Uncategorized

Summary

This discussion focused on strategies for achieving cyber peace and building a resilient digital future in an increasingly interconnected world. Experts from various sectors explored the challenges of cybersecurity and potential solutions. Key points included the need for multi-stakeholder collaboration, the importance of digital literacy and awareness, and the role of emerging technologies like AI in both creating and mitigating cyber threats.

Participants emphasized the critical need for trust-building among nations and stakeholders to facilitate information sharing and collaborative defense against cyber attacks. The discussion highlighted the importance of bridging the digital divide to ensure all nations, regardless of economic status, are adequately protected in cyberspace. Experts also stressed the need for ethical considerations in cybersecurity policies, particularly regarding the balance between security and privacy.

The role of the private sector in combating cybercrime was discussed, with examples of successful collaborations between industry and law enforcement agencies. Participants also addressed the challenges of holding actors accountable for cyber warfare under international law. The discussion touched on the potential of AI and other emerging technologies to both enhance cybersecurity and create new vulnerabilities.

Overall, the panel emphasized the urgent need for action beyond dialogue, calling for concrete steps to stem the rising tide of cybercrime and build a more secure digital ecosystem. The discussion concluded with a proposed framework for cyber peace, emphasizing collaboration, education, and resilience in the face of evolving cyber threats.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– The importance of multi-stakeholder collaboration and trust-building to address cybersecurity challenges

– The need for greater digital literacy, awareness, and capacity building globally

– The role of emerging technologies like AI in both creating new cyber threats and potentially mitigating risks

– Balancing innovation, security, and privacy concerns in cybersecurity policies and regulations

– Addressing the digital divide and ensuring inclusive cybersecurity frameworks that protect all nations

The overall purpose of the discussion was to explore strategies for fostering global cyber peace and building a more secure, resilient digital future for all. The panelists aimed to identify key challenges and propose solutions for enhancing international cooperation on cybersecurity issues.

The tone of the discussion was largely constructive and solution-oriented, with panelists offering insights from their diverse backgrounds in government, industry, academia, and civil society. There was a sense of urgency in addressing growing cyber threats, but also optimism about the potential for collaborative approaches. Towards the end, the tone became slightly more pessimistic when discussing the difficulties of holding actors accountable for cyberattacks, but overall remained focused on finding ways forward.

Speakers

– Subi Chaturvedi: Moderator, Global SVP, Chief Corporate Affairs and Public Policy Officer of Inmobi

– Kumar Vineet: Founder and CEO of Cyber Peace

– Major General Pawan Anand: Director of the Center for Atmanirbhar Bharat, United Services Institution of India

– Melodina: Professor of Innovation Management at the Mohammed Bin Rashid School of Government in Dubai

– Genie Sugene Gan: Head of Government Affairs and Public Policy, APJ and Meta Regions for Kaspersky

– Sanjeev Relia: Chief Strategy Officer for Athenian Tech Limited and consultant for Center for Humanitarian Dialogue

Additional speakers:

– Jonah Klivnovic: Managing Partner and CEO of IT and Risk Management

Expanded Summary: Strategies for Achieving Cyber Peace and Building a Resilient Digital Future

This discussion brought together experts from various sectors to explore strategies for achieving cyber peace and building a resilient digital future in an increasingly interconnected world. The panel, moderated by Subhi Chaturvedi, focused on the challenges of cybersecurity and potential solutions, emphasising the need for multi-stakeholder collaboration, digital literacy, and the role of emerging technologies.

Key Themes and Discussion Points:

1. Multi-stakeholder Collaboration and Trust-building

A central theme throughout the discussion was the critical importance of collaboration between various stakeholders to address cybersecurity challenges effectively. Kumar Vineet emphasised that “governments cannot do it alone” and called for a platform where “industry, academia, civil society, government, netizens, all of us need to come” together. This sentiment was echoed by other speakers, including Major General Pawan Anand and Genie Sugene Gan, who stressed the importance of building trust and awareness among stakeholders and promoting public-private partnerships.

Genie Sugene Gan highlighted the No More Ransom initiative as a successful example of multilateral cooperation. This project, involving law enforcement agencies, cybersecurity companies, and other partners, has helped decrypt devices affected by ransomware and saved victims millions in potential ransom payments.

Sanjeev Relia highlighted the need for establishing communication channels between nations for information exchange, particularly regarding cybercrime, cyberattacks, and zero-day vulnerabilities. He also emphasized the growing threat of cyber espionage, underscoring the importance of international collaboration in addressing these challenges.

2. Digital Literacy, Capacity Building, and Awareness

The panel agreed on the urgent need for greater digital literacy, awareness, and capacity building globally. Kumar Vineet addressed the challenges of language barriers and accessibility issues in cybersecurity awareness, emphasizing the need for interactive and engaging formats to capture people’s attention. Jonah Klivnovic noted that people typically only dedicate about two minutes per year to cybersecurity awareness, highlighting the challenge of effective education.

Vineet provided examples of evolving cybercrime patterns, such as the Jamtara district in India becoming a hub for phishing scams and the rise of Cambodia-based scams, illustrating the need for adaptive awareness programs.

Sanjeev Relia emphasised the importance of enhancing capacity building efforts, especially for developing nations. The discussion highlighted the persistent digital divide between technologically advanced and developing countries, with both Melodina and Sanjeev Relia acknowledging this as a significant obstacle to achieving global cyber peace.

3. Emerging Technologies: Opportunities and Challenges

The role of emerging technologies, particularly artificial intelligence (AI), in both creating new cyber threats and potentially mitigating risks was a key point of discussion. Jonah Klivnovic provided a balanced perspective, noting that AI is “changing the fabric of society” and increasing the velocity and reducing the costs of cyberattacks. However, he also highlighted its potential as a tool for cybersecurity practitioners.

Melodina raised ethical concerns about the securitisation and militarisation of AI, emphasising the need for human-centred approaches and the protection of human rights. She cited the “Lavender Project” as an example of ethical concerns in AI-driven security decisions, stating, “If our mandate is being human-centred, that it is at the end of the day about people and all lives have value… then we have a big challenge on how we’re doing this.”

4. Balancing Security, Privacy, and Innovation

The discussion touched upon the delicate balance between security needs, privacy concerns, and innovation in cybersecurity policies and regulations. Melodina highlighted the ethical challenges of collecting information on individuals for cybersecurity purposes while respecting privacy rights. The rapid pace of technological change outpacing policy frameworks was identified as a significant challenge, with speakers calling for more cohesive global governance frameworks for cybersecurity.

5. International Collaboration and Information Sharing

Enhancing threat intelligence sharing between nations and industries emerged as a crucial strategy for combating cybercrime. Sanjeev Relia stressed the need for information exchange on various cyber threats and attacks. Melodina advocated for developing global standards and alignment on cybersecurity practices, emphasizing the need for political will to achieve this alignment. The audience raised concerns about the lack of accountability in cyberspace.

Unresolved Issues and Future Directions:

Despite the constructive discussion, several issues remained unresolved, including:

1. Ensuring accountability in borderless cyberspace

2. Effectively bridging the digital divide between nations

3. Balancing innovation with regulation in a rapidly evolving technological landscape

4. Combating sophisticated cyber attacks and cyber warfare

5. Creating truly inclusive governance frameworks

The panel proposed several action items and potential compromises, including:

1. Developing more cohesive global governance frameworks for cybersecurity

2. Enhancing threat intelligence sharing between nations and industries

3. Creating cyber rehabilitation programmes for both survivors and criminals, as suggested by Vineet

4. Establishing communication channels between nations for information exchange

5. Focusing on capacity building efforts, especially for developing nations

6. Balancing security needs with privacy concerns through ethical AI frameworks

7. Combining top-down policy approaches with bottom-up education and awareness efforts

Conclusion:

The discussion emphasized the urgent need for action beyond dialogue, as highlighted by Jonah Klivnovic, calling for concrete steps to stem the rising tide of cybercrime and build a more secure digital ecosystem. Dr. Subhi Chaturvedi proposed the “SECURED” framework, which encapsulates key points from the panel:

S – Stakeholder engagement

E – Education and awareness

C – Capacity building

U – Understanding evolving threats

R – Resilience through collaboration

E – Ethical use of technology

D – Digital inclusion

This framework, along with the upcoming Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in Norway mentioned by Subhi Chaturvedi, provides a roadmap for future efforts in achieving cyber peace. The proposed approach emphasizes collaboration, education, and resilience in the face of evolving cyber threats, with a strong focus on multi-stakeholder engagement and international cooperation.

Kumar Vineet: towards cyber peace and ensuring a resilient digital future for all. As we stand at the crossroad of technological innovation and societal transformation, we are reminded of the immense power and potential that cyber space holds, not just for a few, but for every citizen, organization, and nations across the interconnected world. Today we gather not just to discuss, but to catalyze action towards a future where digital prosperity is linked with global peace and security. We are joined by our esteemed panel of experts who bring with them a wealth of knowledge from groundbreaking advancement in technology security to innovative educational frameworks that aim to empower and protect communities at every level. As we navigate through our discussions, I encourage each one of you to think beyond the immediate. We are here to challenge the status quo, to question and to create a unique opportunity to mold a safer digital landscape. Let us explore bold and transformative ideas and address the root causes of cyber vulnerabilities, bridge the digital divide, and foster an environment where an individual, organization, and even nation-states can thrive in safety and dignity in cyberspace. Together, let’s set the stage for a dialogue that is as profound as impactful, ensuring that our collective journey towards cyber peace transcends the boundaries and sets new benchmarks for global cooperation. With that, let me introduce our online moderator. I can see Dr. Subhi has joined. Dr. Subhi Chaturvedi. She has done her PhD from IIT Delhi. She currently is the Global SVP, Chief Corporate Affairs and Public Policy Officer of Inmobi. Inmobi is India’s first UNICORN. or Global Tech MNC across 26 country, distinguished professor of IIM Jammu, distinguished professor of University of Delhi, professor of practice of JHU Delhi. She has been part of the governing board member of the Indian National Science Academy. She also served as a chair of the Working Group 7, Inclusive Growth, Entrepreneurship, Startups, and MSMEs of the US-India CEOs Forum. So long introduction, Subi, and plenty of achievements. But one thing that I’d like to call it out to everyone here in the room, is she was also the former MAG member of the Internet Governance Forum. And she was appointed by the UN Secretary General. So welcome, Subi. Now, over to you.

Subi Chaturvedi: Thank you, Vineet. It’s such a pleasure being back in this room. As you know, I’m an old time MAG member. It is always a joy coming back. And what better session than to look at how we can design cyber peace for a more inclusive world. I’m so glad that you could make it in person, despite the fact that you are unwell. So 100 marks and an A plus for all effort. I think we have a fantastic panel today. And we have a wonderful audience that’s joined us online as well. So without further ado, when we are looking at framing the larger questions, I don’t think there’s any deliberation on cyber warfare not being a distant threat anymore. It is actually present. And it’s reality with 13 attacks per second happening on critical infrastructure in 2023 alone. And there’s an anticipated surge in cyber crime. The costs are approximately $9.5 trillion by 2024 itself. The urgency for action of the world coming together with multiple stakeholders has never been clearer. So I’m truly delighted that we have a true, true multi-stakeholder panel today in every sense of the word. I think the deliberate design of digital technologies takes on heightened significance, which is offering both opportunities for promoting cyber peace and un… addressing emerging challenges in the realm of cyber conflicts. Today in this session where we have about an hour, what we are going to do is first turn to each of our panelists for three minutes each in terms of first level, which is a more detailed intervention. And then we’ll come back for round two so that we have at least 10 minutes for questions. The second round will be a two minute intervention by all the panelists where we post questions so that we can look at actual solutions and not just address more questions and bring them into the room. The panel today will explore integrate interplay between technological innovation, cyber threats and the pursuit of peace in the online world. And this session will highlight critical importance of preserving principles such as openness, interoperability, user centricity and a champion of human rights. These are all core values of the internet and we are ever so grateful to the two fathers of the internet. I think understanding cyber conflicts and threats, navigating ethical considerations around AI, probably the most used word, I think in this edition’s IGF and cyber warfare, fostering collaboration for cyber peace, innovating towards cyber resilience and policy implications for cyber peace are major topics that this panel hopes to cover. Some of the key policy questions that our panelists will address, they include the role of policymakers in how they can balance innovation and security. We have equal representation from gender. We are so happy that this is not a manual and we have equal representation from industry and all other stakeholder groups as well, including intergovernmental members. We are also going to be exploring in this panel policy implications of emerging cyber threats and global cybersecurity efforts and what are the peace building initiatives that we can look at. And we are so happy that the next IGF will take place in Norway, which is known for its ability to broker consensus and build peace. So how can international norms and agreements shape governance of cyber peace? What are the strategies that can be employed to… foster collaboration among stakeholders, and how can we together enhance cyber defense capabilities, mitigate the risk of cyber warfare? And lastly, but very, very important, how can regulatory frameworks adapt to the rapid pace of technological innovation while upholding principles of human rights? And now for the cherry on the cake, the fantastic panelists that we have brought together in this room include Major General Pawan Anand, he’s the Director of the Center for Atmanirbhar Bharat, which stands for a self-reliant India. He leads the United Services Institution of India, and is also the co-champion of the Joint Cyber Peace Center for Building Peace along with USI. Major Vineet Kumar, who you just heard from, my co-organizer and co-moderator for today, he’s the founder and CEO of Cyber Peace. And Colonel Sanjeev Raylia, he’s the Chief Strategy Officer for Athenian Tech Limited and consultant for Center for Humanitarian Dialogue. We are so delighted to have Melodina Stephens, she’s a Professor of Innovation Management at the Mohammed Bin Rashid School of Government in Dubai. We have Jonah Klivnovic, Managing Partner and CEO of IT and Risk Management. And last, but certainly not the least, we are so happy to have Jeanne Sugin-Gann, Head of Government Affairs and Public Policy, APJ and Meta Regions for Kaspersky. And some of the considerations, before we get into the meat of the matter, the first malicious cyber attack actually came to us in 1998 with the Morris firm designed by a Cornell University graduate student. And it was intended only as an experiment to measure the size of the internet, but it inadvertently caused significant disruption. It affected and infected approximately 6,000 computers, 10% of the internet at the time, causing systems to slow down or crash. This is but a grim reminder of what some of the unintended consequences, which can then turn into national level catastrophes and disasters can be. In 2024, we’ve had several attacks per second. This has cost us about 4.88 million US dollars, the average cost of a data breach in 2024. This has seen a 10 percent increase over the last year, which is the highest total ever. Forty percent of all data breaches have involved data stored across multiple environments, and that brings in the question of, how should global governments engage with industry, which obviously ask for a balance between innovation and the global cost of cybercrime, is only projected to reach over $10 trillion in 2024, which is a 15 percent increase. Lastly, it is human error, which has still remained a significant factor. How do governments, industries, also engage with citizens and consumers? Because they’ve contributed to 88 percent of cybersecurity breaches. With that, I come to our illustrious panelists for the day. Major General Pawan Anand, if I can please start with you, and we can look at a perspective, which you can share with us around resilience against cyber threats. So what would be some of the strategies that, according to you, nations and corporations can implement to build a resilient internet? They can build resilience against increasingly sophisticated cyber threats, while promoting an open and secure global digital economy. The floor is yours. Can I please request the host to also make him the co-host? I think he’s trying to unmute himself.

Major General Pawan Anand: Can you hear me, Subhi?

Subi Chaturvedi: Yes, I can hear you. You’ve been unmuted. We can hear you loud and clear. Over to you, Sam.

Major General Pawan Anand: All right. I don’t seem to be able to disable… start video. So maybe I’ll just stick with the voice. Thank you so much, Abhi, for such a brilliant introduction. Always expected of you. So it’s an honor to be on this panel with you. It appears to me that, you know, with such a brilliant set of people that you’ve already got, there’s very little that a person like me would be able to say that others would probably not be saying. But let me start with saying that the main issue that we probably are looking at when we talk about cyber peace is building up an environment of trust. And that environment can only be built up when agencies and people come together to discuss and outline the various guidelines for each other. I think a lot has already been worked out in terms of the internet, but we would be failing in our duties if we did not take it forward. And I think the IGF meet really helps in taking this forward. As far as government strategies are concerned, I think the first thing that most governments would be keen to do is to build up a strategy, build up a national strategy for cybersecurity. More important than building that up is also to bring in the digital public infrastructure in place. And I think India leads in that. India has also been offering the DPI to various countries of the global south. And hopefully after we have coming into the digital world and increasing their digital penetration as much as there has been in India, I think the next stage would be to ensure that everybody is safe. So the first strategy is to bring in digital penetration. And the second would be to ensure that it is absolutely safe. How do you then build up this confidence to keep the trust in the digital world? And the most important in all that would be spreading awareness. When knowledge is spread, when people are aware of the threats that exist, when people know how much of cyber hygiene has to be maintained, I think we will be able to achieve our strategies correctly. So I pause over here and let you go on with the others. And maybe when there’s something more specific, I’ll definitely intervene. Thank you, Subi.

Subi Chaturvedi: Thank you. Thank you so much, Major General Pawan Anand. Great remarks as always. And we’ll come back to you for round two. I now turn to Melodina. And we want your perspective. You have a profound academic journey. It’s such an impressive CV. It was such a pleasure going through it. We would love to hear your perspective on emerging technologies. How do emerging technologies like quantum computing and AI influence the current cyber landscape? What are some of the potential risks and benefits that you are seeing of these technologies in the context of building global cyber peace? And how do you think we can mitigate risk? Please, the floor is yours, Melodina.

Melodina: Thank you so much. So first, I would like to start with what do we mean by cyber peace, right? So I think it is peace in the cyber atmosphere. Or do we also mean it’s cyber spilling over to physical? And I think it is both of that. If I think of peace as the absence of war, then what are we having a war with? And I think it’s very clear. It’s share of heart, share of mind, share of resources. If I think of share of mind, we are already seeing misinformation, disinformation campaigns. And this is profound. Part of it comes from ignorance. We have people who don’t understand, maybe don’t have the knowledge of general affairs, or even cyber security. So even before I think of cyber, I think general knowledge, there’s a missing piece, education piece that’s there. And this makes them a lot more susceptible sometimes to these outside influences. When I think of share of heart, I’m thinking of soft power in some ways. And we do see right now with algorithms this is easy to do. There was an interesting case in Romania right now, the elections have been postponed simply because the candidate got a huge amount of share of likes, for example, on social media. And then they found out this was bot introduced, right? So I this is really a challenging issue. And if I think of the last one, share of resources, hardware for cyber is extremely expensive. We’re not talking small amounts of money. So this comes along with funding, and funding has strings globally. So this is also something we must talk about. There is a talent shortage. This is something we have to talk about. There is a resource shortage. For example, with the war that took place in Europe, I believe a significant amount of the Argonne production, which is needed for semiconductors, was wiped out. So we are looking at these kind of narratives. If we want cyber peace, we have to address all three. Now your question was on quantum computing. This is a challenging one, because the speed at which we compute will increase. So if I take, for example, Google Willow, which was just introduced a few weeks back ago, it can do in 10 minutes what a supercomputer will take 10 raised to the power of 25 years to do. There is no way human beings can match this speed. But this raises also challenges, because it can crack codes. Blockchain is no longer secure. So how do we manage in this environment where we’re looking at the speed of, I don’t know, light? and human beings don’t have the capacity. So the question is, do we need the technology for the sake of the technology, or is the technology actually beneficial to people? And I’m not sure we’ve answered that question. So I’m just gonna stop over there.

Subi Chaturvedi: Thank you. I think it was fantastically articulated, really, really well put, and some pertinent questions brought to the floor. Thank you for sharing with us. I think, Vineet, now it’s time to bring you in. I believe civil society has been at the forefront of pushing for user interest, asking industry as well as governments for greater accountability, ensuring security first practices. So what role do you see organizations like CyberPeace, which is working at the grassroots, which many a times act as a bridge builder, how do you see CyberPeace playing a definitive role at a local level in the global scheme of things? When it comes to establishing peace and brokering peace processes? Over to you, Vineet.

Kumar Vineet: Thanks, Suvi, great question. And let me share that CyberPeace, like you rightly mentioned, that we are a grassroots NGO and a policy think tank. We are the voice of the people on the ground. The kind of issues, challenges that the netizens face, whether it is the child sexual abuse material, ransomware, the issue that the startups, MSMEs, and all different sectors like the critical infrastructure face. So we work closely with them and we kind of identify the issues and challenges and take it to the policy maker. One thing that I keep mentioning everywhere that cyber security and peace, in fact, there’s a very interesting paper that CyberPeace we have written. It’s called Crowdsourcing CyberPeace and CyberSecurity. Because we generally believe that governments cannot do it alone. When we talk about peace and responsible online behavior, when we talk about security, all of us need to be… need to come on a ground. All of us need to come on a platform. Industry, academia, civil society, government, netizens, all of us need to come. And that’s where CyberPeace, as a nonprofit, as a grassroots NGO, we are kind of working out on a model. We are working out, in fact, to create a platform where all these individuals can be brought out. Connecting the unconnected people and people at the grassroots, those who do not have the reach, basically, to get their views shared or get their voices to a forum like IGF or any such major forum. We act as a bridge. We act as a kind of a platform where these voices come. And then we share the voices with policymakers, with industry, academia, civil society, and government. So that’s what we are doing. And I generally believe crowdsourcing is the way forward. One of the things that we have tried doing it is, I mean, and the way we try to mention that we can achieve peace is by creating people as first responders, making them sure that they kind of count the emerging crimes, the emerging set of defects, or AI-generated misinformation that’s being distributed in the community. They need to be well aware about it. They need to be aware on how to address the kind of challenges and how to report challenges that are coming up. Trying to create these first responders across the country in India. In fact, in the next two years, we are going to create around 8 million first responders. And with the help of the Commonwealth Secretariat, we are just trying to work out a program on how these first responders, the Cyber Peace Corps, and the first responders could be actually, the network could be spread in Commonwealth countries and later to other set of countries. So what I believe is we need to come. and the IGF Secretariat, and the remote hosts who are making participation possible. I remember back in 2012 when we started as part of the Manifesto, we had a meeting with the IGF Secretariat and the remote hosts, and we had a discussion about how we can address these issues together. So with that, I pass it over to you, Subi, again. Thank you.

Subi Chaturvedi: Thank you, Vineet. It’s such a delight. At this point, I want to really call out the IGF Secretariat and the remote hosts who are making participation possible. When we started as part of the MAG, this used to be one of the asks to connect the unconnected and also be the voice and give people voice and agency. So it is a great beginning. With that, Jonah, I come to you. You fight the good fight. You’ve been heading risk. Can you elaborate for us on the importance of threat intelligence, collaboration, threat intelligence, sharing between nations and industries? How can trust be built amongst various stakeholders to share sensitive information more openly, more promptly, and learn from these models? Over to you, Jonah.

Audience: Thank you, Dr. Subi, for the great question. And it’s a difficult one and one that I’ve been kind of grasping with my entire professional career. I think there’s a big difference, and I think we should start off with that, between intelligence and information. So information is just factual, while intelligence is contextualized information that is timely, actionable, and relevant. And this is where I get to the operationalization aspect of it. As a former practitioner in a large-scale bank and also as a member of an intelligence-sharing community that was EC3 under Europol, I can tell you that, in principle, intelligence sharing works really well. And it’s something we definitely should do. But the actual operationalization of it is not well executed in a lot of instances. And what I mean by this is how you build trust between the public and the private sector. sector is that the public sector, which has enforcement capability, needs to showcase how the intelligence that was provided from the private sector has actually led to enforcement capabilities being enacted. Because it’s tremendously taxing on the private sector. And I know I was running one of these teams, and you’re very short-staffed, and you don’t have the talent. And then you have reporting requirements. Every quarter, you need to produce new data, and you need to submit it, and it goes into the ether. And then nothing is heard, and you don’t know how this actually influenced the mitigation of the capabilities of wider threat actors. So I think it’s enhancing the dialogue to really focus on how we are actually dealing with suppressing these threat actors. And there’s a lot of discussion in terms of how shared information and intelligence can contribute to fighting digital threats, and especially cybercrime. And this is true. But also, then, there’s a regulatory aspect to it. Because there’s a lot of regulatory friction in terms of sharing data, even of fraudsters. And we’ve encountered this in Europe, where I actually couldn’t share the details of a Belgian entity with the details of a French entity due to GDPR considerations. And these were details of fraudsters. And there needs to be some regulatory streamlining, I think, on a global level, where a lot of consideration needs to go into understanding that while the private sector does bear a big brunt of responsibility, its resources are not infinite. And there needs to be kind of a consideration that there cannot be seven or eight reporting protocols that need to be done in a quarter. That there needs to be a streamlining of information flow and an enhanced view on operationalization of what is being done. So I think those are the core key factors. And that is how trust builds.

Subi Chaturvedi: Thank you so much, Jonah, for your passion and the fact that you’re still at it. We’ve all looked at. of the EU as a great source of inspiration where you can look at brokering consensus with industry, where industry looks at more creative ways of coming back to regulation, saying what’s practical, what’s feasible, what’s not going to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I’m so glad that we have people like you who are still in the room, who are still at it. Jeannie, with that, I come to you. Kaspersky is no novice to protecting ecosystems, protecting computers, protecting equipment. What role do you believe the industry can play in global cyberspace? And we’re having this discussion at the IGF. There is no better platform for a true example of multi-stakeholder interaction. Can you give us examples where intervention by the industry have led to significant advancements in cyber peace? Over to you, Jeannie.

Genie Sugene Gan: Right. Thank you. Thank you for that. Thank you for that question. Yes. Well, I think the private sector has a big… Yes. The point of view that has gone before me have already quite a fair bit of the other aspects of the topic. And I really want to focus on something which I think they haven’t just done when it comes to cyber crime. And I want to list on cyber crime prevention

Subi Chaturvedi: you, we want to go off with you that we might be able to hear you better. Go ahead, go ahead Jeannie. While I think Jeannie reconnects, Colonel Sanjeev Raylia, okay, we have Jeannie back with us again. Jeannie, do you want to try my next video?

Genie Sugene Gan: Yes.

Subi Chaturvedi: Go ahead. Go ahead. Go ahead. Okay, let me come to you, Sanjeev, we will come back to Jeannie when she has better connectivity. Sanjeev, you’ve got a background in both the Signal Corps, the Indian Army, you spent over two decades, and then you’ve also looked at industry in terms of selling cybersecurity solutions, designing them. And currently, you’re the India representative for the HD Cyber, which is looking at humanitarian dialogues around conflict resolution, peace building. Could you speak to the question of how important is multi-stakeholderism? How is it that, you know, all of us can foster more international dialogues, where we can push a common understanding, where we can look at track two diplomacy engagements, you’ve been fostering some of those, how can we establish more norms, standards, and just look for common interests between nations? Over to you, Sanjeev.

Sanjeev Relia: Well, thank you so much, Subhi, for inviting me. And before I come to the question, I would like to briefly speak on two aspects. One is that when we talk of the critical infrastructure, we only speak of the attacks that are happening, which is primarily aimed towards sabotage. We often forget to talk about the cyber espionage, which itself is a big part of, you know, the threat to the CIA. So we must keep in mind that. it is not just an attack which is to bring down the critical infrastructure, but there is a huge amount of espionage that is also happening against nation states, against critical infrastructure of nation states. Two, the cyber security itself is changing its form. From what used to be a very, very preventive kind of environment, today with the use of artificial intelligence and machine learning, we live in a world where cyber security means not just prevention, but also deception and detection and response. So the entire concept of cyber security is changing. Now, coming back to your question, how can we foster more multilateral and more multi-stakeholder dialogue? Yes, I’m presently involved in a dialogue like this, where we are trying to negotiate cyber peace and build a cyber ecosystem between India and one of our neighbors through dialogue. Right now, it is at track two level. Now, the only way that, of course, United Nations is the apex body in this, which is putting in a lot of effort. But I personally feel that just the effort of United Nations may not be adequate because we are a big world. We have a large number of users of the cyberspace. And we have a whole lot of, you know, the world economy today depends greatly on the cyberspace. So we need to have much more involvement, way beyond what the UN can do, actually. And there comes in maybe bilateral dialogues, maybe multilateral dialogues. And, of course, the best solution is a multi-stakeholder solution, where every stakeholder who has a say in the cyberspace, who’s a user, a major user of cyberspace, can be brought in to bring out their issues, to bring out the… the problems that they face, and then a solution needs to be worked out, especially when nation-states today are involved or non-state actors on behalf of nation-states are involved in carrying out these attacks. So multi-stakeholder is perhaps the only solution which will be able to foster in a good cyber ecosystem.

Subi Chaturvedi: Thank you, Sanjeev, very well put. I’m so glad we have more advocates in the room for multi-stakeholderism. Can’t emphasize the importance of people-to-people connect better. We’ve got Jeannie back in the room. Jeannie, please feel free to unmute yourself. We’d love to hear your perspective.

Genie Sugene Gan: Yes, yes, yes, yes. Sorry about that as I’m on the road to the airport, actually. So I’m trying to do this as well, being on the road. Well, I was actually going to talk a little bit about giving some examples of how the private sector really has a part to play in this entire topic that we’re discussing today, because I think we’re talking about, and also I think Sanjeev was talking about the multilateral stakeholders, cooperation and approach to how we solve these issues. So I think I want to give some examples of how we have been doing this at Kaspersky. So I think from a context setting point, sort of an approach, I want to just say that, you know, I think we all know that there has been a lot of that’s been rapid development of network technology. Incidents of cybercrime have also, of course, been rising globally, right? So we’re talking about malware attacks, we’re talking about phishing, we’re talking about distributed DDoS attacks, ransomware, all of which, of course, significantly harmed the interests of network users, causing huge losses to society. Just to put things in perspective, according to some industry organizations, actually losses from all forms of cybercrime about 10 years ago in 2015 amounted to about three trillion US dollars. And in 10 years time, which is by next year, we actually will be tripling, more than tripling that. And we’re talking about annual losses of about more than 10 trillion dollars. So, I think it’s obvious a conclusion to say that it’s imperative to stop cybercrime. And so, Kaspersky, as one of the world’s leading cybersecurity solutions provider, we have been extremely committed to providing comprehensive and effective cybersecurity protection to users around the world, obviously. But also, a lot of what we do is to actively cooperate with law enforcement agencies around the world, including Interpol, Afropol, ASEANAPOL, and so on and so forth. So, just, you know, within Asia-Pacific alone, for instance, Kaspersky actually has been given awards also for being part of Singapore Police Force’s Alliance of Public-Private Cybercrime Stakeholders and, of course, also recently appointed to the Hong Kong Police Force’s Cybersecurity Action Task Force. What am I really trying to say here? What I’m really trying to say here is that the private sector really has a part to play. And instead of, you know, even when we’re talking about, you know, for-profit companies, which have a lot, a huge amount of expertise that resides within the company, and we’re talking for companies like Kaspersky, we actually have got a great amount of specialists in the cybercrime research area. And we’ve got the threat intelligence that we provide in our bid to fight cybercrime together. So, in September 2023, for example, during Interpol’s second operation to combat the surge in cybercrime in Africa, we actually provided threat intelligence data that enabled investigators to identify compromised infrastructure and arrest suspected cybercrime threat actors across the African region. So, this operation actually resulted in the arrest of 14 perpetrators and the identification of related network infrastructure that resulted in economic losses of more than US$40 million. So, I just really want to pause there. I think these initial remarks are probably enough for context setting. And we can discuss a little bit more in detail if there are more specific questions that come up along the way.

Subi Chaturvedi: Fantastic. I’m so glad that we have you on the panel. These were great examples of some of the things that we’re going to pick up now when we get into specifics of building capacity. With that, General Anand, I want to come to you. This is going to be a shorter round of conversation. We’re keeping about a minute, minute and a half, two minutes each for everyone. In the context of cyber warfare, what are some of the specific strategies that nations can adopt to prevent A, escalation, B, look at de-escalation and also contribute to global peace building when it comes to regional cooperation? You always need to be nice to your neighbor. You don’t choose your neighbor. So go ahead, please take it away.

Major General Pawan Anand: You know, cyber space today is a place of, is literally a space of contestation. It’s also a space where so much good is happening, but it’s also a space where a lot of malafide actors come into play. I think the major issue that we are looking at over here is how cyber space is getting exploited by state and non-state actors for waging warfare in a manner where there is complete lack of accountability and lack of identification. That makes it very easy for nation states and non-state actors to actually remain completely anonymous and make sure that they’re able to disable, disrupt services that are taking place in a country. The potential for harm in hybrid warfare, I think is huge. And therefore there is this deep need for at least well-meaning actors to come together and ensure that cyber warfare as we see it today, is more a movement of cyber peace as we spoke of earlier.

Subi Chaturvedi: Thank you. Thank you so much and safe travels. I want to come to you Jonah again. When you’re looking at emerging technologies like AI, a lot of responses from government sometimes is, hey, where’s the kill switch or how do we regulate? Can you look at positive use cases of how emerging technologies like AI can play an actual role in identifying, sometimes even mitigating risks as well as predicting cybersecurity practices. Over to you.

Audience: Thank you so much for the question. I think when you asked me that a case comes to mind and it’s a practitioner’s dream. It’s the New Zealand government actually launched their own chat bot that was called Rescam. And the main point of this chat bot would be if you get a phishing email or a scamming message, you could send it to the chat bot and the chat bot would continue conversation indefinitely with the fraudster to cause resource attrition. And some of the conversations are pretty good. And once you see that as an application for the prevention of cybercrime, that’s quite funny to see. But of course, fraudsters use chat bots. So we’re probably witnessing some chat bot on chat bot fraud happening right now. But in all seriousness, I mean, AI as a technology is going to change the fabric of society. And it already is. We’re seeing the velocity of cybercrime and velocity of cyberattacks significantly increasing. We’re seeing the costs going down. But as much as it is a tool for the other side, it is a tool for cybercrime and cybersecurity practitioners. Research analysis is easier now. Code analysis is easier now. So I think there’s use cases in both sides because this is just elevating the playing field to a much more high velocity environment. So I think that, you know, in this kind of high velocity environment, something that is. is I think going to be very important that we touched on is this digital literacy and awareness of the general population that is really going to be a core focus. And I’m going to leave you with the final fact in this section that we did an internal study when I was working for BNP Paribas amongst our clients. And we found that people have two minutes a year to listen about cybersecurity and fraud and cyber crime and stuff like that. So that’s the attention span we’re dealing on average with average people. And now how do you cram in what is relevant and what is pertinent to the people at the time? So this is where I think from an operational standpoint we need to work better to not just carpet bomb people but actually educate.

Subi Chaturvedi: Thank you. Such a great thought. I think we’ll have to look at elevators, pitches on the lines of startup founders. Melody and I come to you next. We are seeing an increasing dependence on AI and automation. You talked about a crisis of resources and overall our goal is to look at a more inclusive world. What kind of ethical considerations do you think we should be prioritizing when it comes to cybersecurity policies?

Melodina: So first of all, I think when we look at cybersecurity policies, there’s a fine line between security and privacy. And that’s a challenging one to manage when you look at it from an ethical point of view. So at what point do I justify that the information I’ve collected on an individual is a security threat or a security deterrent? And again, there are nuances to that all the way to warfare. And you can see that with the Lavender Project that was, and I think the foreign policy wrote a very nice article on this one where they collected I think 23,000 identifiers to identify people. It was then used in drone strikes against these people. Now, if I asked you, should we kill X? Yes or no? How much time do you think you would wanna spend on that? And the research. that they found was it was 20 seconds. So I think the high velocity part that Jonas mentioned is really, really critical. AI is taking us to a whole other realm where it’s not about accountability, but it’s about we’ve immuned ourselves to the decisions we take in the security space, and that is scary. And I think more importantly, if our mandate is being human-centered, that it is at the end of the day about people and all lives have value, and that is the fundamental principle of universal human rights, then we have a big challenge on how we’re doing this. So if we come really down to the basics, the securitization, the militarization of AI is going to be a big challenge in the future.

Subi Chaturvedi: Thank you. Thank you so much, Melody, for sharing that. And Jeannie, I come to you next. If you could share with us a successful example or a use case of multilateral cooperation, that would be wonderful in terms of templatizing. It may not be a one-size-fits-all, but a great beginning. Over to you.

Genie Sugene Gan: Thank you. Well, I think one success story, I think from our lived experience would be our No More Ransom initiative, which Kaspersky co-sponsored together with the Royal Netherlands Police and other partners, including other private vendors as well in the cybersecurity space. So together, regardless, just ignoring competition for a moment and everything, we all just came together and we worked on this project that we call No More Ransom, which is really an initiative to fight ransomware attacks. And it actually generated more than 360,000 downloads of our decryption tools over a seven-year period, raising awareness across the globe about the perils of ransomware attacks and prevention. and also providing decryption tools so that people will not have to pay ransom if they were, well God forbid, if they were ever to be attacked by ransomware. So, and this initiative is a prime example of how multilateral stakeholders cooperation can, at all levels actually, in terms of breadth and depth, be able to help to prevent cybercrime. And in the process, we have actually helped nearly 2 million victims decrypt their devices and save them from having to pay a single dollar of ransomware, a single ransomware dollar. So I think this is a good example from my end. I hope that inspires people to sort of come up with initiatives like that and promote more cooperation.

Subi Chaturvedi: Thank you, Jeannie. I still remember back in 2012, Kaspersky, Microsoft, Meta, which was then Facebook and Google, they came together in India and they brought together the Stop Think Connect program, which was one of the first interventions that anybody had made across India, working with the youth across colleges. And the most interesting part was the use of street plays, theater, and radio. And there was a cross-fertilization of ideas. So I think Kaspersky has always been a great support and we truly appreciate your initiative. Vineet, I come to you next. You’ve been working as a volunteer and you’ve been serving also with the territorial army. You run a center of excellence. And inadvertently, you’ve consciously created a space where you’ve ended up being a bridge with governments as well as different arms of security agencies. How do you think governments can play a more active, let’s say a proactive role in ensuring cybersecurity? How do you see them balancing regulation and innovation? Because you work with the industry equally well. I’d love to hear, you know, like a two-minute intervention from you. Go ahead.

Kumar Vineet: Subhi, for this question, I think two minutes are not enough. I probably need ten minutes to address everything. But I’ll come to some basic issues. While we keep talking about global policy frameworks, the Cyber Crime Treaty, the Cyber Peace Index that Cyber Peace is also currently working on. So we are talking on different policies, frameworks, regulations that need to come. There are some challenges that remain on the ground. And these challenges are some, I would say, unique challenges. And something that Jonah mentioned is awareness. Awareness still remains the number one challenge among the people. Because what we also see is a lot of reinvention is happening. People reinvent the same wheel. There are awareness programs, campaigns. But we kind of reinvent the same wheel, rather than focusing on a collective impact that can be done. And more and more people will be made aware. Second is the language in which we do these awareness programs. So we have to reach the last mile. And we have to communicate these awareness programs in the manner, in the language that the end users understand. Not everything could be PPT-based, video-based. Something could be interactive, like skits or road shows or something like that. Something very engaging that people understand, basically, the issues and problems. This is more on the prevention front. The other is the research front. On the research side, we need to kind of make sure. And I, again, keep mentioning it. We are mentioning that technologies, emerging technologies, are coming up. And they are bringing a lot of challenges. While they’re bringing challenges, I feel that these technologies only have the solution with the right balance and the right human connect. These technologies can come up with a good set of solutions which can impact the society at large. So that’s where the constant research, because technology is changing. Crime patterns are changing. Cybercrime hotbeds are also. changing. Like in India we had, for those who aren’t aware, there is a small district in the state of Jharkhand called Jamtara. There’s a Netflix show on the basis of the kind of fraud in the network that has happened. Now these kind of hotbeds are coming across the country, not just in India but in other countries also. We have seen people getting scammed, Indians getting scammed from people who are residing in Cambodia. In fact there are some Indians who got traffic to Cambodia and then they were asked to scam people in India. So there are unique set of problems, unique set of challenges that are coming up and it requires, I would say, a very strategic thinking and a collective thinking where all of us need to come on board together and try to see how we can kind of solve this problem rather than doing efforts which are scattered and something that does not have an impact. We need to focus on something very impactful so that we reach the last mile. Otherwise frauds are just increasing. Like at CyberPeace every day we are flooded with calls of children getting abused online, issues of child sexual abuse, revenge porn, financial frauds and now cyber enabled trafficking. In fact these kind of new set of challenges where humans are getting trafficked in other countries. So all cyberspace has become the medium now. So we need to think on how we can come up with programs like a cyber rehabilitation program where we need to rehabilitate the kind of survivors and also we need to rehabilitate the cybercrime, cyber criminals. They also need to be rehabilitated so that overall we need to kill or remove the kind of hotbeds that are coming up in cybercrime. So overall these are the things and while we keep talking about ethical AI frameworks and MDX and different policies. We need to address the issues on the ground at the grassroot. And overall, that help us in establishing a peaceful and resilient cyberspace for everyone.

Subi Chaturvedi: Thank you, Vineet. Thank you so much. Sanjeev, I want to come to you quickly. What would be your top two priorities? Let’s make it a Twitter intervention. How can international collaboration be enhanced to combat the rise in cybercrime and cyberterrorism? Because we know MLADs exist between countries. But when it comes to practical approaches, what would be your top two points? Over to you. Just a quick one, Sanjeev. We want to keep some time for questions from the floor and online participants as well. Go ahead.

Sanjeev Relia: So two things which will improve the situation from what it is today is one is that building of communication channels between nations, which unfortunately are not there. We need to exchange information, whether it is on cybercrime, whether it is on cyberattacks, whether it is on zero-day attacks, whatever be the case. We need to exchange information. We need to update each other. And we have to have these communication channels. We can’t be working in silos in the cyberspace. And two is capacity building. I personally feel that the globe today lacks capacity to fight the challenges of cyberspace. So hopefully, we need to develop capacities within the nation, with developed nations helping other nations to build up the capacity to fight the menace in the cyberspace.

Subi Chaturvedi: Thank you, Sanjeev. And a plus one to you for sticking to time. I think it’s been a fantastic conversation. Before we open the floor for questions, I was listening actively to all the participants. We’ve come up with somewhat of a high-level framework based on the deliberations. This is Dr. Subbi for the record again. I think we can look at something like secured, which is a framework that we are proposing. And we can look at collaboration across all stakeholder groups. So the S here stands for… for strengthening global governance. The E stands for empowering communities through digital inclusion. The C stands for championing ethical technology development. U calls out for uniting stakeholders for collaborative innovation. R is calling out for resilience in cyber ecosystems. E is greater education and awareness. Thank you for emphasizing Jonah and Melody both on that point. Vineet for doing the heavy lifting. And D here is digital transformation for sustainable growth. The floor is now open for questions and my heart is filled to the brim. Thank you for being such fantastic panelists, both people in the room as well as people who’ve joined us online despite their commitments. Please feel free to ask any questions, direct them to the panelists. You can even make an observation or a comment. Do we have any questions online? We don’t seem to have any questions from the room. We do, Vineet. We’ve just received a question. This is a question from Nabil Syed. All the panelists can actually respond to it. Great question. What steps can be taken to create a more cohesive global governance framework for cybersecurity, which is ensuring that all nations, regardless of their economic or technological standing, are adequately protected? We did speak briefly to that point saying that who are the people who are not in the room today? How do we look at giving voice to the voiceless, giving more agency despite the fact that this could be an emerging country, it could be a developing economy, it could be a small island nation? Would any of the panelists like to go ahead and take a stab at it?

