberspace. Speakers emphasised that bridging the digital divide requires ongoing innovation, inclusive policies, and international partnerships to ensure the benefits of digitalisation reach all populations. As Wang Jianchao aptly summarised, “To ensure everyone could avoid the express train of digital economy and share its benefits, it is urgent to deepen cooperation on development and governance, bridge the digital divide, and work together towards a brighter digital future.” The event concluded with participants gathering for a group photo, symbolizing their shared commitment to these goals.

Liu Yue: Afternoon, I’m Liu Yue from the China Academy of Information and Communications Technology, and I’m honored to be the moderator of this workshop. On behalf of the organizer, I would like to extend the warmest welcome and the most sincere thanks to all the guests attending the 2024 ICF Open Forum on Deepen Cooperation on Governance Bridges the Digital Divide, so you can choose Channel 3 for listening to our voice. Currently, a new wave of technology revolution and industrial transformation is rapidly unfolding, with the rising importance of digital governance at international, regional, and national levels. Last year, during the ICF in Japan, we hosted an open forum on digital governance, hoping that all parties would share responsibility and foster cooperation. Today, we gather again under the theme of Deepen Cooperation on Governance Bridges the Digital Divide, promoting the digital inclusion and the digital technology for good, as well as UNSDG. Today, the guests attending the forum include Mr. Wang Jianchao, Deputy Director-General, International Corporation Bureau, Cyberspace Administration of China, and Mr. Long Kai, Deputy Director-General, Information Development Bureau, Cyberspace Administration of China, and Huang Chengqing, Vice President of Internet Society of China and Director-General of China IGF. Also, we have representatives from the international organizations, think tanks, associations, and enterprises to make presentations at this forum. At the same time, we have colleagues hosting this forum online. Now, I’d like to invite Mr. Wang Jianchao, Deputy Director-General, International Corporation Bureau, Cyberspace Administration of China, to deliver his opening address. Please take the floor. Mr. Wang Jianchao, Deputy Director-General, International Corporation Bureau, Cyberspace Administration of China

Wang Jianchao: Distinguished SVP Mrs. Wayne Hart, distinguished DDG Mr. Long, VP Mr. Huang, ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon. First, on behalf of the Bureau of International Corporation, Cyberspace Administration of China, the organizer of this event, I would like to extend a hearty welcome and a warm greeting to all the participants. Currently, the digital economy, driven by emerging technology like AI, cloud computing, and big data, has become one of the fastest-growing, most competitive, and most innovative sectors in national economy development. To ensure everyone could avoid the express train of digital economy and share its benefits, it is urgent to deepen cooperation on development and governance, bridge the digital divide, and work together towards a brighter digital future. Under this background, we look forward to hearing the insights from all the delegates. It is well known that Chinese President Xi Jinping has put forward the Global Development Initiative, the Global Security Initiative, and the Global Civilization Initiative. The three initiatives echo and reinforce each other, fostering widespread consensus and strong support within the international community for enhancing cooperation, tackling challenges, and creating a shared future. Guided by President Xi’s thoughts and visions, the Chinese government has continuously strengthened the top-level design and made overall arrangements and systematically advanced its efforts. Being committed to the people-centered approach featuring open operation, mutual benefits, and a living solution, we have made positive efforts to encourage in-depth involvement of government, industry, academia, and research sectors in global digital governance. Fostering the building of a community with a shared future in cyberspace. In recent years, China has committed to promoting connectivity as a crucial way to bridge the digital divide. At present, every city in China has achieved 5G network coverage, and we have brought fiber broadband and 4G-5G networks into deep mountain areas, historically enabling convenient Internet access in both urban and rural areas. China also has carried out 10 rounds of telecommunication universal services efforts, supporting the construction of fiber optical networks in 130,000 administrative villages nationwide and 89,000 4G and 5G base stations in rural areas. China persistently views innovation applications as a crucial driving force for development, positioning digital technology as a leading force in technological revolution and industrial transformation. China has been accelerating the development and application of the next generation digital and information communication technologies such as 5G, big data, and AI, while optimizing computing infrastructure layout and continuously strengthening the foundation for digital development. Significant strides have been achieved in expanding telecommunication universal services, narrowing the digital divide between urban and rural areas, and accelerating communication infrastructure development in rural areas. China has formulated and implemented information and communication industry development plans, driving network quality improvements and upgrades. Additionally, China has also supported enterprises actively participating in international infrastructure development to promote interconnectivity of digital facilities. China upholds solidarity and cooperation as a fundamental principle for advancing digital governance. We are committed to promoting global digital governance with the UN as the main channel, working with all parties to seek solutions for prominent issues in digital development and global digital governance and building international consensus. China has constructively participated in the whole process of the global digital compact negotiations. The GDC follows the prevailing trends of promoting digital development and cooperation in the world reflects the urgent call of all countries, especially global south countries. For efforts to narrow the digital divide and wipe out governance deficits and demonstrate the common aspiration of the international community to respond to digital communities of opportunities and challenges and build an inclusive, open, fair, and secure digital future through joint efforts and cooperation. The GDC also provides fresh impetus for global digital governance. Nowadays, changes of historical significance across the world are unfolding in ways like never before. Deepening digital governance and bridging the digital divide requires collaborative participation from all the countries and all the parties. On this occasion, I would like to put forward three points. Firstly, we need to pursue a common development. We should make joint efforts to advance openness and cooperation in digital governance and reach the dimensions of opening up and enhance the level of opening up. Efforts should be made to foster collaborative innovation in infrastructure development and digital technology, cultivate new driving forces through digitalization and propel new development with these driving forces. Secondly, we need to meet shared responsibilities. We should be committed to multilateral and multi-party participation, giving full play to the roles of various entities, including governments, international organizations, internet companies, and tech NICO communities, civil society, and individual citizens. We should work together to improve the international governance mechanism shared and governed by all, and facilitate the building of a fairer and more equitable global internet governance system. Thirdly, we need to share the benefits. We should stay committed to a people-centered approach, promoting tech for good and bridging the digital divide to increase people’s sense of gains from internet development, thereby accelerating the effective implementation of the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Global Digital Compact. Ladies and gentlemen, dear friends, we’d like to take this forum as an opportunity to strengthen dialogue and communication, deepen understanding of policies, share practical experiences, and seek extensive cooperation. Let’s join hands together and promote collective efforts to boost the healthy development of global digital economy, and advance the building of a community with a shared future in cyberspace. Wish the forum a complete success.

Liu Yue: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Wang. His opening address highlight Chinese key concepts and share the Chinese practice and achievements. And also, he proposed three recommendations to pursue common development to meet shared responsibility and to share the benefits. And his recommendation give us a very good reference and guidance. Now, we will move to the presentation segment with the first topic being Accelerating Digital Infrastructure Development and Fostering Global Digital Inclusion. In this session, we are honored to invite three distinguished speakers. And reminded to all speakers, each person will have eight minutes to speak. First, I’d like to introduce our first speaker, Mr. Teresa Swinhart, SVP of Global Domains and the Strategy at ICANN. As a leading expert on global internet governance, Teresa collaborates with community, contracted parties, stakeholders, and the policy makers to ensure broad and inclusive participation. And Teresa will present on working towards a more inclusive intent. Please take the floor. Welcome.

Theresa Swinehart: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you so much. And thank you for having me and inviting me to this session. You can hear me okay? Yes, fantastic. Very good. So, the introductory remarks were excellent because they really touched on so many of the areas that we need to be working on. And accelerating the construction of digital infrastructure and promoting digital inclusiveness and development requires cooperation and it requires that we all work together on that. The internet has evolved and it keeps evolving. And it’s truly become the foundation for the digital society that we live in today and that we rely on. We have people who are participating remotely to these sessions as well and everything. This foundation allows us to build on the internet to implement initiatives that seek to ensure that the benefits of the digitalization are felt by all of its users. And we’ve seen over the years, and we saw during all the years, education online, health online, all these different initiatives and communicating with family members. So there’s opportunities on multiple levels, of course, plus the business opportunities. So ICANN’s role is limited in this area, in the inclusive nature of the internet, in the accelerating the construction, but we play an important role. And that is around the Global Unique Identifier System or how the addressing system works, how we communicate with each other, how your email is coming across. We coordinate, as we said, the Global Unique Identifier System that includes the DNS, the Domain Name System, IP addresses, and protocol parameters. And those comprise the components of the internet infrastructure and how we communicate with each other. We’re a nonprofit, public interest-driven organization, and we’re committed to building a globally unique, secure, interoperable, and inclusive internet. And there’s some things that we’ve been doing recently and over time and also through the contribution of many of the stakeholders, also in China and in many different parts of the world, who have technical expertise, governance expertise, business expertise that have contributed to all of this work. The few areas I’d like to highlight is the active involvement by the community in what is being referred to as the next round of new top-level domains. That is the introduction of new top-level domains, either to the right of the dot or for other scripts to the left of the dot, in that case. The new TLD program aims to expand the domain name space by introducing more generic top-level domains, or gTLDs, and affording that opportunity. The important aspect of this next round, though, is as the evolution of internationalized domain names, there is exceeding opportunity to introduce domain names in their own script, which is an important element to inclusivity. These new top-level domains are gonna serve a diverse culture, geographic language, and professional communities, and provide various communities and organizations the opportunity to create their own space online, which means, then, the ability for platforms to connect to that and have that. The other area I want to highlight is the area that is referred to as internationalized domain names. That is new top-level domains, not only in ASCII or Roman character sets, but supporting various language and various scripts, and that’s very important to an inclusive internet and the ability for people to use the language of their choice with a full experience of using that language on the internet. I also want to highlight that the program is paying very strong attention to the underserved and underrepresented regions and communities so they can obtain the necessary support if they want to run a desired TLD. So we’ve recently launched the Applicant Support Program. We’re tracking the applications that are coming in for that that will provide support for the whole experience. Another area of work is around universal acceptance, and what that means is when one has a top-level domain which exceeds more than two or three letters to the right or to the left of the dot, or is in a script that is not an ASCII script, the ability for that communication to be seamless across the system so the platform providers can provide that. Again, an important aspect of inclusivity. Next year, ICANN and UNESCO, United Nations Education, Science, and Cultural Organization, are gonna collaborate on the annual universal Acceptance Day to create awareness around this, and it’s an opportunity to mobilize local, national, regional, and global communities and organizations to become more aware of what needs to be done to undertake this. This collaboration is intended to support and encourage Internet inclusivity and aims to continue the momentum surrounding awareness of what needs to undertake to have universal acceptance. We need to remember that the inclusive Internet involves all of us, and you pointed that out very kindly, and it should continue to be one that considers and hears the voices of all stakeholders who are involved and maintain and operate and use the Internet. It’s the only way we can make it work. Everybody has different expertise, different ideas. We need to do that. When all the relevant experts are at the table, having a say in decisions that are affecting the Internet, the solutions that are identified have a much, much higher chance of succeeding without inadvertently either fragmenting the Internet or not being possible to implement because one hadn’t thought about one aspect or another. None of us have all the expertise. We need to have a shared experience. So I encourage you to follow, participate, and spread the word about these projects in your regions and communities, and we’d like to work together with all interested parties to build a more diversified, multilingual, and inclusive Internet for all of us to benefit from. And I will apologize in advance. I do need to leave before the session ends. So I am very grateful. Thank you for accommodating us. Thank you very much, Teresa, and we hope to work with you and with your team and also the technical community to construct a more inclusive Internet.

Liu Yue: Thank you again. And next, let me introduce our second speaker, Mr. Echo Lee, Vice President of Marketing and Solution at Huawei Cloud Saudi Arabia. And Mr. Lee is playing a crucial role in planning and executing the public cloud region in Saudi Arabia, and he will present on leap to the intelligence with a better cloud. Please take the floor. Thank you. Hello. Can you hear me? Thank you.