Melodina: So I think if you really want to do it well, you need both a bottom-up approach and a top-down approach. If you start from the bottom, it’s education. We spoke about that very strongly. So it’s a very strong literacy on AI, some of its vulnerabilities, and how to safeguard and protect yourself, right? Then at the second level, you’ve got to go back to people who are designing these AI systems. They have to understand it needs to be inclusive. So the moment you’re not inclusive, people are going to be left behind, and they’re going to be vulnerable. So designing systems, taking into consideration people’s limitations, whether it’s technology, language, access, will actually help them. Third, you need to go to the industry and set standards. We do have some standards, but they’re not yet very global, and I don’t think we have much alignment on them. So this is important, having global alignment on some standards. And last, of course, you’ve got to have political will. Because the world is so fragmented at this point in time, and I think it will continue over the next year or so, we need to have political will on what does cyber peace mean or what does peace mean, and what are we willing to pay to get that?

Sanjeev Relia: Can I add to that, Subhi?

Subi Chaturvedi: Absolutely, Sanjeev. Over to you.

Sanjeev Relia: Thank you. So my personal view is that a digital divide will remain forever. Like in the physical space, there are powerful nations, and there are nations which are not so powerful. There are rich nations, and there are rich which are not so rich. Similarly, in the cyberspace, we will have nations which will always be way ahead in technology, and there will be nations who are trying to catch up. Now, how can we bridge this digital divide so that we ensure that we all are equally safe in the cyberspace? First is that we need to prioritize the inclusivity and equality. We have to bring everyone on board. And second is we need to leverage technology in this. I personally feel that emerging technologies like AI have tremendous scope to bridge this gap. So we need to do that. And one last thing is that we need to foster trust amongst nations. I personally feel that right now this trust is missing as far as cyberspace is concerned. So there have to be confidence building measures which need to be put into place. We need to encourage dialogues between nations which have to be multi-stakeholder. So that is the only way we will be able to bridge the digital divide and bring in more security.

Subi Chaturvedi: Thank you, Sanjeev. Great thought. CBMs are wonderful. We have another question from an online participant. Pragya Tantia is asking, as cyber attacks become more sophisticated, how can the international community recognize and respond to cyber warfare in the same way as traditional warfare, ensuring accountability and protection under international law? A very, very interesting question. Jonah, do you want to come in? I would love to hear your thoughts or Jeannie or Major General Pawan Anand.

Audience: I can give my opinion. I might be a bit cynical because I don’t think the international community is doing a great job at holding people accountable in traditional warfare, let alone in cyber warfare. So I don’t think it’s easy because our societies are split by borders and by nations and by different cultures that govern us and guide us. And unfortunately, the cyberspace isn’t. And accountability is always going to be an issue in cyberspace. And I don’t see a clear-cut solution. I think multilateralism and building of this coherent collective trust is one baby step in the way forward. This also pertains to the previous question. We need to build a governance framework that caters to the lowest common denominator. And this is extremely difficult. But more importantly, we need to stop spending time only in dialogue. Things need to start happening. Because dialogue and discussions and everything is great. from an operational perspective, the more time we waste, the worse things we’ll get. If you look at these projections in cybercrime losses, in infrastructure damage and stuff, it’s only getting worse. When is the tide going to be stemmed? So this is kind of a bit of a pessimist operational view. So it’s a spanner in the works.

Subi Chaturvedi: Thank you so much, Jonah. And that’s all that we have time for. I want to thank all our 23 participants who’ve dedicatedly stayed online. The two, Nabeel and Pragya, thank you for your questions from India. Vineet, thank you for being a fantastic co-host and moderator despite your ill health. I hope you recover soon. To all the panelists, you’ve been absolutely outstanding. I couldn’t have asked for a better panel. General Pawan Anand, Jonah, Melodina, Jeannie, Vineet, Sanjeev, thank you very much. And also to the team and our wonderful hosts in Saudi Arabia, thank you for giving us a fantastic IGF. We look forward to the next edition. Vineet, I hand over the mic to you to close the proceedings. Thank you.

Kumar Vineet: Thank you, Subhi, for being an excellent moderator. And you actually stretched the session very well, bringing out all the best pointers and suggestions that the session could have actually been able to bring out. So thank you. And thank you, all the speakers, panelists, the audience who is present here. Overall, we wish to work together for a peaceful and resilient cyberspace for everyone, where we protect communities at large, the society at large, and it starts with here. So with that, we’d like to end the session. Thank you, everyone, once again. Thank you.

Agreement Points

Importance of multi-stakeholder collaboration

speakers

Major General Pawan Anand

Kumar Vineet

Genie Sugene Gan

Sanjeev Relia

arguments

Building trust and awareness among stakeholders

Crowdsourcing cybersecurity efforts and creating first responders

Promoting multi-stakeholder cooperation and public-private partnerships

Fostering trust and confidence-building measures between countries

summary

Speakers agree on the critical need for collaboration between various stakeholders, including governments, industry, and civil society, to address cybersecurity challenges effectively.

Need for capacity building and awareness

speakers

Major General Pawan Anand

Kumar Vineet

Sanjeev Relia

arguments

Building trust and awareness among stakeholders

Language barriers and accessibility issues in cybersecurity awareness

Enhancing capacity building efforts, especially for developing nations

summary

Speakers emphasize the importance of building capacity and raising awareness about cybersecurity issues, particularly in developing nations and at the grassroots level.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers stress the need for international cooperation and standardization in cybersecurity practices to address global cyber threats effectively.

speakers

Melodina

Sanjeev Relia

arguments

Developing global standards and alignment on cybersecurity practices

Establishing communication channels between nations for information exchange

Unexpected Consensus

Persistent digital divide

speakers

Melodina

Sanjeev Relia

arguments

Rapid pace of technological change outpacing policy frameworks

Digital divide and unequal technological capabilities between nations

explanation

Despite coming from different backgrounds, both speakers acknowledge the persistent digital divide and the challenges it poses to global cybersecurity efforts. This consensus highlights the complexity of achieving universal cyber peace.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement include the importance of multi-stakeholder collaboration, the need for capacity building and awareness, and the challenges posed by the digital divide and rapid technological advancements.

Consensus level

There is a moderate level of consensus among the speakers on the fundamental challenges and approaches to cybersecurity. However, there are variations in the specific strategies and focus areas proposed by different speakers. This level of consensus suggests that while there is a shared understanding of the core issues, there is still room for debate and diverse approaches in addressing global cyber peace and security.

Different Viewpoints

Approach to addressing cybersecurity challenges

speakers

Kumar Vineet

Audience

arguments

Crowdsourcing cybersecurity efforts and creating first responders

Enhancing threat intelligence sharing between nations and industries

summary

Kumar Vineet emphasizes a grassroots approach with first responders, while the Audience speaker focuses on enhancing threat intelligence sharing at higher levels.

Unexpected Differences

Optimism about addressing cybersecurity challenges

speakers

Audience

Kumar Vineet

arguments

Lack of accountability in cyberspace

Crowdsourcing cybersecurity efforts and creating first responders

explanation

The Audience speaker expresses skepticism about addressing cybersecurity challenges, while Kumar Vineet presents a more optimistic view with concrete solutions.

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement revolve around the approach to addressing cybersecurity challenges, the level of optimism about solutions, and the specific focus areas for international collaboration.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among speakers is moderate. While there are differences in approaches and emphasis, there is a general consensus on the importance of international collaboration and the need to address cybersecurity challenges. These differences in perspective can potentially lead to a more comprehensive approach to cybersecurity if integrated effectively.

Partial Agreements

Both speakers agree on the need for international collaboration, but Melodina emphasizes global standards while Sanjeev Relia focuses on establishing communication channels.

speakers

Melodina

Sanjeev Relia

arguments

Developing global standards and alignment on cybersecurity practices

Establishing communication channels between nations for information exchange

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers stress the need for international cooperation and standardization in cybersecurity practices to address global cyber threats effectively.

speakers

Melodina

Sanjeev Relia

arguments

Developing global standards and alignment on cybersecurity practices

Establishing communication channels between nations for information exchange

Key Takeaways

Building trust and awareness among stakeholders is crucial for cyber peace

Multi-stakeholder cooperation and public-private partnerships are essential

Emerging technologies like AI can be leveraged for cybersecurity but also pose new challenges

There is a significant digital divide between nations that needs to be addressed

International collaboration and information sharing are key to combating cybercrime

Balancing security needs with privacy concerns remains an ongoing challenge

Resolutions and Action Items

Develop more cohesive global governance frameworks for cybersecurity

Enhance threat intelligence sharing between nations and industries

Create cyber rehabilitation programs for both survivors and criminals

Establish communication channels between nations for information exchange

Focus on capacity building efforts, especially for developing nations

Unresolved Issues

How to ensure accountability in cyberspace given the lack of borders

How to bridge the digital divide between technologically advanced and developing nations

How to balance innovation with regulation in rapidly evolving technology landscape

How to effectively combat sophisticated cyber attacks and cyber warfare

How to create truly inclusive governance frameworks that cater to all nations

Suggested Compromises

Balancing security needs with privacy concerns through ethical AI frameworks

Combining top-down policy approaches with bottom-up education and awareness efforts

Leveraging AI and emerging technologies to help bridge the digital divide between nations

We generally believe that governments cannot do it alone. When we talk about peace and responsible online behavior, when we talk about security, all of us need to be… need to come on a ground. All of us need to come on a platform. Industry, academia, civil society, government, netizens, all of us need to come.

speaker

Kumar Vineet

reason

This comment emphasizes the critical need for multi-stakeholder collaboration in addressing cybersecurity challenges, highlighting that no single entity can solve these issues alone.

impact

It set the tone for discussing collaborative approaches throughout the session and led to further exploration of how different sectors can work together.

AI as a technology is going to change the fabric of society. And it already is. We’re seeing the velocity of cybercrime and velocity of cyberattacks significantly increasing. We’re seeing the costs going down. But as much as it is a tool for the other side, it is a tool for cybercrime and cybersecurity practitioners.

speaker

Jonah

reason

This comment provides a balanced perspective on AI’s impact on cybersecurity, acknowledging both its potential for harm and its utility for defense.

impact

It deepened the discussion on emerging technologies by highlighting the dual-use nature of AI and prompted further consideration of how to harness AI for cybersecurity while mitigating its risks.

If our mandate is being human-centered, that it is at the end of the day about people and all lives have value, and that is the fundamental principle of universal human rights, then we have a big challenge on how we’re doing this. So if we come really down to the basics, the securitization, the militarization of AI is going to be a big challenge in the future.

speaker

Melodina

reason

This comment brings ethical considerations to the forefront, emphasizing the need to prioritize human rights and human-centered approaches in cybersecurity and AI development.

impact

It shifted the conversation towards ethical implications of cybersecurity measures and AI, prompting participants to consider the human impact of technological solutions.

We need to exchange information, whether it is on cybercrime, whether it is on cyberattacks, whether it is on zero-day attacks, whatever be the case. We need to exchange information. We need to update each other. And we have to have these communication channels. We can’t be working in silos in the cyberspace.

speaker

Sanjeev Relia

reason

This comment underscores the importance of information sharing and open communication channels between nations to combat cyber threats effectively.

impact

It led to further discussion on international collaboration and the need for trust-building measures between nations in cyberspace.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by emphasizing several crucial themes: the necessity of multi-stakeholder collaboration, the dual nature of emerging technologies like AI in cybersecurity, the importance of maintaining a human-centered and ethical approach, and the need for enhanced international cooperation and information sharing. The discussion evolved from identifying challenges to exploring potential solutions, with a focus on balancing technological advancements with ethical considerations and fostering global cooperation to address cybersecurity issues effectively.

How can we address the challenge of limited attention span for cybersecurity awareness?

speaker

Jonah

explanation

Jonah mentioned that people have only about two minutes a year to listen about cybersecurity, which poses a significant challenge for education and awareness efforts.

How can we balance security and privacy considerations in cybersecurity policies?

speaker

Melodina

explanation

Melodina highlighted the ethical challenge of balancing security needs with privacy rights when collecting information on individuals for cybersecurity purposes.

How can we address the securitization and militarization of AI in cybersecurity?

speaker

Melodina

explanation

Melodina pointed out that the increasing use of AI in security decisions raises ethical concerns about accountability and human-centered approaches.

How can we develop more effective cyber rehabilitation programs for both survivors and cybercriminals?

speaker

Kumar Vineet

explanation

Vineet suggested the need for programs to rehabilitate both cybercrime survivors and perpetrators to address the root causes of cybercrime.

How can we improve communication channels between nations for sharing cybersecurity information?

speaker

Sanjeev Relia

explanation

Sanjeev emphasized the need for better information exchange between countries on various cyber threats and attacks.

How can developed nations help build cybersecurity capacity in less developed countries?

speaker

Sanjeev Relia

explanation

Sanjeev highlighted the global lack of capacity to address cybersecurity challenges and the need for developed nations to assist others.

How can we create global alignment on cybersecurity standards?

speaker

Melodina

explanation

Melodina pointed out the lack of global alignment on cybersecurity standards and the importance of addressing this issue.

How can we leverage AI to bridge the digital divide in cybersecurity?

speaker

Sanjeev Relia

explanation

Sanjeev suggested exploring the potential of AI to help address disparities in cybersecurity capabilities between nations.

How can we foster more trust among nations in the cyberspace domain?

speaker

Sanjeev Relia

explanation

Sanjeev emphasized the need for confidence-building measures and multi-stakeholder dialogues to build trust between nations in cyberspace.

Summary

This discussion focused on data policy as a catalyst for economic growth in Nigeria, bringing together government officials, legislators, and industry stakeholders. The conversation highlighted the need for consistent and coherent policies in the digital space, with participants emphasizing the importance of collaboration between agencies and stakeholders. Key challenges identified included policy inconsistencies, mandate overlaps between agencies, and funding constraints.

Participants stressed the need for better awareness and implementation of existing policies, as well as the importance of capacity building for legislators and other stakeholders. The discussion touched on the role of civil society organizations in policy formulation and implementation, with calls for greater engagement and ease of access to policymakers.

The importance of youth involvement in the digital economy was emphasized, along with the need for Nigeria-specific solutions to address local challenges. Cybersecurity and data protection were highlighted as critical areas requiring attention, particularly in light of the growing digital landscape.

The discussion concluded with a call for more regular meetings and collaborations between stakeholders, including the proposal for quarterly meetings and the establishment of a WhatsApp group for ongoing communication. Participants agreed on the need to leverage Nigeria’s large population and talent pool to drive digital economic growth, while also learning from best practices in other countries.

Overall, the discussion underscored the importance of a unified approach to policy formulation and implementation in Nigeria’s digital economy, with a focus on collaboration, capacity building, and addressing specific challenges to drive economic growth.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– The need for policy coherence and consistency across government agencies in the digital/tech sector

– Challenges with implementing policies and regulations, including funding constraints and overlapping mandates

– The importance of multi-stakeholder collaboration and engagement, including with legislators, civil society, and youth

– Building capacity and awareness around digital policies, both within government and for the general public

– Leveraging Nigeria’s large youth population and tech talent for digital economic growth

Overall purpose:

The goal of this discussion was to identify challenges and opportunities related to digital/tech policy in Nigeria, and to determine concrete action items for improving policy formulation and implementation going forward.

Tone:

The tone was largely constructive and collaborative, with participants openly sharing challenges and proposing solutions. There was a sense of urgency to make progress, balanced with recognition of existing efforts. The tone became more action-oriented towards the end as participants focused on next steps and commitments.

Speakers

– Engr. Kunle Olorundare: Moderator

– Dr. D. S. Wariowei: Chairman of IGF Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Group in Nigeria, Director of Corporate Planning and Strategy at NEDA

– Mary Uduma: Chairman of West African Internet Governance, Coordinator of West African Internet Governance

– Panelist: Representing the Honorable Minister of Communication, Innovation and Digital Economy

– Niteabai Dominic: Representative from NIDA (National Information Technology Development Agency)

– Dr. Vincent Olatunji: National Commissioner, Nigeria Data Protection Commission

– Khadijah Sani: Representative from Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC)

– Benjamin Akinmoyeje: Representative from Internet Society Nigeria Chapter

– Adedeji Stanley-Olajide: Chairman, House Committee on ICT and Cybersecurity

Additional speakers:

– Dr. Jimson Olufuye: Long-time advocate in the technology sector

– Amina Ramallan: Youth representative, works for Nigerian Communications Commission

– Aishat Bashir Tukur: Representative from Federal Inland Revenue Services, also representing a startup

– Sinhwe Zamobilo: Senior Program Officer with Pridem Initiative, a civil society organization

Expanded Summary of Discussion on Data Policy as a Catalyst for Economic Growth in Nigeria

Introduction:

This discussion brought together government officials, legislators, and industry stakeholders to address the role of data policy in driving economic growth in Nigeria. The conversation highlighted the need for consistent and coherent policies in the digital space, emphasising the importance of collaboration between agencies and stakeholders. Participants identified key challenges and opportunities, proposing concrete actions to improve policy formulation and implementation in the digital sector.

Key Discussion Points:

1. Policy Development and Implementation:

The need for policy coherence and consistency across government agencies in the digital sector emerged as a central theme. Engr. Kunle Olorundare stressed the importance of a multistakeholder approach, including sub-national entities, in policy development. Niteabai Dominic highlighted challenges in implementing policies due to overlapping mandates between agencies. An audience member raised the importance of evaluating existing policies, suggesting a focus on improving current frameworks rather than creating new ones. The recent development of an AI strategy by the Ministry of Communication was noted as a positive step.

2. Digital Infrastructure and Access:

While progress has been made in internet access, participants noted the need for further infrastructure investment. Khadijah Sani from the Nigerian Communications Commission highlighted funding challenges for the Universal Service Provision Fund, which aims to expand connectivity to underserved areas.

3. Data Protection and Cybersecurity:

Dr. Vincent Olatunji discussed the establishment of the new Data Protection Commission, highlighting challenges such as funding issues and the need for increased awareness of data protection rights and obligations among citizens. Aishat Bashir Tukur raised concerns about cybersecurity policies, particularly in relation to youth protection online. An audience member mentioned implementation challenges related to the recent blockchain technology policy.

4. Legislative Engagement:

Adedeji Stanley-Olajide, Chairman of the House Committee on ICT and Cybersecurity, stressed the need for capacity building among legislators on technology issues. She called for improved collaboration between agencies and legislators, noting the unique opportunity presented by having industry experts chairing relevant committees in both the Senate and House of Representatives. An audience member suggested the need for easier access to legislators by stakeholders. Dr. D. S. Wariowei emphasized the importance of parliamentary involvement in the Internet Governance Forum.

5. Youth Engagement in Digital Economy:

Several speakers highlighted Nigeria’s large youth population as an opportunity for digital economy growth. Amina Ramallan emphasised the need to integrate youth voices in decision-making processes and the importance of including digital literacy in school curricula.

6. International Cooperation and Best Practices:

Mary Uduma, Chairman of West African Internet Governance, discussed learning from other West African countries’ digital initiatives and highlighted the role of the Nigeria Internet Governance Forum (NIGF) as a platform for stakeholder engagement. Benjamin Akinmoyeje from the Internet Society Nigeria Chapter stressed the importance of participating in global internet governance forums and the Society’s role in representing various stakeholders. Dr. Jimson Olufuye mentioned the recent development of the Global Digital Compact and its relevance to Nigeria. However, an audience member cautioned that while learning from international best practices is valuable, there is also a need for Nigeria-specific solutions to address local digital challenges.

Areas of Agreement:

Participants largely agreed on the need for a multistakeholder approach in policy development, the importance of capacity building and awareness initiatives, and the need for further investment in digital infrastructure. There was also consensus on the importance of addressing youth-specific concerns in digital policies and leveraging Nigeria’s large youth population for digital economic growth.

Areas of Disagreement:

Some differences emerged in perspectives on policy implementation challenges. While Niteabai Dominic focused on overlapping mandates as a key issue, others emphasised the need for stronger institutions. There were also varying approaches to inclusive decision-making, with some focusing on sub-national entities and others on youth integration.

Key Takeaways and Action Items:

1. Establish quarterly meetings for stakeholders in the digital sector

2. Create a WhatsApp group for continued communication between stakeholders

3. The National Assembly to take a lead role in bringing stakeholders together

4. Explore organising a Nigeria-specific World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) forum

5. Integrate digital literacy into school curricula

6. Provide capacity building for legislators on technology issues

7. Improve access to legislators and policymakers for stakeholders

Unresolved Issues:

Several issues remained unresolved, including how to effectively address overlapping mandates between agencies, specific strategies for increasing funding for digital infrastructure projects, and detailed plans for improving cybersecurity, especially for youth.

Thought-Provoking Comments:

Dr. Vincent Olatunji’s comment that “We never land good policies anywhere. Our major challenges have been the implementation, funding, infrastructure, and labour market” shifted the focus from policy creation to implementation challenges. Adedeji Stanley-Olajide’s observation about the underutilised opportunity of having industry experts chairing key committees in the National Assembly sparked discussion about improving collaboration between government agencies and legislators.

Conclusion:

The discussion underscored the importance of a unified approach to policy formulation and implementation in Nigeria’s digital economy. Participants emphasised the need for collaboration, capacity building, and addressing specific challenges to drive economic growth. The conversation highlighted the potential of Nigeria’s large population and talent pool in the digital sector, while also acknowledging the need for tailored solutions to local challenges. Moving forward, regular meetings, improved communication between stakeholders, and increased parliamentary involvement were identified as crucial steps in advancing Nigeria’s digital policy landscape.

Engr. Kunle Olorundare: Thank you. Good afternoon. A brief welcome remarks. The chairman of IGF Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Group in Nigeria, who is also the director in charge of Corporate Planning and Strategy of NEDA, I welcome Mr. Weoradi, Dr. Weoradi, and please give us a very brief opening remarks. You’re welcome.

Dr. D. S. Wariowei: Thank you, distinguished speaker. Thank you very much for coming. I have the privilege to welcome all of you to this meeting. This is actualizing our NIGF in Nigeria. Now we’re doing this in Saudi Arabia. Briefly, we had our NIGF in Nigeria in Port Harcourt last two months, in October precisely, and we had several sessions, the youth session, the women IGF, as well as the internet school. We all had that. It was quite a successful one, and now that we are doing it here in Saudi Arabia, we’ve learned quite a lot, and as we intend to implement what we have learned when we get back to Nigeria. Specifically, I note the parliamentary session that I attended a few minutes ago, and it was glaring that so much can be achieved if we involve the parliamentarians in our NIGF journey. And this far, they’ve been slightly far away, and I think that by the time we return back to Nigeria, we should co-opt them so that they should be part of it, so that in our next IGF meeting sometime next year, they will have a full representation to guide how we go about. this thing. A few other things we’ve learned here, we intend to apply when we get back to our country. So on that note, I welcome all of you to this session, knowing that at the end of the session, we should be able to come out with action points that we can implement. Thank you very much.

Engr. Kunle Olorundare: Thank you so much, the Chair of Nigeria, Mike. And at this point in time, I’m going to be inviting Engineer Farag Yusuf. First, he will give the opening remarks of the Honorable Minister of Communication, Innovation and Digital Economy. And after that, I will also be inviting him to commence the conversation. But for now, let him put on the cap of the Minister. So Honorable Minister of Communication, Information and Digital Economy, you have a few minutes to make the opening remarks of the Minister. I hope you can all hear me. The Chairman, Senate Committee on ICT and

Panelist: Cybersecurity, our very able distinguished Senator, Shaib Apolabi. Our Chairman, House Committee on ICT and Cybersecurity, also Honorable Adedeji Stanley. The representative of the Director General of NIDA, the Director of ICT at the Federal Ministry of Communications, Innovation, and Digital Economy. Very distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen, a very good evening to everyone. It is indeed a great pleasure for me to, first of all, be at the Internet Governance Forum 2024 here in Riyadh for the first time. I’m actually attending this for the very first time. so you can as well imagine my excitement about what I’ve seen in the last few days. That said, I’m here standing as being introduced, speaking on behalf of His Excellency the Honorable Minister of Communications, Innovation and Digital Economy, Dr. Bosun Tijani, who would have been here but for other very cogent reasons. And I spoke with him this morning. I mentioned to him that there is this session that is going to be coming up and he asked that I should send his very warm greetings to all of you and to express the appreciation of the Ministry of Communications for most of you that have taken the pains to be here to represent Nigeria, especially those members of the Nigerian Internet Governance Forum who have steadily been hands-on both here in Riyadh and before now in ensuring that the digital economy of Nigeria continues to strive. And more importantly, for the fact that today has been scheduled specifically to discuss a very important topic in Nigeria. I think there would be no better topic to be discussed in this kind of time, reflecting on so many things. The fact that Nigeria Nigeria has already positioned itself in terms of our activities and our recognition as a leading, if not the most, the fastest growing country in terms of digital economy. Of course, without a doubt, we have witnessed phenomenal growth with regards to innovators, entrepreneurs, and even investors within the last couple of years. We’ve seen unicorn companies emerging out of Nigeria’s digital economy, companies like Plotterwaves, Paystack, and a lot of others that are at different stages of incubating themselves. So it is fine that in this kind of time, we sit around the table like this and reflect back and see what are those opportunities and what are those challenges that we need to address. This can only be done through policies. And that’s why, again, this meeting is extremely important. It’s no more news that the Nigerian population is well over 200 million people. And we’re also very much aware that out of this, over 65% are currently under the age of 35. And that placed Nigeria appropriately to lead in the economic, I mean, digital economy transformation agenda, not only of our. country, but of our region and indeed of the world. We can only do that if we have the right policies in place. Policies that create the enabling environment for us to build a world-class infrastructure in terms of fiber optics, connectivity infrastructure, fiber optics satellites, microwaves, and the rest. It’s also only through policies that we’re able to position Nigeria with regards to talents, our ability to make good use of the resource, human resource we have, and channeling them towards local and international capacities for the growth of this very important sector. Of course, as we speak, internet access is almost 75%, which means almost 150 million people. The entire population of the Gulf having access in our country for internet. And that’s a huge opportunity that requires this kind of discussion. Again, we have big opportunities in terms of our infrastructure. The meeting we are having today, although it’s mostly a mix of different Nigerian agencies, I think it presents us with a very unique opportunity to think around this. that we have the benefit of having our legislators here with us, come up with big, fast ambitions that could literally allow for us to move forward. Before I round up, I want to just mention a few policy issues that have recently happened in the country so that it will help our discussant to chart even a better course. By 2021, we already had the National G7 Economy Policy and Strategy. As a beginning of 2023, mid-2023, we had a ministerial strategic blueprint that is built on five pillars of knowledge, talent, and literacy, second being policy, third being infrastructure, fourth being innovation, entrepreneurship, and capital, and the fifth being trade, particularly inter-African trade and international trade. So with this, also, the ministry was able to develop an AI strategy. Many of us have had, throughout the times we’ve been here, the discussion has all around and centered around artificial intelligence. And we are told, and we can clearly see, that any country that is not in the pool fund stand the risk of being left behind. And in a very proactive manner, the leadership of the Ministry of Communication, working with all of you here as agencies and legislators, were able to develop this forward-looking strategic blueprint that led into that artificial intelligence strategy, which I believe is one of the leading documents, not only on African continent, but around the world. And this is because of the manner in which the policy was developed. It was actually created by bringing the best friends of Nigeria’s origin from all over the world, from MIT, Harvard, Oxford, TM, and the rest, coming together to spend a whole week. Abuja, thinking about the best practices around the world. So I believe Nigeria is currently in a position and taking advantage of the enormous knowledge we have gathered from this event. We should be able to go back home and then translate these learnings into implementing our already existing policies and frameworks back at home. So on this note, distinguished senator, distinguished member, other distinguished guests, I want to thank everyone for being here. I also want us to be open-minded. This is a platform and opportunity for us to discuss robustly so that we can take away something that can be applied back home for the good of our people. I thank you for listening. Thank you.

Engr. Kunle Olorundare: Nigeria, you are part of Nigeria. Please clap for yourself. I’m sorry, my hands are ticking. But I’ll take you to stop before you go to Riyadh. So you will have to thank everyone and stuff for that. I’m going to do that. So maybe for them. It will take a lot of efforts to see the minister or the peers back in Nigeria. Coming to National Assembly is also not an easy task. Madam Uduma is always traveling. At an internet society. is always on the internet. So now that we’re here, I want us to be able to live here with some concrete action points, so that we just don’t come here and just talk and then we go. This is a Nigeria Open Forum, so it’s an interface between us and all the stakeholders. I want us to be able to live here with some two, three, four, five action points that when we get back to Nigeria, we cannot begin to follow up on, so that it doesn’t take us meeting again in Norway next year before we call another Nigeria Open Forum, I’ll be going to discuss the same issue we have discussed all over again. So I’m gonna be asking specific questions. So I’m gonna start with Madam Uduma. Today we are talking about data policy as a catalyst for economic growth. As the Chairman of West African Internet Governance, Coordinator of West African Internet Governance, are there insights you can share with us of things that have happened in other West African countries and possibly other countries? And you have five minutes to be able to do this so that we can have an opportunity of taking interventions also from the audience. Are there things we can learn from other West African countries when it comes to policy formulation, particularly in a digital space?

Mary Uduma: Thank you very much. I hope you can hear me. Yes, first of all, I want to thank, I want to stand on the existing protocol that the Honorable Minister and the PAMSEC of our ministry has established and the Senator as well. I greet you all. And the truth is this, that every African country, West African country, is interested in digital economy, digital transformation, development, security, data, protecting our data, making sure our privacy is respected. So- And some have gone far, you know, like in Benin, where they now merge their identity. Your identity in Benin, your data identity in Benin, is what you use for your hospital, is what you use for your bank, is what you use for registration, for any identity process you want to carry out in Benin. I just want to use Benin as an example. So they have done that, harmonized their data, harmonized their processes, and they’re also developing their data. I’m not sure their data protection policy is as good as ours, because ours is very, very robust. But the thing is that they harmonized. They harmonized it in such a way that there’s a converging point, whether you are going to hospital or bank or going for election, so your identity is your identity. They’ve harmonized that. That’s one of the policies we have seen in West Africa that has happened. And we are also, there’s this West African Data Protection Initiative that is on, and we had, ECOWAS is facilitating it, and so there are some countries in West Africa that have done some work in their data protection, but ours is still better than others. Ghana has done very well, but I don’t think it’s as robust as our own, though, that, well, we are bigger. We are bigger in number, and so we have a lesson to learn from Ghana. They’ve gone very, they’ve done very well in their data protection strategy and legislation. Other countries like Sierra Leone, they’ve not even started anything, and Senegal is also coming up with some, but not. not as good as we are looking at it. So for me, in West Africa, Nigeria is still leading, and we should continue the lead, and we should also make sure that our legislation must be, I mean, our policies must be progressive one, our legislation must be a progressive one, and we will make sure that we are protected. Our children in particular are protected, and we’ll be in the online environment, safely in the online environment, and we’ll convert our population to economy. What do I say, what do I mean by that? That we have big population that the minister has told us, over two million, and so there’s not even, over 200 million, sorry, over 200 million. So there’s nothing that we bring in that will not surpass every other, there’s no bill, there’s no legislation, there’s no policy that we implement that will not surpass all others in our sub-region. We have the private sector. Once upon a time, I met somebody from Cote d’Ivoire. He was selling, is it okay? He wanted to market his products, his cream for women. So I met him in Ethiopia. He said, it’s crazy to be in Nigeria. You can’t meet the demand. So in technology, you can’t meet the demand. In physical products, you can’t meet the demand. In data generation and data economy, we can’t meet the, nobody can beat us on it. So I. I believe that we have the numbers, we have the talent, we have the wherewithal to be able to surpass what we are doing now. So, I mean, if we do it right, right? If we do it right, we attract investment, investment in our infrastructure, investment in everything we do. Thank you.

Engr. Kunle Olorundare: Thank you, Madam. I think what I came through from our intervention is that our glass as a country is half full, not half empty. We may not be there yet, but we have made substantial progress. And the second part of it is that there are also a few lessons from other countries around us and from Africa as a whole. And thirdly, a number of also policies are also being developed around us that we, as a member of ECOWAS and AU, we also need to be very much familiar with so that in fashioning our local policies, we also benefit from some of these initiatives. Thank you, Madam. Now, Madam Secretary, I’m going to you now. One of the challenges of our country is inconsistency in policy formulation. And in this panel, you are the number one bureaucrat. How do we ensure, and you mentioned that in 2021, there was this policy. And in 2022, there was this policy. How do we put in place a framework, some sort of safeguard to ensure that the policy of 2021 is not upturned in 2023 and a new one in place in 2025? How do we ensure policy consistency, particularly in a digital age?

Panelist: Okay, thank you very much again, distinguished Senator. That is absolutely a very fair and correct statement to say that we, and it’s just not. peculiar to Nigeria. Policy inconsistencies, policy somersault and so on and so forth are a norm in many jurisdictions. One thing that is causing this is largely due to very weak institutions. So our governance structure is such that individuals become more powerful than the institutions they lead. And so when you have that kind of a situation, you are faced with very weak ability for the bureaucrats to guide the politicians, because mostly it’s the politicians, people like you, that are actually pulling the shots. And without us developing our political frameworks for politicians and our bureaucrats to be on the same page, we continue to have this kind of problems. So I think one of the key things that we can do to address this problem is by fair group learning like this. We’re all here, we’ve listened to so many jurisdictions, how they are striving, how they are moving forward. Look at all those countries that are succeeding. One common thing you will find about them is that they have been consistent in their policies development. Now having said that, I want to acknowledge the fact that in Nigeria today we’ve really come a long way in terms of our consistency. Because as we speak, most of the policies that I mentioned were actually done by previous regimes. And I think that gives us a kudos and and thumbs up, realizing that a new administration, when they come, they also in this regard.

Engr. Kunle Olorundare: Yes, thank you. Thank you. And it appears peer learning and then, of course, also to continue to have multistakeholder approach so that when we have a very strong multistakeholder approach, including the civil society, it becomes difficult for any government to just change a policy. And of course, we must continue to have engagement between the brokerage and those of us who are tenants. The brokers are the landlords, but the politicians are our tenants. Let me now go to Netherland. Nether, you are at the center of most of our policy implementation. While the ministry is in the forefront of formulating this policy, the agencies under the ministry are those that implement the policy. And in particular, Nether, you have a role to play. Let me ask you, what are the challenges of policy implementation now? The ministry, the government, formulates policies which you are supposed to implement. And now and then, we see agencies, our government, flouting some of those policies. Even when sometimes some of the initiatives are supposed to be vetted by you and approved by you, what are the challenges you have in implementing some of the policies, particularly in the digital space?

Niteabai Dominic: Thank you very much, distinguished senator. And I stand on existing protocols. Nether is in a unique position because we basically deal with digital technologies either as a tool or as a sector on its own. And because digital technologies permeates every sector, it becomes difficult for you to step into the space of other regulators to manage and handle digital technologies in their space. Remember, most of these core regulators also have their mandates and powers prescribed by existing laws. And so they are entitled to actually carry out those functions which they are actually carrying out right now. Take for example, the CBN. When they’re dealing with monetary policies, they definitely have to deal with technology as well because it affects their monetary policies. And so the challenge in actually implementing government policy is the fact that a policy may govern a certain area and yet there’s another policy that affects that policy from a totally different sector on its own. And this government agency have legitimate authority to actually implement those structures. So I think one of the greatest things that can actually happen is not only about policy somersault and policy change, but also policy coherence and opportunity for different regulators to actually have a forum and opportunity, like you mentioned, the multi-stakeholder model to engage and discuss and have a common position regarding the application of technology in their various sectors. This will create the kind of coherence that will enable NIDA to go on and implement its functions under its mandates and ensure that government policy actually achieve those goals which they have been developed to achieve. So just an opportunity for all regulators to collaborate. mandate and ensure there’s a uniform position whenever we are dealing with technology issues, it will help NIDA to implement its mandate appropriately. So that’s one of the greatest difficulties, sir.

Engr. Kunle Olorundare: I’m getting really excited that we are having some of the issues that may hamper full implementation of some of our policies and the realisation of our vision. Before I go to NCC, there’s a baby in the house and that baby is a data protection commission. I think among all the agencies, they are the last established in 2023, 2024. So Dr Vincent Olatunji, if you can hear me, now you have been at the helm of affairs of a new agency as a pioneer national commissioner in the last one year. What has been your experience? What do we need to do differently? So that because before you become an octopus like NCC or NIDA, is there anything we need to tweak now in your act or your experience that you want to share with us in the next three minutes?

Dr. Vincent Olatunji: Thank you very much. The team is set it up and our chair of this ICT and sub-administration.

Engr. Kunle Olorundare: Please unmute the man.

Dr. Vincent Olatunji: Thank you. Can you hear me now? Yes. Yes. Can you hear me? Yes, I can. Can you hear me now? Thank you very much everybody. The team is set it up. Our chair of ICT and sub-administration. I’m really excited to be joining this afternoon virtually, I would love to be there physically but because of so many things going on here, I couldn’t join, but because of the trends I have in Watts, we are glad to be here to be able to actually join virtually. The theme of this virtual forum, which is about inter-political and capitalist development is very important at this point in time. What I would like to say is that we never land good policies anywhere. Our major challenges have been the implementation, funding, infrastructure, and labor market. We have very robust and constructive policies in different sectors. Unfortunately, this is the economic sector. But implementation has been a major challenge. The policy of 2000, the policy of 2003-2007, the economic policy, now we have the material blueprints for the sector, the AI strategy that has just been developed, and more importantly the Data Protection Act of 2023. All these are things that governments have put in place to ensure that we have a robust economy in this country. And this has actually impacted our socio-economic development. I’m going to lay down the contribution of this sector to our GDP. We are doing over 18% now, as compared to less than 4% from 20 years ago. Now, coming to the issue of privacy and data protection, we don’t want to talk about digital economy in any way. The foundation is digital identity. So recognizing that in Nigeria, who has every right to be protected. As the Nigerian government has made the announcements, and the people, the politicians, the people that are concerned, we expect that it has to be amended. Before we know, perhaps God, I will sign on this appellate letter to the President on June 23. Now, to the question of our challenges, I think it is the number of issues that will be coming up with the organizations, either in the private sector or the public sector. There are definitely two main challenges that will come up. But number one in Nigeria is the issue of awareness. A lot of people don’t even know what they are talking about when you mention data provision. Data subjects don’t know their rights. Data controllers and prosecutors don’t appreciate or know their obligations to data subjects. Even when they know, they are still very hesitant in terms of compliance. And this is even worse in the public sector, where a lot of them see themselves as God. And these institutional algorithms, the algorithms of government organizations, will say, oh, we can do whatever we like. And we’re going to obey any of that. That has been the major challenge. However, we have worked with a lot of stakeholders to ensure that we are compliant. Now, funding has always been a major challenge for all organizations, had there been a system before or now. But now, they were just coming up. It has been very, very challenging. But we thank God it’s a good week. And you know, with a lot of different factors, that’s how we were able to come this far. Health and human capital. This ecosystem we think new in Nigeria is just arriving. And a lot of resources are needed for us to make qualified customers, experts, in the sense of clinicians. I will not say that data controllers and prosecutors are their designated data protection officers. And in Nigeria, we have over 500,000 data controllers and prosecutors. Whereas, those of us who are certified data protectors, who are qualified prosecutors, these are going to be less than 10,000. So there’s a huge gap. I think that jobs that are ready for us to take on, that will be a major challenge. Even for the commission itself, in terms of recruiting, training, and retaining qualified personnel, that will be a major challenge. Some of our personnel, in the last two years that we’ve started, it was several of our personnel’s objectives due to the fact that our immigration is very, very poor as compared to what we did in the private sector. But the most important thing is that we are making progress, and now we have the lawyer, and things are different as compared to when we were doing what we were doing. And because of this law, we had a lot of international conventions, took a lot of organizations, and we have a lot of partnerships, and we are happy that we have the chair of the House of Senators here with us. In terms of agency provision, they should really assist us to ensure that we are appropriately financed in order to be able to deal with our budget. Without funding, we won’t be able to really do anything. Infrastructure, obviously it’s a big job. It’s a high job. It has to be deployed. As far as possible things are, reporting, which is creating awareness, investigations, trainings, and so many other things that we need their support. So we are happy that we are, we have already just submitted this next year’s budget to you, and we hope, we believe that with your support, we will be able to assist you to be better funded next year. And we are happy that both of you, you are professionals in the sector, you should be with us as long as we are in the tech ecosystem. Also, we would certainly like you to join us in what we are developing in BIM. If you are already a supporter, I would really be proud of your support. Um Continue to um our uh next year who reasons Thank you.

Engr. Kunle Olorundare: Thank you national reported that you have not they are in the holy land. They will they will repent here before they they will repent here before they go. Thank you national commissioner. Um if if the challenge of uh the data protection commission is about being in infancy is about uh learning the ropes about certain problems NCC do you have the challenge of policy of You came on board sometimes ago. You have done such a very great job. Are your policies still in tandem or regulations are they still taking cognizance of current realities as our time NCC was created you are more about mobile telephony today we have AI, we have quantum computing we have a number of other things that have changed the landscape are your policies and regulations are they still very much in line with the current realities or does it need to tweak them

Khadijah Sani: Thank you very much sir um just like you rightly said the NCC enjoys a very unique position um our act in itself is also a very um robust act um it has served as a reference point for not only Nigeria but other countries um to look for forward to yes um there’s been quite a number of developments over the years from when um the act was done in and to date um we accede to that fact we do have places in the act of course that we want to to update but um as at this point I think our act is still very robust enough to cater for the changes because um in the first place apart from the mobile numbers that we’re dealing with the act also provides for us for all electronic um addresses which basically is IP addresses and ASNs so from that angle if you look at it um the act covers not only the mobile telephony or um telephony aspect but also the internet aspect as well so it’s very robust in that manner but um it’s inevitable um there’s convergence in every um everywhere you look at um your device is also um our mobile phones are now points we access the internet they’re also where we used to make calls and in some cases they’re also our offices basically so there’s a convergence in that sense and definitely as the future grows we also must converge in terms of regulation and that’s something that is um inevitable for the whole industry not only the the NCC of course um NITDA is here other agencies like he has mentioned we all have interaction from that point of view even with data protection we deal with um in areas where we feel there are need for us in terms of security for example in terms of in terms of data protection, and so on. So you can see that there has to be that convergence or that work relationship between all the agencies under the ministry, and especially because we, like I said, we are an enabling, we’re regulating an enabling environment. Yes, thank you.

Engr. Kunle Olorundare: Let me say a word on you before you move. We have USPF as part of initiative to ensure that the underserved communities, or we have very, we’ve minimized the digital divide. And yet, we’re looking at a UNESCO, they’ve just come up with a IUI, the new indices to measure connectivity, to measure how countries are progressing on digital divide. And Nigeria does seem to rank very high on that list. Is our USPF policy working?

Khadijah Sani: Well, the policy itself is working, but like NDPC has mentioned as well, always lies with funding, basically. Nigeria is a very large country, and we have a population of over 200 million, a lot of unserved and underserved areas. In fact, even within the cities that are on the unserved areas, if you look at it from the perspective of let’s say fiber rollout, for example, even within cities like Abuja, in fact, apart from Abuja, Lagos, and maybe Port Harcourt, I don’t think we have any commercial FTTH savings in any of the state capitals. So from even that point of view, you can see the challenge that is there for us as Nigerians. Well, that means the USPF is actually quite limited in terms of the funding they can put in all the areas. So most of the concentration of effort has been the rural areas, and has been of course provision of mobile connectivity, and which incidentally takes about 98% of all internet connectivity in Nigeria comes through mobile connectivity. So I think in that aspect, yes, the USPF has been trying, but yes, there is need to do more, but what is. holding us back mostly is funding, because of the amount of money we have for those projects would not be enough to go around all the constituencies. Thank you.

Engr. Kunle Olorundare: General Andare, the civil society, and by the way, let me announce that there’s gonna be another side function from the National Assembly. I’m therefore bringing honorable, I wanted to ensure that you are not aware that it will be speaking. Now that you have spoken your minds, all the agencies have spoken except the civil society. Please join me in welcoming honorable Stanley, I’ll allow the DDDG to join the panel. You’ll be providing a broad oversight function on these agencies, because I also have a question for you. Now I’m not speaking today as a legislator, and I don’t want the electoral voice to be muted. So let me use the power of microphone to bring you to the… So you have listened to all of them. You listened to Dr. Vincent Lalatunji who said the president just presented a budget. I never wish you, if you get all the budget for us. So the civil society, what do you think your roles are in policy formulation and in holding government agencies accountable for implementation of unannounced policies? How far so far use of experience in Nigeria to guide us?

Benjamin Akinmoyeje: All right, thank you very much. I think that is a very good question for a civil society and at the same time, an advocacy group. Let me start by saying that the Internet Society is an advocacy group, and actually it’s a global advocacy group. And of course we have chapters in all countries. We have in the Nigerian chapter, which of course I preside on, and we are chartered. Chartered in the sense that we have our own board, and of course we have executive council. So for roles in Internet Society, what we do is to try as much as possible to collaborate with the agencies to see that what is being postulated is brought to fruition. That is one of the things we have been doing. And for us in this particular era, we believe that people need to be digitally literate, and we have a lot of initiatives that we are preaching in that regard. And as a matter of fact, we work with the Nigerian Internet Governance Forum, the Multistakeholder Advisory Group to organize what is known as Nigerian School on the Internet Governance. This year, we organized the fifth edition, and it has been acclaimed to be the best so far, so good. And what we do in the NSIG is to bring people up to speed in terms of knowledge, in terms of, okay, you need to be digitally literate, you need to be aware of what is happening within the Internet Governance space. And apart from that, one other initiative that we have been involved in is because we believe that the women or the ladies folk or the girls folk is very unique, and they need to be given special attention. So we came to the United Nations Stroke ITU in the Girls in My City Day, and we do celebrate it every year. And it may interest you to know that even this year, we collaborated with another… government organization known as Ndupe Kalu Foundation, and we trained over 600 girls in ICT. What we’re trying to achieve is to ensure that, okay, a girl child is also part of this community that we’re talking about, and they need to be digitally literate, and they need to be in the field. That is one of our initiatives. And on the issue of, okay, how do we work with the government agency? We’ve been working with them, actually, and one of the things we try to do is to try as much as possible to let her hear to the grant. Whenever there is going to be a new policy, we try as much as possible to get into the stakeholders forum, you know, open forum, so that our voices can be heard. We believe in the rule of law, and we believe that, okay, things must follow due process. However, everybody needs to be carried along, and for us to do that, we came to such, you know, so that we can, you know, our own opinion. I would believe that by doing that, at the end of the day, we’re going to have a very robust and sound policy. And you may also be interested to know that, apart from that, we’ve also been, you know, been in touch with, what I mean by that is that we believe that internet is a great equalizer. Equalizer in the sense that if you’re rich, you use the internet. If you’re a senator, you use the internet. If you’re not a senator, you use the internet. And of course, the opportunity is the same for everybody, and we believe that, okay, internet must be everywhere. And if it must be everywhere, so we need to, you know, ensure that the infrastructure, that the digital infrastructures are well proliferated. And of course, for us to have the internet, the infrastructure must be on ground. And if they’re on ground, of course the services too must be on ground. And for us, we believe that, yes, this 21st century is all about the internet. That is the digital economy. And that’s why we are part of this. And sir, I want to, to make this call, that if, Peraventsho, there is a way that whenever there’s going to be an approval, because the truth is that we may not hear about everything that is going on, but if there’s a channel of communication that can be set up so that at least, you know, civil organizations can be informed, so that at least we’ll be part of your process, we’ll be glad to do that. Thank you.

Engr. Kunle Olorundare: Peraventsho, we must thank you for your effort as a civil society organization. Policies, regulations, they are subsidiary to legislation. And therefore, in the last few days, here, the experience and the usual refrain from all the parliaments across the world is this seemingly disconnect between the legislature and the executive branch of government, such that you have a situation where countries sign protocols, they sign conventions, but they are not ratified back at home because the legislators didn’t understand the basis or they were not part of it in the first instance. In your view, Honorable Chairman of the House Committee on ICT and Cybersecurity, what do you think we need to do to bridge the gap between the legislatures and the rest of the stakeholders, particularly our agencies and the executive branch of government?

Aditi Stanley-Olajide: Thank you, my respected colleague, Senator Shrives Afolabi-Salisu, and permit me to stand on existing protocol. I am Honorable Aditi Stanley-Olajide. First thing first, thank you for this opportunity to speak. Secondly, it’s unfortunate that it only takes us to be in a country like this for us to sit down at a round table, but we’ll make the best of it. So you raised a very important question about the gap. I can tell you there is no bill or no act that is establishing any of this agency seated here that is going to stand the test of time. All of them are obsolete. I can tell you that for free. NCC Act, NIDA Act, well, even the NDPC Act that we just recently passed, there’s a few things that we need to amend there. Because some people are taking advantage of loopholes that are in the acts. So how can we bridge this gap? For the first time in the history of the National Assembly, you have industry people chairing the committees in both the Senate and the House. And I don’t believe that you’re taking advantage of it. We’re here to serve. We’re here to leverage. We’re here to synergize with you. But oftentimes, I see people being territorial. This is my territory. I don’t want anybody on it. And oftentimes, we are scrambling for information to help you. If you need me to help you with better act or amend your act, I must know exactly your pain points. Well, oftentimes, you cannot articulate your pain points to the National Assembly. So at the end of the day, we end up doing what might not necessarily be 100% to your advantage. We’ll do something, whether you like it or not. But the question is in what you really need. I think collaboration, what are your performance review of where you are will be helpful to us. OK, what are the challenges you are faced with right now? NDPC. are struggling right now because NCC need that. They are not funding them. They are the ones that have been chartered to fund them. But if they don’t fund them, that agency will be scrambling. So we are looking for money for NDPC, but at the same time, the act was very clear that NCC and NIDA for two years must fund them. But at this point, they are still struggling. So in a way, we have to work together. The key here is collaboration. And let me also say this to shake the table a little bit. There are a bit of misplaced priorities also in some of our agencies. Because oftentimes, like NCC is a regulatory body, you know, sometimes you find them doing things in the space of NIDA. So there are duplications of, you know, mandates. The clear mandate of NIDA is very clear, but sometimes you find NCC playing in that role. And sometimes you also find other agencies outside of this ministry, or the agency seated here, also performing the roles of NIDA or NCC. So in a way, we also have to understand these things clearly. And even if we have to take out some clauses in the act of some of these other agencies, because that was one of the reasons why the president is looking at consolidating some agencies, or maybe set some aside. Some of these agencies, their budget was cut this year, 2024. I can tell you 50% of the revenue of NCC was cut. Ilias, NIDA, same thing. I can ask them, do you know exactly why it was cut? Did any of you… National Assembly Chairman, did they actually fight for you to get that money back? Because they can’t. They are fighting right now for me to get that money back, and they will. So we have to work together. So to the point of the chairman, what we need to take away from here is that we need to cut down the bureaucracy, drop the ceiling, or drop the guard, so that we can work together with you to create better laws that will help you move your agencies forward, and our country, Nigeria, can be projected into the future. Because for me, I’m looking forward to Africa, where we have one single currency. We have one single passport. We have one single central bank that will govern the entire Africa. And also, we have the ease of doing business across entire Africa will be taken down. So thank you very much for your question, and let me stop right there. Thank you.

Engr. Kunle Olorundare: My brother for that intervention, and I’m extremely delighted that I actually called him. I wouldn’t have been able to combine that together. That was, I’ll be the judge in my own case, but he has eloquently conveyed what I believe represent the views of the next leaders. Have you heard about Chatham House before? Chatham House Roads? If you have heard about it, please raise up your hand. OK. It means, so this place has now been converted to Chatham House. Anything you say, anything, your views, will not be used against you, because I listen to the National Assembly. You know, because while we, I’m extremely delighted that we’re having this, I mean, to me, I’m going to solve the last 10 minutes for us to actually agree on the action points. I don’t want to preside over a session that we just talk and we disappear. I want us to go back home and have something that we’re going to do. So I’m going to turn the microphone to the audience, but just in case, just for us to be on the same page, a bit of a few things. Number one, there are a few things that we need to learn from other countries. And there are also a number of initiatives that are going on that we can also benefit from. They are from EU, from GIZ, from UNESCO. So the first thing we need to recognize that, yes, we are big and we are doing very well, but there are also other countries that are also doing some initiatives that we can learn from. Number two is that in order to ensure that our policies are sustainable and are consistent, we must continuously do peer review within the country and outside the country. And we must also ensure that we adopt a multistakeholder approach. And I’m going to extend this multistakeholder approach a little bit. We also need to involve the sub-nationals in some of the policies that we develop. Otherwise, we develop federal policies and the sub-nationals, they do whatever they like. So I think multistakeholder approach also includes sub-nationals. Number four, there are mandate overlaps between our agencies. And this is because, as an example, the CBN Act, as I tell you, it was propagated in time to say that banking would become technology. So today, banking is no longer banking as it used to be. Banking is not technology. But being technology, it’s not technology. it puts banking right. I mean, after all, who heard about what they call FinTech 10 years ago? There was no FinTech. So today we talk about FinTech, meaning that there’s an intersection between a financial industry and the technology industry. That has also now brought some little frictions between those who have the mandate to develop technology and those who have mandates to regulate banking. So mandate of a lot. Policy incoherence, and I know this very well, very strongly, which is also related to the one above. Sometimes a policy in banking may complete the policy in a week. The one in health may complete with the one in transport. So policy incoherence. That’s a need for regulators to collaborate more regularly. If you are working for the same country for the same goal, you can sit around the table. Rather than agencies and individuals are coming and escaping from one agency to the other or being called upon by different agencies, we can have a unified approach to provide, I mean, to destroy our mandate. Policy awareness is a great thing. A number of people are not even aware that we have a National Data Protection Commission and its roles and responsibilities. We need to create more awareness. Funding will also always be an issue. And it has already said, not just in a Data Protection Commission, but even NCC for that matter. USPF complained not having enough money. Then I wonder who has money on this table. Capacity building. And capacity building, I will also extend it to also include capacity building for the legislators. It is true, I’ve been in the industry for close to 40 years, and I must recognize Dr. James Olufoye here. We are together in the Digital Computers Association of Nigeria, the Inter-Nigeria Computer Society, ITANI, SPON, and a lot of those others. We are there in the National Assembly to establish NITRA. Most of these agencies were there as civil society, as a private sector player then. So I am aware. But I can’t say beyond Honorable Stanley Adelidji. I can’t say members of his committee. I can’t mention two or three of them who are technology savvy. In my committee as well, beyond me, maybe one or two other people, I can’t say that people can fully understand what it is they were talking about, artificial intelligence or cyber security. So capacity building, the quality of legislation is directly related to the quality of the awareness of the legislators. If you are not aware, our process in the chamber requires us that the bill should go to first reading, second reading, third reading. And there are so many bills, and you want to get your bill passed. So whatever information you have, that’s what you put in the bill. And it goes out, and then the civil society are going to say, hey, this National Assembly. When we are doing the bill, where were you? So capacity building should also be for National Assembly members. And this also goes to the agencies. I mean, for us, it is not a perfunctory thing to just put a stakeholder as a trainee in your budget. And therefore, it just means to just fulfill some rationales. We would like to see members of the Senate Committee on ICT and cyber security, members of House Committee on ICT and cyber security, to be given proper training, proper training. And I mean proper training. I mean, for some of us, we may not require training in the areas of technology again. But in the area of technology, we need training. of policy formulation, to know what the EU is doing on artificial intelligence, to know what is coming up in terms of cyber security, to know the African Union free container-free, you understand what I wanted to say? OK, OK. You know, there was a data policy framework. So these agencies, in your budget, put something substantial for capacity build. And it’s not the one that you go and give a contractor to, and say, OK, yes, we have trained them. It won’t happen this year. Infrastructure is also a major issue. Then somebody spoke about, I mean, silos, being territorial, and, of course, the need for periodic interface around table. We have conversed that the digital economy ecosystem, we should have our own off-site, where all of these agencies will come together, from NIDA to NECOMSTAR, from NECOMSTAR to, I mean, to NIPO, from NIPO to the one in the satellites. Yeah, because if you want to deliver service to the country, some services will be done territorially. Some will be done using satellite. Some will require the collaboration of NCC with postal services. Some will require NIDA to begin to look at the budget. And luckily, peers, you are here. I mean, we’re having a family meeting now. We have situations where you see agencies. This year, they will say automation. Next year, they will say software. The following year, they will say equipment. The next year, they will say, and then you ask yourself, and when you put all of these together, they run into billions of dollars. And sometimes you ask, NIDA, are you seen some of these budget items that go not to nowhere. And neither is support. You’re supposed to be able to approve some of them to say, OK, do this. We’ll see it as legislator now and then. We did an exercise for 2023 and 2024. All you need to do is to do a search, and you’ll see the various budget items coming up. If you buy equipment this year, OK, next year, where are those equipment before you buy another one? Do we have a National Asset Registry? OK. My job is not to limit our conversations. It’s also to stimulate you to say, OK, now we have charter house rule. Forget that the PS is here. For this purpose, it’s engineer. I look, you sue. F-N-S-E. Period. Agreed? Forget that neither is here. Even if you’re a NIDA staff, we want to make your call, just look straight in the face. I’ll give you the parliamentary immunity. So Nigerians who are here, I think there can’t be a better place for us to meet than here. If I’m back in Nigeria, there will be too many distractions. So the last 45 minutes have been extremely, very, very important. And we have 15 minutes to round up. So if you have any intervention that you think can help us, please raise up your hand. And I’ll start with Dr. Olufoye.

Audience: Our distinguished senator and our protocol.

Engr. Kunle Olorundare: Olufoye, you know we know our senator for over 40 years now. He will deliver another lecture. But you’ll do it for 90 seconds. And your time starts now. One, two.

Audience: So I stand on the existing protocols. James Olufoye, once again. And we’ve been in this process since 1995, advocacy and engaging the stakeholders. Now, there are two points I just want to raise. The first one, we’ve been talking about collaboration, multi-stakeholder engagement. The solution is in. here, the Net Mundia Multi-Stakeholder Guideline. In April this year at Sao Paulo, stakeholders came together and we agreed on the best approach on how to ensure that all stakeholders come together, all stakeholders come together and discuss meaningfully. And it’s in that situation we can have all people to buy in. Buying is very important because every stakeholder will now capacitate their communities, sub-national, parliamentarian, all agencies. So we need to do that. So I have copies of this, so as many as I want to pick it up, it’s summarised here. Secondly, there is something new called the Summit of the Future, talking about global digital comparison. I can tell you for free that is the fulfilment of the second outcome of the WSIS 2005 agenda. The first one was IGF, which is successful. The second one has not been successful as well, it’s just this September it became successful. We are on the Summit of the Future. Now they are talking about how do we implement it. I want to recommend, because we don’t want new institutions, we don’t want to set up any bottlenecks, let’s use the existing frameworks. For example, we have Nigeria IGF, I want to thank Amazon, Madam Mary, please let us appreciate her. For starting that, she pushed it rigorously and I love it. Then the other thing I want to mention, we don’t have WSIS. So I want to charge us, the ministry, to lead. UNECA leads for Africa and it’s wonderful, just like United Nations lead. So let’s put that in place so that we can have Nigeria WSIS forum. We’ve never had WSIS meeting in Nigeria. We need to have a forum where we discuss this new thing without setting up new institutions. That’s what we believe in the private sector. We don’t believe let us set up new bureaucracy. Thank you very much.

Engr. Kunle Olorundare: Good afternoon, everyone.

Amina Ramallan: My name is Amina Ramalan. I work for the Nigerian Communications Commission. So I just want to speak, not from the angle of the commission, but from the angle of youth perspective in general. So at the beginning of the session, the Honorable Pam Sek, he spoke about the representation of youth. I think he said 65% of the population is 35 and below. However, majority of the conversation and I think some of the outcomes that the Honorable spoke about, I did not hear anything about action points that have to do with youth. So I just wanted to add two cents, just to say that we need to, 65% is actually a very high number. And for us to be able to get to the point that we want for a digital economy, we need to urge ourselves to integrate youth voices, to amplify youth voices, not just in decision making processes, but governance is going younger now. Governance is going younger. When we’re talking youth today, we’re not just talking 30, 20 years old in governance, they are making decisions, they are making differences, right? So we need to also… So, we need to look at how we can integrate, you know, integrating digital literacy into school curriculums. And then, the last point I want to make is we need to also look at Nigeria-specific solutions for Nigerian problems. So, some of the issues that we have can only be solved in-house, not by just, you know, burrowing best practices from out there. Thank you.

Engr. Kunle Olorundare: Thank you very much for your time, and I look forward to hearing from you in the next few days. Thank you very much.

Audience: Distinguished, you have already categorized me already. Okay, good afternoon, or good evening already. I’m standing on existing protocols. I’m a member of the board of trustees, and I’m the director of the NGO, which is a non-governmental organization. We’ve been talking about policies. For me, we don’t lack policies. I think we have a great ton of repository of policies. In fact, if we need any policy now, we can get one. But how best, what mechanisms are we actually putting in place to evaluate the policies, what we’re already putting out? Are they actually meeting our goals and expectations? And, you know, I think, you know, we have a lot of policies that have been implemented by the previous government last year, by the previous government. This year, how far has that gone? Blockchain technology is still novel. However, a lot of people do not still understand it, and we have a policy that’s there, and the policy is almost like it’s slipping. And even this year, NCC, I think we directed from NCC through ISPs, have actually blocked a lot of things. And the second one I would like to talk about is for the commissioner that is joining online. That is data privacy and all. Anything we’re talking about in this room, if it doesn’t reach the common man, then it doesn’t make any sense. And how far are we going with sensitization on data bridges within the country? So it’s not just about we here in this room. We’ll have other opportunities to talk about these things. The common man must benefit from whatever we are doing. Thank you.

Engr. Kunle Olorundare: Okay, thank you. I’ll just, because we have seven minutes to go, but I don’t want to shut down the youth. She’s been here, and then the last one over there. If you make it very brief. Thank you so much. I’ll buy you a dinner. Good evening, everyone. Standing on existing protocols. My challenge is with- Your name is, please?

Aisha Bashir Tukur: Sorry, my name is Aisha Bashir Tukur, and I’m from Federal Inland Revenue Services, but I’m here for my startup, actually. The world is becoming smarter every day, whether we like it or not. Children and everyone is exposed to internet. What are we doing on cyber policies or cyber security? Cyber security policies. We have cyber bullying. I mean, we have young children, age 13 and below, doing so much on the internet. How do we harness their talents to something reasonable from an early age? This is my biggest concern.

Engr. Kunle Olorundare: Thank you, Aisha. Cyber security, cyber bullying, cyber policy. And the last one. Good evening, everyone.

Audience: My name is Sinhwe Zamobilo. I’m a senior program officer with Pridem Initiative, a civil society with headquarters in Nigeria, but Africa focus. Because of time, I think my intervention is coming from the statement about inconsistency. And the speaker once said that it didn’t feel good with me when he said it’s like a norm. And we want Nigeria’s case to be different. Let’s see it as a challenge, that even if it is a norm elsewhere, it shouldn’t be a norm with us in Nigeria, that we have policy inconsistency. Then what Dr. Lufoye said about us meeting over this, I don’t feel good that we are having this conversation outside the soil of Nigeria. I am making a proposition that when we go home, like I said at the ministry, we have a repository of resources, both human, who play major roles on the global stage. And who should come home and do those things at home. So I am looking forward to hearing that we are calling for WSIS. Currently, we have started internally as an organization. We are part of the people making input into the one that they are doing in UNICA and the one they are doing at UN. But we are not hiring anything in Nigeria. So we are looking forward to that. And again, I am also making this call. Please, I want to appreciate the NDPC commissioner. One of the things I will appreciate him for is his openness and ease of access. And I’m judging our, when our honorable member said something, that they look for information to make laws concerning us. That didn’t sound well, too. Because we make efforts to get across to the policy makers so that these things can be attended to. I am making a request for ease of access to the legislators, to the ministries, and to the agencies, so that we can move Nigeria forward. Thank you so much.

Engr. Kunle Olorundare: That sounded good to me, at least. Something sounded good to me. If everything didn’t sound good to you, something sounded good to me. So I think we’re going to end up, but before we end up, we’re going to have, oh, there’s a question online. What is the question? Can somebody read it? Can you read it? Do you have the question? Do you have the question? OK, so in order to save time. OK, you know what? We’re going to have one more minute. You can respond to any of the questions, and then you’re closing the talks. Let me start with the peers.

Panelist: OK, thank you very much, Distinguished. For lack of time, quickly, I want to agree with the Honorable Stanley. We have never had it good, really, as a sector, having engaged with the two senators and the two other senators. I can’t imagine us having this kind of quality of people with a massive understanding of the sector, and we cannot take advantage of that. So I think I totally agree with that point. Secondly, the issue that was raised also by a distinguished senator with regards to capacity building for the legislators. I think it’s absolutely important. Beyond the legislators, also even the judiciary, especially on the aspect of AI. And I can assure you that already we are thinking about something to do with that quickly. Now, coming back to the question by Dr. Also, I want to agree that we need to really create platforms where engagement, policy, advocacy, and stakeholder engagement will be done. The lady that spoke on literacy, digital literacy, I think we are doing a lot, honestly. There is a three million technical talent program going on. Lately, also, we jointly with NIDA and NYSE were able to launch the digital literacy for all. In Nigeria, I was there personally. So really, there is quite a lot of things. And different agencies of government at all levels are doing a lot of training. We can do much better. But I think a lot is being done. I could agree with the gentleman also that spoke about how can we deal with policy implementation, lack of aid, and so on. I also agree that we can do much better. But like I’ve said earlier, it’s the issue of institutions. We need to have strong institutions to be able to do that. Finally, on the issue of cybersecurity, I mean, the gentleman there was mentioning that we already have the Cybersecurity Act. I mean, there is a Cybersecurity Act of 2020, right? And there is a very new 2023 or so. So there are quite a few things. There is the lack of awareness claims. So people are missing a lot in terms of getting things done. I think we can go on with this conversation at a wider level. Thank you.

Niteabai Dominic: Thank you. In short, my contribution would be very simple. When we talk about engagement, let us engage. As a whole, trust deficits that we have. have with government. This is sincerely from the bottom of my heart. Civil society is saying let’s engage, but each time we call you, you don’t show up. That’s when we show up in your events. He’s a deliberate policy leader. Any time civil society holds an event, we do, because when we invite you, you don’t come. So let’s be sincere to ourselves. If you want to engage, let’s engage and not just look about it. We’ll meet them at the forum. Thank you, sir.

Benjamin Akinmoyeje: The youth, the old, the landed ones, and interestingly for us. Okay. Okay. Interestingly for us, we have all professionals as members of Internet Society. So if you have Internet Society participating in a particular event, that means that the youth, the old, the professionals, the engineers…

Engr. Kunle Olorundare: Thank you, thank you. Dr. Fizet, you have a few seconds to say… Dr. Fizet?

Dr. Vincent Olatunji: Just to say that what is really important for us moving forward is collaboration. We all work together and pursue the same vision. Our voices are very robust. Let’s put in place a proper decision framework, a proper…

Engr. Kunle Olorundare: Thank you. Madam Uchman?

Mary Uduma: Thank you. NIGF is there as a platform. Let’s converge there. Quarterly meeting? Carried. Quarterly meeting? Carried. Online participation. You can participate online. So go back to the PAMSEC and get that straightened up so that we can work on WSIS, work on Global Digital Compact.

Aditi Stanley-Olajide: Yeah, just one quick thing. We also at National Assembly, we’re also going to take a lead role on this to bring everybody together. Before everybody leave here today, leave your number. We’re also going to WhatsApp Line. We’re going to also work with the Ministry. We’re going to drive this and we’re all going to…

Engr. Kunle Olorundare: Thank you all for being here. Thank you for participating. Thank you for your time. It’s been such a very interesting engagement. And we’ll be working with the PAMSEC to ensure that some of these items, we act on them when we’re back home. God bless you. God bless the Federal Republic of Nigeria and safe trips back home. And please have a look for those that want to see me. And please, Sam, down below, down below, let’s take a picture.

Agreement Points

Need for multistakeholder approach in policy development

Engr. Kunle Olorundare

Panelist

Unknown speaker

Importance of multistakeholder approach including sub-nationals

Need for policy coherence and collaboration between agencies

Need for stronger institutions to support policy implementation

Multiple speakers emphasized the importance of involving various stakeholders, including sub-national entities and different agencies, in policy development and implementation to ensure effectiveness and coherence.

Importance of capacity building and awareness

Dr. Vincent Olatunji

Adedeji Stanley-Olajide

Amina Ramallan

Need for awareness on data protection rights and obligations

Need for capacity building of legislators on technology issues

Need for digital literacy initiatives, especially for youth

Several speakers highlighted the need for capacity building and awareness initiatives across different stakeholder groups, including legislators, youth, and the general public, to enhance understanding of digital issues and policies.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers acknowledged progress in internet access but emphasized the need for further investment in digital infrastructure, highlighting funding challenges as a key obstacle.

Panelist

Khadijah Sani

Progress in internet access but need for more infrastructure investment

Funding challenges for Universal Service Provision Fund

Both speakers emphasized the importance of addressing youth-specific concerns in digital policies, including their representation in decision-making and their safety online.

Amina Ramallan

Aishat Bashir Tukur

Need to integrate youth voices in decision-making processes

Importance of cybersecurity policies, especially for youth

Unexpected Consensus

Consistency in policy implementation across administrations

Panelist

Adedeji Stanley-Olajide

Need for policy coherence and collaboration between agencies

Importance of collaboration between agencies and legislators

Despite representing different branches of government, both speakers agreed on the need for consistency and collaboration in policy implementation, which is unexpected given typical tensions between executive agencies and legislators.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement included the need for a multistakeholder approach in policy development, the importance of capacity building and awareness initiatives, the need for further investment in digital infrastructure, and the importance of addressing youth-specific concerns in digital policies.

Consensus level

There was a moderate level of consensus among the speakers on key issues, particularly on the need for collaboration and capacity building. This consensus suggests a shared understanding of the challenges facing Nigeria’s digital economy and could potentially lead to more coordinated efforts in policy development and implementation. However, some differences in perspective and emphasis were also evident, particularly regarding specific implementation strategies and priorities.

Different Viewpoints

Policy implementation challenges

Niteabai Dominic

Unknown speaker

Challenges in implementing policies due to overlapping mandates

Need for stronger institutions to support policy implementation

While Niteabai Dominic focuses on overlapping mandates as a key challenge in policy implementation, the unknown speaker emphasizes the need for stronger institutions. This suggests a difference in perspective on the root cause of implementation difficulties.

Unexpected Differences

Approach to policy development

Audience

Panelist

Importance of evaluating existing policies

Need for policy coherence and collaboration between agencies

While one might expect agreement on the need for both policy evaluation and coherence, the speakers unexpectedly focus on different aspects of policy development. The audience member emphasizes evaluation of existing policies, while the Panelist focuses on coherence and collaboration in developing new policies.

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement revolve around policy implementation challenges, approaches to inclusive decision-making, and priorities in infrastructure development and policy formulation.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among speakers appears to be moderate. While there are differences in focus and approach, there seems to be a general consensus on the importance of improving digital policies and infrastructure. These differences in perspective could potentially lead to more comprehensive and nuanced policy development if properly addressed and integrated.

Partial Agreements

Both speakers agree on the importance of inclusive decision-making, but while Engr. Kunle Olorundare emphasizes including sub-national entities, Amina Ramallan focuses specifically on integrating youth voices.

Engr. Kunle Olorundare

Amina Ramallan

Importance of multistakeholder approach including sub-nationals

Need to integrate youth voices in decision-making processes

Both speakers acknowledge the need for infrastructure investment, but they approach it from different angles. The Panelist focuses on overall progress and need, while Khadijah Sani specifically highlights funding challenges for the Universal Service Provision Fund.

Panelist

Khadijah Sani

Progress in internet access but need for more infrastructure investment

Funding challenges for Universal Service Provision Fund

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers acknowledged progress in internet access but emphasized the need for further investment in digital infrastructure, highlighting funding challenges as a key obstacle.

Panelist

Khadijah Sani

Progress in internet access but need for more infrastructure investment

Funding challenges for Universal Service Provision Fund

Both speakers emphasized the importance of addressing youth-specific concerns in digital policies, including their representation in decision-making and their safety online.

Amina Ramallan

Aishat Bashir Tukur

Need to integrate youth voices in decision-making processes

Importance of cybersecurity policies, especially for youth

Key Takeaways

There is a need for greater policy coherence and collaboration between agencies in Nigeria’s digital sector

A multistakeholder approach, including sub-national entities, is crucial for effective policy development and implementation

Nigeria has made progress in digital access and infrastructure but still faces challenges in funding and implementation

Data protection and cybersecurity are growing concerns that require more awareness and robust policies

There is a significant opportunity to leverage Nigeria’s large youth population for digital economy growth

Capacity building for legislators on technology issues is essential for effective lawmaking in the digital sector

Resolutions and Action Items

Establish a quarterly meeting for stakeholders in the digital sector

Create a WhatsApp group for continued communication between stakeholders

The National Assembly to take a lead role in bringing stakeholders together

Explore organizing a Nigeria WSIS (World Summit on the Information Society) forum

Integrate digital literacy into school curriculums

Provide capacity building for legislators on technology issues

Unresolved Issues

How to effectively address overlapping mandates between agencies

Specific strategies for increasing funding for digital infrastructure projects

Detailed plans for improving cybersecurity, especially for youth

How to practically integrate youth voices into decision-making processes

Specific methods to evaluate and update existing policies

Suggested Compromises

Agencies to be more open to collaboration and sharing information with legislators

Civil society organizations to make greater efforts to attend government-organized events

Balancing Nigeria-specific solutions with learning from international best practices

Finding ways to harmonize different agency mandates without creating new bureaucracies

We never land good policies anywhere. Our major challenges have been the implementation, funding, infrastructure, and labor market.

speaker

Dr. Vincent Olatunji

reason

This comment cuts to the heart of Nigeria’s policy challenges, shifting focus from policy creation to implementation.

impact

It redirected the conversation towards practical challenges and solutions rather than just policy formulation.

For the first time in the history of the National Assembly, you have industry people chairing the committees in both the Senate and the House. And I don’t believe that you’re taking advantage of it.

speaker

Adedeji Stanley-Olajide

reason

This highlights a unique opportunity for collaboration between legislators and industry experts that is currently being underutilized.

impact

It sparked discussion about improving collaboration between government agencies and legislators to create more effective policies and laws.

65% is actually a very high number. And for us to be able to get to the point that we want for a digital economy, we need to urge ourselves to integrate youth voices, to amplify youth voices, not just in decision making processes, but governance is going younger now.

speaker

Amina Ramalan

reason

This comment brought attention to the demographic reality of Nigeria and the need to include youth perspectives in policymaking.

impact

It shifted the conversation to consider the role of youth in Nigeria’s digital future and policy-making processes.

How far are we going with sensitization on data bridges within the country? So it’s not just about we here in this room. We’ll have other opportunities to talk about these things. The common man must benefit from whatever we are doing.

speaker

Audience member

reason

This comment emphasized the importance of making policies and their benefits accessible to the general public.

impact

It broadened the discussion to include considerations of public awareness and the practical impact of policies on ordinary citizens.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by shifting focus from theoretical policy formulation to practical implementation challenges, highlighting the need for better collaboration between industry experts and legislators, emphasizing the importance of including youth perspectives, and stressing the need to make policies accessible and beneficial to the general public. The discussion evolved from a high-level policy talk to a more grounded conversation about real-world impacts and inclusive policy-making processes.

How can we involve parliamentarians more in the Internet Governance Forum process?

speaker

Dr. D. S. Wariowei

explanation

Involving parliamentarians could lead to better representation and guidance in future IGF meetings.

How can we improve funding for the Universal Service Provision Fund (USPF) to better address digital divide issues?

speaker

Khadijah Sani

explanation

Increased funding could help expand connectivity to underserved areas and improve Nigeria’s ranking on digital divide indices.

How can we address the issue of mandate overlaps between agencies in the digital space?

speaker

Adedeji Stanley-Olajide

explanation

Resolving mandate overlaps could improve efficiency and reduce conflicts between agencies.

How can we improve policy coherence across different sectors (e.g., banking, health, transport) in relation to digital technologies?

speaker

Engr. Kunle Olorundare

explanation

Better policy coherence could lead to more effective implementation of digital initiatives across sectors.

How can we enhance capacity building for legislators to improve their understanding of technology and digital policy issues?

speaker

Engr. Kunle Olorundare

explanation

Improved knowledge among legislators could lead to better-informed policy-making and legislation.

How can we better integrate youth voices in decision-making processes related to digital policy?

speaker

Amina Ramallan

explanation

Given that 65% of Nigeria’s population is under 35, including youth perspectives is crucial for effective digital policy.

How can we develop more Nigeria-specific solutions for digital challenges?

speaker

Amina Ramallan

explanation

Tailored solutions could be more effective in addressing Nigeria’s unique digital ecosystem challenges.

What mechanisms can we put in place to better evaluate the effectiveness of existing policies?

speaker

Unnamed audience member

explanation

Regular evaluation could help improve policy implementation and outcomes.

How can we improve public sensitization on data privacy and breaches?

speaker

Unnamed audience member

explanation

Increased public awareness could lead to better data protection practices among citizens.

What policies can we develop to address cybersecurity and cyber bullying, especially for young internet users?

speaker

Aishat Bashir Tukur

explanation

Protecting young users and harnessing their talents safely is crucial as internet usage grows among youth.

How can we organize a Nigeria-specific WSIS (World Summit on the Information Society) forum?

speaker

Dr. Jimson Olufuye

explanation

A local WSIS forum could help address Nigeria-specific digital issues and align with global digital initiatives.

Summary

This discussion focused on the impact of artificial intelligence (AI) on children and the need for regulation to protect children’s rights in the digital environment. Participants highlighted how AI is pervasive in children’s lives, often without their awareness, and can pose risks such as data exploitation, privacy violations, and exposure to harmful content. Research shows that many AI systems are not designed with children’s best interests in mind, despite children being a significant user base.

The discussion emphasized the importance of developing global standards and regulations for AI that prioritize children’s rights and safety. The EU’s AI Act was cited as a step in the right direction, though challenges remain in its implementation and enforcement. Participants stressed the need for technical standards and frameworks to guide the responsible development and deployment of AI systems affecting children.

Youth perspectives were prominently featured, with concerns raised about AI’s impact on education, creativity, privacy, and mental health. The discussion underscored the importance of involving children in the development of AI policies and regulations. Participants called for increased awareness and education for families and children about AI risks and safeguards.

The conversation concluded with a call to action for policymakers, tech companies, and society at large to ensure AI systems are designed and governed with children’s rights and well-being at the forefront. The upcoming AI code for children was highlighted as a potential blueprint for addressing these concerns and implementing practical safeguards for children in the AI landscape.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– The impact of AI on children’s rights, privacy, and wellbeing

– The need for AI regulation and standards that specifically consider children

– The importance of designing AI systems with children’s needs in mind from the start

– Challenges in implementing “safety by design” principles for AI that impacts children

– The role of families, education, and public awareness in protecting children from AI risks

The overall purpose of the discussion was to examine the impacts of AI on children and explore policy, regulatory, and technical solutions to protect children’s rights and wellbeing as AI systems become more prevalent. The discussion aimed to provide input for the upcoming AI Action Summit in Paris.

The tone of the discussion was largely serious and concerned about the risks AI poses to children, but also cautiously optimistic about the potential to develop safeguards and standards. There was some frustration expressed that known issues around children’s online safety have not been adequately addressed as AI has developed. The tone became more solution-oriented and forward-looking towards the end, focusing on upcoming regulations and standards that could help protect children.

Speakers

– Leanda Barrington-Leach: Moderator, representative of Five Rights Foundation

– Nidhi Ramesh: Five Rights Youth Ambassador, 16 years old, from Malaysia

– Jun Zhao: Senior researcher in the Department of Computer Science at Oxford University, leads the Oxford Child-Centered AI Design Lab

– Brando Benifei: Member of the European Parliament, co-rapporteur of the AI Act, co-chair of the child rights intergroup

– Ansgar Koene: AI ethics and public policy regulatory lead at Ernst & Young, trustee of Five Rights Foundation

– Baroness Beeban Kidron: Chair of Five Rights Foundation, member of the House of Lords in the UK, architect of the age-appropriate design code

Additional speakers:

– Peter Zanga Jackson: Regulator from Liberia

– Jutta Croll: German Digital Opportunities Foundation

– Lena Slachmuijlder: Affiliation not specified

– Dorothy Gordon: From UNESCO (mentioned in a question)

The Impact of AI on Children: A Comprehensive Discussion

This summary provides an in-depth overview of a discussion focused on the impact of artificial intelligence (AI) on children and the need for regulation to protect children’s rights in the digital environment. The conversation brought together experts from various fields, including youth representation, academia, policy-making, and industry. The session, which experienced some technical difficulties, served as a preparatory event for the AI Action Summit in Paris.

1. AI’s Pervasive Influence on Children’s Lives

The discussion opened with a stark realisation: AI is ubiquitous in children’s lives, often operating without their awareness. Nidhi Ramesh, a 16-year-old Youth Ambassador, highlighted that many children don’t realise most of their online interactions are mediated by AI algorithms, which make choices, recommendations, and even decisions for them. This lack of awareness raises critical questions about informed consent and digital literacy among young users.

Dr Jun Zhao from Oxford University provided empirical evidence, noting that a recent UK survey showed children are twice as likely to adopt new AI technologies compared to adults. This rapid adoption underscores the urgency of addressing potential risks associated with AI use among children.

2. Risks and Challenges

The speakers unanimously agreed that AI poses significant risks to children’s privacy, safety, and well-being. These risks include:

a) Data Exploitation: AI systems can collect sensitive data from children without proper safeguards, as pointed out by Dr Zhao.

b) Privacy Violations: The pervasive nature of AI raises concerns about children’s privacy rights.

c) Exposure to Harmful Content: AI chatbots and recommendation systems can inadvertently expose children to inappropriate content.

d) Mental Health Impacts: The psychological effects of AI, particularly systems designed for companionship, were highlighted as an area of concern.

e) Educational Risks: Nidhi Ramesh raised thought-provoking questions about AI’s impact on learning, noting that while AI can make homework quicker, it risks compromising essential learning skills, creativity, and critical thinking abilities.

f) Amplification of Existing Harms: Leanda Barrington-Leach emphasised that AI can exacerbate existing systemic problems affecting children.

3. Regulatory Landscape and Challenges

The discussion highlighted the evolving regulatory landscape surrounding AI and children’s rights:

a) EU AI Act: Brando Benifei, Member of the European Parliament, noted that while the EU AI Act includes some provisions to protect children, these were not initially present and had to be introduced through amendments. This revelation underscores the importance of vigilance in ensuring children’s rights are protected in AI regulations.

b) Technical Standards: Ansgar Koene from Ernst & Young pointed out that technical standards are still being developed to operationalise AI regulations effectively, particularly for the AI Act.

c) AI Code for Children: Baroness Beeban Kidron mentioned the development of an AI code for children by the Five Rights Foundation. This code aims to provide practical guidance on designing AI systems with children’s rights in mind and is expected to be launched at the Paris summit. It targets policymakers, regulators, and AI developers.

d) Global Cooperation: Benifei stressed the need for global dialogue and cooperation to build common frameworks for protecting children in AI systems.

e) Global Digital Compact: Baroness Kidron highlighted the relevance of the Global Digital Compact to AI and children’s rights, emphasising its potential impact on global governance of digital technologies.

4. Designing AI Systems with Children in Mind

The discussion emphasised the importance of integrating children’s needs and rights into AI development from the outset:

a) Safety by Design: Dr Zhao advocated for incorporating safety by design principles into AI development, noting that some AI companies are already embracing this approach.

b) Organisational Awareness: Koene highlighted that many organisations lack awareness of how their AI systems impact children, suggesting a need for greater education and expertise within the industry.

c) Expert Involvement: The importance of involving subject matter experts on children’s impacts in AI development was stressed.

d) Ethical Considerations: Barrington-Leach argued that AI should not be used to experiment on children, emphasising the need for ethical guidelines in AI development and deployment.

5. Role of Education and Awareness

The discussion touched upon the crucial role of education in protecting children from AI risks:

a) Family Involvement: Peter Zanga Jackson, a regulator from Liberia, highlighted the role of families in educating children about AI.

b) School Curriculum: The need to integrate AI awareness into school curricula was discussed.

c) Public Awareness: Speakers agreed on the importance of increasing public awareness about AI’s impact on children. Koene emphasised the need for public sector support in educating the general population about AI risks.

6. Consumer Rights and Advocacy

Koene pointed out the potential role of consumer rights organisations in advocating for safer AI products and pressuring tech companies to respect children’s rights.

7. Unresolved Issues and Future Directions

The discussion identified several unresolved issues and areas for future focus:

a) Enforcement of Regulations: Questions remain about how to effectively enforce AI regulations and standards across different jurisdictions.

b) Balancing Innovation and Protection: Finding the right balance between fostering AI innovation and protecting children from potential harms remains a challenge.

c) Prioritising Children’s Rights: Ensuring AI companies prioritise children’s rights and safety over profit motives was identified as an ongoing concern.

d) Addressing Subtle Risks: Dr Zhao highlighted the complexity of AI risks and the need for better awareness and translation of policies into practical guidance.

Conclusion

The discussion concluded with a call to action for policymakers, tech companies, and society at large to ensure AI systems are designed and governed with children’s rights and well-being at the forefront. The upcoming AI code for children was highlighted as a potential blueprint for addressing these concerns and implementing practical safeguards for children in the AI landscape.

The conversation demonstrated a high level of consensus on the main issues, with speakers from various backgrounds sharing similar concerns and proposed solutions. This strong agreement implies a clear direction for future policy-making and research in the field of AI governance for children’s protection. However, the discussion also revealed the complexity of the challenges ahead and the need for continued dialogue, research, and collaborative action to ensure a safe and beneficial AI environment for children.

Notable initiatives mentioned include the child rights intergroup in the European Parliament, which Brando Benifei highlighted as an important forum for addressing these issues. The discussion underscored the importance of translating high-level policies and principles into practical, implementable guidelines for AI developers and policymakers to effectively protect children’s rights in the rapidly evolving AI landscape.

Leanda Barrington-Leach: who we are, Five Rights Foundation, so I was saying that we do research, we develop policy and technical frameworks also to ensure that digital systems are designed to deliver for children and notably with children’s rights in mind, children being all under 18s around the world. As part of this work for the General Comment 25, which sets out how the Convention on Rights of the Child applies to the digital environment, we worked very closely with a number of governments around the world to develop new policy and regulatory frameworks, in particular the age-appropriate design code, which if you haven’t heard about we can tell you more later. The reason we are doing this is that obviously we have seen in our work with kids that there has been basically a global problem in that tech has developed ignoring children and ignoring their established rights that many people fought very very hard for in the past century and suddenly we have a new world order and these are being trampled upon and it’s a global problem because young kids are using the same technology all around the world and living very similar experiences and similar risks and similar harms. Luckily there is a global solution, so global problem, global solution and we are working towards global norms for tech design to ensure as I said that those established rights are taken into account in the digital environment. So today AI, so what we see is something which is maybe not fundamentally new but which is supercharging some of these harms and systemic problems that we have already been addressing and we are looking indeed for, as I say, global standards and a way of addressing this. Luckily there is clearly a rising understanding and convergence, political will, rising political will. to address these issues, in particular for children based on their established rights. How are we going to do it? Well, I am very, very pleased to today be joined by a very distinguished panel of experts and also young people who can help us define some of the things that we need to take forward, in particular as this event is an official preparatory event for the Paris AI Action Summit, and so we are looking at practical solutions to the issues we face. I am going with that to hand over, just for some opening words, to our first speaker, Nidhi. Now, Nidhi is a Five Rights Youth Ambassador, 16 years old, from Malaysia, and there she is. Hello, Nidhi, it’s lovely to see you with us today. Nidhi is a very passionate advocate for children’s rights in the digital environment, has represented children and five rights around the world, including, I think, previously at an IGF. Nidhi, so this is your second time at the IGF, welcome back. Nidhi is also an author, she hosts her own podcast, and is also of the Five Rights Youth Voice podcast, check this out. So with that, Nidhi, over to you, tell us from your perspective, what’s happening and what needs to be done.