Echo Li: So, first of all, thank you very much for CAC to host this forum, and thank you very much for Deputy General to invite me to come to this event. And today, I would like to share some of Huawei’s practice to how we can bridging the gaps for the digital services and bridging the gap between different countries, the digital capabilities. And so, first of all, I would like to give a short introduction about Huawei, what’s our current marketing progress for Huawei. Since it was born in 2017, Huawei Cloud has been expanding the territory in different industries, including the governments, the FSI, and the Internet industry, and it’s growing faster based on the support by our customers and partners and global individuals. I believe that this is one of the foundations for Huawei to achieve in the current stage. It is by the support by the different parties’ support. And if you look at Huawei’s global practice for accelerating the digital foundations, the first, I think, it is to building the regions globally. That’s a foundation how the Huawei Cloud can serve different clients in different countries. So, in the current stage, Huawei Cloud has been building our regions in global, 13 regions, and totally sum up, have 93 availability zones. And just in Saudi last year, we launched Huawei Cloud regions with three availability zones. By leveraging this region, we can provide the most advanced cutting technology by the cloud, the big data, AI, to serving different industrial needs. So, later on, I will share some of the cases where we are utilizing the data and AI technology to bridging the gaps between the countries, as well as to bring the benefit to individuals to different industries. One of the cases we want to share here, it is in one country in Africa. In that country, there are many fisheries that need to go to the seas. You know the climate is changing, the climate is changing a lot, and there’s a huge danger if they go to the sea without knowing what the climate is. And what we do is by providing the notice, the larger models, we call it Pangu Weather Larger Models, which is developed by Huawei, and we’re using that model to train and predict and to focus on the climate change or the weather changes, so that for the fishers, they will know one week ahead what the weather looks like, and they will plan their fishing activities. And the beautiful thing is, this kind of technology doesn’t like, in the old days, you need to set up a very hybrid, like HPC, like Hyper Cluster Computing, which is a huge investment, requires a huge investment from the government and from the companies. It just requires a few GPU servers, and then you can set up this larger model and ROM, and to serve the fishing industry. Another case I want to share here is about education. So we have been working together, like just now the lady, Ms. Teresa mentioned about, we partner with different partners globally to bring in the newest education technologies, and by leveraging the remote learning and online learning technology to serving the students in the Egypt and serving the students in the Africa, so that even though they are studying in the rural areas, but they still can enjoy the latest technologies and enjoy the latest education resources. Another case here I would like to introduce is in the UAE. So we work together with one of the entities, which is called AMCABO in the UAE, together to build an education cloud. So by this cloud, it consolidates all the necessary resources, and the platform, and the application, and also the up-to-date online courses. So to serve the students, the university students, as well as the basic education students. Sorry. Okay. So there’s another case, maybe some problem for the controller. There’s another case I would like to share here. It is one case for the FinTechs. As we know that financial inclusion is a very big topic nowadays, and we have been working together with the local partner in Myanmar, which is considered one of the most undeveloped countries in the world. We together to build up the payment platform, which from the 2018 to set up this platform, which is called KBZPay. And I’m personal to leading that system development. We work with a local partner to start from zero to develop this payment platform, so the users and the citizens in Myanmar, they can leverage the smartphone to do the cash-in and to do the cash-out and transfer money. Just in the pandemic period of time, that everything was shut down. So the people leveraging that application to transfer money to his relatives, to his family, and do the business. So now this platform become a national platform in Myanmar, which is serving more than 17 million users, and the day-to-day value transaction is huge. So we believe that this new technology can be really bridging the gaps between the most advanced countries and the undeveloped countries. Another case I want to share here is one case on the agriculture. As you know, China is also one of the large agricultural countries. So we have some of the advanced technology on the monumental IoT or advanced systems. devices, so we bring this application and devices in Africa, in other Americas, to implement by hosting on the cloud and provide this application to monitoring the crop by weekly, by hour, and we leveraging the AI technology to keep monitoring the growth status, so in case there’s any, I would say that there any disease happens at the crops, the farmer can immediately take actions to clean the diseases by leveraging this technology, and the beautiful thing is this technology will be hosting on cloud with the cost-effective cost to let the farmer have easily to enjoy the technologies. The final case I would like to share here is we know that with the vision of 2013 that Saudi is trying to develop different kind of the new industry, new economy, so one of the cases it’s in in Saudi that Saudi, one company in Saudi called Abax, they are trying to build a platform for the e-commerce, but they are not of the capability to build the platform, and we, together with the partners, to help them to build a whole e-commerce platform by leveraging the latest e-commerce technology of China and setting up the platform successfully in Saudi, and by leveraging the cloud that you can achieve very low latency, so the people in Saudi can enjoy the internet experience similar in other countries, and they can enjoy the latest way how to do the online shopping, they can even do the shopping by the online streaming. Yeah, that’s all for my presentation. At the end, I would like to emphasize the mission of the Huawei, that is to provide the digital to every person, every home, and every organization by building an intelligent world and an intelligent connection. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Liu Yue: Thank you, Mr. Eko Lee, and for your wonderful sharing several cases on the cloud infrastructure and this application for the digital area, and also we are sure that a good cloud for good. So I will introduce our third speaker, Mr. Mo Zhibai, and he comes from the Saudi Cloud Computing Company, and he is the general manager for digital adversary and the strategic programs. In this role, he provides executive adversary on digital and the cloud strategy, and oversees Alibaba cloud strategy program in the region, and he will present on accelerate the construction of digital infrastructure, promote a global digital inclusiveness and the development. Please take the floor, Mr. Mo.

Talal Albakr: Hello everyone, and thank you again for hosting me here. So I’d like to start with making a bold, if you like, statement that I really think that cloud is the way to build the foundation for the digital infrastructure, and the cloud is the only way actually to do that. And why am I saying this? Because as we go through what I’m going to present, you will see that cloud services and cloud platform become like electricity in a country, electricity in an economy, where there are fundamental needs for enterprises and for businesses. So if we look at the spend on the cloud, I’ve been going through different studies and different research, and one of the most conservative figures I found that cloud spending by 2030 is expected to reach 1.35 trillion dollars. I’ve seen studies that take it to 3 trillion and more. 40% of these will be from emerging markets. 40% of the spending will be from emerging markets. And when it comes to emerging technologies, 80% of emerging technology of AI will be actually run on the cloud. I’m just looking and figuring out that you’re not seeing my slides. So while they’re fixing the slides, I’ll just go through the material and not assume you’re seeing it. So the other part, what if a country or economy does not invest on cloud? I see there three risks. First, there is an opportunity risk, opportunity loss risk, because from what we’re seeing in research, and again conservative numbers in research, that for every one dollar invested in cloud infrastructure, the return on GDP is five times, five dollars. So imagine no investment. No investment will lead to a significant opportunity loss. The other part is the international impact, the international investment impact. As you know, countries today, cities today, are like companies. They compete. We compete for international investment everywhere, and countries who do not have the right investment in the digital infrastructure will have investment runaway. And we’ve seen examples of this. We’ve seen positive examples where we’ve seen investments going to Singapore, to Malaysia. We’ve seen recent announcements just because of the availability of the cloud infrastructure and the digital infrastructure. The other part of the investment and potential investment loss is the investment loss that is led or resulted by not having the cloud infrastructure, the disadvantage for the enterprises on the country. The disadvantage will be the enterprises in a specific country where there is no investment, they will not have access to the B2B, B2C, B2BC infrastructure that will allow them to compete in a cross-border commerce. The third one is the digital divide. So imagine a country or economy that does not invest on a digital infrastructure and having the disadvantage of not having the access to some of the cases my colleague mentioned on the digital health, the digital education, digital sports and others. So the hypothesis here, can you run this, that’s the right slide now, so can we run this, actually we’ve just gone through this so you can go to the next one, can we run all of this on legacy setup? And really it cannot be because by the time you put a digital infrastructure using legacy methods, by the time you go live, the infrastructure will be out of date. So cloud allows agility and quick time to value and the other thing cloud allows is the ease of investment. So when we talk about AI and cloud today, normally I would say to customers, enterprises or public sector entities that for any AI use case, you need three months to implement. Imagine with the legacy stuff, with the legacy you need at least 18 months, I would say, to build a data center, let alone to acquire infrastructure that sits on the data center. Then the other aspect is the data sovereignty. So 75% of today’s population are governed by some kind of regulation around data and personalized data. So this is something else that we need to take into account because when we say there is an enterprise advantage or economy advantage for the cloud, also we need to take into account the regulations that come with it. If we go to the next slide, so what did we do in Saudi taking into account all of this? So SCCC, the Saudi cloud computing company, came about there’s two slides ahead please. So Saudi cloud computing company came about with an investment it’s a joint venture. It’s a Saudi-Chinese joint venture that made us bring hyperscaler cloud capabilities to the kingdom. And towards the end of last year, as we saw calculated, we were able to capture more than 70 to 80 percent of the workload by having the cloud in-country, adhering to data sovereignty, but allowing the quick time to value. We go to the next one. So how did this joint venture work? And the reason I’m presenting this, because this is I think a significant experience that could be taken elsewhere as well. So there were three pillars to this. So the first pillar is the effective partners of this joint venture. So STC being the leader, the ICT leader in Saudi Arabia, with a huge enterprise and public sector reach. And the second part is Alicloud with a significant know-how and IP that we took into the market. The second pillar on this is being able actually to conform to all of the Saudi regulations, whether it’s the national cybersecurity or the CST regulation. And the third one, which is very important in there, is by having the right solutions tailored for the Saudi market, the right innovation to bring to the Saudi market. The other approach to add to this, to what we’ve done in this, that we looked at this with a holistic view. So we’re not bringing an infrastructure alone. We’re bringing with it the know-how, the ideation part, the implementation part, the tailoring and the customization part. So customer can realize the value of the investment they make. And add to this now AI. And we believe with AI we’re able to deliver more timely value by having the solution empowered by or powered by AI. Let’s go to the next one. So when we look at Saudi market, in Saudi we looked at key priorities. So as an emerging player in tourism, in sports, in the financial services, as a leader in e-government, we focused our investment around these industries, providing these solutions to these industries. And there we looked at use cases and there’s so many use cases that we tailored to the Saudi market across all of these. Covering quality of life, covering e-government and public sector, and covering the financial services, manufacturing and others. So my call to action, three points. Clouds provide agility and it provides the right time to value. Secondly, investment with the right partnerships and collaboration to lead the right results. And this is a timely investment that required so we leave no country behind and no economy behind. Thank you very much and we’re happy to share, we’re happy to discuss and we’re happy to talk about the experience and also share insight and also welcome any partnership that will help us enrich our offerings in Saudi Arabia. Thank you.