Nidhi Ramesh: Hello, everyone, and thank you, Leanda, so much for such a kind introduction. I’ll repeat, my name is Nidhi Ramesh, and as a child rights activist in the digital space, I’m so honoured to be here today, and to be able to share my views and opinions on how AI impacts young people like me all over the world, and what I believe we can do to ensure its responsible use. Before I begin with my own experience, I think it’s key to highlight that AI is on every single platform, mobile application, and website that we all use. When someone says AI, the first thing one might think of is about generative artificial intelligence. intelligence, Gen AI, apps like ChatGBT, Copilot, Jasper AI, Replica, and many others. We live in a world where AI is everywhere, but most of us can’t even tell when we’re interacting with it. Whether it’s through social media algorithms, voice assistants, or personalized learning tools, AI often works in the background, shaping our decisions and experiences. Many children don’t realize that most of their interactions with the online world might actually be through various AI algorithms, making choices, recommendations, and even decisions for them. What’s even more concerning is the misuse of AI by tech companies that put profit above children’s safety and privacy, from recommending harmful and addictive content to collecting data without consent. Many AI systems operate without safeguards for young people. Most children don’t even know they’re being exposed to these algorithms, let alone how to protect themselves from potential harm. That said, I don’t want to paint AI as the villain. AI, when implemented in platforms and used responsibly, has incredible potential, transforming how we learn. AI-powered tools can provide personalized resources, making learning accessible and inclusive. For children with disabilities or those in remote areas, this is a real game-changer. But while these benefits are real, so are the risks, and we can’t afford to ignore them. One major concern is the erosion of originality. AI is flooding the internet with self-generated content, making it harder to find authentic, human-created work. As someone who runs a podcast, I know firsthand how much effort goes into creating something original. and children’s rights in an attempt to spread awareness on topics that are important to me. This also means that I spend a long time researching topics, writing scripts, recording audio, editing, and more in order to publish a full episode. It’s a process that takes time and effort. Yet in this day and age, with the click of a button, one can easily find AI algorithms that can use any topic you give it and generate a compelling script. Other gen AI applications like iSpeech, Descript, Murph, etc. use imported clips of your voice to perfectly imitate what you sound like when you give it this AI-generated script. So in a way, these two AI programs can do what I spend hours and days working on in seconds. And while that might seem convenient, it undermines the value of creativity and hard work that we put in. And this isn’t just about me, it’s about every artist, writer, and musician who’s at risk AI agents. I’ve also written and published two books like Leanda said, but again, nowadays it’s so easy for AI to write or create something similar at just a simple command, undermining so many creators out there who want to share their work with people. Perhaps this example is more relevant to me as an individual. However, the risks and problems that arise for AI are still there and need to be addressed, especially the ones I mentioned at the start. So what do we do about this? How do we ensure that AI works for children and not against them? I believe policymakers and tech companies have a huge role to play. First and foremost, we need stronger laws and regulations around AI governance on social media platforms like Instagram, TikTok, and Snapchat. These systems must prioritize data protection and privacy, especially for children. Young people deserve to know When what information is collected, transparency isn’t optional, it’s essential. We also need AI systems designed with children’s well-being at their core. This means algorithms that promote safety and mental health, rather than exploiting vulnerabilities for profit. Tech companies must be held accountable for the impact their systems have on young minds. Baroness Stephen Kidron and Five Rights, the organization I have the huge honor of being a part of, is currently working on designing and bringing together more regulations on this, which I’m sure will be discussed later as the panel continues. So I’ll leave it there. Thank you.

Leanda Barrington-Leach: Thank you so much, Nidhi. I should not, because you say it so much better than I ever could. I hope you’ll stay with us, because I’m sure our audience in the room and online will have questions and would like to interact with you more afterwards. But we are going to move on to our second panelist, Dr. Jun Cao, who’s joining us from Oxford. Hi, Jun. Great to see you. So Dr. Jun Cao is a senior researcher in the Department of Computer Science at Oxford University. Her research focuses on best algorithm-based decision making on our everyday lives, especially when it regards families and young children. For this, Jun takes a human-centric approach, focusing on understanding users’ needs in order to design technologies that can make a real impact. Jun currently leads the Oxford Child-Centered AI Design Lab and a major research grant examining the challenges of supporting children’s digital agency in the age of AI. So Jun, thank you for joining us. Can you tell us, what’s the research telling us then about the impact of AI on children?

Jun Zhao: Well, thank you so much for the introduction, Liana. And can I just confirm that everyone can hear me all right? I presume that sounds all right.

Leanda Barrington-Leach: Thumbs up, Jun.

Jun Zhao: All right. OK, so I got some slides prepared. Can I project them? Can people see that? I’m also very happy just to talk about the research.

Leanda Barrington-Leach: You bet, Jun.

Jun Zhao: Right. OK, well, thank you very much for inviting me to be here. I wish I could be there in person very much with all of you guys in spirit. It’s shocking to hear Nidhi’s talk and presentation and how much it resonates with our research evidence. You know, as Nidhi said, AI is everywhere in children’s life. From the moment they were born and to the education systems they would be using at home or at school. And we see a very similar number of wide adoption of these technologies if you look at the survey in any countries. And also, as Nidhi said, you know, AI, you know, the rise of AI, children are rapidly embracing these new technologies. Our recent survey in the UK shows that children are twice as likely to adopt these new technologies than adults. And an earlier survey by the Internet Matters also shows that there is such a huge proportion of children in the UK are using AI technologies to help with their schoolwork. So it’s really exciting. And, you know, as Nidhi said, there is a lot of great, exciting opportunities, especially. Support children with their learning, children with special education needs, who needs extra support with their social emotional management. We also see some really exciting examples. to see how AI could help children providing them with better health opportunities, early diagnosis for autism, which is an issue in many countries in the world. And, but also we must be cautious about how all these technologies may or may not have been designed with children’s best interest in mind. So this is the slide showed a recent research we did last year, where we did a systematic review of about 200 pieces work from the human computer interaction research community, which is community pride themselves in designing for human in the heart of the design process. And we tried to analyze how AI has been used in different kinds of application domains for children. It was quite interesting to see how education and healthcare has been the most dominant application areas as well as interestingly keeping children safe online. And now we looked more closely into the range of personal data that’s being used to feed all these algorithms. And we were quite surprised to see the diverse range of really sensitive data, like genetic data, like behavior data could be routinely used by all these AI systems, but not necessarily this full consent or assent from children or even necessary for the function of those applications. And it’s also interesting when we did a review of all the current AI6 principles out there last year, and we tried to do a mapping of all these recommended ethical principles to the actual. Implementation, as everyone can see in this diagram, is a very sparsely populated table. So even basic principles like privacy, like safety, like meeting children’s developmental needs are rarely considered comprehensively in all these applications that are designed for children and often in a very critical area. So this is quite concerning to see how principles are applied in experimental settings. And it’s even more concerning when we see practices taking place in real-world cases. So this is quite an old report from 2007 with the early rise of smart home devices, smart toys. Researchers have identified very quickly serious implications, the safety risks associated with these cute cuddly bears. But you know, seven years on, many legislations have been developed since then, but it was quite… has the rise of the variety of IoT devices and smart home devices. A recent study by us, as well as many other recent studies, have shown that children’s data can be collected by all these devices, even when they’re online or offline. As one of the researchers from a recent privacy conference confessed, individual children probably won’t experience negative consequences due to toys creating profiles about them. And nobody really knows that for sure. So here is another example. see similar to the biases adults would be subject to, children can also be exposed to unfair decisions by AI systems simply due to their race or socioeconomic status, but often probably with much more lasting effects in critical situations such as criminal decision making. Rapid development of AI associated with rapid deployment, but ironically, not always there’s sufficient safeguarding in the process of design. For example, when chatbot-like technologies were deployed by Snapchat last year, some serious risks were immediately reported exposing children to inappropriate content and contact, even when they declared their only age of 13 or 15. So another thing that is quite interesting in our research is we found that although a lot of risks like privacy and safety have been extensively discussed, the exploitive nature of AI algorithms has been rarely discussed. When we began our research with children’s data privacy, we began this experiment of analyzing third-party data tracking behaviors of over 1 million apps from Google Play Store. One of the most shocking discoveries we found from this study is the prevalence of data tracking existence. These cute apps used by children, often very, very young children, when they learn how to begin their handwriting, how to pop a balloon so that they can develop their fine motor skills, this is a violation of children’s basic rights and their vulnerabilities. So, seven years on since our initial research, what has happened, GDPR happened. We repeated our study. It was quite interesting to see that tracking behavior did not change immediately at enforcement of legislation. But what did happen is the app store has made it extremely difficult for us to repeat and continue our data analysis. But what we haven’t stopped is to continue asking the question, why all this tracking of children’s data, and how we can better protect them. It’s interesting to see this recent study published earlier this year, where it provides even more firm evidence about the exploitation of children’s data, the proportion of large social media platforms rely on children’s attention for their advertisement revenue. So just like Nidhi said, these companies are not designing with children’s heart, but their market gains. Several recent studies have made similar findings showing that recommendation systems can actively amplify and direct children to harmful content. For example, here the studies have shown that children identified with mental health issues could be more likely exposed to posts, leading to more mental health risks. Harmful content is because it’s more attention grabbing, invoking stronger emotions and prolong children’s engagement. So many of these studies are actually conducted through simulations because researchers do not access to the platform APIs or the code. of the algorithms. But what happens when we talk to the children directly and ask them about their experiences? This is one of the studies that we conducted last year. Assistant with many other research studies out there, children found experience very passive and disrespectful. And many of them have found it unfair that systems can do this to their data and manipulate their experiences. And while such feelings of being exploited and disrespected can be hard to quantify, we must not neglect how these feelings are fundamentally disrespectful of children’s rights in many ways. And how the same aggressive practices could cause harm for children of different developmental stages or vulnerabilities. And I’ll just leave the evidence discussions here for now and for other speakers, because I think the fundamental phenomenons will have lots of evidence for the fundamental phenomenons, but it will be quite interesting to hear that how the recent EU-AR Act could or could not provide the much needed protection that we need for children of this generation. Thank you very much, Liana.

Leanda Barrington-Leach: Thank you so much, Zhen. I am going to step over here. So I’m in frame for that presentation of some of the overwhelming evidence. And I think if you had a little bit longer, you could have said an awful lot more. I’d like to also point people to some of the research done by Five Rights. I have a disrupted childhood here, which sets out some of the basics of persuasive design and also the pathway. research using avatars shows very clearly how algorithms drive children to very specific harms and of course there’s plenty of evidence from a number of court cases as well of children who to talk about the AI act and I am delighted to welcome the honourable member of the European Parliament maybe over here is uh no apparently the camera needs to see you so um yes so Mr. Brando Benefe who was co-rapporteur of the AI act in the European Parliament and the oversight monitoring group so absolutely critical role to make sure that the AI act delivers and co-chair also of the child rights intergroup in the European Parliament we’re absolutely delighted to have you here

Brando Benifei: yeah I’m really happy I can be here for this opportunity I’m sorry that due to the overlapping with another meeting I’m I have to attend because of the parliament program we have a good delegation here I will need to leave soon after my my intervention maybe if there is one question I can answer but I will continue I want to thank Five Rights Foundation also for the extremely useful contributions that were given during the drafting process of the AI act the original text from the European Commission was unfortunately lacking completely the dimension of child protection it was not there at all so we had to bring it in with amendments from the European Parliament with our drafting work and the negotiations that followed so we have some uh space protection inside AI act not as much as we wanted but there are also some more general provisions that can be applied effectively, if we want to apply them effectively, on the cases that we just heard of. That’s why it’s important that now the Parliament, in the new mandate that just started just a few months ago, both confirmed the existence of the child intergroup, children’s rights intergroup. As I said, I’m now, I will be the vice chair for that. It starts its work now in the new mandate. And it’s an important forum to bring together all the MEPs from different perspectives, all the parliamentarians that want to work on children’s rights. And we confirmed a monitoring group of the AI Act. So after approving the text, now we are following step by step its application. It will be crucial because some of the issues that you have been already talking about with the previous speakers are to be checked in the way that they are applied. For example, in February 2025, full mandatoriness, the full application of the prohibitions, that it’s a very important aspect of the AI Act. And among the prohibited uses, there are also emotional recognition in the study places. We wanted to avoid that, to in fact enter into a form of pressure and intrusion on children in schools. So this is one aspect, for example. But then also predictive policing that can target minors from certain minorities will be prohibited. And also we prohibit the indiscriminate use of AI-powered biometric cameras in live action in a way that will prevent forms of surveillance that can also. infringe the privacy and the protection of children. And we have, for example, prohibit also the facial scraping on the internet. So that’s something that is used that prepare generative AI or chatbots to commit some of the abuses that we have seen. And we are trying to protect this data. But also apart from the prohibitions that will kick in soon, we have very important transparency provisions that will be quite important, looking at the generative AI. And for example, we demand specific protocols by the generative AI developers to contrast the capitals to have this kind of inappropriate conversations that we have seen that has been exemplified earlier and the production of inappropriate content that can be offensive for children. This is something that needs to be entrenched in the way the system is trained and it’s limited and needs to be checked periodically. But also we want to label AI generated content. This is crucial to find another issue that was not very much touched until now in this discussion, which I think it’s very bullying. Cyber mistreatment of children, which is a very important source of mental disorders, of attacking mental health. And in fact, with the new systems of generative AI, you can have a totally new level of extremely damaging cyber bullying of all kinds. And this is something we also need to tackle by avoiding the production, but when the thing is there, at least it needs to be clear that this is not true. That is fake. And so people cannot be. induced to think that a person is doing or saying things that will make them feel ashamed and have mental health problems. And also, finally, I want to underline that these are some more examples about how the AI Act interacts, but I want to concentrate on the fact that this interacts also with the Digital Services Act and with the child sexual abuse material legislation that we have been developing, that has been forwarded by the European Union and we think that the ecosystem needs to work together. As I said, I’m the specialist of the AI Act, I’ve been working on that, but in fact you put that together with this new legislation on child sexual abuse and you can build a proper framework of protection. And in fact, we want to continue a global dialogue, we are working on that, I am doing that with different governments and parliaments so that we can build a common framework of action. And that’s why it’s very important that civil society foundations, organizations can be linked, that are not only between the governments, but also in civil society. And I insist that the parliamentarians have to do their part here. It’s important that we have the IGF parliamentary track that also dealt in one of the discussions about these topics and we need to continue developing in this direction. We hope we can give some good practice by the application of this legislation, but clearly we need to build together an apparatus of actions and legislation, soft and hard laws that can protect our children online. Thank you very much.

Leanda Barrington-Leach: Thank you so much, Brando. I know you have to leave. Do you still have time for another question or anything from the room? Okay. Does anyone have a burning question? Mr. Benifei? I would have lots of questions, but I’ll have to keep them.

Peter Zanga Jackson: Well, my name is Peter Zanga-Jackson, Jr. I’m from Liberia. I’m the regulator. Firstly, thank you for the explanation you gave, but I want to ask you, because the child that we are talking about, they are from the family, and the family is the fundamental of that child. They are in some homes, there’s no check when it comes to the child. Some families, no monitoring. So you don’t think there should be an awareness. Firstly, educate the families as to what they should do. Limit the child or children to some extent before going to the next level of trying to detect giants that develop all of these AR and so on. I can say it’s more on the family. What do you think the family can do as the fundamental of the child? Yeah, children. Our children should start from the possible place before we go outside to find a solution. This is my question.

Brando Benifei: Is it working? You can hear? Okay. So just to answer very quickly on this, I think it’s a very important topic, because we need families to be ready to do their part in this. Obviously, I concentrated on that. It’s also building a culture. And this means you need to give the instruments to the adults to be able to have an informed conversation with their children. So, I don’t think we will solve everything by giving instruments to the adult population. We need schools, we need the formal education targeted at children through the institutions, but obviously if we have a more conscious population, also of the older age, that is not digital native, that needs to be trained, then they can also transmit to their children some basic foundational aspects. Be healthy and protected and conscious and not be manipulated while you are using new technologies, AI, the internet. So, yes, we also need the families to be on board. And we cannot solve everything with that, but at the same time, without investing also in the families, I think we are missing an important piece. I completely agree with you. Thank you.

Leanda Barrington-Leach: Thank you. Thank you very much. Lots of luck in overseeing the AI actor implementation. And we’ll be telling you about what comes from this panel, which is relevant to that later. And I’d just like to say our friend left the room, but I’d like to say that the European Parents Association was very much behind a lot of the work done on the AI Act. They have been big drivers of this. Now, over to our next speaker, Dr. Ansgar Kuna, who is AI ethics and public policy regulatory lead at Ernst & Young. I probably made your title even longer. It’s already quite long. So Ansgar, we are delighted to have as a trustee of the Five Rights Foundation, is our vice chair of our board and an absolute expert in AI and working a lot on the technical standards that are needed. But among others, the implementation and enforcement of the AI Act. So Ansgar, we’re going to hear from you a little bit about the status quo in terms of what we have to get this kind of regulation and also things like the AI convention and the framework that came from the UN a few months ago. So there are a few things. AI Act. So a few words from you, what we’d like to hear about is indeed, what is the status quo in

Ansgar Koene: terms of actually making this real? What’s missing? Where do we go from here? Sure, same check as everyone else. Can you hear me? Okay, good. So yes, we’re definitely in a very interesting period with the introduction of new international charters like the Council of Europe’s charter on AI. Legislation like the AI Act, but also in other jurisdictions that are pushing either through mandatory obligations around safeguards for AI, or are putting on the table an expectation from the regulator that they’re saying, we expect you to follow voluntary codes around responsible use of AI. And certainly, we have seen, if we look at the types of organizations that you are with, that the introduction of has pushed forward the level of engagement, the level of resources also that are provided within organizations, be it public or private sector organizations, to actually make sure that the regulations apply. If we think, especially about the way in which these types of regulations apply and have are going, there is a large challenge for a lot of organizations. There is a large challenge for a lot of organizations, similar to what we’ve seen in the platform space, that the organizations are often not quite aware to what extent what they are doing actually impacts. on children. Similar as what we’ve seen with social media platforms and other online platforms, that when they created the space, they were building the space not with children in mind, they were building the space with adults in mind, even though in reality we know that these platforms are children, they did not even conceive that this is something that they need to be building for. And a similar challenge is in the AI space, especially as in the AI space, as it is moving to a model where we have creators of the core AI models, LLMs being a prime example of that, being separate from the deployers of the AI models that then integrate them into their systems, that there is a distance between those who have the capacity to actually understand and do something about compliance, also compliance with regards to aspects regarding children, that they’re different from the ones that are directly facing the users. And even often those that are directly facing the users are not sufficiently tracking and aware of who exactly their users are. So if the AI Act asks for, prohibits a subliminal manipulation of vulnerable groups, but the deployers and especially the providers are not even aware that young people as a vulnerable group, then of course they are challenged in knowing whether or not they are subliminally manipulating them, or if they are having a negative impact on them, and they don’t even understand what does a negative impact on young people mean. This reflects then on some of the work that has been happening in the standardization space. So last year, the The IEEE published a standard, which Five Rites was a prime, the IEEE 2089 standard on age-appropriate design. And one of the things that that standard actually asks for is that organizations, as they are engaging in the design and development of AI systems, that they have people within that development process who are subject matter experts with regards to the impacts that these systems can have on children. So that there is someone at least involved in the process that thinks about how could this kind of a system impact children, what are the potential challenges, the potential negative impacts that could arise if someone under 18, let alone someone under 10, is using these kinds of systems. However, the standardization space is also, it is a space that is still very much in flux, in development. If we think, for instance, around the standards that are meant to provide the clear operational guidance on how to become compliant with the AI Act, all of those standards are still in development. The European Standards Body, CEN and CENALEC are rushing to try to meet the deadline that the AI Act has set to be able to provide these standards. And because they are rushing, they are focusing at the high level, horizontal level, there are very few, add an understanding as to the particulars that are necessary to address concerns regarding children. Fire rights is participating in the process, but there are multiple standards being developed. Simultaneously, it is highly challenging to be contributing to all of these at the same time, to make sure that the risk management standard. considers the risks to children at the same time as a trust within a standard considers what does accuracy, what our children might use an AI system actually mean. So the technical space around how do we move from a high level intended outcome which the regulations have specified into an operational, what do you need to do on the ground to make sure that the systems work to meet those requirements is still a space that needs a lot of support, it needs a lot of work. And as I’ve said, there is even the core challenge that organizations need to be aware that they even need to consider how children might be impacted by these systems as they’re deploying something at a new chatbot, as they’re deploying AI as part of a system for targeting advertising, as they’re using AI as part of something like that, they’re generally not building it with children in mind. And so it is a space that is dynamic, it is a space that is moving in the right direction to the extent that it has been integrated in the AI actor instance as Brando mentioned. However, because there are so many new things, new compliance activities, new thinking about what does responsible AI actually mean while there is also a huge rush to try to find new ways to actually get a return on investment on these, that there is a huge risk that the particular concerns around children will fall between the cracks if we do not raise enough awareness about this.

Leanda Barrington-Leach: Thank you so much Ansgar. I think we’re going to have our last intervention and then engage in a discussion if that is okay. This one’s not working? Is it working? Okay, great. Thank you so much for that. Indeed, I think it’s absolutely critical that, you know, law is already something, but we need to get down into the weeds to get those technical frameworks in place, because otherwise, companies can say things like, oh, well, we didn’t know that we were exploiting children’s vulnerabilities. We didn’t know that children were there. We are not designing for children. Why do we need… I’m being a little bit provocative, but the reality, of course, is that many of the biggest companies, at the very least, are quite aware that children are a massive market. They are targeting children as their current market and their future market. So, of course, it’s a little bit disingenuous, but until we get all of that detail in place, then that is a game that we will be playing. So, absolutely critical. Thank you so much for that. We have just our last intervention online from Baroness B. Ben Kidron, who is the chair of Five Rights Foundation. Baroness Kidron is a member of the House of Lords in the UK and was the architect of the age-appropriate design code. Baroness Kidron has been a long-term advocate of children’s rights and is currently working on an AI code, which hopefully will feed into some of the things that we’ve been speaking about. So, Baroness Kidron… you you you you you

Baroness Beeban Kidron: I’m delighted that today’s conversation will feed into those which will take place in Paris in February. As Nidhi and Jun will have shared, it’s crucial that we develop artificial intelligence and other automated systems with one eye on how we’re going to impact children. The possibilities are infinite. I was very moved by a system that in real time could monitor a preterm baby heartbeat without having to stick heavy instruments on their paper-thin chest. Terre des Hommes, a fellow children’s rights NGO, recently launched an AI chatbot to support children’s access to justice. Or a few months ago, I met a wonderful group of 14-year-old girls who built an app to teach sign language to hearing classmates so that could all communicate with their deaf peer. There is no holds immense potential. But like any technology, AI must be developed. with children in mind. And I do want to emphasize that it’s a design choice if recommender systems feed children alarming content, promoting heating disorders, or self-harm. It’s a design choice if AI-powered chatbots encourage emotional attachments, which may, in some cases, have led to children taking their own lives. It’s a design choice if, cynically, some of those chatbots revive deceased children through the creation of AI bots imitating their personalities, re-traumatizing their families and friends, and creating a loop in which self-harm or suicide is valorized. As children point out to us repeatedly, it’s a design choice if AI-powered chatbots encourage emotional attachments, promoting heating disorders, or self-harm. It’s a design choice if, cynically, some of those chatbots revive deceased children through the creation of AI bots imitating their personalities, re-traumatizing their families and friends, and creating a loop in which self-harm or suicide is valorized. It’s a design choice if, cynically, some of those chatbots revive deceased children through the creation of AI bots imitating their personalities.

MODERATOR: Dear host, I don’t know if you can hear me, but if you can allow me to share my screen again I can restart the playback.

Leanda Barrington-Leach: I’m so sorry, it seems to be either a choice between online people being able to see and hear and us being able to see and hear. Why don’t we give that a moment, I think there were some questions, at least the ones from the room, I’m not sure about the ones online. Let’s come to that and see if we can get the end of Baroness Kidron’s intervention in a minute. Jutta, you had a question or a point to make.

Jutta Croll: Yes, Jutta Kohl from the German Digital Opportunities Foundation. I had the honour to work with Five Lights Foundation in the working group on general command number 25. And I really appreciate what we heard from Bieben, also what we heard from Ansgar. But at the same time, I’m a bit disillusioned, because I think it’s 10 to 12 years ago when we really talked to tech companies about the concept of safety by design. And that was, although we had artificial intelligence at that point of time, it was not in the hands of the children in the real way. So I would have expected that this principle would be in the standards, would be in the hands of developers to be adhered to and to take in consideration that children… It was obvious throughout all the developments. I would say when the internet came up, it was not designed for children. So maybe we were then going behind that and say, okay, now we have this idea of safety by design. Have in mind that children probably will be users of the services of the devices and so on. And now we end up several years ago with AI and the same situation that we had before with other technology, digital technology. Ansgar, maybe you have an answer to that, not to disillusion me?

Ansgar Koene: I fear that my answer is not going to be something that will remove your disillusionment. So, the practice that we are seeing is to bring things to the market and in that rush, it remains the case that the so-called functional requirements, that is to say the things that need to be there in order to produce the type of output that they want to create, get the prominence sort of the investment and the so-called non-functional, this terminology is terrible, requirements such as making sure that there will not be negative consequences especially are marginalized in the design process unless there is a significant factor behind it, such as the risk of a huge fine. That is why even though we’ve seen discussions around responsible AI principles for many years, there was always a lack of investment to really get it implemented. There was often the case of technologists within the company saying, this is something that we should be doing, but they were not being given the resources to actually do it Until now, there is something like an AI act where you’re going to face fines, now suddenly there is an investment in doing it.

Leanda Barrington-Leach: Is it this that’s crackling? This is okay? It was your voice. Okay, maybe we’ll get Baroness Kidron back and also our other speakers. But in the meantime, oh, wonderful, we can hear. I hope that’s current, not right from the beginning when they couldn’t hear. But in the meantime, do we have any other questions or comments from the room? Otherwise, I will go to two ones online, too. And I have to say, Jutta, I totally agree with you. It’s taking far too long. And as I said a bit before, it’s a little bit disingenuous, because we do know what the issues are and we’ve known for a long time. Let’s go over to Lena.

Lena Slachmuijlder: Yeah, thanks so much. And it’s just such good work that you’re all doing.

Baroness Beeban Kidron: Good morning. I regret not being able to be with you in person at the Internet Governance Forum today. This session is officially accredited as a preparatory event for the AI Action Summit. And I’m delighted to be able to feed into those which will take place in Paris in February. As Nadine and Jun will have shared, it’s crucial that we develop artificial intelligence and other automated systems with one eye on how it will impact choice.

Lena Slachmuijlder: Yeah. Okay. I mean, I also feel as though we’ve known the issues for a long time, and the only age is when they face fines or penalties or litigation. I’m just curious, because there’s people from other countries in the room as well. And I’m wondering, Five Rights has been doing some work globally. You know, are we seeing the same conclusions in terms of the ability of other countries?

Baroness Beeban Kidron: Good morning. I regret not being able to be with you in person at the Internet Governance Forum today. This session is a preparatory event for the AI Action Summit. and I’m delighted that today’s conversation will feed into those which will take place in Paris.

Leanda Barrington-Leach: Thank you. In the past. Use the microphone. I’m going to

Lena Slachmuijlder: I was to the room who also finding similar issues. Is there a sense from other countries that they also need to get in line and have some really robust regulation like we heard from the experience in Europe. It’s just an invitation for others online or in the room. I think the work that I do is also aligned with five rights in it with the Council on tech and social cohesion. It’s trying to regulate the upstream design features that lead to these kinds of harms and also polarization.

Leanda Barrington-Leach: I’m so sorry because I was only half listening and afterwards you’re going to tell me that again because think I want to know. We also have online our speakers Jun and Nidhi. Anything that you have heard please wave or put something in the chat and then I will see it and bring you in. Otherwise is there anything else from the room? I have a question online. Okay so I have a question online from Dorothy Gordon from UNESCO who’s asking how involved to consumer rights organizations in working to get major tech companies to stop abusing children’s rights in this way? I believe we need consumers to deliberately avoid using dangerous products. So that’s public awareness and almost boycotting I guess what consumer organizations can do other things like submitting

Ansgar Koene: complaints to take that. I’m afraid the only part that consumer rights organizations are doing in this space that I can really speak to is that yes we do have at least in Europe when it comes to the standardization for the AI act we do have participation by the consumer rights organization ANEC in helping to make sure that consumer concerns are taken into consideration as the standards are being developed and this isn’t by a non-industry player. I’m not aware as to the activities that are being done regarding educating users as to the impact that these types of technologies may have on them and therefore to try to help them make a informed choice as to whether they want to use these tools. Obviously there are NGOs that are working on these types of things as well. Mozilla every year has before Christmas some activities around which digital tools may be spying on you etc. and will only reach a particular subsection of a population who are generally already I imagine this is a space where we also need support from public sector to do campaigns to help people better understand this. who has the resources to reach the whole population as opposed to only people who already are looking for this kind of information I think that is going to be a big question.

Leanda Barrington-Leach: Thank you, Ansgar. I’m going to take the liberty of getting slightly longer on the tech I’m going to jump in a little bit more quickly AI is not new. Artificial intelligence was created in 1955. AI systems are really a continuation of algorithmic and automated systems which we all have experience with. This also means that AI is not too complicated to understand and it is certainly not too complicated to regulate. Secondly, AI is not a new theory. Generative AI systems are different. It is based on machine learning and artificial general intelligence. Theoreticals now is wholly different. Generative AI is coming. It is unnecessary to tackle tasks that could be automated through other specialized AI even non-AI approaches which are more accurate and energy deficient. The choice of model should be based on necessity and proportionality. Thank you so much. Make sure AI remains an example. We are not. It’s a simple challenge. We’re just a species. We continue to exist in the past. We seek to maximize profit. We try to assume. It’s a simple challenge. It’s a simple challenge. It’s a simple challenge. It’s a simple challenge. It’s true that we seek to sow doubt and uncertainty to keep authorities from effectively legislating and to prevent citizens from demanding effective legislation. But this does not tolerate AI exceptions. It’s no secret that adults have failed to provide children with the best respecting online environment. As AI is not different from previous technologies, the same will happen if we do not act immediately. This is why over the past year, building on global consensus and working hand in hand with global experts in the field, we have developed an AI code for children. Launching the code in the coming months will provide a clear and practical path forward for designing, deploying and governing AI systems, taking into account children’s rights and needs. It’s an important and necessary correction to the persistent failure to consider children and a vital blueprint for delivering on the commitments to children in the global digital compact and in regulatory advances such as the AI Act. We need from the outset to consider how to build the rights and needs of every child into the design and governance of AI systems. The code, which we will launch at Paris hopefully, will be for anyone who designs, adapts or deploys an AI system that impacts children. It is practical, actionable, adaptable and applicable to all kinds of AI systems. It mandates certain expertise and actions and raises questions designed to reveal gaps and risks. It leaves a level of autonomy to find sufficient mitigation measures. It is intended to support existing regulatory initiatives and provide a standard for those jurisdictions that are considering introducing new legislation or regulation. In the Global Digital Compact, all governments agreed on the urgent need to assess and address the potential impact, opportunity and risks of artificial intelligence systems on the well-being and rights of individuals. That’s a quote. Children represent one third of internet users and are early adopters of technology and have unique rights and vulnerabilities. They must be at the centre of our discussions and considerations. I hope I didn’t misquote any of that or that she didn’t change it in the final version. But you can always quote me because I agree with all of that. I think putting children at the centre of the conversation maybe means that in the last few minutes, I’d like to go back to Nidhi, if that is OK with you. Nidhi, are you still with us?

Nidhi Ramesh: Yes, I am.

Leanda Barrington-Leach: Could you bring Nidhi up, please? OK, I don’t think our tech people are listening to me again. Nidhi, if you’re with us, I’d love to hear your reflections. You talk to, hello again, not only your peers and colleagues all the time, but also a big group of child ambassadors within Five Rights. What are the conclusions that you draw from this and what are maybe some of the things that you think that you and your colleagues would like to tell us and for us to take forward?

Nidhi Ramesh: Thank you, Yolanda. That’s such an interesting question. So as Five Rights youth ambassadors, we often- Can’t hear you yet. Oh, sorry. My mic should be on. All right.

Leanda Barrington-Leach: Try again.

Nidhi Ramesh: Hello. Can you hear me now?

Leanda Barrington-Leach: No, still not. AI will one day solve all of these problems, I am sure. Oh, Nidhi, can we hear you now?

Nidhi Ramesh: Yes. Hello. Can you hear me now?

Leanda Barrington-Leach: We can, we can. Go ahead.

Nidhi Ramesh: Perfect. All right. Then I’ll just start again. Thank you so much, Leanda. That’s such an interesting question. And as Five Rights Youth Ambassadors, we often discuss the opportunities and the risks of AI, especially for children and young people. While we see its potential, there have been obviously some key concerns that stand out to us. So one major issue is education. AI can make homework quicker, but it risks taking away from essential learning skills. As one of my peers put it, it’s making homework easier, but at what cost to our learning? And we worry a lot about losing creativity and critical thinking, skills we’ll need later on in life. Another significant concern is privacy. AI systems can analyze so much about us, even from just a photo or a message. One ambassador shared how AI is amazing and how it can help us, but it’s also scary how much it knows about us. Many of us feel uncomfortable with how much information we’re unknowingly sharing, especially when we’re not informed about how it’s being used, like how I mentioned earlier during my first intervention. We’ve also talked a lot about the psychological risks of AI, systems designed for companionship, for example, might seem helpful, but in the long term, have a lot of consequences. As one of our ambassadors said, it’s about more than just privacy. technology, it’s kind of about our values, relying on machines that mimic empathy could affect our real world social skills, especially for vulnerable young people. And of course, there’s the growing threat of deep fakes. Marco, one of our youth ambassadors summed up well by saying that AI tools are developing and deep fakes are becoming scarier, and it can ruin people’s online footprint. So to sum it up, while AI brings immense opportunities, it’s these educational, ethical and privacy related risks that concern us the most. And it’s crucial that AI systems are designed to protect young people with a lot of safeguards that prioritize our rights and well-being.

Leanda Barrington-Leach: Thank you so much. Thank you so much, Nidhi. It’s always wonderful to hear from you and from your fellow youth ambassadors. I hope that the code that we’ll bring out is something that will serve you. But we are going to get your direct feedback, of course, on it very soon. We really hope that you will find some of the elements there to address some of the things that you have brought up. We have two minutes to go. And we have had a very eventful session, I would say. But I don’t know, Jun, if you’re online, if you want to come back with any closing words.

Jun Zhao: Hi, Leanna, can you still hear me alright?

Leanda Barrington-Leach: We can.

Jun Zhao: Oh, fabulous. Fantastic. And what a fabulous session. And I tried to come in a few times. And I think it was got confused a few times when we are trying to manage the video and hybrid attention. And what I just want to really try to come in is about two things the discussion about safety by design and parents’ role in order of safeguarding children. I think I agree with Ansgar’s point. I think we are definitely moving towards the right positive direction, but it’s a really challenging domain. I know there are a lot of Gen AI companies embracing the safety by design principles and trying to integrate that really actively in their design and development process now, which is really encouraging to see that, especially if they are taking that perspective from children. But it’s very complex because the risks are quite diverse. I agree with what Ansgar said. Some of the companies may not be aware of some of the risks for children, but I think some of them do. At the same time, there’s a challenge because the diverse risks, some of them may not seem having direct impacts or immediate safety risks for children. Some of the risks that Nadi raised, like exploitations, manipulations, they may not see it as harm, but they are harmful nevertheless. So it will be quite interesting to see in the next couple of years when the EU AI Act as well as many other acts come into place, how all this understanding about various forms of risks and harms are going to fair out in the legislation enforcement, and how we can all work together to facilitate better awareness, better translation from policies into practical guidance so we can create a better AI world for our children and our society as a whole. And I think that’s all I’ve got to say, Liana. I hope that way we can finish on a positive note. note and something exciting for us to look forward to in 2025.

Leanda Barrington-Leach: Thank you very much, Jin. Indeed, there remain outstanding questions. But as you have said, there’s still plenty going on. We do have 2025, lots of things that we can deliver on. And I think I would just like to reference maybe at the end that in the UN framework, and we’re here under the UN’s umbrella, governing AI for humanity, there was a very, very clear point, which is that AI must not be experimenting on children. AI might be in some ways, some aspects of it, we might be using it in new and novel ways. But, you know, we can innovate all we want. But this is something where we know that our children are too precious and grow up too fast. And the education, as you said, Nidhi, you know, even impacting your education, we’re talking about, you know, the generations on the future. We must not be experimenting on children. And this is what we will take to the to the Paris summit with all of this input. And we hope that all online and in the room, you will come behind us and have a look at this code and see how it can be bettered, improved so that it can deliver on these issues for kids. Thank you so much. I’d like you all to join me in thanking our panelists for this very rich discussion. I’m very grateful for your patience in particular. Thanks so much. Thank you so much for such an amazing session, Landa. Thank you, everyone.

Agreement Points

AI poses risks to children’s privacy and well-being

Nidhi Ramesh

Jun Zhao

Leanda Barrington-Leach

AI poses risks to children’s privacy, mental health, and learning

AI systems can collect sensitive data from children without proper safeguards

AI chatbots and recommendation systems can expose children to inappropriate content

AI can amplify existing harms and systemic problems affecting children

Multiple speakers highlighted the various risks AI poses to children, including privacy violations, exposure to inappropriate content, and potential negative impacts on mental health and learning.

Need for AI regulation and governance to protect children

Brando Benifei

Ansgar Koene

Baroness Beeban Kidron

The EU AI Act includes some provisions to protect children, but more is needed

Technical standards are still being developed to operationalize AI regulations

An AI code for children is being developed to provide practical guidance

Speakers agreed on the necessity of developing comprehensive regulations, standards, and guidelines to ensure AI systems are designed and deployed with children’s rights and safety in mind.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the importance of incorporating children’s perspectives and expertise in AI development processes to ensure systems are designed with children’s safety and rights in mind.

Ansgar Koene

Jun Zhao

Organizations often lack awareness of how their AI systems impact children

There is a need for subject matter experts on children’s impacts in AI development

Safety by design principles should be integrated into AI development

Unexpected Consensus

Global cooperation for AI governance

Brando Benifei

Leanda Barrington-Leach

Global cooperation and dialogue is needed to build common frameworks

AI can amplify existing harms and systemic problems affecting children

While not explicitly stated by all speakers, there was an underlying agreement on the need for global cooperation to address AI’s impact on children, recognizing it as a global issue requiring coordinated solutions.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The speakers generally agreed on the significant risks AI poses to children’s privacy, safety, and well-being, as well as the urgent need for comprehensive regulations and guidelines to protect children in the AI landscape.

Consensus level

High level of consensus on the main issues, with speakers from various backgrounds (youth, academia, policy-making) sharing similar concerns and proposed solutions. This strong agreement implies a clear direction for future policy-making and research in the field of AI governance for children’s protection.

Different Viewpoints

Approach to AI regulation

Brando Benifei

Ansgar Koene

The EU AI Act includes some provisions to protect children, but more is needed

Technical standards are still being developed to operationalize AI regulations

While Benifei emphasizes the progress made in including child protection provisions in the EU AI Act, Koene highlights the ongoing challenges in developing technical standards to implement these regulations effectively.

Unexpected Differences

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement revolve around the effectiveness of current regulatory efforts and the specific approaches needed to protect children in AI development and deployment.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among the speakers is relatively low. Most speakers agree on the fundamental issues but offer different perspectives or emphasize different aspects of the problem. This suggests a general consensus on the importance of protecting children in AI development, but some differences in how to achieve this goal effectively.

Partial Agreements

All speakers agree on the risks AI poses to children, but they differ in their focus. Ramesh emphasizes the impact on learning and mental health, Zhao highlights data collection issues, and Koene points out the lack of awareness among organizations developing AI systems.

Nidhi Ramesh

Jun Zhao

Ansgar Koene

AI poses risks to children’s privacy, mental health, and learning

AI systems can collect sensitive data from children without proper safeguards

Organizations often lack awareness of how their AI systems impact children

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the importance of incorporating children’s perspectives and expertise in AI development processes to ensure systems are designed with children’s safety and rights in mind.

Ansgar Koene

Jun Zhao

Organizations often lack awareness of how their AI systems impact children

There is a need for subject matter experts on children’s impacts in AI development

Safety by design principles should be integrated into AI development

Key Takeaways

AI is pervasive in children’s lives but often operates without their awareness or proper safeguards

AI can amplify existing harms and pose risks to children’s privacy, mental health, and learning

The EU AI Act includes some provisions to protect children, but more comprehensive regulation is needed

Technical standards and practical guidance (like the proposed AI code for children) are still being developed to operationalize AI regulations

Global cooperation and dialogue is needed to build common frameworks for protecting children in AI systems

Organizations developing AI often lack awareness of how their systems impact children

Safety by design principles should be integrated into AI development with input from child impact experts

Resolutions and Action Items

Launch an AI code for children at the upcoming Paris AI Action Summit to provide practical guidance on designing AI systems with children’s rights in mind

Continue developing technical standards to operationalize the EU AI Act’s provisions related to children

Increase awareness and education for families and schools about AI’s impact on children

Unresolved Issues

How to effectively enforce AI regulations and standards across different jurisdictions

How to balance innovation in AI with protecting children from potential harms

How to ensure AI companies prioritize children’s rights and safety over profit motives

How to address the diverse and sometimes subtle risks AI poses to children beyond immediate safety concerns

Suggested Compromises

Allowing some autonomy for AI developers to find appropriate mitigation measures while mandating certain expertise and actions to protect children’s rights

Many children don’t realize that most of their interactions with the online world might actually be through various AI algorithms, making choices, recommendations, and even decisions for them.

speaker

Nidhi Ramesh

reason

This highlights a critical lack of awareness among children about how AI is shaping their online experiences, raising important questions about informed consent and digital literacy.

impact

Set the tone for discussing the hidden influence of AI on children’s lives and the need for greater transparency and education.

Our recent survey in the UK shows that children are twice as likely to adopt these new technologies than adults.

speaker

Jun Zhao

reason

Provides concrete data showing children’s rapid adoption of AI technologies, emphasizing the urgency of addressing potential risks.

impact

Shifted the discussion towards the need for proactive measures, given how quickly children are embracing AI.

The original text from the European Commission was unfortunately lacking completely the dimension of child protection it was not there at all so we had to bring it in with amendments from the European Parliament with our drafting work and the negotiations that followed

speaker

Brando Benifei

reason

Reveals how child protection was initially overlooked in major AI legislation, highlighting the importance of advocacy and the role of policymakers in addressing this gap.

impact

Focused the conversation on the legislative process and the need for continued vigilance to ensure children’s rights are protected in AI regulations.

The practice that we are seeing is to bring things to the market and in that rush, it remains the case that the so-called functional requirements, that is to say the things that need to be there in order to produce the type of output that they want to create, get the prominence sort of the investment and the so-called non-functional, this terminology is terrible, requirements such as making sure that there will not be negative consequences especially are marginalized in the design process unless there is a significant factor behind it, such as the risk of a huge fine.

speaker

Ansgar Koene

reason

Provides insight into the industry practices that prioritize functionality over safety, especially for children, unless there are strong regulatory incentives.

impact

Deepened the discussion on the challenges of implementing child protection measures in AI development and the role of regulation in incentivizing change.