Liu Yue: Okay, thank you for your sharing on cloud, an important infrastructure in the digital world and its development with AI in Saudi market and its benefit the government and also the people here. And thanks all the three speakers in their brilliant presentation in the first topics. Now we will move into the second topic. Strength the innovation and the application of emerging technologies, bridge the global digital divide. In this part we also have three distinguished speakers. Please allow me to introduce our first speaker, Mr. Dai Wei, Deputy Secretary General of the Internet Society of China and he has extensive professional experience in Internet governance and the Internet based public welfare initiatives. And he also serves as the Deputy Director of China ITF and he will present on joint efforts for an aging-friendly and inclusive digital society. Please take the floor. Okay, thank you for the organizer for inviting me to this session. It is my

Dai Wei: honor. I’m Dai Wei from the Internet Society of China and today, this afternoon, I will share with you what the Internet Society of China has done for an inclusive and aging-friendly digital society. The UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development Places the goal of inclusion at the heart of all efforts in order to achieve the promise to leave no one behind. China is a major Internet country with a wide coverage of Internet infrastructures and user forming an exclusive digital society. Additionally, China also has a substantial elderly people. There are nearly 297 million people aged 60 and over by the end of 2023. Among this big number, there are about 170 million aging people using the Internet. So the digital technologies brought the convenience to our daily life and it changed our life and works so we can enjoy the services like online entertainment, online shopping, and online education and so on. However, please bear in mind that some digital divides still exist in the reality. For example, the elderly people cannot use the Internet as smoothly as the young people does because there are so many websites or apps. The interface looks very complex or the font is too small to read. To solve the issue of digital divide, it’s not only about access to the Internet but also how to make it easy to use. Therefore, achieving the goal of building an age-friendly digital society and narrowing the digital divide is not just a simple slogan but presents both formidable challenges and far-reaching significance. In recent years, the Chinese government has implemented a package of policies to tackle issues related to aging population, especially the law on the construction of a barrier-free environment enacted last year is the first legislation to address the importance to promote information accessibility. In line with the policy instruction, different stakeholders of the community had launched a series of approaches to improve the digital literacy of the aging group or facilitate the technical innovation of the related products. As the Internet Industry Association, the Internet Society of China started to reach to research and did a lot of works and things for the information accessibility from the year 2004. We are one of the organizations who firstly introduced the concept of information accessibility to the Chinese community and by follow-up conducted work and some such as a standard formulation and public education and training and the policy-making advice extra. In 2003, we launched the China Public Services Information Accessibility Action Plan to promote online voice reading assistance for keyboard operation and the virtual assistance technology to be used and deployed on the public services websites. The service platform won the champion of 2017 WSIS prize presented by ITU. From 2021, the Internet Society of China undertook technical guidance for the public service websites in nationwide to up… the interface or functions more easily to use for the elderly. Furthermore, we stress our cooperation with professional organizations such as China Association of Persons with Viral Disabilities and the China Association of Volunteers Helping Persons with Disabilities and the China Silver Industry Association. Because we take a lot of efforts and make some cooperation to take joint efforts to facilitate the program. Till now, we have promoted more than 30,000 public service websites to finish the information accessibility functions updated. Ladies and gentlemen, with the deepening of the global digital society and the development of aging society, it is commitment to let no one behind in the digital world. So in the future, we would like to work with you together and make more efforts and make more some cooperation in the future to promote an inclusive digital society for all.

Liu Yue: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Dawei. It’s sharing ideas on how to build a friendly and inclusive digital society and the experience from China and the Internet Society of China. Next, our next speaker is from the university, Mr. Saad Haji Bakri, a professor from the College of Computer and Information Sciences at King Saud University. He will present on promoting digital transformation toward development. Welcome.

Saad Haj Bakry: Assalamu alaikum wa rahmatullah. I am glad to be here with you, this beautiful collection that we are thinking together about the future of the digital world. The question I want actually to address is that are we doing enough or are we utilizing enough the beautiful technology, the beautiful digital technology for our benefits? I don’t want to ask you all this question. I’ll ask myself and say no, we are not. Why? Let’s go into the problem here and gradually from having a view of the digital world, digital benefits, digital transformation. If we start with the digital world, the digital world has a certain issue that we have to recognize. It is accelerating. The growth is not linear. The growth is accelerating. And we are now reaching to what we call the fifth industrial revolution. The cyberspace, of course, is serving us with all the information that we need worldwide. No borders. We need actually to utilize this for our benefits so that we can build what we call digital economy. Of course, the digital world, the digital technology provides us with storage, provides us with transfer of information, but the most important, it’s not only processing now, it’s also intelligence. So we have to use all of these because they provide us all the services, all information services with smaller devices, faster, cheaper, more intelligent, more secure with new opportunities. If we look at the governance of the digital world, we have various levels, starting from the personal level, from how I use the digital technology, how is there standards for that, is there rules for that. Organization level, of course, organization level, we have the ISO 27001002 for the security. We don’t have enough for the actual governance, the detailed governance. There is a small, of course, standard, but not widely known as the cybersecurity one. The national level, global cybersecurity index, the international level, the competition into that, we have all of these levels for the governance of the Internet. Now we move to the benefits. If we look at the benefits of the digital technology, we can see tangible benefits, we can see intangible benefits. Intangible benefits may save us some health problems. Like avoiding tension, avoiding something. And we have also, within these tangible and intangible, recursive benefits and non-recursive benefits. If we look at an example of a tangible benefit, of course, these benefits are for all. For individuals, for government, for business, for the whole society. But if we try to compute, for example, these with regards, for example, the remote work. Remote work, we can estimate the saving for one million employees working for 230 days per year. We can calculate the transportation cost from and to the work. And we can also calculate the saving of time, especially with the crowded areas of all cities of the world. If we do that, we can save approximately 38 billion Saudi Riyal per year, only for one million employees. Are we doing that? We are not doing enough. Maybe we should do something about that in the future. If we look at the technology transfer, technology transfer is not a matter of technology. It’s not a matter of having beautiful cloud computing. It’s not a matter of providing a new artificial intelligence that provides us with many answers. It’s important to look at a broad view. A broad view at the technology, the people using the technology, the organizations using the technology, the environment, the culture of all of these, the culture of the society, in other words, in addition to having a strategy for doing so, together with a time domain to do the improvement. How are we going to do the improvement? We can have all of these dimensions, the technology, organization, people, environment, into a strategy and try to develop over time using, for example, something like Six Sigma stages for continuous improvement. Finally, I would like to recommend that we need to do more about technology transfer. We need to do more about utilizing the technology for our benefits. Our benefits are going to be great. So please think technology, organization, people, environment, and have a strategy for development for the future.

Liu Yue: Thank you very much. Thank you, Professor Saad, for your insight on the digital world, the digital benefits, and the digital transformation. I think we will work together to promote digital transformation toward development. Our final speaker is Mrs. Dalina, Deputy Director of the Journalism Institute of the Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences. She is an active expert based in Shanghai, China. Her primary research interests include international governance of cyberspace, digital policies, and the political economy. She will present on how to help seniors cross the digital divide and adapt to a smarter society. sharing their practice and experience in Shanghai. Welcome, Ms. Tan. Okay, thank you.

Dai Lina: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I’m Lina Dai from Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences. It’s my great honor to be here with you at Riyadh IGF. First of all, please allow me to express my sincere gratitude to the organizers for inviting me to share a few thoughts on digital divide. Today, I would like to talk about the digital divide facing the senior citizens and our experience empowering the elderly with AI in Shanghai. As digitization accelerates, our life relies more and more on the online apps. But these seemingly convenient tools can also bring digital barriers to the elderly, such as mobile payments, online appointments, and hailing taxis with a mobile phone. This has sincerely eroded the rights of the elderly people to enjoy the benefits of digitalization as much as other age groups. Shanghai is one of the cities with the highest degree of digitization and the smart application in China. At the same time, it is also the country’s first group of cities to enter an aging society. And it is the city with the highest ratio of the elderly in China. In recent years, the ratio of the elderly in the population has continued to increase year by year. At the end of 2023, the number of elderly people aged 60 and above has accounted for 37.4% of the total population. Chinese government has released three important plans to bridge the elderly digital divide. To enforce these plans and help the elderly overcome the digital divide, Shanghai has accelerated the pace moving from helping the elderly with digital technologies to helping the elderly with AI tools. The AI era has widened the digital divide for the elderly. This includes the issue of access, use, and the knowledge gap. In 2021, under the guidance of Shanghai Municipal Office of Digital Transformation, the Shanghai Approach Digital Partnership Program was jointly initiated by local government departments, enterprises, citizens, and social organizations to address the problem of digital divide. The details are as follows. In order to address the issue of access, the plan requires software deployers to meet the needs of special groups and make applications more user-friendly. Shanghai issued the design specification for adapting Internet applications for the elderly and improving barrier-free facilities in Shanghai. Specific programs were initiated to develop senior citizen-friendly applications that cater to their needs, such as large screens, big font, voice guidance, simplified versions, one-click access, and so on. The application example is Shanghai Residence’s elderly-friendly version. In order to make applications more senior-friendly, the plan encourages equipment manufacturers to develop more programs and devices that are easy to use for the elderly. For example, services such as the one-click service for the elderly, which provides a one-stop service for medical care, car-hailing, and government policy information. The elderly can contact call centers in various districts through one-click phone calls, smartphones, television, and portable terminals, among other ways. By pressing one button, they can contact call centers and access corresponding service resources. To close the knowledge gap, the government has mobilized social forces through the Mutual Aid Partner Initiative to help elderly people who are not familiar with smartphones but have the ability and desire to learn. There are community information service assistants who are trained to provide relevant information services. The elderly people can attend training courses, hobby classes, close to their homes on the use of smart products. Young people, especially their children, are encouraged to help the elderly familiarize themselves with new equipment and technologies. A number of AI experience testers are selected, and opinion leaders are nurtured among the elderly to give full play to their roles and influence. The Shanghai Elderly Education Working Group Office directed the completion of a study manual entitled Digital Partnership Program, How to Use Smartphones as a Mac City with a High Ratio of Aged Population. Closing the digital divide is the call of the times and a brand new issue for the city’s digitization efforts at the same time. It is also a systematic project that concerns all aspects of the city and the well-being of all citizens. Shanghai prioritizes the elderly and disabled in the digital transformation of the city and strives to turn itself into a city with a better human touch. Above all, it’s a short, brief introduction from Shanghai. Thank you for your attention.

Liu Yue: Thank you, Mr. Dai. Dear guests, experts, ladies and gentlemen, our forum today is about to come to a perfect conclusion. Due to the limited time, I will have a very short ending. Thank you for all the valuable insight and the spirit of cooperation. Today’s discussion and speech can summarize to three key words, inclusiveness, innovation, and international cooperation. Finally, let’s work together to seize the opportunity presented by the Digital Network and the Intelligent World, contributing to the building of a community with a shared future in cyberspace, making the Internet better for people and the world, and stepping into a bright digital future. Thank you. This forum has now concluded. I think we are just a new start to the digital governance and to bridge our digital divide. Thank you. I will invite all the speakers and our distinguished guests to the stage. We will have a group photo. Thank you.

Agreement Points

Importance of digital infrastructure for development

speakers

Wang Jianchao

Theresa Swinehart

Echo Li

Talal Albakr

arguments

Global cooperation needed to bridge digital divide

ICANN’s role in coordinating global internet infrastructure

Cloud computing as foundation for digital infrastructure

Saudi Arabia’s investment in cloud infrastructure

summary

Speakers agree on the critical role of digital infrastructure, including cloud computing and internet governance systems, in fostering development and bridging the digital divide.

Need for inclusive digital services

speakers

Dai Wei

Dai Lina

arguments

Policies and initiatives to improve digital literacy of aging population

Shanghai’s efforts to make digital services elderly-friendly

summary

Both speakers emphasize the importance of making digital services accessible and user-friendly for the elderly population, highlighting specific initiatives in China.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers view cloud computing as a crucial foundation for digital infrastructure and enabler of emerging technologies like AI.

speakers

Echo Li

Talal Albakr

arguments

Cloud computing as foundation for digital infrastructure

Cloud enabling AI and emerging tech adoption

Both speakers emphasize the importance of international cooperation and involving multiple stakeholders in addressing digital governance challenges.

speakers

Wang Jianchao

Theresa Swinehart

arguments

Global cooperation needed to bridge digital divide

Multi-stakeholder approach needed for internet governance

Unexpected Consensus

Focus on elderly population in digital inclusion efforts

speakers

Dai Wei

Dai Lina

arguments

Policies and initiatives to improve digital literacy of aging population

Shanghai’s efforts to make digital services elderly-friendly

explanation

The strong focus on addressing the digital divide for the elderly population was an unexpected area of consensus, highlighting a growing recognition of this demographic’s specific needs in digital transformation efforts.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement include the importance of digital infrastructure for development, the need for inclusive digital services (especially for the elderly), the role of cloud computing in enabling emerging technologies, and the necessity of international cooperation in digital governance.

Consensus level

There is a high level of consensus among the speakers on the fundamental importance of digital infrastructure and inclusion. This consensus suggests a shared understanding of key priorities in addressing the digital divide and promoting digital transformation. However, speakers approach these issues from different perspectives (e.g., global governance, national initiatives, specific technologies), indicating a multifaceted approach to tackling digital challenges.

Different Viewpoints

Approach to bridging the digital divide

speakers

Wang Jianchao

Echo Li

Talal Albakr

arguments

Global cooperation needed to bridge digital divide

Cloud computing as foundation for digital infrastructure

Saudi Arabia’s investment in cloud infrastructure

summary

While Wang Jianchao emphasizes global cooperation, Echo Li and Talal Albakr focus on specific technological solutions like cloud computing to bridge the digital divide.

Unexpected Differences

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement revolve around the specific approaches to bridging the digital divide and the role of different stakeholders in digital development.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among speakers is relatively low. Most speakers present complementary rather than conflicting views, focusing on different aspects of digital inclusion and development. This suggests a generally aligned perspective on the importance of addressing the digital divide, with variations in proposed solutions and focus areas.

Partial Agreements

Both speakers agree on the need for broader involvement in digital development, but Swinehart focuses on internet governance while Bakry emphasizes general societal benefits.

speakers

Theresa Swinehart

Saad Haj Bakry

arguments

Multi-stakeholder approach needed for internet governance

Need to better utilize digital tech for societal benefits

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers view cloud computing as a crucial foundation for digital infrastructure and enabler of emerging technologies like AI.

speakers

Echo Li

Talal Albakr

arguments

Cloud computing as foundation for digital infrastructure

Cloud enabling AI and emerging tech adoption

Both speakers emphasize the importance of international cooperation and involving multiple stakeholders in addressing digital governance challenges.

speakers

Wang Jianchao

Theresa Swinehart

arguments

Global cooperation needed to bridge digital divide

Multi-stakeholder approach needed for internet governance

Key Takeaways

Global cooperation is needed to bridge the digital divide and promote digital inclusion

Cloud computing and AI are seen as foundational technologies for digital infrastructure and innovation

Efforts are needed to make digital services more accessible and user-friendly for elderly populations

Multi-stakeholder approaches involving government, industry, and civil society are important for effective internet governance

Countries need to invest in digital infrastructure to remain competitive and avoid falling behind economically

Resolutions and Action Items

Continue efforts to expand internet access and digital infrastructure globally

Develop more elderly-friendly versions of digital applications and services

Increase investment in cloud computing infrastructure, especially in developing countries

Provide more digital literacy training programs, particularly for elderly populations

Strengthen international cooperation on digital governance issues

Unresolved Issues

How to balance data sovereignty concerns with the benefits of global cloud infrastructure

Specific metrics or targets for measuring progress on bridging the digital divide

Funding mechanisms for expanding digital infrastructure in underserved regions

How to address potential job displacement from increased AI and automation

Suggested Compromises

Partnering between international tech companies and local entities to develop country-specific cloud infrastructure, as seen in the Saudi Arabia example

Developing simplified versions of digital applications alongside full-featured versions to cater to different user needs and abilities

To ensure everyone could avoid the express train of digital economy and share its benefits, it is urgent to deepen cooperation on development and governance, bridge the digital divide, and work together towards a brighter digital future.

speaker

Wang Jianchao

reason

This comment frames digital development as both an opportunity and a challenge, emphasizing the need for global cooperation to ensure equitable benefits.

impact

It set the tone for the discussion by highlighting the importance of international collaboration in addressing the digital divide, which was echoed by subsequent speakers.

We need to remember that the inclusive Internet involves all of us, and it should continue to be one that considers and hears the voices of all stakeholders who are involved and maintain and operate and use the Internet.

speaker

Theresa Swinehart

reason

This insight emphasizes the multi-stakeholder nature of internet governance and the importance of inclusivity in decision-making.

impact

It broadened the conversation beyond technical solutions to include governance structures and stakeholder participation, influencing later speakers to address inclusivity in their remarks.

Cloud allows agility and quick time to value and the other thing cloud allows is the ease of investment. So when we talk about AI and cloud today, normally I would say to customers, enterprises or public sector entities that for any AI use case, you need three months to implement. Imagine with the legacy stuff, with the legacy you need at least 18 months.

speaker

Talal Albakr

reason

This comment provides a concrete comparison between cloud and legacy systems, illustrating the practical benefits of cloud technology in accelerating digital transformation.

impact

It shifted the discussion towards the practical implications of cloud technology for businesses and governments, prompting other speakers to share specific use cases and implementation strategies.

The question I want actually to address is that are we doing enough or are we utilizing enough the beautiful digital technology for our benefits? I don’t want to ask you all this question. I’ll ask myself and say no, we are not.

speaker

Saad Haj Bakry

reason

This self-reflective question challenges the audience to consider whether current efforts to leverage digital technology are sufficient, encouraging a more critical examination of digital transformation strategies.

impact

It introduced a more critical perspective to the discussion, prompting subsequent speakers to address not just the potential of digital technologies, but also the challenges in fully realizing their benefits.

Shanghai prioritizes the elderly and disabled in the digital transformation of the city and strives to turn itself into a city with a better human touch.

speaker

Dai Lina

reason

This comment highlights a specific approach to addressing the digital divide, focusing on vulnerable populations and emphasizing the human aspect of digital transformation.

impact

It brought the discussion back to concrete, local-level initiatives and the importance of considering specific demographic needs in digital inclusion efforts.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by progressively broadening its scope from high-level principles of international cooperation to specific technological solutions, governance structures, and local implementation strategies. The conversation evolved from emphasizing the need for global collaboration to addressing practical challenges in leveraging digital technologies, and finally to considering the needs of specific populations in digital transformation efforts. This progression allowed for a comprehensive exploration of the multifaceted nature of bridging the digital divide, encompassing both global and local perspectives, as well as technological and human-centered approaches.

How can we further promote universal acceptance of internationalized domain names and new top-level domains?

speaker

Theresa Swinehart

explanation

This is important to ensure a more inclusive internet that supports various languages and scripts, allowing diverse communities to fully participate online.

What are the best practices for implementing cloud-based solutions to bridge the digital divide in developing countries?

speaker

Echo Li

explanation

Understanding successful implementations can help accelerate digital infrastructure development and promote inclusiveness in underserved regions.

How can we quantify and maximize the economic impact of cloud infrastructure investments on a country’s GDP?

speaker

Talal Albakr

explanation

This research could help policymakers and investors make more informed decisions about digital infrastructure investments.

What are the most effective strategies for improving digital literacy among the elderly population?

speaker

Dai Wei

explanation

As the population ages, ensuring that older adults can effectively use digital technologies is crucial for an inclusive digital society.

How can we better measure and evaluate the intangible benefits of digital technology adoption?

speaker

Saad Haj Bakry

explanation

Understanding these benefits could help justify and prioritize digital transformation efforts.

What are the most successful AI-powered tools and applications for helping seniors overcome the digital divide?

speaker

Dai Lina

explanation

Identifying and replicating successful AI solutions could accelerate efforts to make digital technologies more accessible to older adults.

Summary

This discussion focused on the protection of minors online and the challenges of balancing regulation with digital rights and innovation. The panel, comprising European Parliament members, European Commission representatives, and youth leaders, explored various legislative efforts and their global impact.

Key topics included the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA), which mandates online platforms to assess and mitigate risks to minors, and the proposed regulation on combating child sexual abuse online. The discussion highlighted the importance of age verification measures and the need for effective enforcement of existing regulations.

Participants debated the merits of self-regulation versus legislative approaches, with some advocating for mandatory rules and others emphasizing the importance of preserving innovation and freedom of expression. The potential global impact of EU regulations, known as the “Brussels effect,” was noted, along with the need for international cooperation and consultation.

Youth representatives stressed the importance of including young people’s perspectives in policy-making, given their unique experiences as digital natives. They also highlighted the positive aspects of internet access for education and economic opportunities, particularly in the Global South.

The discussion touched on emerging challenges, such as the use of AI in content moderation and the need for human oversight. Participants also explored the potential for new tools like AI blockers to empower users in managing their online experiences.

Overall, the panel emphasized the need for a balanced approach that protects minors while preserving the benefits of the digital economy. The discussion concluded with a call for ongoing dialogue and global cooperation in addressing these complex issues.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– Balancing protection of minors online with digital rights and innovation

– Age verification and content moderation on social media platforms

– Addressing issues like cyberbullying, exposure to inappropriate content, and mental health impacts

– The role of AI and technology in content moderation and age verification

– Incorporating youth perspectives in developing internet regulations

The overall purpose of the discussion was to explore approaches to regulating the internet and social media to protect minors, while still preserving digital rights and innovation. It aimed to gather perspectives from EU policymakers, youth representatives, and other stakeholders on existing and proposed regulations.

The tone of the discussion was generally collaborative and solution-oriented. There was an emphasis on hearing diverse viewpoints, especially from youth. The tone became more urgent when discussing the need for global cooperation and youth involvement in policymaking. Overall, participants maintained a constructive approach while acknowledging the complexity of the issues.

Speakers

– Yuliya Morenets: Moderator

– Tsvetelina Penkova: Head of the European Parliament delegation, S&D group

– Ivars Ijabs: Member of European Parliament, ITRE Committee

– Eszter Lakos: Member of European Parliament, ITRE and AFET Committees

– Fulvio Martuscielo: Member of European Parliament, ECON and ITRE Committees, Head of Italian delegation in EPP group

– Pearse O’donohue: Director for Future Networks, European Commission

Additional speakers:

– Brando Benifei: Member of European Parliament (mentioned but not in speakers list)

– Vlad Ivanets: Internet Society Youth Ambassador

– Fatou Sar: Youth IGF Ambassador, MAG member of Africa IGF

– Dana Kramer: Internet Society Youth Ambassador, Coordinator of Youth IGF Canada

– Peter Kinkway: Representative for Youth IGF Liberia

– Chris Junior: Audience member from Zimbabwe

– Wouter: Audience member from Netherlands

Expanded Summary of Discussion on Protecting Minors Online

This comprehensive discussion brought together European Parliament members, European Commission representatives, and youth leaders to explore the complex challenges of protecting minors online while balancing digital rights and innovation. The panel delved into various legislative efforts, their global impact, and the crucial role of youth perspectives in shaping internet governance.

Key Regulatory Frameworks and Approaches

The EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA) emerged as a central topic, with Tsvetelina Penkova, head of the delegation from S&D in the European Parliament, and Pearse O’Donohue highlighting its mandates for online platforms to assess and mitigate risks to minors. O’Donohue emphasized that the DSA requires platforms to implement age verification measures, which are seen as critical for protecting youth from inappropriate content. He also noted ongoing investigations into platforms like TikTok, Facebook, and Instagram regarding age verification and potentially addictive features.

Penkova mentioned the proposed EU regulation on combating child sexual abuse online, further demonstrating the EU’s commitment to addressing online harms to youth. Brando Benifei discussed the AI Act and its role in combating cyberbullying, particularly regarding deepfakes and transparency measures.

However, Ivars Ijabs cautioned that regulation should balance protection with digital rights and innovation, reflecting a nuanced approach to legislative solutions. Vlad Ivanets echoed this sentiment, warning about the risks of over-regulation and emphasizing the importance of self-regulation by platforms.

Dana Kramer provided insights into Canada’s Online Harms Act, stressing the importance of intersectionality in understanding and addressing online harms. This perspective highlighted the need for comprehensive approaches that consider diverse experiences and vulnerabilities.