AI can make homework quicker, but it risks taking away from essential learning skills. As one of my peers put it, it’s making homework easier, but at what cost to our learning?

speaker

Nidhi Ramesh

reason

Offers a nuanced perspective on the double-edged nature of AI in education, highlighting concerns about its impact on fundamental learning processes.

impact

Brought the discussion back to the practical, everyday implications of AI for children, particularly in education, and raised questions about long-term consequences.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by highlighting the pervasive yet often invisible influence of AI on children’s lives, the rapid pace of adoption, the initial oversight in legislation, the challenges in implementing protective measures, and the complex implications for education and development. The discussion evolved from raising awareness about the issue to exploring regulatory approaches and industry practices, and finally to considering the nuanced impacts on children’s learning and development. This progression deepened the conversation, moving from broad concerns to specific challenges and potential solutions, while consistently emphasizing the need for a child-centric approach to AI development and regulation.

How can families be better educated and involved in protecting children online?

speaker

Peter Zanga Jackson

explanation

This question addresses the fundamental role of families in safeguarding children’s online experiences and suggests the need for more awareness and education at the family level.

How can we ensure AI systems are designed with children’s well-being as a core priority?

speaker

Baroness Beeban Kidron

explanation

This area of research is crucial for developing AI systems that prioritize children’s rights and safety, rather than exploiting their vulnerabilities for profit.

How can we better implement the principle of ‘safety by design’ in AI and other technologies?

speaker

Jutta Croll

explanation

This question highlights the need to integrate safety considerations from the earliest stages of technology development, especially for systems that may be used by children.

Are other countries outside of Europe developing similar robust regulations for AI and children’s rights?

speaker

Lena Slachmuijlder

explanation

This area of research is important for understanding the global landscape of AI regulation and children’s rights protection across different jurisdictions.

How can consumer rights organizations be more involved in pressuring tech companies to respect children’s rights?

speaker

Dorothy Gordon (UNESCO)

explanation

This question explores the potential role of consumer advocacy in driving change in tech company practices regarding children’s rights and AI.

How can we address the educational risks of AI, such as its impact on critical thinking and creativity?

speaker

Nidhi Ramesh

explanation

This area of research is important for understanding and mitigating the potential negative effects of AI on children’s learning and skill development.

How can we better inform children about how their data is being used by AI systems?

speaker

Nidhi Ramesh

explanation

This question addresses the need for transparency and education around AI and data privacy for young users.

How can we address the psychological risks of AI, particularly systems designed for companionship?

speaker

Nidhi Ramesh

explanation

This area of research is crucial for understanding and mitigating the potential long-term psychological impacts of AI companionship on children’s social skills and emotional development.

How can we better protect against the threat of AI-generated deep fakes, especially for young people?

speaker

Nidhi Ramesh

explanation

This question addresses the growing concern of AI-generated misinformation and its potential impact on children’s online safety and reputation.

Summary

This open forum, organized by the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee (CGI.br), focused on the results of a public consultation on digital platform regulation in Brazil. The consultation, which received input from various stakeholders, addressed three main axes: who to regulate, what to regulate, and how to regulate. Key topics discussed included platform definitions, risk mapping, and governance models for regulation.

Speakers from different sectors provided insights on the consultation’s outcomes and current regulatory challenges. The academic perspective highlighted the importance of considering digital health platforms in regulation discussions. The government representative emphasized digital sovereignty and the need for platforms to comply with national laws. Civil society stressed the urgency of platform regulation to protect democracy and human rights, while also mentioning ongoing legislative initiatives in Brazil.

The private sector perspective, represented by Meta, emphasized the positive contributions of digital platforms to the economy and society, cautioning against over-regulation that could stifle these benefits. The discussion also touched on current debates in Brazil, including the potential changes to the Marco Civil da Internet by the Supreme Court.

Participants agreed on the importance of multi-stakeholder approaches in developing platform regulations. The consultation was seen as a valuable contribution to ongoing debates, providing a comprehensive overview of different perspectives on platform regulation. The forum concluded with a call for continued engagement and dialogue among all stakeholders to address the complex challenges of regulating digital platforms while balancing innovation, economic growth, and the protection of rights and democracy.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– Results of CGI.br’s public consultation on regulating digital platforms in Brazil

– Current legislative and judicial developments related to platform regulation in Brazil

– Balancing the benefits and risks of digital platforms

– Digital sovereignty and compliance with national laws

– Multi-stakeholder approach to internet governance and platform regulation

Overall purpose:

The purpose of this discussion was to present and discuss the results of a public consultation on digital platform regulation conducted by CGI.br (Brazilian Internet Steering Committee). The goal was to share insights from this multi-stakeholder process and explore how it could inform ongoing regulatory efforts in Brazil and beyond.

Tone:

The overall tone was collaborative and constructive, with speakers from different sectors sharing their perspectives on the consultation results and current regulatory challenges. While there were some differences in viewpoints, particularly between industry and civil society representatives, the tone remained respectful and focused on finding common ground. Towards the end, there was a sense of optimism about continuing multi-stakeholder dialogue on these issues.

Speakers

– Henrique Faulhaber: Board member of CGIBR (Brazilian Internet Committee)

– Juliano Cappi: CGI.BR secretariat

– Juliana Oms: CGI.BR secretariat

– Marcelo Fornazin: Board member of CGI.BR representing the scientific community, researcher at the National School of Public Health of the Oswaldo Cruz Foundation (Fiocruz)

– Eugenio Vargas Garcia: Brazil’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs

– Bia Barbosa: Board member of CGI.BR representing civil society, member of Jiracom (Right to Communication and Democracy)

– Monica Guise: Head of public policy for Meta in Brazil

Additional speakers:

– Rafael Evangelista: Mentioned but not present due to visa issues

The Brazilian Internet Steering Committee (CGI.br) organised an open forum to discuss the results of a public consultation on digital platform regulation in Brazil. The consultation, which gathered input from various stakeholders, addressed three main axes: who to regulate, what to regulate, and how to regulate. Henrique Faulhaber, a CGI.br board member, emphasized the importance of this multi-stakeholder approach in developing effective platform regulation.

Consultation Process and Outcomes

Juliano Cappi from the CGI.br secretariat highlighted that the consultation process successfully gathered diverse perspectives from multiple stakeholders. The consultation results provided a comprehensive overview of different viewpoints on platform regulation, serving as a valuable contribution to ongoing debates in Brazil and potentially beyond. Eugenio Garcia from Brazil’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs mentioned that a book compiling the consultation results was made available at the forum.

Regulatory Approaches and Challenges

The discussion revealed varying perspectives on the approach to platform regulation. Bia Barbosa, representing civil society, stressed the urgency of economic regulation to address market concentration and negative externalities of platform business models. In contrast, Monica Guise from Meta emphasised the need for a balanced approach that considers both the risks and benefits of digital platforms. She cautioned against over-regulation that could stifle the positive contributions of platforms to the economy and society.

Henrique Faulhaber suggested a middle ground, advocating for a multi-stakeholder approach to find a balance in regulation. This partial agreement among speakers highlighted the complexity of developing regulatory frameworks that address concerns while preserving innovation and economic growth.

Positive Contributions of Digital Platforms

Monica Guise highlighted the significant positive impacts of digital platforms on society and the economy. She emphasized their role in enabling free speech, supporting democratic movements, and fostering economic opportunities, particularly for small businesses. Guise stressed the importance of preserving these benefits while addressing regulatory concerns.

Digital Sovereignty and Democracy

Eugenio Garcia introduced the concept of digital sovereignty, relating it to self-determination over a country’s digital future. He recounted an incident where the X platform (formerly Twitter) openly defied Brazilian legislation, arguing that such behavior was unacceptable and emphasizing the importance of platforms complying with national laws.

Bia Barbosa raised concerns about risks to democracy stemming from platform business models, highlighting the need for regulation to protect democratic processes. This difference in viewpoints underscored the challenge of balancing national sovereignty, free speech, and democratic safeguards in platform regulation.

Content Moderation and Free Speech

The discussion touched on the contentious issue of content moderation and preserving free speech online. Monica Guise expressed concerns about potential changes to internet liability rules by the Brazilian Supreme Court, particularly regarding Article 19 of Marco Civil da Internet. She emphasized the importance of preserving safeguards for free speech online while acknowledging the need for responsible content moderation.

Henrique Faulhaber agreed on the need for a balanced approach to content moderation, recognizing the complexity of the issue. The exchange highlighted the tension between global tech companies and national sovereignty, as well as the challenges of enforcing local legal frameworks on international platforms.

Ongoing Legislative and Judicial Developments

The forum addressed current debates in Brazil, including potential changes to the Marco Civil da Internet by the Supreme Court. Monica Guise stressed the urgency of legislative action on platform regulation, warning about the consequences of regulatory gaps and the risks of other branches of government stepping in when the legislature fails to act.

Bia Barbosa mentioned ongoing legislative initiatives in Brazil related to platform regulation, particularly Bill 2630, emphasizing the importance of these efforts in protecting democracy and human rights. She also noted the Supreme Court’s ongoing discussion of Article 19 of Marco Civil.

Platformization of Public Services

Juliano Cappi introduced the concept of the “platform state,” highlighting the need for regulation of public services that are becoming increasingly platformized. This observation raised important questions about the changing nature of citizen engagement with public services and the role of digital platforms in governance.

The forum concluded by acknowledging the complexity of platform regulation and the need for continued dialogue among all stakeholders to address the diverse challenges and opportunities presented by digital platforms in Brazil and globally.

Henrique Faulhaber: They opened it on the table, didn’t they? It’s about to start. Hello. Good afternoon. Welcome, everyone, to the Open Forum Mutze Code Approach to Platform Regulation Brazil. My name is Henrique Falhaber. I’m one of the board members of CGIBR, the Brazilian Internet Committee. First, I would like to thank the IGF organizers and everyone present today here and online. A special thanks to our speakers who contributed to our debate. The CGIBR, the Brazilian Internet Committee, is composed of representatives from the government, corporate sector, the third sector, and the academic community, forming a unique internet governance model that ensures effective societal participation. This Open Forum aims to present and discuss the consultation conducted by CGI and its systematization, which provides both a qualified and in-depth basis for regulating digital platforms. As you know, the regulation of digital platforms has gained global relevance in Brazil. in recent years, with various countries approving or debating regulatory models. However, due to their complexity and scope, reaching consensus has proven difficult, particularly in developing countries like Brazil. Silicon platforms are extremely diverse in size, services, business, and models and impacts, both positive and negative. While platforms play important roles such as connecting business and users, they also pose significant risks, both presumed and proven, that affect markets, economies, human rights, democracy, public health, and many other areas. Concerns are especially focused on large platforms that provide indispensable services such as search, social engineering, and social networks. The complexity and scope of platform activities, coupled with the diverse interests involved, make it a challenge to agree on an ideal regulatory model. In this context of ongoing disputes and disagreements, ensuring broad societal participation to achieve a multi-stakeholder consensus is of utmost importance. With this in mind, CGIBR decided to conduct an open consultation in the regulation of digital platforms in Brazil. This consultation is the result of over two years of work by CGIBR Platform Regulation Work Group, this group here, which I coordinate. It has engaged with society through seminars, workshops. studies and we launched and systematized through 2023. This consultation that we present today address platform definitions and classification, maps the risks posed by platform activities, explores regulatory measures to mitigate these risks and outlines the actors and mechanisms necessary for implementation regulation. We hope that CGI-BR historical role in fostering multi-stakeholder dialogue and consensus building on internet-related issues will contribute to developing a consensus regulatory framework for platform regulation in Brazil. Today our open forum features six speakers. First we have Juliano Capi and Juliana Homes from the CGI-BR secretariat. After that you have Marcelo Formazin, a colleague of mine representing the academic and technical sector. After that Bia Barbosa, also a CGI-BR board member representing cyber society. After that Eugênio Garcia from Brazil Ministry of Foreign Affairs who holds a permanent invite position on our board. And at the end Mónica Guiz from META, representing the private sector on those discussions. This CGI-BR advisory team will briefly present the structure and main results of the consultation. This will be followed by contribution from the other speakers here, from the four sectors that participate in the building of the consultation. We are also very happy to to show, to launch here the publication of the systematization of the consultation here at the IGF. We provide some copies to you if you want to know more deeply the details of the consultation by itself. So, Juliano will start. Juliano and Juliana will start with a summary of the consultation. Please.

Juliano Cappi: Thank you very much, Henrique. Well, I’d like to start speaking of an important aspect of every consultation, which is the social participation. A consultation only fulfills itself if society really participates in its proposition. Despite you may produce good questions and good structures and a good dynamic for the consultation, if the social participation doesn’t happen, consultation fails. Then, I’d like to highlight that this consultation had really high rates of social participation. It received nearly 1,400 inputs from 140 organizations from the four sectors that comprises the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee, the CGI, the LBR, the government sector, third sector, business sector, and the scientific and technical community. The third sector. And the scientific and technical community sent most of the inputs with 41% and 39.5% of the total, respectively. The business sector accounted for 15% of the inputs and the government sector, only 4% as it was expected. It worth mentioning about the broad diversity of perspectives. Different positions arose not only between the different sectors but also inside all represented sectors. What provided the consultation a representative map of the understanding of digital platform regulation challenges in Brazil in 2023. Finally, it’s relevant to mention the quality of inputs. Organizations smear to produce good and quality contributions for the consultation. CGI.br aimed at providing a meaningful contribution to the challenge of producing a piece of regulation for digital platforms in Brazil. It was defined three essential elements to the task. The first element was the definition of the regulated entity. The second element was to have a good definition of the problems that should be addressed. For that, we used the first stage of a risk-based regulation model, which is to map risks the regulated entity activity exposes to society. The third element was to establish a governance model to implement the regulation. Then we defined three main questions, one for each axis of the consultation structure. First, who to regulate, define the regulated entity, second, what to regulate, to define the problems we’d like to address and finally, how to regulate, to define a governance model to implement this challenging regulation. So the consultation was structured into these three axes. In axis one, we presented a qualitative summary of the inputs received on who to regulate in response to questions about the object and scope of regulation, including different definitions, typologies and fields of activities of digital platforms. In chapter two, the chapter summarizes the inputs on what to regulate involving questions about the risks arising from digital platforms activities and possible mitigation measures. The risks were organized into four main groups. First, risks related to threats to competition, economic and data concentration. Second, risks related to threats to digital sovereignty, technological development and innovation. Third, risks related to threats to decent work and the last one, but not least important, risks related to threats to democracy and human rights. In chapter three, we presented a quantitative and qualitative synthesis of the inputs on how to regulate digital platforms and the possible institutional arrangements to regulate them considering both state regulation models and different approaches to self-regulation. Next, please.

Juliana Oms: Thank you, Juliano and Henrique. I’ll talk a little bit about the first axis, that the inputs were about the scope of the regulation, so they were debating about definitions of platform regulation and also which platforms to regulate. We divided these inputs in three categories. The first was definition, and inside this also were divided in three categories. The first is infrastructure. The participants mentioned that platforms need a technological infrastructure and use a variety of terminologies such as digital, electronic and internet. The second characteristic is actors and their relationship on the platforms. In this part, the participants highlighted that platforms are characterized by connecting groups and producing benefits to each group participant in the platform, and on network effects and also highlighting the market. Lastly, also some characteristics were pointed out by the participants as shared or essential characteristics to define platforms, like data intensive use, the use of artificial intelligence technologies and network effects. These characteristics were also highlighted later in the risks mapping as something that would intensify the risks. We also analyzed platform typologies, as you can see examples in the slide. And these typologies that arise in the contributions may be used to determine the scope of possible regulatory initiatives or to divide them into sector regulation as such a regulation to public platforms or to food platforms and it goes on. Lastly, the third part of this axis one is a discussion about asymmetry regulation and there was a broad consensus in the consultation that regulation must be asymmetric except if representations of large platforms associations but in some this means that most people think that some actors in the digital ecosystem should be objects of specific regulatory provisions. There was also some agreement that no criteria should be used individually. The criteria you can see here like market share, core services, number of users and they should not be used individually but used in combination and usually gatekeeper was seen as encompassing all these other criteria. This is for axis one. In axis two, that was … Hi, are you listening, okay. In the inputs on axis two, what to regulate, the first group of risks presented in there is about risks and measures associated with the abuse of market power and economic concentration. This was one of the topics that received most attention from the participants and it’s interesting to notice that there was a clear difference in the approach of two different groups. First part of the private sector, particularly those associations representing digital platforms, argued that digital platforms are characterized by fast innovation, intense competition, constant change. In that sense, they didn’t see those risks as relevant, also because they think the Brazil has a robust competition system, defense system, so it wouldn’t be necessary to make any changes. On the other hand, there was a strong consensus among the third sector, the government sector and the scientific and technological community, and also some part of the private sector, such as media associations, internet providers, on the relevance of the risks mapped. This group mentioned platform characteristics such as network externalities and anti-competitive strategies such as self-preferencing or aggressive acquisitions that contribute to establishing monopoly power and its abuse. It was also highlighted an interesting dynamic between those risks, that data processing and infrastructure concentration is seen as a risk that contributes to another risk, risk that is market concentration and economic power abuse. These dynamics build and lock in effect to big platforms and a winner-takes-all dynamic, resulting in the detriment of product and server quality innovation and alternative models in the vision of this group of actors. Considering all these map risks, the participants debated a myriad of measures to mitigate these risks. And we also see again this same division between these two groups. In part, the groups connected to associations of digital platforms, they think that the defense competition system is enough to combat abuses. And that is usually provisions that function after the issue happens. So they don’t see any need for change. However, the other group that I mentioned see the need for new regulatory measures from an economic and competition perspective. And a lot of measures that you can see in the slide were discussed. Especially, I would like to highlight that data interoperability was a big consensus in the consultation, even between platforms, but there was divergence on how this would be implemented. Also, on the other hand, policies to promote alternative models like policies to innovation and alternatives to those large platforms such as not-for-profit or local models were highlighted only by participants from the third sector and the scientific and technological community. So there was not the same division as before.

Juliano Cappi: Considering the human rights… No, hold on. The human rights… structure. The vast majority of inputs mentioned threats to freedom of expression, access to reliable information, cultural diversity, and democracy expressed by several challenging issues such as disinformation, the rise of extremism, hate speech, and incitement of violence. Risks to quality journalism were also highlighted. There was a consensus that fighting infodemics involves strengthening journalism, an important mechanism to ensure citizens’ access to information. Regarding democracy and the electoral process, there was a broad consensus on the relevance of digital platforms in the construction of public debate. The powerful influence of digital social media on public debate poses risks domination of public discourse. Relative to children and adolescents, several inputs addressed the vulnerability of this age group to digital platforms business models, emphasizing the absolute priority of protecting their rights. From the point of view of counterfeiting measures, there were three issues that could be highlighted. Restrictions on data collection and profiling, considering principles and specific contexts, for example, child use of digital platforms. Restriction on programmatic advertising. Transparency measures and intermediary reliability based on the principle of systemic risks of the platform activities. Finally, the last axis on governance. We analyzed that the inputs suggested that approaches are essentially defined by two conceptual vectors. The first vector discusses whether states or private sector should have a protagonist role, while the second considers whether the locus of decision-making should be concentrated in a single institution or decentralized across several entities and actors. Strict self-regulation, for instance, would have little or no state protagonism and a decentralized decision-making locus, as it would be dispersed across digital platforms. In contrast, in regulated self-regulation, the locus of decision-making would be concentrated in a single private self-regulatory entity and the state would have little protagonism. I guess those are the quick highlights of the main results of the consultation. And I give back the floor for Henrique Fallhaber.

Henrique Faulhaber: Thank you, Juliano and Juliana. After this summary of our consultation, I now give the floor to our speakers representing different sectors. Each of you will have eight minutes to share your comments on the consultation process and results. As well, you are free to make any statement about any of our current issues related to digital platforms in Brazil. We did this consultation last year and, as you know, one year from now there are several situations and events regarding platform regulation that should be commented here, so you are free to do that. as you will. So, you start with Marcelo Formazin, our board member from the academic and scientific community. Marcelo, the floor is yours. Thank you, Enrique. Good afternoon, everyone. My

Speaker 1: name is Marcelo Formazin. I’m on the board of members at the Brazilian Internet Stream Committee, the CGE.br, representing the scientific community. And I’m also a researcher at the National School of Public Health of the Oswaldo Cruz Foundation, Fiocruz. I’m here replacing our colleague, Rafael Evangelista, who could not join us today due to visa issues while traveling from Sao Paulo to Riyadh. And I’d like to thank the organizers for the opportunity to speak in this session. I congratulate the working group at CGI and the CGI staff for this relevant outcome you presented here. It’s a very important contribution for the discussion on platforms in Brazil and worldwide. And just to point some comments here, beyond this amazing study on platform regulation, the Brazilian CGI also conducted other studies on digital platforms. One focuses on the role of platforms in education, analyzing the growing presence of platforms in public education systems in other countries. And another study explores the fair remuneration of journalists by platforms. You can access this information at the website CGI.br. Today, I will focus on… So, my comments will make a parallel between platform regulations and the regulation of digital health that I am studying and researching at Fiocruz, which our study on digital health examines the implications of digital technologies for health, especially the platformization of health. Fiocruz is a Brazilian public health institution dedicated to advancing knowledge and technologies to support the Brazilian health system, now a Sistema Único de Saúde, or SUS, you call. While improving the population’s health and quality of life, this is the mission of Fiocruz. Fiocruz sees digital health technology as essential tools for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. My research is supported by the Fiocruz Office for the 23rd Agenda, which aims to align Fiocruz and the Brazilian SUS with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. Just a brief on digital health and how it relates to platforms. When you think about digitalization in health or digital health, we see that this field brought significant changes to health systems worldwide, especially Brazilian public and university health systems, SUS. But what does this mean, digital health, in practice? It includes telehealth consultations, which allow patients to connect with professionals remotely and enable professionals to consult other specialists, professionals, wearable devices and self-monitoring technologies, which generate a vast amount of personal data in new formats, integration and analysis of health data, creating opportunities for epidemiological surveillance, disease prevention, health promotion and improved healthcare. Digitalization in health is not entirely new. It began in the 1960s and has evolved over the decades. However, the past 10 years have seen a rapid growth in internet-mediated healthcare and data usage. transforming how healthcare is delivered. Like other sector, healthcare is undergoing a significant changes due to the rise of platforms, a trend we call platformization of health. While these advancements offer opportunities to expand the healthcare services, they also bring critical risks that need to careful attention. It’s worth to mention that the economic effects of digital health were not extensively studied yet. And this study from TGI on digital platforms regulation is relevant for other sectors such as healthcare. A brief on the Brazilian health system or SUS. We developed the Brazilian SUS in the 80s. Today have more than 30 years of the public health system in Brazil. And it’s based that health, the comprehensive principle of health that recognizes health is determined by social conditions like food, housing, education, income, environment, work, transportation, and the access to healthcare. So healthcare is linked to every other aspect of our life. And the SUS has some key principles. We can mention universality, equity, integrity, decentering, management, and social participation. And we can see that in Brazil, the healthcare responsibilities are shared. The SUS is managed by three levels of government, municipal, state, and national, and include participations from government officials, healthcare workers, and seats in two health councils and conference. This shared governance reinforces the deliberative democracy in healthcare in Brazil. Brazil has also a private healthcare market organized as an insurance market. And today, 25% of Brazilians, 50 million people in average, use private insurance, but often rely on SUS for vaccinations, high cost treatments. epidemiological surveillance, and public health campaigns. Meanwhile, 75% of the Brazilian population depend exclusively on SUS, or unfortunately, faces irregular access to health care through philanthropic provision. So we have many problems for delivering health care in Brazil. And five years ago, Brazil launched a new digital health strategy aligned with the World Health Organization Global Strategy on Digital Health. By leveraging digital technology and data analytics, these initiatives aims to transform the Brazilian health care system and improve health outcomes for the population. As part of this strategy, digital health strategy, key programs have been developed to enhance health care service through technology and data. The Connect SUS program focuses on digitizing health care process, improving communication, and enhancing coordination among the health care providers. Informatics in primary care supports primary care providers by offering digital tools and resources to improve patient care and management at local level. And the National Health Data Network centralizes and standardizes personal health data, potentially enabling better decision-making and data interoperability. Finally, the digital health strategy promotes mobile applications to provide citizens with easier access to health care service and information. This we understand that’s going to the direction of platformization of health care. And while digital tools bring potential benefits, you must ask some questions. Who owns the infrastructure and data? And who truly benefits from these changes? In our study at Oswaldo Cruz Foundation, we examined the Brazilian digital health strategy using platform studies approach to address these questions. We identified that three dynamics are driving the platformization of digital health in Brazil. The first one is data concentration. Health data is increasingly addressed as a commodity. often concentrated in the hands of a few entities. The second one is the privatization of public infrastructure. Public health data infrastructure is increasingly managed by private platforms. The third one is the shift as the user as a consumer. Citizens are shifting from active participants in public health governments to consumers of health care service. These dynamics risks fragment health care practice and undermine the integrality of health care system. Moreover, offering digital services in a country with an equal internet access could create barriers to access universal health system. Our research also highlights parallels between Brazil and the other countries, such as United Kingdom and Denmark, where public health systems are influenced by private interests. In Brazil, the public health data today is stored on Amazon Web Services without a clear evidence of compliance with national data protection law. Similarly, in the UK, the company Palantir, now for its links to intelligent service, manages NHS data, raising concerns about how this data is being used. Social participation is also a key principle for the Brazilian health care systems, designed to involve the population policymaking process related to health care service. This principle highlights the importance of community engagement and empowering in promoting health and ensuring that services meet the needs of the population. In recent years, discussion about digital health in Brazil have primarily taken place in two spaces. One is the manager committee on digital health, currently limited to government officials’ representations. And the second one is the commit of information standards in private health, which included private health insurance companies and the health care providers, unions, with no participations of users. With the digitalization of services and prohibition of these technocratic forums, we may see that participation has shifted. Instead of fostering knowledge, collective decision-making, users are increasingly treated as consumers, who evaluate and engage in digital health services, limiting opportunities for democratic governance. Social movements in Brazil have pushed back against this trend. For instance, the Coalizão de Direitos na Rede has campaigned for stronger safeguards on personal data protection and against risks associated with data sharing. In the last year, civil society organizations proposed a free conference on information and digital health, presenting proposals for the National Health Conference that happened in last July. And this year, under the pressure of social movements, the National Health Council established a technical chamber on digital health, this new space bringing together government, academia, workers and user associations to discuss and shape digital health policies. This evolution highlights the value of multi-stakeholder approaches in platform regulation and digital health governance. Diverse perspectives from government, academia, civil society and public health works are essential for ensuring transparency, accountability and protection of citizen rights. So finishing, thank you for your attention and I’ll be happy to discuss with all of you about the regulation of platforms.

Henrique Faulhaber: Thank you, Marcelo, for the overview of digital health systems in Brazil. We believe that our work on digital platform regulation should be applied in some respect to that particular field. So next, I will have Eugênio Garcia from the Foreign Affairs Minister that will have the floor. Thank you.

Speaker 2: Thank you so much. Hello. Hello. Thank you so much and congratulations for this event and thank you for the CGI Brazil Internet Steering Committee for organizing this session. I hope my microphone works to the very end. This is a consultation that was held and as a multi-stakeholder exercise, you see. Let’s go back and start all over again. Now thank you so much for this invitation and congratulations on this event and the CGI Brazil Internet Steering Committee. Thank you for organizing this session. By the way, we have hard copies available of the book on the consultations here on the table if you want to take one of them or also download the PDF or the electronic version of the book. It’s also available and this is, as I said in the beginning, a very important exercise in terms of multi-stakeholderism that we take multi-stakeholder model very seriously. And by the way, you might be also interested to note that we have the Sao Paulo multi-stakeholder guidelines adopted early this year in Sao Paulo during the NetMundial Plus 10. I think all IGF participants interested in the GTC implementation and also the WSIS Plus 20 review process would be interested in having a look if you are not familiar with the Sao Paulo multi-stakeholder guidelines. They are also available and you can also access the CGI website for more information on that as a footnote, but very important in terms of IGF debates. And we have been busy in Brazil this year with the G20, as you know, including the working group on the digital economy, where some issues were discussed, including universal and meaningful connectivity, electronic e-government, and also digital public infrastructure and artificial intelligence with an approach that is development-oriented, seeking to reduce inequalities. And I mentioned the G20 because we introduced in this working group on the digital economy the topic of information integrity, which is extremely important as we are discussing digital platforms. And this was the first time the G20 addressed this issue, information integrity, including misinformation, disinformation, fake news, everything in between. And we reached a consensus within the G20 and it was adopted by the end of the, during the ministerial meeting, concluding the work of the digital economy working group. And this is something that we also feel that is not only an important topic to discuss, but also if you see during these consultations, there is a topic that is related to that, which I’d like to highlight, it’s digital sovereignty. And if you take the chapter three of axis two of the book. You see there is a chapter on risks related to threats to digital sovereignty, technological development, and innovation. So everything is related, not only information integrity, but also regulation of digital platforms and digital sovereignty. There is no consensual definition of digital sovereignty. And it’s clear that in the different contributions from academia, civil society, private sector, and other stakeholders, this is clear in the consultation and the outcome. But this is a very rich debate that I invite you to have a look at this chapter 3 of AXIS II. And for example, one possible definition, but not the only one, was submitted during the consultations defining digital sovereignty as the capacity to exercise power and control over digital infrastructure and data and implies understanding the effects, both positive and negative, of each technological choice. Of course, there are many other definitions that were submitted or suggested during the consultation. And in my view, digital sovereignty is related to the rights of self-determination and control over your own digital future. But this is my personal view as a contribution to this debate. In this case, it doesn’t mean digital sovereignty closing our borders or any sort of isolation from international networks or global supply chains. For example, data centers. Let’s suppose… A data center run by a national government with control over the national data or the data of the citizens of this country. Sometimes in Brazil we call it sovereign cloud. In this case you can also, even you can buy hardware from a foreign company, but only you have access to the data within the geographical boundaries of your national territory or jurisdiction. So in terms of its role to relate to data sovereignty. Even if you talk about software, it should reflect your local needs and linguistic and cultural background. And this is a discussion that is interesting to maybe we can go deeper. But talking about digital platforms, which is the main topic of this session, having our digital future controlled by a few tech companies doesn’t look like the best scenario to me. And of course there is a discussion on concentration of power. That’s something that needs to be tackled. And in particular for the developing countries that lack resources, expertise, or the means to be on an equal footing with global private companies. And having said that, Brazil has become one of the most prominent countries leading the defense of democracy and the rule of law from attacks against democratic institutions. You remember not so long ago a temporary ban on the X platform in Brazil due to the lack of compliance with court decisions on suspicious or fake profiles on the X platform in appropriate content and in particular the absence of a legal representative of the foreign company in Brazil. And this was not a question of free speech, but self-defense of democracy and Brazilian institutions under attack by politically motivated actors. Freedom of speech is guaranteed by the Brazilian Constitution. When we have the decision by the Brazilian Federal Supreme Court, it was pretty clear that the lack of compliance was undisputed. But when you hear a very famous CEO and billionaire, they refrain from saying his name, but let’s call him Mr. X, a very rich and powerful businessman, mocking Brazilian institutions, openly defying, saying I will not comply with Brazilian legislation. Frankly, this, to my view, this is unacceptable. And for Brazil, as a democratic state, it was a matter, again, of defending the rule of law against attacks from a foreign private company. Basically, the problem would be summarized in one simple sentence. Brazilian law should be respected. That’s all. And just for those who wish to go deeper in this discussion, you can have a look at the Marco Civil, the Internet Civil Framework, which is a very famous contribution in Brazil, the Marco Civil. You see Article 11 says clearly, in any operation involving the collection, storage, safekeeping, and processing of records, personal data, or communications by Internet connection application providers in which at least one of these acts occurs within the national territory. And that’s the point. That’s important. Brazilian legislation, the rights to privacy, protection of personal data, and confidentiality of private communications and records. must be complied with. So basically the Marco Civil, the Internet Civil Framework, it says that Brazilian law should be respected, that’s all. And also Civil Code, or Código Civil, for those Portuguese speaking friends here, Article 1137, a foreign company authorized to operate should be subject to Brazilian laws and courts with regard to acts or operations carried out in Brazil. And there is more, Article 1138, a foreign company authorized to operate is required to have a permanent representative in Brazil with powers to resolve any issues and receive legal summons on behalf of the company. So, maybe to conclude, as I said, freedom of speech is guaranteed by the Brazilian constitution and happily that this problem was resolved in terms of compliance, the company, in this case, the ex-platform, decide to pay the fines and then appoint a legal representative in Brazil and finally comply with the court decisions by the Brazilian Federal Supreme Court. Meanwhile, other foreign companies and digital platforms have no problem at all with the judiciary and they have continued their operations normally in Brazil, like, for example, Meta is doing great in Brazil. You know that Brazilians love WhatsApp. They have Facebook. They are all operating normally with no problems at all. So, this is to say that This was very particular and very specific case because it’s relevant for the discussion on digital platform regulation and a very famous, let’s say, CEO that’s well-known everywhere. And then this was the result of the problem that we had to deal with and I’m not going to repeat myself, but anyway, not only Brazilian law should be respected, but also that’s almost the creating an obligation of self-defense of democracy and the rule of law. And this is something that in terms of lessons learned, I think it’s relevant for us to discuss and see how we can avoid or perhaps try to see if such problems don’t happen again. I’ll stop here. Thank you so much.

Henrique Faulhaber: Thank you, Eugenio, for your comments on very recent situation that we had in Brazil. In fact, these geopolitical issues regarding action of digital platforms should be discussed deeply and in fact, it’s part of the whole chart of our platform regulation working group. So I will follow to Bia Barbosa. She is also a board member of CGIBI, represents cyber society. Please Bia, you have your eight minutes to give your talk. Thank you. Yes. Yes. Thank you so much, Eugenio, for your comments on very recent situation that we had in Brazil. In fact, these geopolitical issues regarding action of digital platforms should be discussed

Bia Barbosa: Thank you very much. Good afternoon, everyone. Thank you for an invitation. My name, as Henrique mentioned, is Bia Barbosa. I’m a member of the Brazilian Internet Theory Committee, one of the civil society representatives of our CGI.br and member of Jiracom, Right to Communication and Democracy, a Brazilian NGO that struggles for freedom of expression and communication rights in Brazil. So I would like to offer some thoughts on how the results of our public consultation can contribute to ongoing legislative process in our country and in other as well, of course, considering the current disputes surrounding the regulation of platforms. Firstly, I think that it’s important to say that from the perspective of the civil society, regulating digital platforms, especially social media and search engines, is an urgent task on democratic and human rights agenda in the digital age. It’s a way of ensuring a balance in this market, respect for the digital ecosystem and establishing a regulatory framework that addresses a problem caused by the externalities of the way companies’ business models work. We are talking about an economic sector that, like any other else, must be regulated. And we are talking about sovereignty, not from the perspective of states closing down the Internet or fragmenting the Internet, but in the sense that these are global companies that need to respect democratic legislation adopted by states. In democratic nations, it’s only possible to move toward a digital environment based on human rights, where the exercise of freedom of expression exists and is guaranteed in balance with other fundamental rights if states take the decision to regulate platforms. Regulate not through judicial decisions, which are legitimate and can exist, but through a regulatory framework debated in the Parliament involving all the stakeholders. And this is not even happening currently in our country. I would like to mention a first legislative initiative under discussion in Brazil, which may consider the results of the public consultation, but which in large part has already reflected its concerns and deals with the regulation of social media in relation to transparency and due process in the moderation of harmful and illicit content. The bill 2630, which has been debated since 2020 in Brazil, has been the subject of thousands of hearings and hundreds of contributions from experts in the field. It expands the possibility of holding social media liable, establishes users’ rights to guarantee freedom of expression, establishes sanctions and creates a participatory regulatory institution for monitoring and applying the sanctions in the administrative sphere. Unfortunately, the bill’s approval has been blocked by resistance from the far-right political parties, which claims that the law would violate absolute freedom of expression on social media and also by pressure from platforms that are against the text. We hope, however, that with the new president of the Brazilian Chamber of Deputies next year, the text can be discussed again. Another initiative underway in the Brazilian Parliament, which would draw heavily on our public consultation, is Bill 2768 of 2022, which proposes economic regulation of platforms inspired by the European Digital Markets Act, but with a much less detailed text based on antitrust and the defense of competition. According to the Parliamentary proposal in the initiative, it would not be appropriate to put an ex-unit a straightjacket on economic agencies, which a series of absolute prohibitions. And then the bill is focused on mitigating the essential access control of digital platforms. The bill establishes that they will be considered holders of essential access control power when they earn annual operating revenue equal to or greater than $13 million from services offered to the Brazilian public. And among the obligation of these companies, which access control power would be transparency and provision of information to the National Telecommunications Agency on the provision of their services. Isonomic and non-discriminatory treatment when offering services to professional users and end users. Proper use of the data collected in the course of its activities and not refusing to provide access to digital platforms to professional users. The National Telecommunications Agency would impose, could impose measures to mitigate any abuse of economic power, including those related to data portability and interoperability. From the perspective of civil society, the project is weak and makes little progress in relation to existing demands to tackle the economic power of big techs. In this regard, we find much more interesting an initiative launched in October, last October by the Minister of Economics or Finance in Brazil, which presented recommendations for regulatory improvements in the Brazilian antitrust system with regard to digital platforms. Inspired by the paths adopted by England, Japan and above all Germany, all through a robust analysis of the economic and competition aspect of digital platforms, the ministry concluded that competition policies needed to be updated. to keep up with the dynamics and characteristics of digital platforms. The aim of the new regulation would be to promote contestability in markets prone to concentration, ensure governance parameters and management of network effect in the absence of competitive pressure, ensure freedom of choice for users of digital platforms and promote transparency in digital markets. The way forward would be to improve the application of the competition laws enforcing in Brazil, better investigating competitive dynamics and defining specific obligations for problems identified in each case, but also through a legislative project to provide the Administrative Council for Economic Defense with more effective ex-ante tools to designate economic agents of systemic relevance. The Rights on the Network Coalition, for example, which brings together more than 50 civil society organizations, believes that economic regulation is a unique opportunity to deal with the negative externalities of the digital platform’s business models and that the transparency obligations set out in the recommendations must guarantee genuine public scrutiny by commercial and users of the business models imposed by digital platforms. Given the symmetry and dependency between these agencies, transparency obligations must be geared towards the collective interest and those affected by the policies and governance, which in many cases represent abuses on the rights to privacy and data protection and freedom of expression. A draft bill is being discussed by the Federal Government of Brazil and will probably be in 2025. In short, these are just three examples of three processes that release two different axes addressed in our public consultation. There are others such data protection, protection of children’s rights, in the online environment, labor regulation on platforms that are being debated in Brazil and in which the Internet Steering Committee intends to contribute. This is precisely why the results of the consultation have been presented to congressmen and women and members of the government at various meetings held by our team in Brasilia. From civil society, we reinforce the importance of moving forward in the construction of regulation for digital platforms and their centrality in maintaining democracy. This is a fundamental step towards guaranteeing a digital ecosystem that is reliable and attentive to the integrity of information in a context of extreme digitalization, including of our democratic process. I am available for any other further questions and thank you very much for the exchange and the debate.

Henrique Faulhaber: Thank you, Bia, from the input from the civil society on those issues. You bring several current discussions on economic regulation of digital platforms and also these comments on the process stopped on the discussion of Bill 2630. Now you will have Mónica from Meta giving the input from the private sector. Meta was participating as well as associations from private sector on the construction of this consultation. And we are very glad to have you, Mónica. Thank you.

Bia Barbosa: Hi, can everybody hear me? Yes, thank you.

Speaker 3: Thank you, Henrique, very much for the invitation. Juliano, Juliana as well. It’s a pleasure for me to be here this afternoon, although for me it’s still morning because… Because I haven’t had lunch yet. So for those of you who don’t know me, I’m Monica Guizzi. I’m head of public policy for META in Brazil. We did participate in this specific consultation that was conducted by the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee, and we would like to congratulate CGE on conducting such thorough work, especially when delivering the results. We did not collaborate individually as META, but rather through our trade associations. And I have just a few remarks. I know that we are a little bit short on time, so I’m going to try to make them as brief as possible. CGE’s consultation was mainly structured around the risks of how digital platforms operate, and then proposing regulation that would be addressed to those specific risks raised. So my contribution here today is for us not to lose sight of the contributions as well that the digital platforms that do operate in this space actually have to offer to the Brazilian economy. I personally feel that when we’re focused on risks and then proposed regulations, we sometimes lose sight of the economic, the social, the empowerment benefits that platforms actually have, and have been having for many years now, to the public in general, specifically their users. I can talk of opportunity for businesses. We have seen so many, especially small and medium, but I love the examples that we can bring from small business using our specific platforms to thrive in times, and especially in countries and in economies that do not allow certain groups of people to be in the formal economy. I have been interacting with so many women in Brazil who have their businesses thriving because they’re using our platforms, and that’s just to speak on the business side. In terms of creating opportunities for people, I would love to raise the speech aspect of how having different means to communicate with the general public, of how important having these platforms provide their services is. Very coincidentally, this morning, I had a meeting with a former government member in Tunisia. He was responsible for implementing the transition to Tunisia as a democracy, from dictatorship to democracy. That person was very, very … What’s the word in English? I’m so tired that I’m forgetting. It’s only day three. I’m enthusiastic in saying how much of an important role Facebook played in the revolution that took place in Tunisia, and how if it hadn’t been for Facebook being present at that specific moment, the information wouldn’t have gotten to people and the revolution probably would have had a very different face than it does nowadays. So when the CGI’s consultation raises risks to democracy, I feel that it’s important for us not to lose sight of how important it is for us to keep and maintain and strengthen certain safeguards that the Brazilian law actually has in place, and to hold those for the near future. We’re currently in Brazil facing a situation in which we’re seeing the Supreme Court rule on a very important article of our Marco Civil, which is Article 19. We are risking the Supreme Court to declare that article unconstitutional, meaning that we would be throwing away, I wouldn’t say only 10 years, not just one decade from Marco Civil being adopted, but the many years that come before Marco Civil, in which civil society, the industry, the academics, and international organizations helped us build a very robust conversation around the importance of how we define liability. for internet companies in this age. I’m very, very concerned about the path that we might be taking moving forward from a company perspective. If we were to remove speech in a way that we’re seeing the first opinions that the Supreme Court of Justices are delivering, we would pretty much be removing everything that resembles any risks to the business, especially when we’re talking about countries in which we have a large user base, such as Brazil. The risks would definitely outweigh the economic opportunities. I feel it’s extremely important for us not to lose sight of these types of discussions and not to take the current laws that we have in place for granted. They are constantly on the risk, as we’re seeing in Brazil right now. I feel that CGI’s consultation, especially when it comes to the axis of defending democracy, does a pretty good job at highlighting the importance of defenses such as this one. Also coincidentally, Professor Marcel Leonardi this morning published a very, very interesting article around this specific topic on Estadão. I would suggest… my Brazilian colleagues who speak Portuguese to look it up. And it’s very interesting because he raised 100 lawsuits that have taken place over the last couple of years in which individuals went to the courts in order to have their contents either restored or removed, but mostly removed. And it’s a very interesting analysis of how even the courts diverge in terms of what is an offense, where violations exactly are. So to transfer all of that power to private companies in order to decide what should and should not be spoken on the internet in Brazil seems to me disproportionate. And I can guarantee that digital platforms do not want this type of power in their hands, especially as we’re business oriented. And at the end of the day, the civil liability would undermine the economic benefits very much potentially. So we would be removing so much speech. And I would hate to see the Facebook that has helped Tunisia get out of a non-democratic state, become a place where we will only be looking at recipes and cute pictures of cats and dogs, no matter how much I love looking at cute pictures of… dogs. So I’ll stop here and let the discussion continue. Thank you very much.