Global Impact and Regional Considerations

The potential global impact of EU regulations, known as the “Brussels effect”, was a significant point of discussion. Speakers noted that EU policies could influence internet governance worldwide, raising questions about the implications for digital economies in other regions.

Peter King emphasized the need for youth-centric internet regulation in Africa and the broader global context. Chris Junior from Zimbabwe provided a poignant example of the internet’s positive impact, noting that during the COVID-19 pandemic, much of their education relied on platforms like WhatsApp. This highlighted the importance of internet access for education and income generation in the Global South, underscoring the need to consider diverse global contexts when crafting regulations.

Technological Solutions and Challenges

The role of artificial intelligence in content moderation emerged as a contentious topic. While some speakers highlighted the potential of AI to combat issues like cyberbullying, audience members emphasized the continued need for human review in moderating potentially harmful content. This debate underscored the complex balance between leveraging technological solutions and ensuring fair and effective content moderation practices.

Dana Kramer proposed the development of AI blockers similar to ad blockers, allowing users more control over their online experiences. This idea sparked discussion about novel technological approaches that could empower users while addressing online harms.

Youth Perspectives and Inclusion

A recurring theme throughout the discussion was the critical importance of incorporating youth perspectives in policy-making. Youth representatives stressed that as digital natives, they offer unique insights into the realities of online experiences. This led to challenging questions about whether policymakers are sufficiently equipped to represent youth perspectives in the legislative process.

Wouter, an audience member from the Netherlands, directly questioned the panel on their readiness to incorporate youth viewpoints, highlighting a potential gap in the policy development process. This prompted reflection on the need for more direct engagement between young people, policymakers, and tech industry leaders in shaping internet governance.

Balancing Protection and Opportunity

A key challenge articulated by Pearse O’Donohue was the need to protect children from age-inappropriate content without excluding them from the positive opportunities the internet offers. This delicate balance framed much of the discussion, with participants grappling with how to create safe online environments that still allow for learning, creativity, and digital skill development.

Unresolved Issues and Future Directions

While the discussion made significant strides in exploring the complexities of protecting minors online, several issues remained unresolved. These included finding the right balance between protection and freedom of expression, ensuring global coordination on internet governance, addressing the reliance on internet platforms for education and income generation in developing countries, and determining the appropriate role of AI in content moderation.

Tsvetelina Penkova concluded with a warning about the potential shrinking of the digital economy without a common approach to regulation, emphasizing the need for ongoing dialogue and global cooperation in addressing these complex issues. Suggested compromises included developing user-controlled AI blockers, combining voluntary platform actions with mandatory regulations for sensitive areas, and creating more opportunities for direct dialogue between youth, policymakers, and tech company leaders on internet governance issues.

In summary, this discussion highlighted the multifaceted challenges of protecting minors online in a globally connected digital landscape. It emphasized the need for nuanced, inclusive approaches that consider diverse perspectives, leverage technological innovations, and balance protection with the preservation of digital rights and opportunities for youth worldwide.

Yuliya Morenets: All right, yes, so obviously with the European Union Digital Services Act and the priorities outlined in Executive Vice President Hannah Birken and mission letter dedicated to advancing digital and governance policies, the discussion takes on critical importance. So drawing on insights from recent legislative developments in Australia and ongoing discussion in Canada, our idea today is to discuss if we need a different regulation and that if the existing regulation can address issues like cyberbullying, mental health impacts and platform accountability. So once again, I will be moderating this session and we have a number of guests present in the room with whom we will be discussing, members of the European Parliament delegation that we would like to thank for accepting this invitation for being with us today. We have Svetlana Penkova, head of the delegation from S&D. I don’t know if you would like just to, yes. We have Esther Lakos, I hope so, in the room, Fulvio Martucello, Silvia Sardone, Dominic Tarsinski, Tobias Baschenski, Ivar Yarps and we have Brenda Benefe that I hope is present together with us today, this afternoon. We have, of course, with us, Piers O’Donoghue, director for the Future Networks Directorate of TG Connect. Together with the European Parliament delegation that we thank to be present today, we have a number of young leaders that will be helping us to understand the three cases we prepared for you today for the discussion. We’re supposed to have Denia Psarou online from the Greece IGF. By the way, we have a solid number of people present online and following this discussion. We have Vlad Ivanis, apologies, from the youth community present on site, Peter Kinkway from the Liberia Youth IGF, Fatou Sar from the youth community, Levi Sianseki helping us from the youth IGF Zambia, and a number of other young people that we hope will participate in the discussion. So as we know, Australia passed the world’s first law banning under 16 years old from being present on social media. We know that at the beginning of this year, Canada introduced the Online Harms Act with enhanced protection on social media services. Probably the very first question we would like to bring to the members of the European Parliament, but also to the youth community, we do know that EU is quite often seen as a kind of Silicon Valley for regulation, right? Will the European Union follow the example of Australia, or will take another route and lead in this area of protecting kids and children online, but at the same time balancing with digital rights? I would like to give the floor to the head of the delegation from the European Parliament. The floor is yours. Perfect, thank you. I hope you can all hear me.

Tsvetelina Penkova: Thank you, thank you, Julia, for the short introduction. We are having a packed room here in Riyadh, and there are a lot of topics that we are going to be happy to discuss, but we also want to hear the young people’s perspective that we have here in the room. Around me, I have my colleagues from the European Parliament, and I’ll give them the floor to introduce themselves briefly, because we’re all coming from different political groups, and we’re coming from different member states, and of course, the national and the political perspective does matter when we’re having those debates, because as you know, a lot of the legislations that we are passing, they are on a consensus basis at the European Parliament, but still, it’s important to hear who we are exactly. And also we have with us the European Commission. I mean, if you say that the Silicon Valley of regulation is the European Union, probably the rules are starting from the European Commission, so that’s why they would also have an active role in this debate. So before we jump into the topic, because you’ve already very specifically presented that, I would just ask my colleagues to present themselves. And also a remark, because I know that you’re referring specifically to Brando, he’s joining us in a bit, he’s just participating in another debate on AI, because AI seems to be one of the main and the key topics of this IGF, but as the main expert in the EU at the moment, he’s going to join us shortly. So don’t be afraid that you’re going to miss the insight from the originator of the legislation. And now I’m going to start from my left with introducing my colleagues from the European Parliament.

Ivars Ijabs: Thank you very much, Tvetelina. My name is Ivar Sijaps, I’m a second mandate MEP. I work with energy, industry, technology in the EITRE Committee in the European Parliament. I’m looking forward to have a fruitful debate with you tonight.

Yuliya Morenets: Thank you.

Eszter Lakos: Nice to meet you, my name is Eszter Lakos, I’m Hungarian, first term MEP, and as two of them I’m a member of the ITRE, so Industry, Research, Energy, etc., and also AFET which deals with foreign policy.

Fulvio Martuscielo: I am Fulvio Martuscello from Italy, I am a member of the European Parliament from 2014, now I am a full member in ECON committee and ITRE committee, and I am also the head of the Italian delegation in FPP group.

Pearse O’donohue: Good afternoon, I am not a member of the European Parliament, I am an official of the European Commission, my name is Pierre Sadanahu, Director for Future Networks, and my work brings me into direct involvement in the next generation Internet, including particularly in this case the governance of the Internet, which is why I am here at the IGF, thank you.

Yuliya Morenets: Perfect, I hope this mic is working, can you hear me, I see the nodding in the room, perfect, so we can use the other one for the rest of the people here, do you’d like to say a few words about yourself and introduce yourselves please?

Speaker 1: Sure, hello everyone, good evening, thank you for being here, for joining us on site as well as online, my name is Vlad Ivanets, I am this year Internet Society Youth Ambassador, but during this session I hope I will be able to present my personal opinion on the legislation that affects children and youth population, and I will pass the mic to my colleagues.

Speaker 2: Good evening everyone, I am happy to be there with all of you, my name is Fatousa, I am a current Youth IGF Ambassador, and I am an engineer in Green Hydrogen and Energy, and one of the MAG members of the Africa IGF. Thank you.

Speaker 3: Hello, my name is Dana Kramer. I am an Internet Society Youth Ambassador, and I’m also the coordinator of Youth IGF Canada. And in Canada, and our Youth IGF in particular, we’ve been collaborating a lot on the Online Harms Act with our parliamentarians, and that was actually our keynote speech within our Canada Youth IGF in September. And I’ve been very fortunate to have lots of communication on that specific type of legislation.

Speaker 4: Okay, thank you so much. My name is Peter Kinkway. I’m the representative for the Youth IGF in Liberia. Basically, we’ve been involved in the space of youth, I mean, IGF space in the Mano River Union, which make up all countries, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Guinea, and Africa.

Tsvetelina Penkova: Perfect. Thank you so much. It was important to know who are we speaking with. So the question that was posed initially by Julia, I will start making some initial remarks, and then I’ll ask my colleagues also from the parliament and from the commission to jump in at any point. And of course, after you’ve heard the legislator’s stand on all those matters, we would like to hear your feedback, or how do you see those topics developing or evolving, or what do you expect more from us? Because I know that you are the people who would have the most impactful and important insights of what is working and what is not. So as you know, in a lot of those digital policies and regulations we are working on, one of the main challenges we are facing at the European Parliament and the European Commission is basically to balance the protection with the digital rights, because we want to foster innovation, but at the same time, we don’t want to limit it with too many restrictions. So as you know, in a lot of the topics, this is probably gonna be one of the most challenging aspects of how to do this and how to achieve it. So in her speech in July this year, The President of the European Commission, Madame von der Leyen, she did underline as one of the main priorities that we need to work more in order to tackle social media addiction and cyber bullying. So in a lot of the legislations we’ve been doing in the last five years and in the ones upcoming for this new mandate of the European Parliament and the European Commission, we’re going to try to take into account this premise. I’m briefly going to give an idea about three specific legislations and examples that are either already finalized or we’re in the process of finalizing them to set the ground for some specific conversations here with the audience and with all of you. So the first one is the EU proposal on combating child sexual abuse and exploitation. So this was proposed by the European Commission as a regulation two years ago, like already two and a half in the spring of 2022. So it does provide some very specific proposals and mandates when it comes to online, to detection of online sexual abuse related to minors and children. So at the moment, the stand of this regulation is currently under the discussion between the European Parliament and the Council. So we still have a lot to say on that matter. But as I said, some of the subjects are very sensitive. So that’s why they’re taking a while. So this is the first one we put on the floor. Brando has just joined us. Everyone was expecting you with relation to the AI, which is probably going to be another topic we’re going to discuss later on. The next the next file, which I’m going to emphasize is the Digital Services Act. I’m sure that quite a lot of you have. Heard about it like as Europe being the Silicon Valley of regulations So in in that’s in that one. We have quite specific obligations on the online platforms to To respect some of the users fundamental rights I’m not gonna list all of them, but just a few of them like the the right of freedom of expression Expression it is there of course, but we have the right of protection for children the right not to face discrimination the right to protection of personal data And the best interests of children principle so as you see we are trying in a regulatory Framework, which is restrictive to a certain extent to still protect the rights of all the users with a special Accent like with a special emphasis on minor and on minors and children and Last but not least the ADA’s regulation, which is the age verification without data disclosure This is again very much targeted for to avoid any violation of the rights of children and minors So we are trying to to touch upon every aspect that could that could help us prevent from harmful behavior Against people who might not be that well informed I will stop here now because as I said if we go into the depth of all those regulations We might take too much time And I’ll ask if any of my colleagues including the European Commission if you want to jump in