Henrique Faulhaber: Thank you, Mónica, for your input on the positive side of the use of technology digital platform also because, of course, it’s a vector of growth and economic expansion, so we can’t just talk about the negative side. Thank you also for bringing the discussion about the current discussion on Supreme Court. Bia has already mentioned that the blocking of discussion on Congress on Bill 2630 leave to the Supreme Court. That is discussion today. Today you have the third vote on that issue and everybody’s concerned about to change Marcos’ view of the internet, the view of rights in Brazil, that it’s a landmark on the internet regulation and rights for the users being modified by the Supreme Court. That’s not part of their job. And we are, at the moment, we are, in fact, having votes on making Article 19 unconstitutional. Probably today I expect that Minister Barroso is bringing a more balanced vote, bringing the self-regulation, with regulation approach that we believe that is more aligned with the multisectorial governments that we defend in Brazil with participation of our stakeholders and giving the moderation in hands of the companies, but under certain conditions. So I believe this discussion, as you know, we are in the middle of the road on that discussion. And I believe this kind of session here is good to us to discuss Brazilian issues, but also to let know our colleagues here and from other countries how this discussion is being held in Brazil. So you have some time for questions and also for comments from the speakers. I don’t know if there are questions from the audience or online. There’s no online question. If someone has put a question here on the room, the mic will be available. If not, I will provide to the speakers some time to make your final comments since we discussed not just the process of the consultation, but the results that are put on the table and some very important comments on the actual situation of these issues on Brazil. From the side of the group that will coordinate on platform regulation, we are in this year we have scheduled a seminar in Brazil on the second quarter, bringing back some issues that are more mature now. mainly about economic regulation and also discussion on issues related again to the social media, moderation, this kind of thing that now is discussed on Supreme Court. And we also recognizing that most of discussions regarding platform regulation is now on the arena through the AI bill, AI laws being discussed in Brazil. So, I will give the floor to each of you. I don’t know who wants to speak first, Bia, Monica or Marcel or Eugenio, to make your comments and we’ll, if someone wants to make a question, we’ll be free also to do that. Bia, you can.

Bia Barbosa: Hello, just to come to that, I think that it’s the systematization of the consultation. It’s not simple to read. If you want to, if anybody wants to read the consultation itself is even bigger and more complex. But I think that there are many interesting elements in the different axis of the consultation, even agreeing with Monica that framing it regarding the risks. I think there are many other contributions that we can take it from it, not regarding only the risks that I think that the business models of the platforms brings. But I think that there are many other aspects of the consultation that even us at the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee have. haven’t yet dived in. For example, the acts regarding labor rights in platforms is something that is quite present in the consultation. But we haven’t yet started an internal discussion about this topic. And there are bills at the parliament or discussions in the executive branch of the federal government dealing with these topics that I think that we could try to organize ourselves, not only from the Brazilian Internet Committee perspective, but from the governments of internet community in Brazil to contribute to this process. It takes much more energy than we have. But I think that Juliano and Juliana that are organizing these meetings with the parliamentarians and also with the members of the executive of the government can tell us how receptive they are to these ideas. Because when you bring some perspectives from a stakeholder perspective to the debate, I think that it helps us to move forward much more focused on what we agree. And then instead of focusing all the difference that we have, the different positions that we have, of course, it’s going to be a debate. It’s going to be a conflict regulation. But I think that we need to move forward. So I’m pretty optimistic regarding the results that we had the consultation and how it can help not only our work, but the work that everybody that is really interested in having this conversation in the public sphere of at least at the Brazilian landscape, but not only at the Brazilian landscape. I think that many. In the region, for example, in South America and in Latin America are different countries that are dealing with this topic as well are Facing this debate and I think that we can help them with with the systematization of the consultation and only with the positions that we are managed to Form and to establish in the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee. So it’s an invitation for everybody to read but mostly To debate and to engage in this discussion. Thank you

Henrique Faulhaber: Thank you, Bia. You have about 9 minutes So I invite someone anyone from the from the from speakers to talk and also from the audience Thank you

Juliano Cappi: Thank you, Henrique, and thank you for All the interventions. I found it very interesting what to discuss here today and My perspective I see that We have the platform business, but also we are facing Today the platform state. I don’t say that it’s a platform state because it’s stated lots of several activities and responsibilities that are not platformized but public service are going to platforms and I think that as Bia was But the externalities of this platform models if they are business or if they are public service, we have to take a look to preserve the individual autonomy of citizens and to preserve also public interest of the Society and their sovereigns. I think that it’s important and if we had good regulation, we can be provide business the economic growth and the Create safeguards and I guess the the the consultation was a good mean to take a look on that as we provide the LGPD or general protection data law that’s for public and private We could think about also how we regulate the platformization of states. That would be important because we as individuals looking for risks, we as individuals, we don’t have the means to measure the risks. We have to have some support to measure the risks. We are involved in data sharing, looking on the public health perspective with the environmental problems that we face. It’s important to have the production of knowledge about the risks. And I think the regulation is what you said here, is to promote access to good internet, to significant internet, transparency, accountability and social participation. Because even the state is not the guardian of the good interest. The states should be democratically open to participation, to have civil society oversight on the state activities. This is very important. It’s not only for business that usually people claim platforms, but also for states knowing our behavior as platforms. We have to have this open for social participation in a democratic governance. So these are my ideas relating to our discussion today. And thank you for the session.

Henrique Faulhaber: So we have six minutes. Maybe Monica or Eugênio want to talk something. Yes, thank you.

Speaker 1: Yeah, I think we should celebrate that we are discussing these issues with the participation and engagement of all sectors of society in Brazil and beyond in a genuine multi-stakeholder exercise. And this is a consultation, a very successful one, on regulation of digital platforms. And maybe to recap what I said for the record. I mention digital sovereignty as an important topic, as the right of self-determination and control over your own digital future, including law enforcement and respect for court decisions based on the Constitution and national legislation at large. So I mentioned the temporary ban of the X platform, which for me was a very unfortunate incident created by a foreign company that refused to comply with Brazilian law. I don’t have much to add to that, but just say that we live in a democratic country, an open society, as was said here, where debate is free. That’s why we are here, and this consultation held by the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee is a living example that democracy should and will prevail, always.

Speaker 3: Thank you so much. Mónica? Can you hear me? Thank you. Just as a final, I would like to again congratulate GE, especially the Working Group on Platform Regulation for conducting this work. Yesterday I was in a panel in which I had the opportunity to clear up some misconceptions about big tech. I cannot speak for all of my business peers, but I can speak for AMETA. So yesterday I was able to talk about the misconception that many people have that we profit from misinformation, for instance. We don’t. Our advertisers hate it when their ads are placed close to misinformation. Our users don’t want to be in our platforms if they’re not feeling safe. And today I feel that I have the opportunity to talk about another misconception, which is the fact that Meta doesn’t want any regulation. That is not true. We have contributed. To be very honest, we didn’t contribute as a company because we did not have the time to put up a contribution that would pass all the approvals necessary for us to submit on time. That’s why we work through our trades. We’re still a relatively small team. We are for regulation. We want to be part of the discussions. We are seeing in real time today, nowadays, this week, last week, what happens when the Congress doesn’t legislate and when other powers take that task into hands. We’re seeing how badly that can go. So I would like to highlight and reaffirm our commitment to continue advancing in the discussions that can lead to good regulation for not only for the business, but for civil society, for users, for Brazil. So I publicly reaffirm our commitment here in Riki to continue these conversations back home. Thank you.

Henrique Faulhaber: Thank you, Monica. I believe we have to wrap up. It was a very good workshop, open forum. So we are glad to have in our dispositions, I mean, the job we’ve done through the working group that puts the consultation, their outcomes on the book that we are delivering today and also for discussions that we have here. that deal with very recent issues that are open, but we feel that together, in a multi-stakeholder approach, we can have success on tackling this difficult task that we have in order to have the benefits and also avoiding the risks of using technology on our lives so deeply. Thank you, everybody. And you have the results on the website of IGF in order that we can, after, work on the results that I believe we have here. Thank you. Thank you.

Agreement Points

Need for regulation of digital platforms

Bia Barbosa

Monica Guise

Henrique Faulhaber

Economic regulation needed to address market concentration

Regulation should balance benefits and risks of platforms

Multi-stakeholder approach important for developing regulation

There is a consensus that digital platforms need regulation, but it should be balanced and developed through a multi-stakeholder approach.

Importance of preserving free speech and democracy online

Monica Guise

Eugenio Garcia

Platforms play important role in enabling free speech and democracy

Digital sovereignty relates to self-determination over digital future

Speakers emphasize the crucial role of digital platforms in enabling free speech and supporting democratic movements, while also highlighting the importance of digital sovereignty.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers express concerns about the risks associated with the platformization of health services, particularly regarding data concentration and the need for transparency and social participation in governance.

Juliano Cappi

Marchelo Fornazin

Need transparency and social participation in digital health governance

Risks of data concentration and privatization of public infrastructure

Unexpected Consensus

Concerns about Supreme Court potentially changing internet liability rules

Monica Guise

Henrique Faulhaber

Concerns about Supreme Court potentially changing internet liability rules

Need balanced approach to content moderation

Despite representing different sectors (private and multi-stakeholder), both speakers express concerns about potential changes to internet liability rules by the Supreme Court and advocate for a balanced approach to content moderation.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement include the need for balanced regulation of digital platforms, preserving free speech and democracy online, addressing risks in digital health, and concerns about changes to internet liability rules.

Consensus level

There is a moderate level of consensus among the speakers on the need for regulation and the importance of balancing various interests. This suggests that there is potential for collaborative efforts in developing regulatory frameworks for digital platforms in Brazil, but careful negotiation will be needed to address the specific concerns of different stakeholders.

Different Viewpoints

Approach to platform regulation

Bia Barbosa

Monica Guise

Economic regulation needed to address market concentration

Regulation should balance benefits and risks of platforms

Bia Barbosa emphasizes the need for economic regulation to address market concentration and negative externalities, while Monica Guise argues for a balanced approach that doesn’t overlook the benefits platforms provide.

Risks to democracy from platforms

Bia Barbosa

Monica Guise

Risks to democracy from platform business models need addressing

Platforms play important role in enabling free speech and democracy

Bia Barbosa highlights risks to democracy from platform business models, while Monica Guise emphasizes the positive role platforms play in enabling free speech and supporting democratic movements.

Unexpected Differences

Approach to content moderation

Monica Guise

Eugenio Garcia

Concerns about Supreme Court potentially changing internet liability rules

Digital sovereignty relates to self-determination over digital future

While both speakers discuss aspects of digital sovereignty, they unexpectedly diverge on the approach to content moderation. Monica Guise expresses concerns about potential changes to liability rules, while Eugenio Garcia emphasizes the importance of enforcing national legislation, including court decisions on content removal.

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement revolve around the approach to platform regulation, the balance between risks and benefits of platforms, and the role of platforms in democracy and free speech.

difference_level

The level of disagreement is moderate. While there is a general consensus on the need for some form of regulation, speakers differ significantly on the specifics of implementation and the balance between regulation and preserving the benefits of platforms. These differences reflect the complex nature of platform regulation and suggest that finding a universally acceptable approach will be challenging.

Partial Agreements

All speakers agree on the need for some form of regulation, but differ on the approach. Bia Barbosa advocates for stronger economic regulation, Monica Guise emphasizes balancing benefits and risks, while Henrique Faulhaber suggests a multi-stakeholder approach to find a balance.

Bia Barbosa

Monica Guise

Henrique Faulhaber

Economic regulation needed to address market concentration

Regulation should balance benefits and risks of platforms

Multi-stakeholder approach important for developing regulation

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers express concerns about the risks associated with the platformization of health services, particularly regarding data concentration and the need for transparency and social participation in governance.

Juliano Cappi

Marchelo Fornazin

Need transparency and social participation in digital health governance

Risks of data concentration and privatization of public infrastructure

Key Takeaways

The Brazilian Internet Steering Committee (CGI.br) conducted a comprehensive multi-stakeholder consultation on digital platform regulation in Brazil

There is a need to balance the benefits of digital platforms with addressing risks and negative externalities of their business models

Digital sovereignty and protecting democracy are key concerns in platform regulation

Health data and the platformization of public services raise new regulatory challenges

Content moderation and preserving free speech online remain contentious issues in Brazil

Resolutions and Action Items

CGI.br plans to hold a seminar in Brazil in the second quarter to further discuss economic regulation and social media moderation

CGI.br will continue engaging with parliamentarians and government officials to provide multi-stakeholder perspectives on platform regulation

Unresolved Issues

How to effectively regulate large digital platforms while preserving innovation and economic benefits

Balancing content moderation and free speech protections in platform regulation

Addressing risks of data concentration and privatization in digital health systems

Determining appropriate liability rules for platforms regarding user-generated content

Suggested Compromises

Adopting a ‘regulated self-regulation’ approach that gives platforms some autonomy in content moderation while establishing oversight mechanisms

Focusing regulation on larger platforms with ‘essential access control power’ rather than blanket rules for all digital services

Balancing data interoperability requirements with protections for user privacy and platform intellectual property

When you think about digitalization in health or digital health, we see that this field brought significant changes to health systems worldwide, especially Brazilian public and university health systems, SUS.

speaker

Marcelo Fornazin

reason

This comment introduced the important topic of digital health and its impact on public health systems, broadening the discussion beyond just social media platforms.

impact

It led to a deeper exploration of how platform regulation intersects with other critical sectors like healthcare, highlighting the wide-ranging implications of digital platforms.

We identified that three dynamics are driving the platformization of digital health in Brazil. The first one is data concentration. Health data is increasingly addressed as a commodity. often concentrated in the hands of a few entities. The second one is the privatization of public infrastructure. Public health data infrastructure is increasingly managed by private platforms. The third one is the shift as the user as a consumer. Citizens are shifting from active participants in public health governments to consumers of health care service.

speaker

Marcelo Fornazin

reason

This comment provided a structured analysis of the key dynamics in digital health platformization, highlighting important concerns about data ownership, privatization, and changing user roles.

impact

It deepened the level of analysis by introducing specific concerns about how platformization affects public health systems and citizen engagement, prompting consideration of these issues in the broader platform regulation discussion.

Freedom of speech is guaranteed by the Brazilian Constitution. When we have the decision by the Brazilian Federal Supreme Court, it was pretty clear that the lack of compliance was undisputed. But when you hear a very famous CEO and billionaire, they refrain from saying his name, but let’s call him Mr. X, a very rich and powerful businessman, mocking Brazilian institutions, openly defying, saying I will not comply with Brazilian legislation. Frankly, this, to my view, this is unacceptable.

speaker

Eugenio Garcia

reason

This comment brought up a specific recent incident involving a major platform’s non-compliance with Brazilian law, highlighting the tension between global tech companies and national sovereignty.

impact

It shifted the discussion towards the practical challenges of enforcing national laws on global platforms, emphasizing the importance of digital sovereignty and respect for local legal frameworks.

CGE’s consultation was mainly structured around the risks of how digital platforms operate, and then proposing regulation that would be addressed to those specific risks raised. So my contribution here today is for us not to lose sight of the contributions as well that the digital platforms that do operate in this space actually have to offer to the Brazilian economy.

speaker

Monica Guise

reason

This comment provided a counterbalance to the risk-focused approach of the consultation, reminding participants of the positive contributions of digital platforms.

impact

It broadened the perspective of the discussion, encouraging a more balanced view that considers both the risks and benefits of digital platforms in society and the economy.

We are seeing in real time today, nowadays, this week, last week, what happens when the Congress doesn’t legislate and when other powers take that task into hands. We’re seeing how badly that can go.

speaker

Monica Guise

reason

This comment highlighted the urgency of legislative action on platform regulation, warning about the consequences of regulatory gaps.

impact

It emphasized the importance of proactive legislative engagement in platform regulation, potentially influencing the priorities and approach of stakeholders in the regulatory process.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by broadening its scope beyond just social media platforms to include critical sectors like healthcare, highlighting the tension between global tech companies and national sovereignty, and emphasizing the need for balanced regulation that considers both risks and benefits. The discussion evolved from a theoretical exploration of platform regulation to a more nuanced debate that considered practical challenges, cross-sector implications, and the urgency of legislative action. This multifaceted approach enriched the conversation and underscored the complexity of platform regulation in the Brazilian context.

How can the results of the public consultation on digital platform regulation contribute to ongoing legislative processes in Brazil and other countries?

speaker

Bia Barbosa

explanation

This is important to understand how the consultation findings can be applied practically to shape policy and legislation.

How can we balance the risks of digital platforms with their economic and social benefits?

speaker

Monica Guise

explanation

This is crucial for developing balanced regulation that addresses concerns while preserving the positive impacts of platforms.

How can we regulate the ‘platformization’ of public services and government activities?

speaker

Juliano Cappi

explanation

This is important to ensure proper oversight and protection of public interests as government services increasingly adopt platform models.

How can we ensure transparency, accountability, and social participation in both private and public platform governance?

speaker

Juliano Cappi

explanation

This is critical for maintaining democratic oversight and protecting individual rights in an increasingly platform-driven society.

How can we address labor rights issues related to digital platforms?

speaker

Bia Barbosa

explanation

This area requires further discussion and research to ensure fair treatment of workers in the platform economy.

How can we implement data interoperability in a way that balances the interests of all stakeholders?

speaker

Juliana Oms

explanation

There was consensus on the importance of data interoperability, but disagreement on implementation, indicating a need for further research and discussion.

Summary

This discussion focused on Africa’s digital governance and ICT development in the context of global initiatives like the Global Digital Compact (GDC). Panelists highlighted the significant positive impact of ICT on economic development in Africa, with projections showing substantial growth in the digital economy. Key challenges addressed included the need for strategic investment in ICT infrastructure, energy availability, digital skills development, and bridging various digital divides, particularly the gender gap in technology access and use.

The importance of aligning continental frameworks like the African Union Digital Transformation Strategy with global initiatives was emphasized. Panelists stressed the need for costed implementation plans and innovative financing mechanisms to turn strategies into action. The private sector’s role in expanding connectivity was discussed, with calls for meaningful participation and supportive policies like universal service funds.

Addressing the widening gender digital divide was identified as crucial, with suggestions for targeted education programs and initiatives to increase women’s access to technology. The discussion underscored the multifaceted nature of digital development, touching on issues of data governance, artificial intelligence, and the need for harmonized institutional and legal systems.

Participants agreed on the importance of a multi-stakeholder approach, involving governments, private sector, civil society, and international organizations in implementing digital strategies. The discussion concluded with a call for collaborative efforts to secure funding and resources for implementing adopted frameworks, emphasizing the centrality of people and the planet in digital development efforts.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– The impact of ICT development on economic growth in Africa

– The importance of energy infrastructure for ICT development

– Strategies for implementing the Global Digital Compact in Africa

– Addressing the gender digital divide and increasing women’s access to technology

– The need for multi-stakeholder collaboration and financing to implement digital initiatives

Overall purpose:

The goal of this discussion was to examine Africa’s digital governance landscape following the adoption of the Global Digital Compact, and to explore strategies for implementing digital development initiatives on the continent.

Tone:

The tone was largely informative and collaborative, with panelists sharing research findings, policy perspectives, and recommendations. There was a sense of urgency around the need to take concrete actions to advance digital development in Africa, rather than just producing more strategies and frameworks. The tone became more solution-oriented towards the end, with a focus on practical steps like improving basic digital literacy.

Speakers

– Moderator: Dr. Mactar Seck – Chief of Technology and Innovation Section- UNECA

– Sorene Assefa, Cybersecurity & Digital governance Expert, UNECA

– Panelist 1: Researcher presenting a study on the ICT sector and economic growth in Africa

– Panelist 2: Honorable Minister of ICT in Namibia.

– Panelist 3: Jimson Olufuye, Chair of the Advisory Council of the Africa ICT Alliance, principal consultant at Contemporary Consulting

Revised Summary: Africa’s Digital Governance and ICT Development

Introduction:

This discussion explored Africa’s digital governance and ICT development, focusing on economic impacts, global initiatives, implementation challenges, and strategies for inclusive digital growth across the continent. The panel included experts from various sectors, providing diverse perspectives on these critical issues.

1. ICT Development and Economic Growth in Africa:

The discussion opened with a presentation of research findings demonstrating the significant positive impact of ICT on economic development in Africa:

– A study of 54 African countries from 2000 to 2018 showed a strong correlation between ICT development and economic growth.

– The ICT sector is rapidly expanding and contributing substantially to Africa’s economic development.

– Namibia’s ICT sector demonstrated particular resilience during the COVID-19 pandemic, growing by 17% while other sectors declined.

– The private sector was identified as a key provider of solutions to increase connectivity across the continent.

2. Africa’s Participation in Global Digital Governance:

The discussion highlighted Africa’s involvement in shaping global digital governance:

– Africa’s active participation in the Global Digital Compact (GDC) process, which was adopted in September in New York.

– Namibia’s role as co-facilitator in the Summit of the Future.

– The importance of representing African interests in global forums to ensure equitable digital development.

– The need for African-led data governance and AI strategies.

3. UNECA’s Role in Facilitating Africa’s Global Participation:

Sorin Assefa from UNECA emphasized the organization’s role in:

– Coordinating Africa’s input into the Global Digital Compact.

– Supporting the implementation of the African Union Digital Transformation Strategy 2020-2030.

– Facilitating dialogue between African countries and global stakeholders on digital governance issues.

4. Implementation Challenges and Strategies:

The panel discussed various challenges and strategies for implementing digital initiatives:

– The need for costed implementation plans with dedicated funding from governments.

– The importance of involving all stakeholders, including the private sector, in policy development and implementation.

– Leveraging existing frameworks like the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) for implementing the Global Digital Compact.

– The critical importance of basic digital literacy and access.

– Gimson Olufuye emphasized the importance of meaningful participation and dialogue in implementing digital strategies.

5. Addressing the Gender Digital Divide:

The widening gender gap in digital access and literacy was identified as a crucial concern:

– Growing disparity between men and women in internet connectivity rates.

– The need for investment in tech education for girls to overcome barriers.

– Specific strategies mentioned by the Minister from Namibia included:

– Providing digital skills training programs targeted at women and girls.

– Creating mentorship programs to encourage women’s participation in STEM fields.

– Implementing policies to ensure equal access to digital resources in educational institutions.

6. Practical Implementation and Financing:

The discussion addressed practical considerations of implementation and financing:

– The need for concrete, costed plans rather than just high-level strategies.

– Proposals for public-private partnerships, including the use of Universal Service and Access Funds (USAF) to subsidize infrastructure development in underserved areas.

– The moderator highlighted the importance of optimizing taxation of the ICT sector to increase broadband access, job creation, and government revenue, suggesting a balanced approach that encourages sector growth while ensuring fair contribution to public funds.

Conclusion:

The panel concluded with a call for collaborative efforts to secure funding and resources for implementing adopted frameworks, emphasizing the centrality of people and the planet in digital development efforts. The upcoming WSIS+20 review in July 2025 was noted as an important milestone for assessing progress and refining strategies.

This discussion provided a comprehensive overview of the challenges and opportunities in Africa’s digital landscape, offering insights that could inform policy-making and implementation strategies across the continent. It underscored the need for inclusive, multi-stakeholder approaches to digital development, while highlighting the complex interplay between economic growth, infrastructure development, gender equality, and global governance in the African context.

Panelist 1: Similarly, the ICT sector in these economies are also growing very fast. And it has a significant role in driving Africa’s economy growth. For instance, by 2025, the African digital economy is projected to reach around $180 billion, which is 5.2% of the GDP. And by 2050, this economy is also projected to reach to $712 billion, US dollar, and contribute around 2.8% of African GDP. In terms of exports, it’s also growing very fast. From 2000 to 2022, the GDP share of exports from ICT increased by 6.44%, while the ICT service exports itself increased by 13.81%. And the share of ICT from the total service exports is also increased by 9.5%. So we can see the increasing trend since 2000. So the aim of this research is to see the relationship between the development in the ICT sector and the economy growth in Africa. And we estimate a model to assess the impact of ICT on economic development. To do this research, we use data for 15 African countries for over 23 years, which makes the total observation 1,150. And the source of data is World Bank’s World Development Indicators, African Development Bank Database, the United Nations Development Program, and also the UNCTAD database. The econometric technique we use is Fixed Effect Panel Regression Model. Our dependent variable is the Human Development Index, which is developed by UNDP, and it helps us to see the holistic nature of the development, like the health sector, the education and the living standard. And the main variable of interest here is ICT sector, which is measured by the ICT index developed by UNCTAD, and it estimates accessibility and integration of communication systems, and it also includes server security. And we use control variables like fixed capital formation to measure investment, the general government’s final consumption expenditure, and trade, to see the effect of trade and the population growth. Energy is also included. Energy measures the availability, sustainability and efficiency of power, and by institutions we measure the regulatory quality of government systems. So this is the result of our modelling and the regression analysis. So we see that the ICT sector has a significant and positive relationship on economic development in Africa, which shows that the higher the accessibility and integration of communication systems in the economy, the higher the development. We also see that the government expenditure has a significant but negative effect on economic development, which shows that the lack of finance and funding for crucial sectors and all the misallocation. of resources to economic activities that are not crucial for development. We also see that population growth has a significant and positive relationship with economic development, which shows that the potential of utilizing our human resource through developing digital skills. And energy and institutions are our new variables that we introduce in this modeling. And we can see that energy is significant for economic development, together with the ICT sector, as well as institutions. The quality of institutions, the higher the quality of institutions and the regulatory quality and the effectiveness of governments, the higher the economic development. So from these results, we can make some final remarks. The study shows that the ICT sector has a significant positive contribution, and to upgrade and accelerate these contributions, governments may consider the following policy options. The first one is a strategic investment in the ICT sector and its linkage to other crucial sectors, like implementing and investing technologies in agriculture and the manufacturing sector. The second one is mobilization of financial resources for the development of ICT through South-South and North-South cooperation. And the third one is promoting digital literacy and capacity building programs for digital skills to equip the growing population of Africa for existing and emerging technologies. And the fourth one… One is linking the energy sector, like the renewable energy, with the ICT sector to fully exploit the African potential in terms of its renewable energy. And finally, leveraging robust and harmonized the institutional and legal systems to accelerate the development of ICT sector, as well as its contribution to the development of African nations. Thank you very much for your attentions. And we will welcome comments. Thank you.

Moderator: Thank you, Mariama Witte. This study shows a correlation between ICT development and energy availability and efficiency in the continent. Several times, we forgot energy. Energy is very, very important for the development of ICT. And access of energy in Africa is very low. And why development of ICT will go together with energy development in the continent? And we have to take into consideration this. This study also, there is another study we developed to show when we optimize the big issue of Africa in the taxation of the ICT sector. We don’t have an adequate taxation system for the ICT service in several countries, almost all African countries. And because, generally, the Ministry of Finance need to get more money and focus on the taxation of the ICT company in most of African countries. We developed a study research in 52 African countries to show when we come up to optimize the taxation of the ICT sector, we can have a very interesting result. We get an increase of the broadband access in the country, also in the job creation, and we increase also the tax revenue of the government. Because we are going to create more job, more connectivity, and more economic activity for the government. We have the study we are going to launch during the AU ETHOF Summit on the optimization of taxation in the ICT sector. And I think it will be very interesting for the Ministry of ICT. But we recommend also to involve the Ministry of ICT in the definition on the taxation of the ICT sector. The Minister of ICT should work closely with the Minister of Finance to identify the taxation of the ICT sector. It’s very important for the economic growth for our continent. Now we show why ICT is very important in the continent. It is why also the participation of Africa to the global digital compact process was also an important step for the continent in order to all the parts of the continent will be to be taken into consideration in the global digital compact. We can’t say all have been captured. But the more important priority of Africa have been captured in the global digital compact adopted in September in New York. Now I’m going to give the floor to Sorin to go quickly on the process of the GDC before we are going now to our discussion.

Sorin Assefa: Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Sorin Assefa. I’m the cybersecurity and digital governance expert at the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa. I think to set the stage for today’s conversation, Africa’s digital governance post the summit of the future, I just want to set the context. We wouldn’t talk about GDPR. without going back and talking about WSIS. The international community convened in Tunisia back in 2005 for a world summit on information society, adopting a set of outcomes now underpin the national and global policies in information society and internet governance. Today we are talking about IGF because of WSIS. And this summit was an accumulation of the process initiated back in Geneva 2003, which also roots back to 1998 ITU’s council process. So for WSIS process, we did a review for WSIS plus 10 to make sure that the processes are still in line and Africa’s context and priorities are included, as you can see. And also recently we conducted WSIS plus 20 annual review in Tanzania Dar es Salaam, where 150 participants were included and 137 member states were part of the process. I think the majority of the stakeholders from the IGF community were present. And the outcome is to make sure that all the global processes ensure that African processes are incorporated. But I want to go back to GDC alone. So WSIS was there, IGF was there, now GDC came to picture to make sure that the governance gap that is existing has been breached. So the Global Digital Compact, ECA has been playing a pivotal role to make sure that Africa’s policies, priorities and context are on the agenda of the Global Digital Compact. So we have conducted a a few consultation process starting in Cape Town, where we had the Africa’s policy declaration and submitted for the TEC envoy consideration. Then back in 2024, April, beginning of the year, when the TEC envoy released the draft zero, when we started the consultation in the negotiation process with the African stakeholder. First, we started with the African regional consultation on draft zero to make sure that, as Macta said, the objective of GDC is in line with the continent requirement and the principle and the commitment in action. After that consultation, we also went ahead and we did deep dive specifically on data and data governance. It was holding a disavowal and the co-facilitator were in the African region. Later, we also conducted a deep dive with private sector. We felt like the African private sector are not involved in these multilateral process, which is supported by multi-stakeholder processes as well. And knowing very well, Africa is the youngest continent in the world where 60% of the population are youth. We felt like we needed to engage the youth. We also did some consultation, but this consultation, it wasn’t in isolation. It was in collaboration with different players or stakeholders and make sure that the outcomes are presented and disseminated to the community. So we conducted some briefing session in the African IGF 2023, 2024. And even today, that’s why we are presenting it. Even in Japan, we place some of the outcomes. And as Makta said, also the GDC outcome consultation. It was presented at the SDC on communication in the ICT at the African Union. We also hold the Summit of the Future side event to put in place some of the consultation outcome. And in collaboration, finally, in collaboration with the UNU University, IGAV, and UNDESA, we put in place a forum for the Southern and Eastern African countries back in October on the implementation of GDC, where 12 members from the East and Southern African region were presented to make sure that after the adoption, there will be a space for the implementation discussion or dialogue. And CSTD had also a session a few, I think on the October that we presented our outcome. Just, this is the final slide, out of the negotiation and consultation of different stakeholders, these were some of priority and concern for the communities, being that the stakeholder stress, the importance of multi-stakeholderism, and the issue of governance gap, meaning Africa doesn’t have enough resource to involve in so many multilateral and multi-stakeholder process. So, how do we make sure that the existing WSIS and IGAV can be used on the implementation of GDC, and also bridging the gap, the digital divide, the gender divide, the data divide, innovation divide, and the people’s center of vision of WSIS and ownership were highlighted, but the main challenges that have been arising is to make sure that infrastructure gap has been addressed, and that Africa has a call for innovative financial mechanism needs to be in place to make sure that GDC becomes a reality. So thank you so much.

Moderator: Thank you, Soren. Now we have set up the picture. We have the Global Digital Compact adopted, but we have to remind also the several framework at the continental level. Our key framework for the development of the digital technology in Africa is the African Union Digital Transformation Strategy 2020-2030 adopted by Member States. We have also as a framework, we have this Africa Data Governance Framework. We adopted also recently this AU AI Strategy Framework. We have also our Malabo Convention Framework. And we have also several other global framework for discussion, exchange ideas, like the Internet Governance Forum. We have also the WSIS Forum. Now the question is, I’m going to ask the question to the Honourable Minister, as policy maker, we have also this implementation of the Africa Free Trade Area, it is the basis now because we want to develop the economy in Africa through trade. We have also the Digital Trade Protocol, and we have several protocols, several frameworks to deal. For you, according to you, based on your experience, you have a lot of experience in the sector, what kind of strategy African countries should put in place? to implement the GDC objective in line with the Continental Regional Framework and also the Agenda SDG 2030 and the Agenda 26-3. Madam Minister.

Panelist 2: Thank you very much, Macta, and a very good afternoon to everybody. I’m very happy to be discussing this very important discussion, especially geared towards Africa’s digital governance, which I think all of us can attest to is still growing in our individual countries and still growing on the continent. But first, I think I should address the holistic picture. Namibia, as you know, was the co-facilitator of the Summit of the Future and played a pivotal role in coming to this global digital compact, together, of course, with the main document being the Pact of the Future. And as co-facilitator, it was Namibia’s responsibility to carry the interests of the global south and particularly the interests of the African continent. And that was very important to us to take charge of that at the United Nations, of course, led by our president, Dr. Nangola Mbumba. When it comes to your question, Macta, around the strategies that we can adopt as countries on the continent, I think I can throw it back to all of us as a continent. We have the African Union, and I remember we met last June as AUICT ministers to look at, one, issues around data governance and artificial intelligence, especially around the regulatory part. We do not need to be that continent that always needs to catch up. We are always catching up, there must always be something that we have not put in place, we are always catching up. And that’s why these discussions are starting now. We have all kinds of protocols. We have the Budapest protocol, the Malabo protocol, all kinds of protocols. We are now reviewing WSIS plus 20 in July next year. We have now this global digital compact, which is supposed to accelerate and to ensure that we reach the goals we need to reach by year 2030. I think the issue needs to come into taking the decision and the financing along with it. Everything looks good on paper, but if there’s no implementation plan that is costed, that each country will need to set aside $2 million in the first year, another $2 million in the second year to put the goals that we have set aside for ourselves to fruition, then it’s all talk. And I think that’s where the biggest challenge comes, because there is a will, perhaps there’s political will. Sometimes we cascade these goals and these objectives at country level. Sometimes we even cascade them to sector level, but we need to take care of the young people, we need to take care of the healthcare system and digitalise it, the education system and digitalise it, but it doesn’t come along with the dollars. So what’s the point of it all? So I think the issue is we need to cost our plans, our implementation plans. That’s strategy number one, but of course governments can’t do it alone. The world banks of this world need to come on board and they need to seriously invest in making sure these programmes are implemented. The UN as implementing agencies, whether it’s the UNDP, UNESCO, very strategic UN agencies need to come on board and help us as countries to do this. Because unfortunately, as we know, the ICT sector is now an umbrella sector. Almost every sector now depends on ICT to innovate, to grow, to be more efficient, to be more effective, to reach more people than it has ever before. Whether you’re talking about health, whether you’re talking about education, agriculture, energy, energy is a very big one. On Sunday I was in another discussion and it’s very clear that you can’t actually connect people whether it’s the middle mile or the last mile if they are in the dark. Network infrastructure will not function without energy. So it’s multifaceted and multidimensional, Makta. But if I can say here at the end to say that in Namibia we observed during the COVID-19 pandemic when we did our analysis in 2022, our economy indicated that the only sector that grew during the COVID-19 pandemic was the ICT sector. Every other sector went down, but in Namibia the ICT sector grew 17% in the midst of the pandemic because that’s when we all woke up and realized we can’t do anything without actually investing in ICT and digital infrastructure. And it was able to carry other sectors when they were unable, literally brought to their knees during the COVID-19 pandemic. So the issue around energy, to ensure we have data centers, we have data collection of the data sets that we have is an important discussion, but it has to require all of us coming on board and implementing this, all the strategies, all the conventions, you know, all this papers called to actions, all this digital compact documents need to be cascaded down to continental level, to country level with implementation plans that are costed and states putting money aside to ensure their full implementation. Thank you.

Moderator: Thank you so much, Honorable Minister. You are fully right. We needed to have this costing because we have a lot of… strategy, a lot of framework, and a lot of implementation plan at the continental level. Now, Gimson, you are from the private sector. One key issue in Africa, it is a meaningful connectivity. How a private sector can be involved, because we need private sector to be involved in the development of the infrastructure in Africa. How do you think, following the adoption discussion we had in NetBondyal, this GDC, IGF, WSIS, how we can involve the private sector, because we talk about this since 20 years, but we are still at 38% access and 23% in the rural area, how we can involve the private sector?

Panelist 3: Thank you very much, Bacta, the Honourable Minister, and distinguished delegates, good afternoon. Well, my name again is Gimson Olufuye, I happen to be the Chair of the Advisory Council of the Africa ICT Alliance, which is a private sector organisation of concerned ICT associations, companies and individual ICT professionals across Africa. In 2012, we started with six countries’ membership, and today we are in more than 40 countries, and Namibia is one of the members. And in my private life, that’s about advocacy. In my private life as a business person, an entrepreneur, I run an ICT firm, Contemporary Consulting, as the principal consultant, and we’re into digitalisation, we’re into data centres, we’re into cyber security. security, and so on, play well in the digital space. Makta, if you will permit me, let me first say this, that I commend the two presentations we got earlier. Very, very relevant. And reflecting on that, I want to really commend UNEKA, and you in particular, for the way you’ve championed UNEKA program and your team in the African region. As a matter of fact, the second presentation, by Sorin, was quite comprehensive. But I want to mention there is something there about the outcome of the WSIS 2005 meeting in Tunis. While one outcome talked about the IGF, which we are in right now, the second one talked about enhanced cooperation on public policy matters pertaining to the internet that will enable governments and the stakeholders on equal footing to relate, which is a good one. And that eventually is what has brought about the summit of the future, because the resolution was not complete in 2018. And so the Secretary-General called for a digital panel of Melinda Gates and Jack Ma, and submitted a report. And the Secretary-General graciously said, let us convene the summit. And it was a great outcome. And thanks to Makta for talking about it comprehensively. So we now have the fulfillment of the second part of the WSIS. Now, the UNECA has done a great job of WSIS annual follow-up in Africa. Excellent job. Now, in terms of of governance? Well, I don’t see anything wrong in running GDC to be something we look at in WSIS. We don’t need to set up another framework where we will be meeting again. But WSIS can also be an opportunity where we discuss, because since nobody that come back is from WSIS, so they should also still be in WSIS so that we can have all those strategies that have come out of WSIS discussed during. Now, we got to the private sector. We know private sector is very important. We implement. We provide solutions, affordable solutions, enabled by the government. And as such, we are always ready. But there is something is important, Macta. There has to be meaningful participation. We are seeing that with UNESCO’s work. In fact, I was wondering that perhaps UNECA is implementing net mundia principles and processes, because all the things are here that there should be meaningful participation, meaningful connectivity, and meaningful dialogue. Scoping of issues involve all stakeholders. Honorable Minister, you asked a question. Are we doing continuous catch-up? The solution is ensuring all stakeholders come together, leaving no one behind, so that we can scope the issues together. We can talk, bring everybody at the table, because you need their buy-in. So the private sector is engaging, because we have a stake in it. And you are right when you said, during the COVID, ICT contribution to GDP even rose to 70%. The same thing in Nigeria. So we need to sustain the momentum. How do we sustain the momentum? We need to bring all stakeholders together, let them have a buy-in. Not only the private sector, well, we’re always on the table. We are people. Let’s bring in all of us. And UNECA is doing a consistent work. society there and other stakeholders, those into gender, the business. So what I would say is that the private sector is always ready to provide solutions to enable increased connectivity. In fact, there are a lot of solutions that have been discussed here that were enabled connectivity at the local level, at the underserved level, a lot of solution, portable solution. And finally, the private sector needs support, support in terms of some form of subsidy, literally the USPF funding. The USPS funding can easily be provided to subsidize the provision of infrastructure in the underserved area. So if countries have not been collecting, we say USPF fund, they need to do that so that they can ensure that the, maybe like in Nigeria, it’s about 25% yet to be connected, they can be connected, and in other African countries, it’s even higher. So private sector, in conclusion, is always ready to support, especially that we’re seeing that internet connectivity leads to GDP growth, as the research pointed out, and as well as your report last year also pointed out. Thank you very much.

Moderator: Thank you. Thank you, Jameson, for this. You go through a lot of issues, very important. Now, let me come back to Honorable Minister. We have one big issue in the continent. We have several issues, but one biggest, it is now this gender digital gap. Last year, we have, in 2023, we have a difference of 10 points between men-connected and women-connected. This year, it will increase now. The difference is 13 points. between men. We have less women connected now to the men and this is decreased at the continental level. And there are several studies showing that if we leave out women and girls from the digital technology, developing countries can lose from $1 to $1.5 trillion on their GDP. How can Africans struggle? What kind of strategy do you put in your country to make sure more women and girls are connected in the network?

Panelist 2: Thank you for asking that question, Markta. We actually had an earlier panel with this discussion was had around the gender digital divide and what we can do, different actors to try we continue to close it because we anticipated getting bigger and wider if we do not intervene right now. And the first one we need to look at is ensuring that we have the necessary investment at local level and country level in education for tech for girls. And I know it seems like but no girl is necessarily cut out from pursuing a career in tech. But believe me you, there are many factors, cultural barriers, religious barriers, normative barriers that make it difficult for girls and young women to actually pursue careers in tech. Right now, 25% of the tech workforce is women, which means 75% is men. So if a woman gets into an environment like that, she would almost always be a minority. Only 11% of all executives in tech companies around the world are women, which means the rest are men. So it’s quite slow in the number of women getting into that, but that’s a bit high level. Let’s get back to the basics, the basics of basic digital literacy. How many girls and women have access to a smartphone? How many can navigate on the internet? How many can afford data? How many can afford a smartphone? So we see that the real inequalities in real life where a woman would not have the necessary money to even afford a smartphone already cuts her out in having access to internet or having access to digital skills, access to digital literacy, and that’s a problem. A problem because one, they are unable to harness the opportunities that might exist online, and that’s a problem in itself. Imagine a small-scale woman who runs a small business, because of the fear of going online, they’re unable to scale their business with more customers, with more markets, something their male counterparts would likely have. And you know, it might seem like it’s a small percentage that 70, I believe it’s 69% of men in the world compared to 63% use the internet, but that’s a difference of over 200 million women. So it’s in the numbers. So that’s 200 million women between men and women who are unable to leverage the opportunities their male counterparts are leveraging on the internet and online. So it has detrimental effects on our GDPs as countries. But it also puts us at a loss, and this is why in Namibia we have tried. We have girl coding camps, which are not very popular with everybody else, because they feel we are discriminating against the boy child. but it’s a catch-up mechanism for young girls to feel comfortable that coding can also be for girls. Video games can also be for girls because we are seeing that more and more these sectors are growing and women and girls are seen as an anomaly when they enter them. Secondly, we have now created a digital… …or a small organization or a small business and you want to impart digital literacy, the quality is still there. We know that the quality is standardized across the country and people don’t take chances. So these are small efforts. We also have what we call the ICT centers that we have across the country and we collaborate with our Ministry of Youth that has multi-purpose youth centers to try to equip them with one, even one laptop. And an ICT center goes a long way for that rural area to access internet, to access a laptop, to access a printer, to teach them how to switch on and switch off a computer, how to create an email, how to ensure you have a social media platform. There are so many high-level discussions, so many high-level things we can talk about, but it means nothing if the average person in our communities cannot confidently go online. It means absolutely nothing. So let us go back to basics. Let us empower our people in using the basic knowledge online. Then you will see the demand because it will be automatic. If somebody has no more fear of the internet, cannot fear going online, banking online, running a social media platform, media platform online. If everybody is on par with the basics, the demand will be automatic and governments and private sector will be forced to bring that service closer to the people because the demand will be overwhelming. Thank you.

Moderator: Thank you. Well noted, Honourable Minister. We are now almost at the end of one minute left. Just would like to thank you for your participation. And also thank all our panelists for key message and key insight and reflection we can go through this meeting and the key outcome of this session. And I would like to thank also Namibia for the work done as co-facilitator of the Summit of the Future. We were very proud of the work done by Namibia and also by the government of Namibia. And thank you once again and congratulations for the work done. As you are our co-chair, please close the meeting. Since you are giving me to chair, I am now giving the opportunity over. Say one thing before the Minister, because we are running out of time.

Panelist 3: Honourable Minister, smart regulation, you said it all, ground to the basis, smart regulation, bringing all stakeholders together will really help a lot. Thank you.

Panelist 2: Well, I just wanted to say thank you very much. Digital governance in the continent is an ongoing project. And now that we know that there is a demand for us to actually get our ducks in a row, the multi-stakeholder approach is the one to go. Civil society, governments, private sector, UN agencies, all of us need to find ways to collaborate, find the necessary financing to implement all these efforts and all these very important documents we have already adopted. The road map is clear. It’s just the vehicle that we need to use, the fuel that we need to put into the vehicle, and the people and the planet that we need to use as center principles as we move forward, especially towards WSIS plus 20 review in July 2025. Thank you.

Moderator: Thank you so much. We have to find a way to implement, to find the resources also, funding resources also and collaborate. Thank you very, very much and see you soon.

Agreement Points

ICT sector’s importance for economic growth in Africa

Panelist 1

Panelist 2

Jimson Olufuye

Dr. Mactar Seck

ICT sector is growing rapidly and contributing significantly to Africa’s economic growth

ICT sector grew 17% in Namibia during COVID-19 pandemic while other sectors declined

Private sector is ready to provide solutions to enable increased connectivity

All speakers emphasized the crucial role of the ICT sector in driving economic growth and development in Africa, highlighting its resilience during crises and potential for future expansion.

Need for multi-stakeholder approach in digital governance

Panelist 2

Jimson Olufuye

Need for costed implementation plans with dedicated funding from governments

Importance of involving all stakeholders, including private sector, in policy development

Both speakers stressed the importance of involving multiple stakeholders, including government, private sector, and civil society, in developing and implementing digital strategies and frameworks.

Addressing the gender digital divide

Panelist 2

Dr. Mactar Seck

Importance of basic digital literacy and access, especially for women and girls

Growing gap between men and women in internet connectivity

Economic impact of excluding women from digital technology

Both speakers highlighted the critical need to address the gender digital divide, emphasizing its economic implications and the importance of providing basic digital literacy and access to women and girls.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the importance of practical implementation strategies for digital frameworks, suggesting the use of existing structures and dedicated funding to ensure effective execution.

Panelist 2

Jimson Olufuye

Need for costed implementation plans with dedicated funding from governments

Leveraging existing frameworks like WSIS for implementing Global Digital Compact

Unexpected Consensus

Importance of energy infrastructure for ICT development

Dr. Mactar Seck

Panelist 2

ICT development correlates with energy availability and efficiency

ICT sector grew 17% in Namibia during COVID-19 pandemic while other sectors declined

While not a primary focus of the discussion, both the Dr. Mactar Seck and Panelist 2 unexpectedly highlighted the critical role of energy infrastructure in supporting ICT development, suggesting a broader understanding of the interconnected nature of infrastructure development.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The speakers generally agreed on the importance of the ICT sector for Africa’s economic growth, the need for multi-stakeholder approaches in digital governance, and the urgency of addressing the gender digital divide. There was also consensus on the need for practical implementation strategies and recognition of the role of energy infrastructure in ICT development.

Consensus level

High level of consensus among speakers, particularly on the economic importance of ICT and the need for inclusive, multi-stakeholder approaches. This consensus suggests a shared vision for digital development in Africa, which could facilitate more coordinated and effective implementation of digital strategies across the continent.

Different Viewpoints

Implementation approach for digital strategies

Panelist 2

Jimson Olufuye

Need for costed implementation plans with dedicated funding from governments

Importance of involving all stakeholders, including private sector, in policy development

While Panelist 2 emphasizes government-led implementation with dedicated funding, Jimson Olufuye stresses the importance of multi-stakeholder involvement in policy development and implementation.

Unexpected Differences

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement revolve around the implementation approach for digital strategies and the role of different stakeholders in this process.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among the speakers is relatively low. The differences are more about emphasis and approach rather than fundamental disagreements on goals or principles. This suggests a general alignment on the importance of digital development in Africa, with variations in how to achieve it. These minor differences could potentially lead to productive discussions on creating comprehensive, multi-stakeholder approaches to digital governance and implementation in Africa.

Partial Agreements

Both speakers agree on the need for increased connectivity and implementation of digital strategies, but differ on the primary source of funding and implementation approach. Panelist 2 emphasizes government funding, while Jimson Olufuye suggests private sector solutions with government support through subsidies.

Panelist 2

Jimson Olufuye

Need for costed implementation plans with dedicated funding from governments

Private sector is ready to provide solutions to enable increased connectivity

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the importance of practical implementation strategies for digital frameworks, suggesting the use of existing structures and dedicated funding to ensure effective execution.

Panelist 2

Jimson Olufuye

Need for costed implementation plans with dedicated funding from governments

Leveraging existing frameworks like WSIS for implementing Global Digital Compact

Key Takeaways

ICT sector is growing rapidly and contributing significantly to Africa’s economic growth

There is a need for costed implementation plans with dedicated funding to realize digital strategies

Multi-stakeholder collaboration, including private sector involvement, is crucial for digital development in Africa

The gender digital divide is widening and needs to be addressed through targeted interventions

Basic digital literacy and access, especially for women and girls, is fundamental for leveraging digital opportunities

Africa needs to actively participate in global digital governance forums to represent its interests

Resolutions and Action Items

Develop costed implementation plans for digital strategies at country level

Increase investment in tech education for girls to overcome barriers

Leverage existing frameworks like WSIS for implementing the Global Digital Compact

Promote basic digital literacy programs, especially targeting women and rural areas

Involve private sector in providing connectivity solutions, potentially through subsidies

Unresolved Issues

How to secure adequate funding for implementing digital strategies across African countries

Specific mechanisms to increase women’s participation in the tech workforce beyond current low levels

How to harmonize various digital governance frameworks (continental, regional, global) effectively

Ways to address energy infrastructure gaps that hinder ICT development

Suggested Compromises

Utilize existing forums like WSIS to discuss Global Digital Compact implementation rather than creating new structures

Balance targeted programs for girls (e.g., coding camps) with inclusive digital literacy efforts

Collaborate across government ministries (e.g., ICT and Finance) on issues like ICT sector taxation

The study shows that the ICT sector has a significant positive contribution, and to upgrade and accelerate these contributions, governments may consider the following policy options: 1) Strategic investment in the ICT sector and its linkage to other crucial sectors, 2) Mobilization of financial resources through cooperation, 3) Promoting digital literacy and capacity building programs, 4) Linking the energy sector with ICT, 5) Leveraging robust institutional and legal systems.

speaker

Panelist 1

reason

This comment provides a comprehensive set of policy recommendations based on empirical research, offering concrete steps for leveraging ICT for development.

impact

It set the stage for the subsequent discussion by highlighting key areas of focus, particularly the link between ICT and other sectors like energy, which was picked up by other speakers.

We developed a study research in 52 African countries to show when we come up to optimize the taxation of the ICT sector, we can have a very interesting result. We get an increase of the broadband access in the country, also in the job creation, and we increase also the tax revenue of the government.

speaker

Dr. Mactar Seck

reason

This insight introduces a counterintuitive idea that optimizing (potentially reducing) taxation can lead to increased government revenue and broader economic benefits.

impact

It broadened the discussion beyond just ICT development to include policy considerations around taxation and government revenue, highlighting the complex interplay between different policy areas.

Everything looks good on paper, but if there’s no implementation plan that is costed, that each country will need to set aside $2 million in the first year, another $2 million in the second year to put the goals that we have set aside for ourselves to fruition, then it’s all talk.

speaker

Panelist 2 (Honorable Minister)

reason

This comment cuts to the heart of the implementation challenge, emphasizing the need for concrete, costed plans rather than just high-level strategies.

impact

It shifted the conversation from theoretical frameworks to practical considerations of implementation and financing, prompting discussion of how to move from strategy to action.

The private sector needs support, support in terms of some form of subsidy, literally the USPF funding. The USPS funding can easily be provided to subsidize the provision of infrastructure in the underserved area.

speaker

Jimson Olufuye

reason

This comment provides a specific mechanism for involving the private sector in addressing connectivity challenges, bridging the gap between public policy and private implementation.

impact

It introduced a concrete proposal for public-private partnership, shifting the discussion towards more specific policy tools and financing mechanisms.

Let us go back to basics. Let us empower our people in using the basic knowledge online. Then you will see the demand because it will be automatic. If somebody has no more fear of the internet, cannot fear going online, banking online, running a social media platform, media platform online. If everybody is on par with the basics, the demand will be automatic and governments and private sector will be forced to bring that service closer to the people because the demand will be overwhelming.

speaker

Panelist 2 (Honorable Minister)

reason

This comment reframes the digital divide issue from a supply-side problem to a demand-side opportunity, emphasizing the importance of digital literacy and confidence.

impact

It brought the discussion back to ground-level realities and individual experiences, highlighting the importance of basic digital skills in driving broader adoption and development.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by moving it from high-level policy frameworks to practical implementation challenges, financing mechanisms, and ground-level realities. They highlighted the interconnected nature of ICT development with other sectors, policy areas, and individual capabilities. The discussion evolved from presenting research findings to exploring concrete policy tools, emphasizing the need for costed implementation plans, public-private partnerships, and a focus on basic digital literacy. This progression deepened the conversation, making it more nuanced and action-oriented.

How can the development of ICT go together with energy development in Africa?

speaker

Dr. Mactar Seck

explanation

Energy availability is crucial for ICT development, but access to energy in Africa is very low. This needs to be addressed for successful ICT implementation.

How can African countries optimize taxation of the ICT sector to increase broadband access, job creation, and tax revenue?

speaker

Dr. Mactar Seck

explanation

Current taxation systems for ICT services in many African countries are inadequate. Optimizing taxation could lead to economic growth and increased connectivity.

How can African countries implement the Global Digital Compact objectives in line with Continental Regional Frameworks and global agendas?

speaker

Dr. Mactar Seck

explanation

There are multiple frameworks and agendas at play, and a strategy is needed to align implementation efforts across these various initiatives.

How can implementation plans for digital strategies be properly costed and financed?

speaker

Panelist 2 (Honorable Minister)

explanation

Many strategies look good on paper but lack the necessary funding for implementation. Costed plans and innovative financing mechanisms are needed.

How can the private sector be more effectively involved in developing infrastructure and increasing connectivity in Africa?

speaker

Dr. Mactar Seck

explanation

Despite years of discussion, connectivity rates in Africa remain low. More effective private sector involvement could help address this issue.

What strategies can be implemented to close the growing gender digital gap in Africa?

speaker

Dr. Mactar Seck

explanation

The difference in connectivity rates between men and women is increasing, which could have significant economic impacts if not addressed.

Summary

This discussion focused on the challenges to freedom of expression in Africa and the Middle East due to cybercrime legislation and content regulation. Panelists from various organizations shared insights on how these laws are often misused to suppress dissent and target activists, journalists, and marginalized groups. They highlighted trends such as overly broad restrictions on online speech, criminalization of disinformation, and enforcement of authoritarian values through content laws.

The speakers emphasized that vague and restrictive cybercrime laws create a climate of fear and self-censorship, undermining democratic participation and free expression. Examples were given from countries like Tunisia and Nigeria, where such laws have been used to arrest critics and stifle political discourse. The discussion also touched on the role of online platforms and the need for responsible content moderation practices.

Panelists outlined several strategies for advocating against repressive legislation, including engaging with parliamentarians, building capacity among legal professionals, and participating in early stages of policy development. They stressed the importance of international collaboration, citing efforts around the UN Cybercrime Treaty as an example. The need for flexible funding to support civil society interventions was also mentioned.

The conversation concluded by emphasizing the importance of multi-stakeholder approaches in internet governance and the need for increased participation from Global South organizations in policy discussions. Overall, the panel highlighted the ongoing tension between addressing legitimate online harms and protecting freedom of expression in the digital space.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– Trends in cybercrime legislation in Africa and the Middle East that restrict online expression

– Impacts of overly broad content restrictions on local communities and democracy

– Tactics for advocating against restrictive cybercrime laws and promoting rights-respecting regulations

– Opportunities for collaboration between civil society, governments, and platforms to address online harms responsibly

– Challenges in participating in policy processes, especially for organizations from the Global South

The overall purpose of the discussion was to examine threats to freedom of expression online in Africa and the Middle East due to restrictive cybercrime laws, and explore ways to promote more rights-respecting approaches to regulating online content and addressing cybercrime.

The tone of the discussion was primarily serious and concerned when describing the negative impacts of restrictive laws, but became more constructive and solution-oriented when discussing advocacy tactics and opportunities for collaboration. There was an underlying sense of urgency throughout about the need to address these issues.

Speakers

– Annelies Riezebos, Senior policy officer at the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Expertise: Freedom of expression online, content moderation, disinformation

– Jacqueline Rowe, PhD student at University of Edinburgh, worked with Global Partners Digital

Expertise: Platform regulation, content governance, hate speech and disinformation policies

– Adeboye Adegoke, Senior programme manager at Paradigm Initiative

Expertise: Internet governance, digital rights advocacy

– Aymen Zaghdoudi, MENA senior policy counselor at AccessNow

Expertise: Ethics of journalism, impact of digital development on freedom of expression in MENA

Additional speakers:

– Maria Paz Canales, Global Partners Digital

Freedom of Expression Under Threat: Cybercrime Legislation in Africa and the Middle East

This discussion, part of the Freedom Online Coalition’s efforts and relevant to the Global Digital Compact, brought together experts to examine the challenges to freedom of expression in Africa and the Middle East arising from cybercrime legislation and content regulation. The panel explored how these laws are often misused to suppress dissent and target activists, journalists, and marginalised groups, while also considering strategies for promoting more rights-respecting approaches to online content regulation.

Key Trends in Cybercrime Legislation

Jacqueline Rowe, a PhD student at the University of Edinburgh, highlighted several concerning trends in cybercrime legislation across the regions:

1. Overbroad restrictions on online speech, often justified by public safety concerns

2. Criminal restrictions on disinformation

3. Enforcement of authoritarian value systems through content laws

4. A shift towards platform regulation frameworks

Rowe noted that many of these laws “were not aligned and included content restrictions on much broader categories of online content and expression than would be considered permissible under international standards on freedom of expression.”

Aymen Zaghdoudi, MENA senior policy counsellor at AccessNow, expanded on these points, emphasising the use of vague terms and disproportionate sanctions in cybercrime laws. He provided specific examples, stating, “Apart from the content-based offences, which I will come to later, it contains several problematic provisions. Conscious of the time, I will mention just two examples. The first one is the obligation for ISPs to store all data related to communication traffic and other types of data, which is a big threat to the right of privacy.”

Adeboye Adegoke, senior programme manager at Paradigm Initiative, further illustrated how these laws are used as tools to target activists and opposition voices. He provided examples from Nigeria, where cybercrime laws have been used to arrest critics and journalists. Adegoke explained, “So you could see that it is all about just looking for a way to criminalise people that the authorities do not agree with. So that law at that point comes handy as a tool that could be used to criminalise the person.”

Impact on Local Communities and Democracy

The panellists agreed that the vague and restrictive nature of these cybercrime laws creates a climate of fear and self-censorship, undermining democratic participation and free expression. Adegoke highlighted the chilling effect on free expression, noting, “I think that there is a situation where this is applicable. At some point, there is that there becomes, there is no clarity about what expression is you know, is safe and what expression is not safe.”

Zaghdoudi emphasised the reduced political participation and public debate resulting from these laws, providing a specific example from Tunisia where cybercrime legislation led to a significant drop in election turnout. Adegoke stressed the overall undermining of democratic processes.

Strategies for Addressing Problematic Cybercrime Legislation

The panellists outlined several strategies for advocating against repressive legislation:

1. Strategic litigation to challenge laws (Adegoke)

2. Engaging with parliamentarians to amend laws (Zaghdoudi)

3. Capacity building for judges and lawyers (Zaghdoudi)

4. Early engagement in policy processes (Adegoke)

5. International advocacy at the UN level (Rowe)

Adegoke emphasised the importance of proactive engagement, stating, “I do think that one key thing that we have to think about is also about early engagements with policy processes to ensure that we are in a more strategic position to influence outcomes.”

Zaghdoudi expanded on the tactics for addressing problematic legislation, highlighting the importance of engaging with parliamentarians, building capacity among legal professionals, and leveraging international mechanisms to pressure governments.

The speakers also highlighted the need for flexible funding to support civil society interventions, particularly when responding to new legislative proposals on short notice.

Role of Platforms and International Bodies

Rowe stressed the need for platforms to improve content moderation globally, especially in non-English speaking regions. She also emphasised the importance of the UN Cybercrime Treaty negotiations and the role of UNESCO and regional bodies in developing platform regulations. Rowe noted the Budapest Convention as a global standard for rights-respecting cybercrime legislation.

The panellists agreed on the importance of multi-stakeholder approaches in internet governance and the need for increased participation from Global South organisations in policy discussions. Adegoke highlighted the challenges faced by organizations from the Global South in participating in policy formation processes and stressed the need for consolidating efforts among civil society organizations.

Conclusion

The discussion highlighted the ongoing tension between addressing legitimate online harms and protecting freedom of expression in the digital space. It emphasised the need for continued collaboration between civil society, governments, and platforms to develop rights-respecting approaches to cybercrime legislation and content regulation. As the digital landscape continues to evolve, the insights and strategies shared in this discussion will be crucial for safeguarding freedom of expression and democratic participation in Africa, the Middle East, and beyond.

Annelies Riezebos: Bye. So welcome everyone. We are here in this session on defending voice and expression Africa in the Middle East. I think we are going to get started we have some people joining us online it’s pretty busy in the venue but not here, unfortunately, but we hope some more people will be joining us soon. So, for those of you who don’t know me I am Annelies reasonable so I’m a senior policy officer at the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and I’m in the Department of multilateral affairs and human rights. So we work, I work on issues related to freedom of expression online. And this includes content moderation, the response to disinformation online, and the promotion of information integrity. So I’m really happy that GPD invited us to moderate this session today. And I think we’ve had a good intro in discussions already at the Internet Governance Forum here in Riyadh on the future of the internet. And for the Netherlands, this is also a key priority that we believe in an open worldwide free and secure and inclusive internet. And the internet is essential and can be foundational for achieving the sustainable development goals, and also freedom of expression which this session is about is one of our priorities in our foreign human rights policy and freedom of expression should be upheld online and offline. And the stakeholder approach is also essential in this and I’m really glad that we have a panel right now where we are joined by our colleagues from civil society, and also within the freedom online coalition we have made sure to seek coordination among countries and to include firm human rights safeguards online. Also, for instance, this year with the global digital compact which we negotiated. And here we are here together to speak about the opportunities that the online space provides for the freedom of expression worldwide, but also the challenges that arise from such for legislative reforms that have that have been taken by some countries, and I’m really glad that GPD together with article 19 has done extensive research on this topic because there might be legislation that is not in line with human rights standards which cracks down on vulnerable groups human rights offenders journalists individuals, or other marginalized groups. And this is incompatible with international human rights law so in this session I’m really glad that we will be focusing on these kinds of legislative measures, specifically in the MENA region, and my panel today we have Jacqueline row with global partners, digital. I’m inside duty, who is joining us now you’re on the screen now as well. Welcome, you’re with access now and then we have boy I think okay who’s here with me in the room who is with paradigm initiative. And our objective here is to foster in depth understanding of the trends in the region. And also to really delve into the misuse of content restrictive legislation, but I’m really hopeful that we can also discuss some methods of how we can work together to have cyber crime legislation that is actually rights respective. I hope that together we will identify a path towards the much needed. regulation of the online space, which is essential, but in such a way that it doesn’t infringe on the potential on the online human rights enjoyment. We will have to do this all in only 60 minutes, so I’ll take it away right away. I’ll give the word to Jacqueline, who will give us some more an overview of the research that GPD and Article 19 did on this issue, and then the other panellists will also explain the trends they see in cybercrime legislation in the region, and we’ll have a roundtable dialogue to discuss how we can work together. So, Jacqueline, you are with GPD, and you worked on the report An Ever-Tightening Net, which is on this topic, and Jacqueline is a PhD student, and she works on designing responsible natural language processing at the University of Edinburgh, and has worked with GPD on platform regulation, content governance, and policies surrounding hate speech and disinformation. All right, Jacqueline, take it away.

Jacqueline Rowe: Great, thank you, Annelies. I hope I can be heard by everyone. Great. Yeah, so thank you for your introductions. It’s great to be with you all today remotely. As Annelies said, I was involved in the writing of this report, and I thought I’d give just a very brief overview of what the report is, what it covers, and then talk about some of the key trends that we documented in that report. So the goal was to understand across Africa and the MENA region how restrictions on online content are impacting freedom of expression today. And so we looked… A lot of this work was looking at cybercrime legislation, particularly like content-based criminal restrictions on online expression, but we also looked at a range of other areas of kind of law and policy, including platform regulations, anti-terror legislation that applies in the online context, as well as kind of press and media regulations and disinformation legislation as well. So we were focusing kind of beyond just specific cybercrime regimes, but really trying to get a picture of where these different restrictions are found in countries’ legislative kind of frameworks, and how specifically we were really interested in how are those restrictions being enforced in practice. So not just looking at the text of the law, but also looking at how they’re being enforced and who they’re being enforced against. So our focus within this work was, broadly speaking, do these restrictions and how they’re being enforced align with international human rights law or not? And we were focusing primarily on kind of freedom of expression concerns, but there were a number of other human rights that are obviously also relevant to these discussions as well. So with our partners with Article 19, who we were really pleased to work with on this project, we looked at over 150 different legal frameworks from countries all over the region, and tried to gather, as I said, concrete examples of how they’re being enforced against different groups. We found that it’s a very diverse region, the whole of Africa and the whole of the Middle East. There are diverse approaches taken to cybercrime and to what content should be criminalised online. Some of the regimes we looked at, of the legislations were aligned, you know, more or less with international human rights law and with the Budapest Convention, which is the kind of, I’m sure most people here will be aware, but the kind of global standard, the norm on rights respecting cybercrime legislation. And when I say that they were aligned, I mean the criminal restrictions they placed on online expression were limited to very specific, narrowly defined categories of egregious online harms. So these are kind of child sexual abuse material, incitement to genocide or advocacy of genocide, hate speech, which incites discrimination and violence, and incitement to terrorism. So kind of four very specific content categories that can permissibly be criminalized under international human rights law. So while some of the country’s kind of legislative packages that we looked at were more or less aligned with those restrictions, unfortunately a lot of them were not aligned and included content restrictions on much broader categories of online content and expression than would be considered permissible under international standards on freedom of expression. And within the report what we tried to do was kind of was group these areas of divergence from human rights standards into four main themes that we observed. So the first theme or trend that we looked at was a lot of governments in the region are using public safety concerns or public safety narratives to justify overbroad restrictions on online speech. So for example implementing a restriction on online terrorism or content which undermines national security, which is kind of using this language of being in the interest of public safety, but in reality we saw that those restrictions were being enforced against, as you mentioned in your introduction Annalise, journalists, human rights defenders, political opponents. The broad definitions used in those pieces of legislation, even though they sound like they’re directed towards public safety, are in fact not being used to protect public safety at all. So this was the first trend that we looked at and we documented in the report. The second theme was the prevalence of criminal restrictions on disinformation. Over a third of the legal frameworks that we looked at included some kind of restriction on disinformation and while disinformation is of course a legitimate concern and can pose human rights risks in itself if allowed to spread, again international human rights law is very clear that it should never be criminalized and we saw in the report we documented a lot of examples of how those restrictions are being used to censor political expression and other expression by vulnerable and marginalized groups. The third trend that we documented in the report was restrictions on online expression which we see as enforcing authoritarian value systems, so this might include prohibiting criticism of political figures of religion or religious leaders, this might include bans on LGBT content or content which advocates for LGBT groups, as well as any kind of expression or advocacy for marginalized groups as well. And so these restrictions are very far from international standards on what can permissibly be restricted and we saw that they had really disproportionate impacts on particularly vulnerable groups in practice. And the final trend that we look at in the report is the shifting away or adding to individual restrictions on what people can say online in criminal law towards more holistic platform regulation frameworks which also apply criminal penalties to platforms for failing to take down these broad categories of illegal content as well. So those are the kind of trends we looked at in the report and the main focus of the report was monitoring and reporting some of those risks and concerns but we did also include various recommendations that we developed together with article 19 as well and I can get into those perhaps a bit later on. Thanks.

Annelies Riezebos: Thank you so much Jacqueline for that overview of the report and it’s really good that you made it and that you identified the four areas and that we see that there are so many trends where platform and cybercrime legislation is not aligned with IHRL. Ayman, I would like to give the word to you, perhaps we can go even more in depth and add to the insights what AccessNow has gained from investigating cybercrime in the region. Ayman is AccessNow’s MENA senior policy counselor based in Tunisia and he has previously actually worked at article 19, I understood, where he researched ethics of journalism and the impact of digital development on freedom of expression in the MENA. and he’s also an assistant professor at the Institute for Press and Information Sciences in Tunisia. Could you provide an overview of the specific cybercrime decrees that you’ve encountered and also the advocacy efforts that were employed to challenge these laws?

Aymen Zaghdoudi: Thank you very much. I’m very glad to be here. Basically, the cybercrime decree law was issued by the President of the Republic in 2022, one year after his coup and in the absence of the Parliament. Apart from the content-based offences, which I will come to later, it contains several problematic provisions. Conscious of the time, I will mention just two examples. The first one is the obligation for ISPs to store all data related to communication traffic and other types of data, which is a big threat to the right of privacy. As you know, based on this data, authorities can have an idea about our daily behaviour and conduct. The second example is related to the communication interception. Basically, whether in Tunisia or other cybercrime legislation within the region, we didn’t see any safeguard when it comes to communications interception. But the most problematic provision is Article 24, of course, which contains content-based offences, broad terms, and even the scope is very broad, criminalising not only the publication of content online, but also or even sending, preparing, or even generating content that might be considered against Article 24. It contains disproportionate sanctions from 5 to 10 years in prison. of prison, for defamation, slander, disinformation, hate speech, but always, you know, ill-defined terms, vague terms. So long story short, if we analyse this Article 24, which contains content-based offences, under the three-part test, it won’t be able even to pass the legality condition. So it’s unclear, it was issued by the President without any public debate. The problem also that it contains crimes that are already criminalised based on other pieces of legislation, like the press law, the criminal law, the telecommunication law, etc. And now we do have journalists, lawyers, judges, politicians, students, human rights defenders, and many others, either in the prison or persecuted for criticising the government.

Annelies Riezebos: Thank you so much. And lastly, I would like to give the floor to our in-person panellist, Adeboye Adegoke. Adeboye is a leading civil society voice in the internet governance space in Africa, a senior programme manager at Paradigm Initiative, and a member of the G20 think tank on the governance of artificial intelligence, as well as a member of the advisory network of the Freedom Online Coalition. So really glad to have you here. Adeboye, you have many years of global, regional, national experience with digital rights advocacy. Could you go into depth a bit about the trends you’re seeing in Africa, and also how we can move forward to combat the threats that we see to freedom of speech there?

Adeboye Adegoke: All right, thank you very much, Annalise. And thanks, Jacqueline and Amax Godi. I hope I got the pronunciation of your name right, but please pardon me if I didn’t. It’s a pleasure to be on the panel with you, and also to listen to the research that you had worked on, and the findings from the research. I do think that the narrative that we have in Africa are similar, whether you’re looking at Africa or Middle East or the MENA region generally. I think within the Africa or sub-Saharan African context is similar, or the similarities that we have seen is in cyber laws that were enacted primarily for the objective of addressing cyber crimes concerns. They often come with provisions that are vague, especially touching on cyber defamation, cyber stalking, you know, similar names like that. And what we have seen is that these provisions have become a tool of targeting, a tool used to target human rights offenders in society, actors, activists, and also people belonging to minority or marginalized groups. If you pick a random African country, I can tell you for a fact that somebody has been arrested because of something they said online, or because they belong to an opposition political parties, or because they work for a human rights organization, relying on provisions of cyber crime laws. So it becomes very, very challenging for people who are working in this context, because then there is a tool that has been legalized in law that can be used against you if you dare have an opposing view to the narrative that the government is probably interested in pushing. And in specific example, in Nigeria, for example, I’m from Nigeria, so I’m even more familiar with the happenings in Nigeria. We’ve tracked hundreds of cases of people who got arrested using the provision of such law. And what the context I also need to bring into this is that the law itself has become a tool, and even the people who use the law, they know exactly that it is a tool of oppression. And why do I say this? There is a case we are currently working on in Nigeria of a lawyer who had written a book where he exposed corruption in the judiciary, and how some senior law lawyers corrupted the judiciary so that they can always get judgment in their favor and all of that. So the lawyer was initially arrested on the basis of libel laws. And it turns out that the states in which the case emanated from had decriminalized libel. So when he was arrested, the police arrested him and they were justifying it on the basis of the libel law. And then when there was hopra and pushbacks, it turns out that people were aware, said that the libel law that you have used to arrest this guy is outdated. The amended version of the law stated clearly that libel is not a criminal law. So even if you have a case to pursue against this man, it has to be a civil case. You have to approach the court and all of that. The moment that information came out, then immediately the police released new charges under the cybercrimes act. So you could see that it is all about just looking for a way to criminalize people that the authorities do not agree with. So that law at that point comes handy as a tool that could be used to criminalize the person. And the idea is not justice. The idea is when you use criminal laws to arrest somebody who is alleged to have committed maybe defamation or something like that, you have the leverage to put the person in handcuffs, in chains. You have the leverage to put the person behind bar because you say it’s a criminal offense. So these are the ways in which this has played out, not just in Nigeria, in Zambia, in Malawi, in Cameroon, in Senegal. Literally every country that we have walked in Africa, we have seen cases like this that have come up over time. But I think in terms of moving forward, what do we need to do to address these challenges? Nigeria has taken some steps positively. Some other countries in Anglophone West Africa like Sierra Leone as well, I think Liberia as well, has also taken some steps to decriminalize cyber defamation as a. puts it in some of the laws of cyber stalking as it’s put in some of the laws. So in Nigeria, for example, there was an amendment to the Nigerian law on cyber crime just less than a year ago. And the amendment ensures that the blanket provision, which allows just any powerful person to get other people arrested for things they said online, was removed from the law. Although the law still exists, the provision still exists, but the implication has been strongly reduced to only affect issues that could lead to public unrest. It’s still problematic because public unrest, public interest are also very problematic phrases which are not clearly defined. But there has been some progress. That’s the point I want to make. And the process leading to this progress is a lot of work by civil society organization and human rights defenders who have challenged the provisions in the law. As a matter of a prior initiative, we went to court. We went to regional courts to challenge it. And the regional court gave us judgment to say that the dual provision is against the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and is against international human rights law. And the regional court then ordered Nigerian government to amend the provision of the law. So that litigation was very useful in forcing the hands of Nigerian parliament to amend the provision of that law. It’s going to be difficult for anyone in Nigeria right now to arrest somebody on the basis of those provisions. So that’s just an example of what civil society organization can do to explore every advocacy measure, pushing the parliament to change the law, using the media, but also using regional courts. Because I think as advocates, we cannot run away from litigation. It makes us look adversarial. But the kind of battle we have to deal with, that we have to fight, requires us to explore every possible avenue. And that’s how we’re able to change the law in Nigeria.

Annelies Riezebos: Thank you, Boye. That’s nice. And it’s good to hear how you’re already showing. I think you said this cybercrime law became a tool that came in handy for suppression, and I’m glad to hear you mention already some of the options that society at least has to advocate for progress and for change. Thank you for that. I think I would also like to discuss a little bit more how we can work together as governments, international organizations, also the big companies that are hosting a lot of the platforms that we’ve been discussing. So we can maybe delve a little bit deeper into the collaboration that we, we can foster together. I wanted to ask you the effect that these kinds of legislative reforms have on local communities. I think you’ve showed clearly how there are cases of people who are unable to express themselves online because of the tool that came in handy, the cybercrime legislation. Could you share maybe, I’m not sure, maybe Boye or Ayman, a little bit more of your experience working with the communities? How have the restrictions actually affected the individual’s ability to express themselves online? And what is maybe the effect that we see more broadly in the information space of these content legislation? I’m not sure. Do you want to take it? Yeah, Boye can start. Thank you.

Adeboye Adegoke: Thank you very much. I think that it’s, from what we have seen, I think one of the dangers of such laws is that you end up having a system where people self-censor themselves, which has a direct chilling effect on the freedom of expression contest. I think that there is a situation where this is applicable. At some point, there is that there becomes, there is no clarity about what expression is. you know, is safe and what expression is not safe. And just as I said in my previous intervention that when the authorities use this law, they don’t use it to pursue justice. They use it to oppress. They use it to encourage a climate of fear where people are scared to oppose the government, where people are scared to express how they feel about, you know, how they are being governed, how they feel about government policies, et cetera. That is the real challenge. The real challenge is that it creates a climate of fear whereby even when people see that things are going wrong, they don’t want to speak because they feel like if they speak up, they might be criminalized for speaking up. And I think that is the general effect of when you criminalize speech, it creates a climate of fear in the ecosystem whereby people don’t even want to speak. And when there is a climate of fear, that is self-censorship whereby even before, I mean, while we deal with issue of censorship generally in our region, we also then also have to worry about the fact that even people are now self-censoring themselves by refusing to weigh in, you know, in how they are being governed. And I mean, most of the countries in these regions are democratic countries and expression is key in any democracy. If there is no freedom of expression, we can’t reasonably say that democracy is at play. So what is the essence of democracy when people cannot speak their mind? So that is what happens. So it touches not just on individual ability to speak, but also in the essence of democracy itself. Democracy is defined as government of the people, by the people, for the people. So the element of by the people gets taken away when people can’t have an opinion, when people can’t speak on issues. And this also gets heightened during election period. In fact, what we are also seeing is that there is more clamp down on speech around election because during election, people get to get more active about debating governance issues, debating candidates and assessing the issues. incubates, et cetera. So that itself, the role that freedom of expression needs to play in the democratic context, it is directly affected. And that way, we see a situation whereby this country retrogress in their democratic index. And if you look at maybe reports like the Freedom on the Net report, you can also see this clearly demonstrated about how a lot of countries continue to retrogress because they continue to enact laws that makes it difficult to experience democracy, to experience freedom in such a restriction.

Annelies Riezebos: Thank you. Yeah, I think it’s really good that you link this issue directly to democracy. Ayman, do you have something to add to this about the local communities and the effect this also the legal uncertainty and the arbitrariness of the legislation has?

Aymen Zaghdoudi: Yeah, sure, thanks. I mean, I agree with what Boya said. This legislation are really scaring. And when I say scary, I’m not exaggerating. Because, for example, when I take Tunisia as example, we have seen a huge shift once the cybercrime law in Tunisia was enacted by the president. For example, more and more we see censorship. And when we say censorship, we don’t talk only about political censorship. Even people are afraid to share their sexual, for example, identity. They try to avoid expressing their opinion regarding public interest subject. Another example, at the moment, for example, political show in the radio and TV are reduced almost to nothing, to zero. Because. were even expert, independent expert, they tend to reject media interviews invitation because they are scared that they might be prosecuted based on the cybercrime legislation. I think also another example is the last presidential election two months ago in Tunisia. For example, the turnout used to be in Tunisia between 50% to 65% in 2014 and 2019. And in the last presidential election, the turnout was about 28%. And this also shows the level of involvement of the Tunisians when it comes to public debate. So for example, six months before the last presidential election, we’ve seen journalists in jail based on cybercrime decree. Candidates to the election also have been jailed, human rights defenders. So the impact is very clear, tangible. Also, for example, when we take the example of Saudi Arabia, for example, if we check social media in Saudi Arabia, almost you don’t see any criticism to the government. And this is because we’ve seen in the past years, people have been jailed for 34 years of prison, just for a post on Twitter or X to criticize the government. So the impact is tangible. And maybe later I will come to explain more what kind of tactics we can adopt to tackle this type of legislation.

Annelies Riezebos: Thank you so much. Yes, I would like to delve into the tactics actually of advocating against these types of legislation. But maybe also some of the recent trends that we’ve seen, for instance, with the UN Cybercrime Convention that because we do need to have, I think, good frameworks for cybercrime, to address cybercrime. I think, Jackie, you also mentioned how important it is that there is a, that, for instance, disinformation is addressed. So we do need some good legislations out there. And I think the report, the research that you did also goes a bit into what good legislation would look like. Could you reflect on that a bit more?

Jacqueline Rowe: Yeah, certainly. And I think it’s quite a kind of meaty question, right, of this, like, there is such a thing as online harms that should be illegal and that cause harm to people. And then there is also this misuse of the narrative about online harms to justify these censorship and really repressive approaches to managing cyberspace that we’ve seen time and time again. So I think the UN Cybercrime Convention is an interesting point where those views have been heavily contested, right? Like I, GPD has been involved in some of those negotiations. And my colleagues can perhaps speak more to that than I can. But I think it’s clear that what regulatory system may work in a jurisdiction where you have an independent judiciary and an independent media regulator that has plenty of funding and is well established for decades is actually very different to what might work in a country where democracy is more fragile or non-existent. And so I think there’s that need to keep in mind the importance of context. I think we’ve touched on it a little bit in the discussions, but I also think that the links between cybercrime legislation and platform regulation are also really important and really complex, because if a government says this type of content is illegal online, then it’s only a matter of time before then they also begin to exert pressure on platforms to enforce that restriction beyond the reach of the government itself, right, or the Ministry of Digital or the Ministry of Digital or whatever kind of regulatory body is tasked with enforcing that. And so I think as well as the UN Cybercrime Convention, you also have like UNESCO’s initiative draft guidelines for regulating digital platforms. And you also have, at least for the Middle East region, like the League of Arab States has been developing this draft international strategy to regulate digital platforms and digital media. media companies, I can’t remember the wording, and so there are also these quite influential moves to drag online platforms further into this debate as well, and of course there are responsibilities that online platforms can and should carry, and I’m not by any means saying that they have acted responsibly, particularly in countries that have less market dominance and perhaps less influence, where there’s linguistic diversity, there’s cultural diversity, we know that platforms have really neglected key safety issues in certain jurisdictions, but equally forcing platforms to just blanket enforce already very overbroad restrictions on online expression is also not the answer either. So with all that complexity in mind, in the report we made 11 recommendations for governments, I guess, or people looking to develop more rights-respecting cybercrime regulations. I won’t go into those all in detail as people can check out the report, but the main one is that criminal restrictions on online expression must align with international guidance, with the guidance from the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression, the three-part test for permissible restrictions, that nothing should be criminalised outside of those very narrow categories. And then the second kind of recommendation, or key recommendation that I’d maybe want to just flag here is that the solution to harmful content is not necessarily criminalisation, like there are some types of content which, as I just said, they do need to be criminalised, but for issues like disinformation, for issues like harassment or speech which is offensive but which isn’t hate speech, yes, those content types are harmful and they do need a policy response, but that policy response must be much more, it’s about a socio-technical system, we can’t just criminalise this content and expect it to go away, there are social pressures, there’s market pressures, there’s advertising pressures that platforms, there’s recommendation algorithms that are out of whack, there’s all these other issues that feed into those harms and why they’re harmful, and I think that the points to address those harms is not at the level of the individual who’s posting that content on their social media.

Annelies Riezebos: Thank you. Yes, that’s a clear overview. I think, Ayman, I saw you put something in the chat that we can’t see here in the room, so maybe you would like to address that and also go into the tactics for addressing these legislations that we do not want to see in relation to international human rights standards.

Aymen Zaghdoudi: Yeah, thank you. So basically, before coming to the blog post on the impact of the UN Cybercrime Treaty on digital rights in the MENA region, I want to talk a bit about different tactics that we can use to tackle this sort of legislation. So whether Tunisia or Saudi Arabia or Libya, Jordan, Egypt, many other countries in the region, they have adopted the same approach. So it’s an approach consisting of adding content-based offences to the cybercrime law. And here I want to emphasise that content-based offences are not cybercrimes. There is a definition of cybercrimes and then regimes or governments in Africa or MENA are trying to include content-based offences like defamation, slander, fake news in this category of legislation with harsher sanctions compared, for example, to similar crime under the criminal law or the press law. And when it comes to advocacy efforts, there are different tactics, of course, depending on the political context and opportunities we do have. Of course, if we have the opportunity to conduct dialogue with the parliament, that is ideal for us, because then we can bring examples, try to convince them through arguments. So I will mention at least three different tactics based on Access Now experience. So first of all, we’ve tried this tactic when it comes to the UN Cybercrime Treaty, for example. So asking states with strong respect of the rule of law to reject any mutual cooperation request when it comes to content-based offences. And this can sometimes be successful, of course, and they say sometimes, because we have seen in the past, some regimes were not in need of this sort of cooperation, as they just can send criminals to their embassy and cut the journalists into pieces, just because it happens that the journal that this journalist had criticized the government. The second tactics is to meet MPs and try to convince them either to reject the bill, or to amend existing laws. And we have been using this strategy, for example, in Tunisia and Jordan. So just this morning, I participated in a conference or like workshop with Tunisian MPs, trying to convince them to, to adopt a sort of law proposal to amend the law 54. And basically, we wanted to suppress Article 24, related to defamation, online defamation, and other type of content based offenses. The third tactics, it’s more like capacity building. And this also we’ve been trying this like path in Jordan and in Tunisia, even in Morocco, even though they don’t have cyber crime, but they have other problem when it comes to freedom of expression in Morocco, or Libya. So we conduct sort of trainings and workshops with judges, and lawyers, and trying to equip them with sufficient materials and legal arguments, so that they can better deal with freedom of expression cases.

Annelies Riezebos: And these are clear tactics that you’re you’re describing. So speaking with countries who have a strong rule of law, the work you with MPs, and then the capacity building. I think you also mentioned the work that you did on strategic litigation. Is there anything further that you could add on the tech? to say that Paradigm has taken to address and advocate for better cybercrime laws or to take steps towards a better situation where the laws are not misused?

Adeboye Adegoke: Yeah, I think there are many layers to the intervention that we have done at Paradigm in 64 that any civil society organization can do. There is an aspect of trying to put out a fire when it’s already hot there, but there is also an aspect of trying to ensure that the fire never starts in the first place. So I’ll give an example, especially with respect to platform regulation. We have been very keenly involved in Nigeria’s efforts to, at platform regulation, Nigeria has been having a conversation around coming up with some sort of laws around platform regulation or around online harms, right? And we’ve been in that conversation right from the get-go. I’ve even worked as a member of the steering committee. The conversation has not exactly gone 100% the way we want it to go, but we kind of find ourselves in an advantage position that we got involved right from the beginning. What our involvement means is not just that we are going to be able to 100% influence the outcome of what the bill will look like, but it also means that we can use our privileged position to galvanize the entire civil society community, the human rights community, to let them know what the conversation, because what typically happens traditionally is that you don’t get to hear about the law until it is brought to the parliament, at which time it’s already too late to engage or even influence. But because of this early engagement, we already know what the thinking of the government is, and we already also started thinking about strategy to ensure that it doesn’t become another tool of oppression in the ecosystem. So I do think that one key thing that we have to think about is also about early engagements with policy processes to ensure that we are in a more strategic position to influence outcomes. But beyond this, what then happens when there is already a law and the law is doing a lot of harm? hands to the freedom community, to the human rights community, and all of that. I do think, as I mentioned earlier,

Maria Paz Canales: if we can move maybe to give the floor to Jackie or to continue the flux of the conversation.