Pearse O’donohue: Wow, thank you Apart from the protocol I swore I wasn’t going to speak first because I know that the members of Parliament have a very strong view on this and By the way, I don’t intend to speak with regard to the child sexual abuse proposal online, for the reason that it is, as you’ve said now, in the hands of the co-legislator. This is for parliamentarians to discuss with the Council and the Commission takes a backseat role at that stage. But thank you for your very quick run-through of some of the key issues. I would like to focus a little bit on the Digital Services Act, because particularly as we’re here in a global environment, we do like to learn from others, and we particularly want to hear from the youth community today, but also hopefully we can have some experiences and examples that will help other regions to address this specific issue of the protection of minors, but also creating an environment in which younger people can effectively operate online in the environment which will be their environment after I’m long gone. And the protection of minors is, of course, a key enforcement priority for the Commission, for the European Parliament, and of course for the… It doesn’t work. Yeah, sorry, I’ve been in this room a few times. I will cut out regularly, so we’ll just keep going. But with that consensus, however, there was quite a discussion about how to do things. Now, already, the Chair has given you a quick list of what the DSA does in terms of ensuring a high level of privacy, including the bans on what platforms cannot do, the bans on what they should not do, as well as responsibilities with regard to flagging illegal content and banning dark patterns. But we also have created a situation in which online platforms and search engines, they have to take responsibility. So they have to assess systemic risks that arise from the design and the use of their services. And that’s increasingly what we will see across all of the… a range of new technologies, but also new platform services as they come online. And that is a way of not over-regulating through principles which are agreed and in many cases corrected and drafted by the European Parliament, which if they are not respected, then there is enforcement action, then there is a mandatory action that steps in. But in this case in particular, they have to look carefully at the features and the use of the services with risks that affect children, the physical and the mental well-being of the users. And that includes foreseeable negative effects, not just those that may already have occurred. So it has to be forward-looking and again, looking at the mental as well as the physical well-being of this particularly vulnerable group, which we have a duty to protect. And when those risks are identified, the platforms have to put in effective mitigation measures. So we’ve already started implementation. I’ve got a long list, it’ll take me a quarter of an hour to read the entire list of all of those measures, but no, I won’t. But we have started for investigations, which once they reach a certain maturity, are then published. The early stages are not, because of the secrecy of instruction. But it is our intention under the DSA to move as quickly as possible to move to the publication and the information, the transparency of those proceedings, because in some cases, it’s in the interest of the platforms if they can show that they have rapidly addressed a problem, but also to the community at large, this is a function or a feature that has been identified as just not acceptable. And therefore, this is part of their forward-looking work. If one of your competitors has been told to stop a practice, well, then you should be sure that that same practice is not acceptable on your platform. So that’s another way of reinforcing it. We have, for example, opened cases against TikTok, two cases, one against Facebook, one against Instagram. We’ve expressed our doubts about the way that the platforms assure themselves of the age of their users. So age verification, and I’ll come back to that in a moment, is essential. And we’ve even gone to further proceedings against TikTok, for example, on what was called or is called the Light Rewards Program, which was, in our view, something that could aggravate the addictive character of their service. And TikTok is actually committed to permanently withdrawing the program from the EU, commitments that we have made legally binding. Now here, I just opened a parenthesis, and I’d love to hear the members of Parliament, but also our Youth Forum representatives. Is it acceptable that it’s only stopped in the European Union? Is there a different threshold for the protection of children in other regions? I wouldn’t think so. We don’t want to impose solutions on anyone. This is where cooperation, exchange, and learning lessons from one another is very important. Maybe I’ll stop there. But there is another area that I won’t touch specifically on the CSAM. But of course, there are also provisions with regard to age-inappropriate content, in particular pornographic content, which can have a very significant effect. Of course, here, I’m not talking about pedo-pornography, which is quite simply illegal. There is no question. What I’m talking about here is the facility with which any user, without the proper safeguards, can access what is considered to be legal, which is perhaps available to, and who knows, appropriate for adults. But it is certainly, in our view, not appropriate for minors and children. And that is, therefore, another element which is addressed in the DSA. So I’ll just stop here. We’re moving on to guidelines on the protection of minors under Article 28 of the DSA. One of the many areas in which we introduce these guidelines, and where, of course, we will have reviews, we will no doubt have discussions with the European Parliament. If they’re not working, we will then have to move on to stronger measures. I’ll stop there. Sorry if I’ve been too long.

Yuliya Morenets: No, perfect. Thank you. Thank you, Piers, a lot. In terms of outlining a few more very specific parts of the legislations or what is in the pipeline, I would be also curious to go back to our youth panel and hear what they think about the application and what we have already in place. Is it understandable? Is it reachable? Does it come to you? But before that, before we move there, I’m sure Brando is going to put, did you want to take the floor?

Speaker 5: Yeah, I can add one topic on the floor. I don’t want to take too much time. In fact, I arrived late because I was in another seminar talking about the same topic. So it’s very much under the spotlight, this discussion on protection of minors, empowerment of children’s presence in the digital space. So just one thing on the AI Act, because it was already touched, the protection of minors, how it interacts with the Digital Services Act, the child sexual abuse material legislation, et cetera. But I want to highlight one point, which I want to be sure we put it on the table, which is the fight against the cyberbullying, which is crucial. And that’s where the AI Act can give a further support, because it’s for sure we use the Digital Services Act to act against materials that can provoke instances of cyberbullying. But we also have the issue of material that can be in a more difficult way identified as offensive or violent, which can anyway provoke mental health issues and cyberbullying in a more subtle way, by showing people doing things or saying things they could be ashamed of in a way that is very specific to that situation. And that’s difficult to catch with the existing norms. So that’s why I think it’s important to underline that the AI Act… which I want to underline was supported very broadly, I see political groups here, different political groups that supported our work on AI, because on this we have given more transparency that can be used to prevent cyberbullying. I give you the example and I stop. If you produce a deepfake that shows a person, a children, a minor, that is doing or saying things that can be mentally damaging for them, because they are not doing these things, they are not saying these things that they are shown, they are sending this material around, this can be dealt with with the Digital Services Act, but not necessarily, it depends. So it’s very important that we have basic transparency so that a deepfake of this kind, we disencourage, in fact, the generative AI systems to develop some kind of materials that can be offensive, but also we want that to be labeled with a so-called watermarking so that people can say, okay, this is fake, this is not real. And then it can be removed, then it can be treated. But we also say from the beginning, this is not real and it can be helpful to avoid forms of mental health problems, of cyberbullying, of offensive material in different ways. So this is another safeguard the AI Act puts in place that I think it’s important to underline in the context of the generative AI that has created new challenges that we need to tackle. Thank you. Hello, thank you.

Speaker 3: Dana Kramer for The Record. First off, I want to just say thank you for including youth in this discussion, especially from you because, and youth from different areas of the world outside of your jurisdiction, because with the Brussels effect that we know occurs in a digital area, it’s really important for us to be able to say, It’s a real power to have and requires global consultative efforts. And so I just want to extend that. Thanks. With that said, I think probably with some of these policies and putting on deliberating on them that they require immense levels of reflection about how they would impact the rest of the world. For instance, in talking about access to porn, pornographic material for minors in Canada this past year, we actually had a bill that came through that was proposed in our Senate to then move to different chambers that would limit adolescents from being able to access porn. However, in so doing, there were concerns that through that age verification, it would have privacy implications for understanding what an age for somebody was. As well, if certain business models from an infrastructural perspective were built in having cached content at internet exchanges or content deliveries, that that caching could then result in different businesses out of fear of regulation pulling out of our market. Netflix is a really good example of this. And so if, for example, for certain policies to take that on, if the Brussels effect hit us in Canada as an example, and we had to create different legislation for that, we could legitimately see our digital economy shrink because of poor implementation for that. And so this global consultation effort I think is really important for ensuring that such issues do not arise for third countries just in an effort to have positive business and economic relations with Europe. I also want to touch on the issue of child sexual exploitation online. And in Canada, of course, we’ve had the Online Harms Act that was mentioned by the opener. And we actually just in the past week have separated it now in two acts for political reasons. And that act was specifically designed to have a child safety element, and also to hate speech element, both of those because online harms to a four year consultative effort. So lots of engagement for it. We’re seeing that we needed to apply in Canada what we call a GBA plus analysis or gender based analysis and a plus was added to recognize groups that would have intersectionalities. So intersectionality is broadly understood that different social stratification levels, gender is one of these, racism is another, ableism can be another, gender, sexuality, if you’re LGBTQ plus, another for these, that in those intersections, it could cause it that a youth who might receive some type of exploitation online would then have that expanded so hate had to be included in that. So I wanted to address that as well, the importance of taking intersectionality approaches to understanding how a bill can, or any type of legislation can impact a young person, because for example, a young white man is going to have a very different experience than a black Muslim girl on the internet. Thank you.

Ivars Ijabs: Thank you very much. And this is really a pleasure to have you all here. Because I think this topic is really an extremely important one, first of all, dealing with youth and children as a possible identity group. I mean, there is also a problematic dimension of that because we are growing up and meaning that also the current generation which is growing up right now is of course digitally much more skillful, much more native. And we actually expect from the next generation that they are as digital natives much more skillful, and they are capable of doing things that my generation, I’m 52, I’m just not used to. And that’s why I think that we should look at this issue of regulation also from the perspective of learning. And this applies not just to the digital sphere, but also to the physical sphere, because there are strong parallels, because in all digital legislation, those things that are prohibited in the real life, like sexual exploitation, bullying and so on and so forth, they should be also banned or prohibited in the digital life. But if we look at that learning dimension, I think this is really an important thing to create safe learning environment for our younger generation and children, because of course we learn actually by making mistakes, but that’s why we prevent children from making very big mistakes. And that’s why in the real life, in physical life, we create safe learning environment for our children. And that’s why I think also when we are thinking about how to regulate the digital sphere, the possibility to learn must be there, and that’s why the EU always runs the risk to over-regulate things. And this is in many ways also hampering our digital development compared with some other regions. In that sense, I think to keep that learning dimension also safe for youngsters who will be much more advanced in digital sphere, because they are already the next generation when dealing with AI, when dealing with all the possible things like Internet of Things and so on and so forth. But at the very basis, we have to really solve those issues that have been already mentioned as the basic norms like cyberbullying and peer-to-peer violence should be avoided, exposure to hate speech and violent content, exposure to content inciting self-harm or suicide, as we all know, which is a big issue in many countries, and extremism, terrorism, things like that. But at the same time, we have to keep in mind that we expect from the next generations that they will be digitally much more skillful and advanced as we are. Thank you very much.

Yuliya Morenets: Bettelina, can I maybe, we have a lot of questions online. My apologies for the headset, actually, we were not expecting people to be required to be.

Tsvetelina Penkova: Sorry, Julia, I didn’t hear you quite well, I was just about to pass you the floor.

Yuliya Morenets: Yes, apologies for that. We have a question, well, a number of questions online, actually, we have a solid participation to be very honest, 30 people plus, around 30 people. So we have actually one of the questions that just came about the DSA, because that was a discussion right now. So about the age verification, that it’s hardly checked. And that’s Katrin Moresh that is bringing the question, but maybe she would like to take a floor online, just remotely and ask her question. Can we give the mic to online, allow Katrin to ask her question? Or, okay, so if it doesn’t work, the question, should the platforms be forced by DSA and that allows to have a mandatory initial age verification? So that’s, I think, open to all participants.

Pearse O’donohue: Thank you. And hearing the inputs before with regard to that, yes, I can go into a bit more detail. But I’ll try to be brief. Because some of the providers of pornographic content have been designated as very large online platforms. And so now we have begun an inquiry with them specifically on the measures that they take to assess diligently, but also to effectively mitigate the risks relating to protection of minors. And that obviously initially starts with age verification, because we’re talking in many cases about age inappropriate content. So we were… I’m particularly interested in the details on age verification and we have their responses and now we are looking to take effective enforcement action. We haven’t had the legal means to do so until now but we are coming to that point because we don’t want to exclude children from the positive opportunities of the internet but we do actually want to protect them from this age inappropriate. So specifically age verification is a critical component. Unless we have the powers under the DSA to impose it as a protection and now what we are doing is as well as insisting on the very large online platforms enforcing it we will ourselves come forward with the member states with a temporary solution which we will then finalize once the European Union Digital Identity Wallet is fully functioning. But in the meantime we will have a privacy preserving and interoperable solution to age verification. I’m not talking about principles or a piece of paper now. We’re talking about a functioning piece of software which it will be obligatory for them to use if they do not have similar, sorry, their own mechanisms of equal effectiveness. So that is the immediate way forward we see for age verification. As I said in the long run we have the European Union Digital Identity Wallet which will be a way of ensuring on the basis of approved independently certified systems that the person is the age that they say they are and need to have in order to access these platforms. Thank you.

Tsvetelina Penkova: Thank you. Thank you, Peter. Julia, I would turn back to you if you have any more questions online and then I would like to ask you to pass the floor for the audience here if they want to pose any questions to the panel.

Yuliya Morenets: I don’t think we can hear you, you’re on mute. Sorry. Yes. Thank you for that. I was saying you never know how it goes on site online, but it’s always a success. So we actually prepared three cases for you to discuss because that case came from the youth community. I think we’ll just take one and I would like to return the situation. You know, we spoke a lot about how to protect minors online. Now the situation is the following. Let’s see the case. And that’s about the balance in between the freedoms and the freedom of expression and the harm online. Right. We have the young blogger and he wrote to us, he’s reporting news daily on a social media platform is he’s regularly blocked actually for reporting news. He always tries to be as neutral as possible and always check the news that he’s reporting for misinformation. However, the platforms tend to block him regularly. So the question is, that’s actually the right and the obligation which is given to the platforms by the regulation. And at the same time, that infringe his freedom of expression. So I would like to turn, I know we have Vlad in the room. Vlad, what is your opinion? Vlad is from youth community. And then we open the floor to the members of the European Parliament. Yeah.

Speaker 1: Thank you. Well, overall, I would say that it is quite disturbing, you know, to have any kind of regulation of the child’s actions online, because I have some experience. I originally from Russia and, you know, all the restrictions against civil society, against and actually any member of the community starts with regulation in the children protection field, I would say. And it then finishes up with the restrictions against all the members of the society. And my question is here, like, why we no longer believe in the self-regulations that already exist on the platforms? Because many of them, like you brought this example of marking the messages that like AI created content, etc. On X it is already realized in the form of the community notes. So if there is disinformation on the platform, it can be marked already by the platform itself, or the community members can add some notes to this. So you will know that it is misleading information. But I think it is kind of a very easy decision just to prevent platforms from some sort of activities like to oblige them to follow specific rules. It is easy way of solving the problem, like just to restrict them from doing something. I think that there are many other approaches that can be used, for example, dialogue and influence of the platforms to behave in a more meaningful and respectful way, supporting youth in their activities and answering this question that was raised, of course, platforms should not prevent younger people from posting anything on the platform, if it is not violating the rules of the platform itself. If it does, then of course, the general rules should apply to these bloggers as well.

Speaker 3: If I could just add on to something like in terms of regulations for self-regulations at the Canadian IGF a few weeks ago for our NRI, there was actually a comment about what if we could have regulations for harmful content with AI, that platforms have to develop out AI blockers, similar to how you can have advertisement blockers. What if there could be an invention for an AI blocker? That we could then allow that personal capacity to be able to make decisions about what to view online and allow that freedom of expression, but that would need to be invented still. And I know that AI is still a very much like in the beginning phases, at least a generative approach of how fast it’s expanding. But I wanted to add on to that because there’s an excellent point that we had in our NRI that I think would be helpful to bring to international conversations too about AI blockers as a potential tool for regulating platforms, but allowing the personal self freedom of expression that users can have in this space.

Speaker 5: Can I make an example? However, because you mentioned the AI blockers. Yeah, that’s a good idea. I think we should work on that. Like we do with the AD blockers, but we anyway regulate advertising with rules. So we do not rely only on AD blockers, because there are forbidden advertising in Europe. Now we have regarding exactly paid advertising online reaching children or a certain political advertising. We have in fact the ongoing implementation of regulations on these. But I’m just to say that we can combine the dimensions in the sense that I don’t see the contraposition because you can have AI blockers. I like the idea. That’s an instrument of freedom. But with the AD blockers already existing, we do regulate the advertising space. So I think we can do both. And in fact, to just comment on what you were saying, because this was a lot of the debate also when working on the AI Act, should we let the platforms, I mean, do their best and encourage them, etc. But this is what is already happening. That’s good, that’s the ethical dimension of developing AI tools in the space but we do not want, at least this was the thought in Europe, that it’s all based on the goodwill of the owners of a few very powerful American or Chinese or some Europeans It’s now also companies that do that, because either it’s recommended and they can ignore it or it’s a law and we think that on some aspects we need the law, on others we live with the soft, because soft regulation I mean, you look at the AI Act, a lot of AI applications are almost non-regulated by the AI Act because the AI Act concentrates on high-risk applications and on transparency looking at the generative AI but a lot of AI almost has nothing to be applied on them by the AI Act only the general principles idea, the idea of an ethical approach to AI that in fact the legislation pushes through but when we deal with more sensitive areas, we do not want to wait for the CEOs of some big companies to be good we want them to be obliged to do things based on an evaluation, based on our democratic values so the issue you raised was at the center of the debate around AI Act, but also of Digital Services Act, etc and we think we need to balance that, because if you only go for the voluntary actions you really are also in an uneven space, where probably the most powerful ones can do some things also for reputations and others can have problems. But anyway, this is a contribution to the reflections. Just quickly, I don’t know whether I have time to just speak on, from us in Africa and us in the global context, for the record, my name is Peter King from Liberia, but I feel we as youth, or youth around the world, will be looking at youth-centric Internet regulation. That means, or that looks at issues that is youth-friendly, because tomorrow is the youth that will lead the issue of Internet governance, the issue of cyber security, data protection. A very fantastic example is to also ensure that there is a balance in regulation and innovation. That speaks to the fact that some regulation should consider the level of regulation that does not harm the youth. Because the youth is not just on the list of multi-stakeholders, it’s a stakeholder in the process. So we will want to see regulation that are youth-centric, ensuring a youth-friendly regulation that ensures the right of youth, in terms of what the issue of the blogger, who is trying to present issues in his content, in his country context, is being blogged. But then, what profits the world when some other groups are being denied? And what do we achieve if we cannot have a holistic approach, considering every community member that is needed in the space? So that’s my thought, and I feel we, if I’m saying we, I’m speaking on behalf of the youth, that I’m also part of the youth system. So we want to see something that… involves all, and not only on some of our country, our policy, I’m sorry, some of our country, we do not have policies in Africa. Our policies are still in draft. That is key issue. So if it must be completed, you need to have youth voices added to it in terms of the validation process. I’m sure in Europe, most of the policies are already finished or they’re already there in modifications and separate ones are being brought out to ensure direct controls. That is my point.

Tsvetelina Penkova: Perfect. Thank you, Petr King. Insights, you wanted to take the floor and then I would insist, because we’re running out of time, but I would insist to give the floor to our audience if they wanna pose at least one question. So think of questions and I’m giving you the floor now. Thank you.

Audience: Thank you. I just wanted to add something about the blocking of some blogs and also about the abusive content on some social media going against what we want for children. Just recently that happened to me on one of my page on LinkedIn when I was combating misinformation on education and the AI block it because they say it’s going against the community while it was not. So I think while we are designing policy and regulation also, we should not fully just rely on AI to combat harmful content on the internet. Sometimes you see a content, you know that this content, it goes against what children should see. And when you report it just some minutes after you will receive a message saying, We have received your report, but this doesn’t go against the community. Maybe the language that was used in that content was not like English or French or a well-known language. Sometimes it can be a local language, so they don’t know it. They just say, oh, this doesn’t go against what it was. So I think it should be mandatory for all content, for all social media, and for all blogs that are posting things, when people report that this goes against the community, and then when the AI say it’s not, and the person appealed that it should be mandatory for a person, a human being, to see that content, if this is really going against the community or not. But we should not fully rely on AI, and that will add more transparency on content regulation. Thank you.

Yuliya Morenets: Perfect. Another insightful comment here from the room, and now I’m looking at our audience, if anyone wants to ask a question or give a comment to what we’ve heard. Perfect. Thank you. We may have the mics, at least one of them. Can you hear me?

Audience: Okay, thank you. My name is Wouter, I’m from the Netherlands. Thank you for hosting this panel. I think it’s really nice to be involved as youth, even though I would not consider myself youth anymore, but apparently I am here until 35 years. So I think it’s important to consider the effect of this legislation on youth in that sense. But I’m also thinking the perspective of youth is also important in making this legislation, because we were born with the internet, we were formed by it. And I think that’s something that’s maybe overlooked. We only discuss legislation that may have influence on youth. So I’m just maybe asking the critical question to the members of parliament here. Are you equipped enough to have this youth perspective in this legislation process?

Tsvetelina Penkova: Well, I would say this is a quick reflection here. It’s probably me and Brando here, our borderline already, also exiting the proper definition of youth above 35, but we’re close enough. So of course, this is a joke, but we do have, even one of the reasons for having those discussions in this debate is to have the perspective of everyone. So we do tend to make an effort, because I cannot say for sure that we’re succeeding all the time to take the viewpoint of all the stakeholders, because that’s how I started opening the discussion as well, that the perspective of the people who are closer to the matter is much more important, because you understand some of the challenges, some of the difficulties, but also you see some of the opportunities better than us. So we are trying to do our best to do so from all the political groups. I think the colleagues here from the different political groups will also confirm that effort. Of course, if you don’t think we are doing it enough, you can contact us at any point. Our contacts are quite public. I will pass the floor now back to Julia, because I know we are running out of time. Is there another question? Okay, Julia, if you allow me, one more question here from the audience.

Audience: You can hear me, right? Thank you for the opportunity. My name is Chris Junior, and I’m from Zimbabwe. So just a quick rundown. The Internet has done a lot of good. Coming from the Global South, during COVID, I think most of our education was on WhatsApp. That’s where we used in terms of university education, high school education, assignments and all that. everything was done on WhatsApp, right? People couldn’t afford your Zoom or your Google Meet, so most of the things were done on WhatsApp, meaning the internet has been doing a lot of good, right? Depending on the perspectives that you see. There, right. So now also, if you look into it, currently there’s a trend in Southern Africa where a lot of people are now content creators and most people are making a living from the internet. This is from your TikTok, your Facebook, X and all those applications. This is the source of income that they are using for their daily lives. And someone said, we are the young people, we are the internet, we are the users of it, right? And if you notice, even with the university students, most of them, they use content, online trading and all those other platforms as means for them to create extra revenue and extra money for themselves and all that, right? Interestingly enough, right, moving to another point, there was a question or rather a point saying that the EU is, well, they’re setting up policies and all that. I believe that the question that you’ll be asking is, oh, I just searched on the internet right now and the answer was no one owns the internet. It’s just infrastructure and framework. But interestingly enough, it all starts from the United States and Europe. So meaning one way or the other, you guys are involved. And when you set regulations, by the time it comes to, I want to call us the end user in the global South, it still needs that regulation. So you guys setting a regulation still makes sense, but at the same time, we should also be able to include the serious stakeholders, which are the guys, let’s say, for example, the guys in the porn industry, the guys who are owning all these multi-stakeholder companies that your TikToks, your Facebook and all that, but it’s engaging them. I feel like it should also be able to be like in a platform like this one, where there are actual young people who are engaging, should be able to create a platform where. the young people are able to engage with Mark Zuckerberg himself and we are able to also say in regulate as much as in regulating uh our internet we can then uh be able to detect that these are the things that we need and these are the things that we might not need and sometimes because we have a multi-generational panel it’s now easier for the older guys to also show their perspective and the youngest guys also show that perspective uh then lastly sorry uh in terms of for example we’re talking about the australian bill on regulating the internet at 16 year old uh you notice that like i said uh in the global south we use the internet for our education right because there are people who have a lot of access problem and even if in in the cities in the bigger cities sometimes access to schools is so difficult so for extra lessons for whatnot we still use the internet meaning at 13 year 18 years my little brother who’s starting his secondary education still needs whatsapp right it’s more it has more become or more of a major requirement for you to be at school you need access to what to your whatsapps your social media platform because they offer a cheaper alternative for me to engage with my teachers and also to get communication from my schools and what thank you very much

Speaker 5: thank you thank you for reminding us the perspective that working together means actually working together and coordinating coordinating everything we do in a timely manner and not post-factum after something has already been established or accepted by certain parts of of the globe julia i’m gonna pass you the floor now for a few concluding remarks and then we’re gonna have to close this panel and before we all finish i would ask our fellow participants here to to stay a bit after we close it down so we can have a common picture a group picture all together if of course whoever wants to join for that picture julia back to you

Yuliya Morenets: thank you svetlana i think you you just did the great thing i wanted to announce about the photo thank you so much i think what i have to say is we have an amazing incredible discussion in parallel going on online we have around we had around 35 people so i just wanted to know to let you know that That was a discussion on side, but it was also a great discussion online going on at the same time. And there are a number of huge questions that were asked. We’re not able to bring them to you also because there is this question of headset and etc. And what people are saying is that we need to have this conversation on that question, not only one short time in the year, but during the whole year, right? So we will try to take these comments and suggestions for the next year, but we’d like to thank, first of all, the European Parliament delegation for accepting to organise this event and this talk with us. Thank you to all members that were able to attend. Thank you to Per Stoner for being so supportive during the years and being present during this conversation. And thank you to all young leaders, Dana from Canada, Patrick from Liberia, Vlad from which country you’re based now, I don’t know, you’ll tell to the audience, and all other young people that I didn’t mention here. Thank you for the great conversation and thank you for the audience online. We will end with that by saying that a lot needs to be discussed, obviously, how to find that balance and if there is an appetite for that discussion, we will try to find an interesting and challenging format for the next year. Thank you so much and thank you for being with us. With that, stay for the group photo.

Tsvetelina Penkova: Perfect. Thank you. We would also like to thank the audience online from our side here from Riyadh. And if you allow me, I would conclude with the sentence that Dana from Canada opened of the discussion is that the digital economy will shrink if we don’t have a common approach on regulation. So let’s leave the room with that thought and that understanding. Thank you.

Yuliya Morenets: . .

Agreement Points

Need for regulation to protect minors online

speakers

Tsvetelina Penkova

Pearse O’donohue

Ivars Ijabs

arguments

EU Digital Services Act imposes obligations on platforms to respect users’ rights and protect children

DSA requires platforms to assess risks to minors and implement mitigation measures

Regulation should balance protection with digital rights and innovation

summary

There is a consensus on the need for regulation to protect minors online, but with a balance between protection and digital rights.

Importance of age verification

speakers

Pearse O’donohue

Tsvetelina Penkova

arguments

Age verification is a critical component being enforced on large online platforms

EU proposal on combating child sexual abuse and exploitation online

summary

Speakers agree on the importance of age verification measures to protect minors from inappropriate content.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize the importance of considering diverse youth perspectives in developing internet regulations.

speakers

Speaker 3

Speaker 4

arguments

Need to consider intersectionality in understanding how legislation impacts different youth

Youth in Africa want “youth-centric” internet regulations

Both recognize the global impact of EU regulations and the need for international coordination in internet governance.

speakers

Speaker 3

Audience

arguments

EU regulations have a “Brussels effect” influencing policies globally

Coordination needed between EU, tech companies, and youth globally on internet governance

Unexpected Consensus

Importance of human review in content moderation

speakers

Audience

Pearse O’donohue

arguments

Human review is needed, not just AI, when moderating potentially harmful content

DSA requires platforms to assess risks to minors and implement mitigation measures

explanation

While the EU official focuses on platform responsibilities, there’s an unexpected alignment with the audience member’s call for human review in content moderation, suggesting a shared concern for effective and fair content moderation practices.

Overall Assessment

Summary

There is general agreement on the need for regulation to protect minors online, the importance of age verification, and the consideration of diverse youth perspectives in policy-making. However, there are differing views on the extent and implementation of these regulations.

Consensus level

Moderate consensus on broad principles, but divergent views on specific implementation strategies. This suggests a need for further dialogue and refinement of policies to address various stakeholder concerns while maintaining the core goal of protecting minors online.

Different Viewpoints

Approach to regulation

speakers

Tsvetelina Penkova

Ivars Ijabs

Speaker 1

arguments

EU Digital Services Act imposes obligations on platforms to respect users’ rights and protect children

Regulation should balance protection with digital rights and innovation

Platforms should not prevent youth from posting content that doesn’t violate rules

summary

While Penkova emphasizes the need for strict regulations, Ijabs argues for a more balanced approach considering innovation, and Speaker 1 advocates for minimal restrictions on youth content.

Role of AI in content moderation

speakers

Speaker 5

Audience

arguments

AI Act can help fight cyberbullying by requiring transparency for deepfakes

Human review is needed, not just AI, when moderating potentially harmful content

summary

Speaker 5 highlights the potential of AI in combating online harms, while the audience member argues for the necessity of human review in content moderation.

Unexpected Differences

Global impact of EU regulations

speakers

Speaker 3

Speaker 4

arguments

Need to consider how EU policies could impact digital economies in other regions

Youth in Africa want “youth-centric” internet regulations

explanation

While both speakers address global impacts, their perspectives differ unexpectedly. Speaker 3 focuses on potential negative economic impacts, while Speaker 4 emphasizes the need for youth-centric regulations in Africa, highlighting different priorities in different regions.

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement revolve around the extent of regulation, the role of AI in content moderation, and the global impact of EU regulations.

difference_level

The level of disagreement is moderate. While there is a general consensus on the need to protect minors online, speakers differ significantly on implementation strategies and the balance between protection and innovation. These differences have important implications for the development of effective and globally applicable internet regulations.

Partial Agreements

All speakers agree on the need to protect minors online, but differ on the extent and method of regulation. Penkova and O’donohue support stricter measures, while Ijabs emphasizes the need for balance with innovation.

speakers

Tsvetelina Penkova

Pearse O’donohue

Ivars Ijabs

arguments

EU Digital Services Act imposes obligations on platforms to respect users’ rights and protect children

DSA requires platforms to assess risks to minors and implement mitigation measures

Regulation should balance protection with digital rights and innovation

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize the importance of considering diverse youth perspectives in developing internet regulations.

speakers

Speaker 3

Speaker 4

arguments

Need to consider intersectionality in understanding how legislation impacts different youth

Youth in Africa want “youth-centric” internet regulations

Both recognize the global impact of EU regulations and the need for international coordination in internet governance.

speakers

Speaker 3

Audience

arguments

EU regulations have a “Brussels effect” influencing policies globally

Coordination needed between EU, tech companies, and youth globally on internet governance

Key Takeaways

The EU is developing regulations like the Digital Services Act to protect minors online while balancing digital rights and innovation

Age verification is seen as a critical component for protecting youth from inappropriate content

There is a need to include youth perspectives in developing internet regulations

EU internet regulations have global impact, requiring consideration of effects on other regions

Addressing online harms to youth requires a multifaceted approach, including legislation, platform accountability, and user empowerment

Resolutions and Action Items

The EU will implement a temporary privacy-preserving age verification solution until the EU Digital Identity Wallet is fully functioning

The European Commission has opened investigations into several large online platforms regarding their protection of minors

Unresolved Issues

How to effectively balance protection of minors with freedom of expression and innovation online

How to ensure global coordination on internet governance, especially including perspectives from the Global South

How to address the reliance on internet platforms for education and income generation in developing countries while also protecting youth

The appropriate role of AI in content moderation versus human review

Suggested Compromises

Developing AI blockers that users can choose to enable, similar to ad blockers

Combining voluntary actions by platforms with mandatory regulations for sensitive areas

Creating more opportunities for direct dialogue between youth, policymakers, and tech company leaders on internet governance issues

Is it acceptable that it’s only stopped in the European Union? Is there a different threshold for the protection of children in other regions?

speaker

Pearse O’donohue

reason

This question challenges the global implications of EU regulations and raises important ethical considerations about child protection standards across regions.

impact

It prompted reflection on the global impact of EU regulations and the need for international cooperation on child protection online.

We don’t want to exclude children from the positive opportunities of the internet but we do actually want to protect them from this age inappropriate [content].

speaker

Pearse O’donohue

reason

This comment articulates a key challenge in regulating children’s internet access – balancing protection with opportunity.

impact

It framed much of the subsequent discussion around finding the right balance in regulation approaches.

Why we no longer believe in the self-regulations that already exist on the platforms?

speaker

Vlad

reason

This question challenges the premise of increased regulation and advocates for trusting existing self-regulation mechanisms.

impact

It shifted the discussion to consider the merits of self-regulation vs. government intervention.

What if we could have regulations for harmful content with AI, that platforms have to develop out AI blockers, similar to how you can have advertisement blockers.

speaker

Dana Kramer

reason

This introduces an innovative technical solution to content moderation that balances user choice with platform responsibility.

impact

It sparked discussion of novel technological approaches to addressing online harms while preserving user autonomy.

Are you equipped enough to have this youth perspective in this legislation process?

speaker

Wouter

reason

This question directly challenges policymakers on their ability to represent youth perspectives, highlighting a potential gap in the legislative process.

impact

It prompted reflection on the inclusion of youth voices in policymaking and the importance of diverse perspectives.

The Internet has done a lot of good. Coming from the Global South, during COVID, I think most of our education was on WhatsApp.

speaker

Chris Junior

reason

This comment provides crucial context from the Global South, highlighting how internet regulation can have vastly different impacts across regions.

impact

It broadened the discussion to consider global perspectives and the unintended consequences of regulation in different contexts.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by broadening its scope from EU-centric policy considerations to global implications, technological innovations, and diverse stakeholder perspectives. They challenged assumptions about the universality of regulatory approaches and highlighted the complexity of balancing protection with opportunity in digital spaces. The discussion evolved from a focus on specific EU regulations to a more nuanced exploration of the global impact of internet governance decisions, the role of self-regulation versus government intervention, and the importance of including youth and Global South perspectives in policymaking processes.

Is it acceptable that TikTok’s Light Rewards Program is only stopped in the European Union? Is there a different threshold for the protection of children in other regions?

speaker

Pearse O’donohue

explanation

This raises important questions about global standards for child protection online and the potential for regional disparities in safeguards.

How can we balance the need for regulation with maintaining a safe learning environment for digitally native youth?

speaker

Ivars Ijabs

explanation

This highlights the challenge of protecting minors while also allowing them to develop digital skills and learn through experience.

Could AI blockers be developed as a tool for regulating platforms while allowing personal freedom of expression?

speaker

Dana Kramer

explanation

This suggests an area for technological development that could provide a balance between platform regulation and user autonomy.

How can we ensure youth-centric internet regulation that considers the perspectives of young people globally?

speaker

Peter King

explanation

This emphasizes the need for inclusive policy-making that incorporates youth voices, particularly from regions where internet governance policies are still developing.

Are European Parliament members sufficiently equipped to incorporate youth perspectives in the legislative process?

speaker

Wouter (audience member)

explanation

This questions the ability of policymakers to fully understand and represent the interests of digital natives in crafting internet regulations.

How can we create platforms for young people to engage directly with tech industry leaders like Mark Zuckerberg in discussions about internet regulation?

speaker

Chris Junior (audience member)

explanation

This suggests a need for more direct dialogue between youth and tech industry decision-makers to inform policy and platform design.