Annelies Riezebos: Yeah, exactly. Yes, thank you for everyone. That’s Maria Paz, who is also with GPD. Thank you. Yeah, Jacqueline, maybe we still have a little bit of time. Let’s continue and ignore the technical disruption for now, because we wanted to touch upon a little bit the positive things that we can do, but also the moments we have in the coming period as well for collaboration between civil society and governments, and also international organizations. I think you mentioned UNESCO. We have the UN processes that are going on. Could you go into that a little bit, and at least in the room we’re here and we’re eager to learn.

Jacqueline Rowe: Yes, sure. Hopefully you can hear me okay again. Yeah, well, I was also just reflecting a little bit as Ayman and Boye were talking about some of the kind of civil society initiatives and strategies that are being used in various different contexts. I guess maybe this is also partly like a recommendation for funders, which includes national governments as well as international organizations that are funding this sort of work, and maybe just to highlight that it’s very difficult to plan those interventions in advance because it’s not always predictable exactly when a government is going to release a new draft, or a new consultation, or a new proposal for a problematic piece of legislation. So I think maybe there’s a challenge also for funders to work out more flexible ways of supporting civil society in those initiatives as and when they’re needed, which often might be at short notice or kind of in an ad hoc fashion, consultation fashion. So I was just thinking that that may also be relevant as a consideration. In terms of collaboration, I think There’s been some really exciting moments of collaboration between different civil society organizations in the negotiations of the UN Cybercrime Treaty. Right. And we’ve seen large coalitions of not just civil society organizations, but also companies weighing in, as well as different different kind of support by different governments for this pushback against broadening out the content based offences that could be included in the UN Cybercrime Treaty. And so I think that’s been quite a positive example of CSO activism, people working together. Unfortunately, I mean, the draft treaty that we have is undoubtedly better than it was because of that kind of very tireless activism. But I know that there are many that would still argue that the treaty should not be signed, should not be passed. So there are perhaps limits even then. And that’s a huge amount of effort and coordination that’s taking place across all of those different CSOs to bring these issues to the agenda of the governments that are negotiating that treaty. I think also, as you mentioned earlier, Annalise, platforms are a huge part of this conversation. And I do think a point that it’s important to make is that as long as platforms continue to neglect their content moderation responsibilities, particularly in non-English speaking areas where there’s linguistic diversity, diversity of different dialects, where they continue to moderate content poorly, content which should be taken down but which they don’t have appropriate local content moderation expertise to deal with in a timely fashion, that only continues to give authoritarian governments more excuse to tighten up criminal restrictions on this sort of content. So I do think that there is a big responsibility on online platforms to invest more in online safety in all of the jurisdictions in which. operate, not just in the global north, the global majority. And I think that will also be quite a key part of, if platforms can show governments we are dealing with these issues responsibly, we are investing money, you know, these are the technical challenges, these are the policy challenges, I feel like that also is quite an important part of the puzzle, so that then we can have a more informed debate around where the gaps are and where regulation might need to fill some of those gaps.

Annelies Riezebos: Thank you so much. Yeah, that’s an interesting perspective you take there. I’m not sure if we have Ayman back on board already. We don’t see him here in the room, but Boya, maybe you can, do you have anything to add about the action-oriented steps that we can take to talk about solutions together as civil society as governments? I think the multi-stakeholder nature of the Internet Governance Forum itself is one of those places, so where can we continue that conversation as well?

Adeboye Adegoke: All right, I think I’ll just also use your podium to land on the point I was making previously. I think it’s also about, it’s about consolidating efforts as a civil society organization. There are a lot of debates, processes that goes on in policy formation processes at the national level, even at the regional or at the global level. For example, the UN Cyber Treaty. What I have seen is that for a lot of organizations from the global south, the capacity for participation is very limited, and that also informs how well they are able to engage or they are able to influence the outcome of some of these processes of negotiation, whether at the national, regional, or global level. So one of the things that we’ve done in Paradigm City, for example, is that we have changed our strategy towards policy engagement, or policy influence, but what we used to do was The microphone is working, but the zoom is off.

Agreement Points

Cybercrime laws are being misused to restrict freedom of expression

Jacqueline Rowe

Aymen Zaghdoudi

Adeboye Adegoke

Overbroad restrictions justified by public safety concerns

Vague terms and disproportionate sanctions in cybercrime laws

Laws used as tools to target activists and opposition

All speakers agreed that cybercrime laws are often vaguely worded and used to target activists, journalists, and opposition voices, rather than addressing genuine cybersecurity concerns.

Impact on democracy and public debate

Aymen Zaghdoudi

Adeboye Adegoke

Reduced political participation and public debate

Self-censorship and chilling effect on free expression

Undermining of democratic processes

Both speakers highlighted how cybercrime laws lead to self-censorship, reduced political participation, and ultimately undermine democratic processes.

Similar Viewpoints

All speakers emphasized the importance of proactive engagement in policy processes, including working with parliamentarians and using strategic litigation to challenge problematic laws.

Jacqueline Rowe

Aymen Zaghdoudi

Adeboye Adegoke

Engaging with parliamentarians to amend laws

Strategic litigation to challenge laws

Early engagement in policy processes

Unexpected Consensus

Role of platforms in content moderation

Jacqueline Rowe

Need for platforms to improve content moderation globally

While not explicitly echoed by other speakers, Jacqueline Rowe’s argument about the responsibility of platforms to improve content moderation globally was an unexpected point that could potentially align with the overall concerns about online content regulation.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The speakers showed strong agreement on the misuse of cybercrime laws to restrict freedom of expression, the negative impact on democracy and public debate, and the need for proactive engagement in policy processes to address these issues.

Consensus level

High level of consensus on the main issues, with speakers providing complementary perspectives and examples from different regions. This strong agreement suggests a unified stance on the need to reform cybercrime legislation to better protect freedom of expression and democratic processes.

Different Viewpoints

Approach to addressing problematic cybercrime legislation

Aymen Zaghdoudi

Adeboye Adegoke

Engaging with parliamentarians to amend laws

Strategic litigation to challenge laws

While both speakers advocate for addressing problematic cybercrime legislation, they emphasize different approaches. Aymen Zaghdoudi focuses on engaging with parliamentarians to amend existing laws, while Adeboye Adegoke highlights the use of strategic litigation to challenge laws in court.

Unexpected Differences

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement revolve around the specific strategies to address problematic cybercrime legislation and the focus of capacity building efforts.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among the speakers is relatively low. They generally agree on the problems caused by overbroad cybercrime legislation and its negative impact on freedom of expression and democracy. The differences mainly lie in the emphasis on various approaches to address these issues, which can be seen as complementary rather than contradictory. This low level of disagreement suggests a potential for collaborative efforts in addressing the challenges of cybercrime legislation and its impact on freedom of expression in Africa and the Middle East.

Partial Agreements

All speakers agree on the need for improved content moderation and capacity building, but they differ in their focus. Jacqueline Rowe emphasizes the role of platforms in improving content moderation globally, Aymen Zaghdoudi stresses capacity building for legal professionals, and Adeboye Adegoke highlights early engagement in policy processes.

Jacqueline Rowe

Aymen Zaghdoudi

Adeboye Adegoke

Need for platforms to improve content moderation globally

Capacity building for judges and lawyers

Early engagement in policy processes

Similar Viewpoints

All speakers emphasized the importance of proactive engagement in policy processes, including working with parliamentarians and using strategic litigation to challenge problematic laws.

Jacqueline Rowe

Aymen Zaghdoudi

Adeboye Adegoke

Engaging with parliamentarians to amend laws

Strategic litigation to challenge laws

Early engagement in policy processes

Key Takeaways

Cybercrime legislation in Africa and the Middle East often contains overbroad restrictions on online expression that violate international human rights standards

These laws are frequently used to target activists, journalists, and opposition voices rather than address legitimate cybercrime concerns

The vague language and harsh penalties in many cybercrime laws create a chilling effect on free expression and undermine democratic processes

Early engagement in policy processes and multi-stakeholder collaboration are important for developing rights-respecting cybercrime regulations

Platforms need to improve content moderation globally to help address legitimate online harms without resorting to censorship

Resolutions and Action Items

Civil society organizations should continue to engage in early policy processes around cybercrime and platform regulation

Advocates should explore strategic litigation to challenge problematic cybercrime laws

More capacity building is needed for judges and lawyers on freedom of expression issues

Funders should develop more flexible ways to support civil society interventions on short notice

Platforms should invest more in content moderation for non-English speaking regions

Unresolved Issues

How to balance legitimate cybercrime concerns with protecting freedom of expression

The appropriate scope of content-based restrictions in cybercrime laws

How to effectively regulate platforms without enabling censorship

The role of international bodies like the UN in setting cybercrime standards

Suggested Compromises

Focusing cybercrime laws on technical offenses rather than content-based restrictions

Developing more nuanced policy responses to issues like disinformation beyond criminalization

Platforms improving self-regulation to reduce pressure for government content restrictions

Unfortunately a lot of them were not aligned and included content restrictions on much broader categories of online content and expression than would be considered permissible under international standards on freedom of expression.

speaker

Jacqueline Rowe

reason

This comment highlights a key issue with cybercrime legislation in many countries, setting up the main problem to be discussed.

impact

It framed the subsequent discussion around how cybercrime laws are being misused to restrict freedom of expression beyond what is permissible under international law.

Apart from the content-based offences, which I will come to later, it contains several problematic provisions. Conscious of the time, I will mention just two examples. The first one is the obligation for ISPs to store all data related to communication traffic and other types of data, which is a big threat to the right of privacy.

speaker

Aymen Zaghdoudi

reason

This comment broadens the discussion beyond just content restrictions to include privacy concerns, showing the multi-faceted nature of problematic cybercrime laws.

impact

It expanded the scope of the conversation to consider how cybercrime laws can threaten multiple human rights, not just freedom of expression.

So you could see that it is all about just looking for a way to criminalize people that the authorities do not agree with. So that law at that point comes handy as a tool that could be used to criminalize the person.

speaker

Adeboye Adegoke

reason

This comment provides a concrete example of how vague cybercrime laws are weaponized against dissent, bringing the abstract discussion into stark real-world terms.

impact

It grounded the theoretical discussion in practical realities, leading to more focus on specific cases and enforcement patterns.

I think that there is a situation where this is applicable. At some point, there is that there becomes, there is no clarity about what expression is you know, is safe and what expression is not safe.

speaker

Adeboye Adegoke

reason

This insight highlights how vague laws create a chilling effect through uncertainty, even without direct enforcement.

impact

It shifted the discussion to consider indirect effects of cybercrime laws on free expression, beyond just direct enforcement actions.

And maybe later I will come to explain more what kind of tactics we can adopt to tackle this type of legislation.

speaker

Aymen Zaghdoudi

reason

This comment signaled a shift from problem description to solution-oriented discussion.

impact

It pivoted the conversation towards constructive approaches and strategies for addressing problematic cybercrime laws.

I do think that one key thing that we have to think about is also about early engagements with policy processes to ensure that we are in a more strategic position to influence outcomes.

speaker

Adeboye Adegoke

reason

This insight emphasizes proactive engagement in policy formation, rather than just reactive advocacy.

impact

It introduced a new strategic approach to the discussion, focusing on early intervention in the policy process.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by first establishing the core problem of overbroad cybercrime laws, then expanding the scope to consider multiple human rights impacts. The conversation then moved to concrete examples of enforcement and chilling effects, before pivoting to solution-oriented approaches. This progression allowed for a comprehensive exploration of the issue, from theoretical frameworks to practical impacts to potential remedies.

How can funders provide more flexible support for civil society organizations responding to new problematic legislation?

speaker

Jacqueline Rowe

explanation

This is important because civil society often needs to respond quickly to new legislative proposals, which can be unpredictable and require ad hoc interventions.

How can online platforms improve content moderation in non-English speaking areas with linguistic diversity?

speaker

Jacqueline Rowe

explanation

This is crucial because poor content moderation in these areas gives authoritarian governments more excuses to tighten criminal restrictions on content.

How can civil society organizations from the Global South increase their capacity for participation in global policy formation processes?

speaker

Adeboye Adegoke

explanation

This is important because limited capacity affects how well these organizations can engage with and influence outcomes of policy negotiations at national, regional, and global levels.

What methods can be used to develop cyber crime legislation that is rights-respecting?

speaker

Annelies Riezebos

explanation

This is crucial for balancing the need to address cyber crime with protecting freedom of expression and other human rights online.

How can we foster collaboration between civil society, governments, and international organizations to address problematic cyber crime legislation?

speaker

Annelies Riezebos

explanation

This is important for developing more effective strategies to combat threats to freedom of speech while addressing legitimate cyber crime concerns.

Summary

The discussion on empowering civil society organisations (CSOs) and enhancing their participation in digital governance processes highlighted several key challenges faced by CSOs, particularly those from the Global South, in engaging with internet governance forums like ICANN, IETF, and ITU. These challenges include financial constraints, language barriers, technical capacity gaps, and power imbalances favouring governments and large tech companies.

The participants emphasised the importance of CSOs as amplifiers of marginalised voices and champions of human rights in the digital space. They noted that CSOs often serve as keen observers and bridges between different stakeholders, offering valuable perspectives on policy development. However, the discussion also revealed that CSOs struggle with insufficient recognition and funding despite their impactful work.

Several strategies were proposed to enhance CSO participation, including strengthening regional collaborations, improving technical capacity, and advocating for unrestricted funding for research and upskilling. The speakers stressed the need for CSOs to proactively invite themselves to decision-making tables and leverage their multistakeholder DNA.

The discussion also touched on the evolving definition of civil society in digital governance spaces and the importance of adequately defining CSO constituencies within governance structures. Participants highlighted the potential of hybrid meeting formats and youth initiatives in increasing accessibility and engagement.

In conclusion, the speakers called for increased institutional support, capacity building, and funding for CSOs, particularly those with long-standing experience in internet governance. They emphasised the need to address power imbalances and invest in CSOs’ ability to respond to future challenges in the digital governance landscape.

Keypoints

Major discussion points

• Barriers to civil society participation in internet governance, including financial constraints, language barriers, and lack of technical capacity
• The need for more inclusive and representative involvement of the Global South in internet governance processes
• The importance of civil society organisations (CSOs) as conveners and bridges between stakeholders
• Challenges around funding and resources for CSOs to engage effectively
• The evolving role and definition of civil society in internet governance spaces

Overall purpose

This discussion aimed to examine challenges and opportunities for enhancing civil society participation in internet governance processes, particularly for organisations from underrepresented regions. The speakers shared insights from recent research and explored strategies to empower CSOs to have more influence in shaping digital policies.

Tone:

The tone was largely constructive and solution-oriented. Speakers acknowledged significant challenges but focused on identifying opportunities and successful strategies. There was a sense of urgency around the need to strengthen civil society’s role and optimism about the unique value CSOs can provide. The tone became more impassioned towards the end as speakers advocated for more significant support and recognition of CSOs’ contributions.

Speakers

• Kenneth Harry Msiska: Moderator, Forus International
• Rosemary Koech-Kimwatu: Representative from KICTANet
• Stephanie Borg Psaila: Representative from DiploFoundation

Additional speakers:

• Nana Wachako  (audience participant)
• Paolo: Internet code expert from Malawi  (audience participant)
• Pratishtha: From India  (audience participant)
• Michael: HR officer at OHCHR (Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights)
• Imad: (Asked a question via text chat)

This discussion, moderated by Kenneth Harry Msiska, focused on the challenges and opportunities for enhancing civil society organisation (CSO) participation in internet governance processes. The panel featured representatives from KICTANet, DiploFoundation, and Sarvodaya Fusion, who explored strategies to empower CSOs, particularly those from the Global South, in shaping digital policies.

Key challenges for CSO participation

The speakers highlighted several significant barriers hindering CSO engagement in internet governance forums such as ICANN, the IETF, and ITU:

• Financial constraints: Limited funding severely restricts CSOs’ ability to participate in governance processes, especially for organisations from the Global South. This issue was emphasised by multiple speakers, including Stephanie Borg Psaila and Nana Wachako.

• Language barriers and technical jargon: Kenneth Harry Msiska noted that complex technical language often alienates CSOs, making it difficult for them to engage effectively in discussions.

• Lack of technical capacity: Wachako pointed out that many CSOs struggle to engage on certain topics due to insufficient technical expertise.

• Uneven playing field: Koech-Kimwatu highlighted the challenges faced by African participants, particularly regarding visa issues, which create an unbalanced representation in governance forums.

• Power imbalances: Borg Psaila provided data showing that within ICANN’s structure, at least half of the leadership roles are occupied by the private sector, creating a significant imbalance in representation.

• Structural silos: Borg Psaila noted that expert interviews revealed recurring problems with silos within the ICANN structure, limiting CSO influence.

The role and value of CSOs in internet governance

Despite these challenges, the speakers emphasised the crucial role that CSOs play in digital governance:

• Amplifying marginalised voices: Msiska stressed that CSOs are essential in promoting digital inclusion and bringing forward the perspectives of underrepresented groups.

• Balancing stakeholder Interests: Borg Psaila noted that CSOs counterbalance other stakeholders, holding them accountable and ensuring a more equitable governance process.

• Providing grassroots perspectives: Audience members highlighted the importance of CSOs in bringing local knowledge and community-based insights to global discussions.

• Acting as observers and innovators: Rosemary Koech-Kimwatu described CSOs as keen observers who can offer updated best practices in governance processes.

• Talent pipeline: Koech-Kimwatu also noted that CSOs often serve as a pipeline for tech policy talent, despite facing challenges in retaining expertise due to financial constraints.

Strategies to enhance CSO participation and influence

The speakers proposed several strategies to empower CSOs and increase their effectiveness in digital governance:

• Develop convening power: Koech-Kimwatu emphasised the importance of CSOs becoming trusted conveners, building ecosystems that facilitate information flow from grassroots to global levels.

• Conduct research: Multiple speakers, including Koech-Kimwatu and Wachako, stressed the need for CSOs to engage in research to become trusted sources for policymaking.

• Strengthen regional collaborations: Msiska suggested that CSOs should work together regionally to increase their voting power and capacity to influence international policy.

• Leverage digital tools: Msiska and others advocated for using digital technologies and hybrid meeting formats to increase accessibility and participation. Koech-Kimwatu noted the post-COVID shift to hybrid meetings has positively impacted CSO participation.

• Expand youth-focused initiatives: Koech-Kimwatu called for increased efforts to engage young people in governance processes, citing the success of youth representation at the East Africa IGF.

• Improve funding models: Wachako proposed that CSOs should unify in requesting unrestricted funding for research and upskilling to enhance their capacity and effectiveness.

Improving governance structures for CSO engagement

The discussion also touched on the need to reform governance structures to better accommodate CSO participation:

• Defining CSO constituencies: Paolo from Malawi highlighted the lack of a clear definition for CSOs within ICANN’s structure, calling for better recognition of civil society as a distinct constituency.

• Strengthening institutional support: Koech-Kimwatu emphasised the need for increased institutional backing for CSOs, including funding, capacity building, and support for travel or digital participation.

• Leveraging local knowledge: An audience member from the Turing Institute stressed the importance of incorporating local knowledge in building principles and policies for internet governance.

Ongoing research and initiatives

The discussion highlighted several ongoing efforts to better understand and support CSO participation:

• CADE project: Borg Psaila mentioned the CADE project, which includes a baseline study on CSO knowledge and attitudes towards engaging in internet governance processes.
• KICTANet case study: Koech-Kimwatu discussed KICTANet’s ongoing case study for Africa on CSO participation in internet governance processes, which aims to provide insights and recommendations for improvement.

Unresolved issues and future directions

While the discussion provided valuable insights and strategies, several issues remained unresolved:

• Addressing power imbalances between CSOs and other stakeholders like big tech and governments.

• Developing specific mechanisms to improve visa processes and travel support for Global South participants.

• Finding ways to retain talent within CSOs given limited financial resources.

• Harmonising diverse CSO interests and priorities in governance processes.

The speakers called for continued efforts to address these challenges, emphasising increased investment in building CSO capacity to respond to future digital governance challenges. They also stressed the importance of leveraging local knowledge in developing principles and policies and ensuring that governance structures evolve to better accommodate civil society perspectives.

In his final recap, Msiska emphasised the key points discussed, including the need for capacity building, funding, and structural changes to support CSO participation. He reiterated the crucial role of CSOs in bringing diverse perspectives to internet governance and the importance of continued efforts to empower their involvement.

In conclusion, the discussion highlighted the importance of building on the critical role of CSOs in internet governance while acknowledging the significant barriers they face. The speakers emphasised the need for structural changes, improved funding models, and capacity-building initiatives to empower CSOs, particularly those from the Global South, to make significant, concrete input to shaping the future of digital governance.

Kenneth Harry Msiska: All right, I welcome you all to this session, Session Number 266 on Empowering Civil Society, Bridging Gaps in Policy Influence, organized by the Civil Society Alliances for Digital Empowerment (CADE), which is an EU co-funded project with nine partners listed below there. We have DiploFoundation, which is the lead of the consortium. We have CIPESA, the European Center for Nonprofit Law, FORUS, Foundation Karisma, KICTANet, Sarvodaya Fusion, SMEX, and PICISOC. 

So, on behalf of the CADE consortium, once again let me welcome you to this session, which we hope to be a very interactive session. We conducted a similar session at the ICANN Annual General Meeting. The idea was to present key insights from our CADE mapping study. We are right now doing a baseline study where we’re trying to understand issues to do with knowledge and the attitudes of CSOs towards engaging in internet governance processes. So this afternoon, before we kick-start our discussions, I’ll present some of the key insights that we’re getting from that particular mapping study, and then I’ll request my two colleagues. Stephanie? Wow, okay, maybe it’s this. Can you hear me now? All right, my apologies. I’m supposed to hold these together. 

All right, so they’ll provide some reactions to a few questions that I’ll pose to them, but also to indicate that KICTANet is doing a case study for Africa on CSOs’ participation in internet governance processes. So they will share some insights as well from that particular case study. So in terms of how, as a CADE project, we understand the role of CSOs, we do believe that CSOs do amplify marginalized voices, and I think this is a role that we, as CSOs, are actually occupying at the moment. And through this, we’re able to bring to the fore the various perspectives and concerns of the people that we represent. CSOs also do promote digital inclusion. They champion human rights. They also drive innovation and creativity. They do foster transparency and accountability. This is an overview of the internet ecosystem. I may not need to go deeper into this. I think we probably are aware of the key bodies. So, I’ll quickly go into some of the key internet governance forums, starting with ICANN. So under ICANN, there are quite a number of mechanisms where CSOs can actually engage.

For example, the non-commercial stakeholder group, non-commercial users’ constituency, that large community, not-for-profit, operational concerns constituency. These are some of the avenues that CSOs can engage in ICANN. But again, we also have to learn about the processes, challenges, and other opportunities. The first one is an issue to do with insufficient inclusivity, where for example, CSOs do account for a meager 12% of the roles within ICANN’s leadership structure. ICANN processes do require continuous engagement. There is nothing like, you know, one-time engagement, and then you obtain some wins. You need to engage over time, and that requires a lot of resources to sustain. Influence disparity. We also see that within ICANN, the large tech corporations and government are dominant compared to CSOs. Opportunities. ICANN has a fellowship, which has enabled activists to understand the work of ICANN, and this is still ongoing. We see that as a good opportunity.

Then, the non-commercial constituency supports the participation of CSOs, especially from the global South, which is also an opportunity. With respect to IETF, I think you would agree with me, this particular body seems to be a little bit closed from the CSOs and the level of engagement among CSOs in this IETF has been on the lower side. And one, the use of technical jargon also alienates CSOs. Issues to do with financial constraints and this is linked, one, to the venues where these meetings are held and also, you know, for CSOs to continuously engage in these processes is quite prohibitive. And just to point out that, you know, in terms of inclusion, no IETF meeting has taken place in Africa, for example. There are also concerns about, you know, male-domination and then the issue of language barrier. English is the only language in the discussions. 

So, an opportunity: IETF is addressing some of the challenges highlighted. For example, there is onboarding support for newcomers, a similar process which is happening at ICANN. That’s a good opportunity. There is a dedicated mentoring program for newcomers, which we also see as an opportunity. With respect to ITU, in terms of entry points or mechanisms for CSOs to engage, there is a CSO conservative status, contributions, and interventions. There are ITU study groups, regional and national presence. These are some of the mechanisms for CSO engagement. 

But we also note that, you know, there is matriarchalism. So, therefore, CSOs’ participation has to be linked to national delegations. And where, for example, CSOs are not speaking the same language with their governments, it’s difficult for them to actually be part of the national delegations. 

So, because of those financial commitments or constraints linked to being part of delegations from the Global South, very few CSOs from the Global South make their way to these conferences compared to CSOs from the Global North. Prohibitive costs associated with participation, accreditation fees and venues for meetings. Usually the venue is Geneva, which is quite expensive. 

The Internet Governance Forum, I think so many positives in terms of Internet Governance Forum. CSOs see this as a very much stakeholder platform as compared to ITU, which is matriarchal. So, that’s a very big plus. One, open consultations and call for input. That’s an area where CSOs can also get involved. Workshops and panels. Network and collaborations. Initiatives. Then, in terms of opportunities, gaps and barriers. Resource constraints. This has to point there. 

So one, as I was saying, resource constraints still features under barriers to CSO participation. Lack of technical capacity to engage effectively on certain topics is also an issue. The English dominance is still palpable, and that has to be addressed. Non-binding nature of the discussion sometimes can put off CSOs because they feel like their discussions have gone in vain. Dominance of large tech companies. 

But in terms of opportunities, we continue to see that the IGF is setting aside funds to support the participation of activists through travel support, especially activists from the Global South, which is also a good thing. Support for remote hubs, especially for activists from the Global South, is also a good opportunity. 

So I wanted to highlight, but in terms of structuring the issues that we were talking about, one, I think, would look at financial issues to do with capacities, issues to do with shifting the power from the dominant players to civil society organizations. And then looking at now, what are the issues in terms of emerging issues, and how best CSOs can actually engage in those. So we’ll structure our discussion based on the issues that I’ve highlighted, but we’ll be looking at your personal experiences with these processes, and how best the CADE project can address some of the challenges that we’ll be talking about. 

So to kick-start the discussion, I’ll pose a few questions to Rosemary and Stephanie. I’ll start with Rosemary from KICTANet. So based on your regional study, the case study that we referred to earlier, what practical lessons can we learn about fostering meaningful collaboration among CSOs, government, and other stakeholders?

Rosemary Koech-Kimwatu: I thought I was loud enough, just my normal voice. But anyway, can you hear me? Great. I think the meaningful lesson is the maintenance of the multistakeholder approach. I think the key issue is to have real traction in these sessions. In order to have real policy interventions, in order to have real practical outcomes from the sessions, there’s a need to have all stakeholders within a room. And I think for me, that’s one of the key lessons. How then do you engage, if it’s subject matter experts, if it’s academia, if it’s government, how then do you become a convener? And it’s actually the key skill that becomes a convener that can be trusted, a convener that is able to go several miles ahead in order to build an ecosystem that then creates a flow of information that is useful, right from the grassroots level up to the global level. I think for me, the key thing is to relook at how do you do convening? And not just at, say, country level, then moving forward with the issues that you get at the country level, how then do you move them now to the regional level? 

And to have real policy traction that responds to the needs of various stakeholders. Because we all come to these meetings to find solutions. So it’s important that at any one step, to be very targeted. How then are you engaging in convenings that solve problems for the various stakeholders that are there? Thank you.

Kenneth Harry Msiska: Thank you so much. Let me go to Stephanie. What key trends have emerged from the CADE mapping study? And based on your own experience regarding CSO engagement in multilateral digital governance processes, would you actually point out?

Stephanie Borg Psaila: Thank you, Ken. Hello, everyone. A pleasure to be here. And hello to the online participants. Ken, regarding the key trends, I’ll focus a little bit on some of the findings that you highlighted in the very beginning. Because the mapping study that is part of the project that we’re undertaking, it resulted in quite a few important findings, and I would say trends.

So with regards to the main findings, I think we can start off with, let’s say, basics, right? For instance, the reconfirmation from previous findings that CSOs are still the least influential stakeholder in multistakeholder internet governance, despite the equal billing in the WSIS definition. So the WSIS definition might place everyone around the table. But the reality is that there are power imbalances that sometimes still prevent civil society to get around that same table. So that emerged very, very clearly in the mapping that was undertaken as part of the project and in the baseline survey and interviews with experts. 

Obviously, there is a limited participation by CSOs, especially from the Global South. And as a result, the policies that are being shaped, they do not account, do not take into account the needs of the Global South in as much way as they should. Now, in our study, we focused mostly on standard-setting organizations, with a particular focus on, as Kenneth was saying, three standard-setting organizations. So when you look at the barriers for civil society engagement in these three standard-setting organizations, and here I’m referring to the IETF, ITU, and ICANN, the main trend is that there are few trends, actually, that come out of the modalities in which civil society engages in each of the forum. In fact, there is a mix of barriers that is inviting us to go beyond the generalization of barriers in issues that CSOs face. And I’ll zoom into the specific settings of each, and I’ll explain a little bit of, I’ll repeat some of the, emphasize some of the things that Kenneth said, just to bring out these specificities and the barriers that CSOs face in this forum.

So let me start off with ICANN, and I think it’s also alphabetical order, ICANN, IETF, and ITU. So no preferences there. So within the ICANN structure, if you look at the leadership, at least half of the leadership roles are taken up by the private sector, right? So this is a problem, obviously, but not only that, the baseline study that we carried out, the interviews with the experts, the respondents also felt that there are silos within the ICANN structure that is a recurring problem. And this is mainly due to the insufficient cross-community engagement. So this is quite specific to ICANN. 

As is typical with technical discussions, so here is where maybe not as specific to ICANN, but quite, let’s say, across the board between ICANN, IETF, is that it’s typical with technical discussions, they often neglect broader policy implications. And because the Global South perspectives are not heard as much as they should, the priorities and needs at the sub-regional level, so here we’re going beyond the region, not just to the regional level, but also to the regional level. 

So this is a problem, obviously. Talking in terms of the needs of Latin America or the needs of Africa, they are often not heard or not heard well, let’s say. So we can see here a mix of barriers, some relating to the substance of the discussions, and here when we’re talking about the substance, this is where some trends emerge between the in the barriers that CSOs face in the standard-setting organizations, and some relate to structural issues, and is the, I would say, the structural issues which are the most specific to these forum. At the IETF – we had to zoom into the IETF – one of the biggest barriers is language. Why? Because the discussions are held exclusively in English, right? And we’re not saying here, hey, let us not use English, far from it, but there are so many tools, so many, you know, interpretation, translation tools that can be added to the discussions, right? So today’s technology, it enables this in a very easy way. 

Another example is the fact that the meetings, the IETF meetings, the three main meetings every year, they take place in North America, Europe, Asia, right? It’s always the same regions. What about having meetings in Africa, in Latin America, right? We know for a fact that if we had to compare, for instance, meetings of the global IGF that took place in Africa, in Latin America, the number of CSOs from the region was much higher, right, than whenever events were in the Global North. So this is, it’s a, let’s say, a structural issue. I would say, particular to the IETF. In the IGF, the meetings take place all over, and ICANN as well. Again, not saying that the face-to-face meetings are, you know, the most important way of engaging. Far from it, because we know that a lot of work takes place in mailing lists, etc., in between meetings, and that work takes place online. 

In terms of trends, if we look at ITU, the problems are, again, of a different type, because it’s, we have to reflect on the way that governments and civil society work together at the local level, right? For civil society to be able to participate at ITU, they need to be part of a delegation. And here, unfortunately, we see that delegations from the Global South, fewer CSOs are actually part of the delegations than those in the Global North. 

Not generalizing, we know that, for instance, delegations from Brazil, Mexico, to take a couple of examples, they do welcome CSOs more broadly as part of the delegations. And then, when it comes to ITU, there’s the big question of accreditation, right? And that’s a very big barrier specific to ITU. There’s been a lot of discussions about this, and I think there are a few policies also, on the waiving of those fees, but why are we still talking about the waiver of fees? Should we start a discussion on not being, there not being any fees at all? So, in terms of trends, the conclusion is that we need to go granular, and not just at a general level.

So, I would say that the main takeaway of the mapping, the work that we want to do in the coming months and years, is specifically along these lines. Back to you, Kenneth. Thank you.

Kenneth Harry Msiska: I see that, Rosemary, you’re itching to add a few things, but before you attempt to add on what Stephanie said, you should also respond to this question. You talked about being able to convene, or being a convener. What successful strategies have been implemented, that you know, at regional level, to enhance the inclusion of CSOs, and also to ensure that, you know, they do play a meaningful role in making sure that they’re able to influence the digital policies. Over to you.

Rosemary Koech-Kimwatu: Thank you very much for that question. I think the key successful thing has been being a participant that is able to share knowledge, and bridge the gap. For example, I keep giving this example. Africans, we find ourselves in a very unique place. We don’t manufacture technology too much. Again, we don’t manufacture a lot of legislation. If you look at it, America, China, a lot of manufacturing happens there. Europe manufactures a lot of legislation. Africans, we get the after-effects. Brussels effects, so on and so forth. So we get to become very keen observers of it all. 

And what happens is that, now through the CSOs, in the IGF process, and all the other processes, we then get a unique position of offering the next best practice. Because you’re keen observers, you then act as a partner, say for example, to legislators at the local level. You then become a source of honesty, and actually become the True North, in terms of what, then, is the next best policies for you from an African perspective. And we find ourselves in the middle, putting everyone to task, putting the private sector to task, putting government to task, and putting academia to task. Because we get to view it from an observer level. So what success comes out of that? 

How do you become successful? One, you engage in a lot of research. At KICTANet, for example, we have a whole page on publications that we do. Research that happens throughout the year on various topical issues. If today AI is hot, we will figure it out. If it’s elections and how the internet affects them, we’ll figure it out. If today it’s low earth orbiting technologies, vis-a-vis the old spectrum, in terms of telecommunications, we’ll sit down and figure it out. So you become a trusted partner for policymaking. And when that happens, then this all becomes meaningful. Because you then get to participate in making legislations. 

I’ll give an example. The Data Protection Act in Kenya, the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes Act, any time there’s a legislation, there’s an element in our Constitution of public participation. KICTANet has been a key stakeholder. Today you find, and I was smiling, and through my answer I get to answer, to make a mention on something. In as much as you called it least influential, I think we’re just the most broke. Yeah. But the influence is there. 

We’re trusted by governments, we’re trusted by the private sector, and we get to be that middle ground that makes sure that there’s a True North in terms of what is the best experience that we’ll get as Africans on the ground. And that is done by the CSO entities. 

So, and a reflection for me when you were speaking, in terms of what you could do better, I think it’s a reflection of what have we done with the little that we have so far, what influence have we made, and then now what capacity is going to be added to these CSOs that have been doing this work for several years, that have been part of the whole track, the IGF, IETF, WSIS, over the years. They’ve built particular skills. So what then should happen to capacity build those entities in order to help them make greater influence moving forward? Because at the end of the day, the private sector has got what they want. Government has got its own interests. CSOs come to create a balance. And a lot of support is required at that level. Yeah. Because he who pays the piper calls the tune. So we need to make sure that we have to maintain that element of balance and to build the next best practice as Africans.

Kenneth Harry Msiska: All right. Thank you so much, Rosemary. Just to encourage our colleagues who are following us online, you can keep on sending your comments, questions via the chat. My apologies, you may not be able to speak during this session, but we will accommodate your comments and questions through the chat. Imad is asking, and I’ll pause this, you can reflect on this, I’ll come back to you later on. Imad is saying, besides costs and language barriers, isn’t there an additional barrier for cooperation which is the diversity of interests of CSOs? He thinks this is also a barrier in, for example, he’s saying priorities would be, for example, in other countries basic human rights or safety or corruption so these differences do also affect, you know, the participation. 

Now to the audience I have two questions that we should think about. How do you see the multilateral, multistakeholder processes evolving to better integrate civil society voices, particularly those from the under-represented regions or the Global South? And two, from a policy perspective, what concrete actions can stakeholders take to lower barriers and enhance civil society participation in digital governance processes? Those are my two questions. You are free to react to anything that has been discussed but just bear in mind I need answers to these two questions. So who wants to speak? Oh, Nana. 

Nana Wachako: Good morning or good afternoon everyone. My name is Nana Wachako. Regarding the lowering of barriers, one thing that has stood out consistently in all the conversations I’ve been in for the past couple of days has been about the technical capacity of civil society organizations to engage in very highly technical conversations around digital governance, internet governance. And I was wondering the primary source of financial sustenance for civil society organizations is funding from donors, right? And more often than not what is most common is that those funds are tied to particular projects, right? So we might have diversity of interest but donors have diversity of interest as well, right? 

And to be able to engage in research, for instance, you have to have money for research. To be able to engage in capacity building, you have to have money for that to happen. And I was wondering is there a space for civil society organizations to unify in requesting for unrestricted funding for the core issues, for research, for upskilling? 

There’s a lot of buzz currently around artificial intelligence and as usual like other emerging technologies, right, that come up. The conversation is focusing on one aspect. A lot of people focus on generative AI which is like a dot, a blob. And I have sensed from all of these conversations that focus often is driven rather by capacity to engage. Civil society is the least positioned to hire people who have high technical expertise. Look at the money that big tech is paying and compared to the money that civil society organizations would pay. 

I mean in my country, I’m Nigerian, there are people who offer, CSOs will offer you maybe a hundred dollars a month as salary. Not because they want to shortchange you but because that is the capacity, that’s the amount they can offer you. Now compare that to what other people in the same country in the private sector are paying. So is it possible that we start, when we say we want to fund civil society organizations, when we say we want to do projects, is it possible that there’s a space to engage with the donor to say look if you are really focused on this, there has to be money for research. We need to build in funding for research into projects, right. We’re building money for evaluation, we’re building money for baseline studies. 

But there are other forms of research that’s not just evaluating the project. That’s very critical. It’s understanding the key principles, it’s understanding the fundamental aspects that relate to what you want to work on. So that, in my opinion, is something that might be helpful to start moving the needle a little bit. Thank you.

Audience: Yeah, thank you for raising those points. Those are really valid points, I think, in context of not only African continent but also Global South that has been discussed. I want to reflect upon one point that, you know, that like generally on the call, like you know, on your discussion, that civil society organizations do the most impactful work but the recognition is very less to the fact that we are bringing out the voices from the grassroots. We are the ones who are bringing out what the big tech wants in terms of their products, in terms of their policies, the change that they want, the demand that they look forward to. 

But then again, when it comes to monetary gains or losses, we are the ones who are losing it, right. We are the ones who are being put into the corner that, okay, you have done this small job for us, okay, there is some pretty amount of money for you. Also another challenge when the grants are open for civil society organizations, the process that civil society organizations have to go through is enormous. The amount of documentation you have to give to prove that you are a civil society organization, the amount of documentation that you have to go give to prove the work that you have done is enormous, that it also takes another six months to get evaluated and then, oh sorry, you don’t get that grant. 

So the whole of those processes are so challenging, coming from a developing nation especially, that that needs to be recognized. Then again, I circle back on the point that recognition is missing, though the impactful work is being done by the major civil society organizations all across. I don’t want to understate civil societies in the US or the UK or Canada, but also again in Africa, in India, in Sri Lanka, in Bangladesh, in all the countries. They’re putting the heart and soul, they’re working 24-7 around the clock, they’re running helplines, they’re doing enormous work, but then what are we losing is that recognition. That’s it. Thank you.

Audience: I am Pratishtha from India. Thank you, that’s been a very interesting conversation. Just on the first one, which is the question I suppose, it’s more on, you know, I think this was touched upon earlier, but on regional collaborations and whether bringing together certain segments. Again, Africa is a very large continent, so bringing together more regional cooperation and collaboration, whether perhaps that might increase, say, voting power and capacity to influence policy on an international level. But coming to the policy and more practical considerations, one of the organizations that has worked with is the Digital Natives Academy, which is a Maori-run organization in Aotearoa, New Zealand. 

And what they did was really emphasize the importance of local knowledge in building principles and policy. So what we have, as mentioned earlier by Rose, was, you know, we have to just accept this Brussels effect and, you know, the GDPR, as the Europeans have formulated it. But what’s also important is, there are local knowledge and local community-based perspectives that can frame it as well. So in the Maori context, what they did was not only ask how data sovereignty is important, but how would the Maori do it? 

And they have less of an individualistic approach, which is what is enshrined in GDPR, and more of a community-based thing. So culture being a common good of the people of that culture. So how do we protect the data involved in the cultures of these different societies? So that’s one of the things that perhaps is worth noting. And I think to build all of this, you would need digital literacy and public trust. But those are just my thoughts, would be keen to hear as well. Thank you. 

Audience: I’m Paolo from Malawi. I think that looking at the global internet governance platform, and I can speak particularly about ICANN, which has already been mentioned. I’m not speaking in any capacity as of ICANN. I’m from Malawi. I run the country code for Malawi. So I have participated in ICANN activities and IGF activities at both the national and global levels. I think that one of the problems that I see with civil society participation at these levels is how civil society is defined. If you look at ICANN, there are the government constituencies. Everything is based around constituencies. There is the GAC, which is government constituency. There is the Telco constituency in which I participate, the country codes, the generic names organizations, the IP addresses, and so forth. But if you look at the definition of civil society at the ICANN level, it’s not there. You have organizations like At-Large, non-commercial, which are not properly defined as civil society. Academia is in there. And so the civil society constituency is not there. It’s not well defined. And at the ICANN level, if you are not well-defined as a constituency, then your level of participation or empowerment is very low. Basically, you can wander around the ICANN infrastructure or meetings, but your voice will not be heard because you don’t belong to a defined constituency. 

So I think that if one thing that needs to be taken care of for civil society empowerment and participation at ICANN or global levels, there needs to be a properly defined constituency for the participation of civil society where they can be heard. Right now, there isn’t.

Kenneth Harry Msiska: Okay, I come back to our two speakers. There is an additional one online, from Michael from OHCHR. First of all, I think he’s congratulating the CADE Alliance for the studies and also the presentation, but he’s also looking ahead in terms of the Global Digital Compact and he’s saying, you know, this is the next thing that CSOs have to participate in as well as the WSIS plus 20 review. What lessons could be learned from the study to help civil society participate and follow these processes? What would be the minimum in terms of civil society participation in these processes? So you can give it the first shot and then I’ll also pass it around for others to help.

Rosemary Koech-Kimwatu: As I said earlier, if civil society views itself the way traditionally it’s been positioned as a True North, then they need to take the lead in finding out what are the key initiatives, what are the key outcomes, and then being the ones who hold the creative tensions between all stakeholders and helping to manage that. I think it’s a very short answer, but that’s basically it. Civil society plays a role in these systems. The same way we have built, and I keep calling it, the multistakeholder DNA sits in CSOs to tap into that in the next problem and the next problem and the next problem. They’ve already built the muscles for this. They know how to convene. They know how to analyze issues. So whether today it’s global digital compact, next time it’ll be AI, something, something, something. These are the people with the skills. Let’s build their capacity because they’re the only teams that can give you a true feeling of what is it that happens on the ground and then reflect that into a truly global perspective. And that is my short response to that.

Kenneth Harry Msiska: Stephanie?

Stephanie Borg Psaila: Thanks, Kenneth. I’ll reflect on a few comments that our colleagues have made, and I’ll start with Michael from OHCHR. Something basic, I think, that CSOs need to engage, is to understand what is really going on, especially with the parallel processes that we see in terms of the GDC, WSIS, and all the bodies that are being created, the new processes. So there’s a lot going on in 2025. 

So at the least, a basic understanding of what these processes are about. It’s a big thing to understand why, because there’s a lot of confusion. And not many people are able to really see what is, you know, what is happening and what the aim is, and whether things will run in parallel or will converge at some point. But at least, following and using tools out there to understand that is, I would say, a basic premise. I’m going in reverse order to the gentleman from Malawi. You made a good point regarding definitions of CSOs, and I would say the definition even of the technical community has changed, right? Because in the past, the so-called techies were, you know, the guys with the ponytails. 

Today, who is the technical community, right? Swallowed up by the private sector. At the same time, we see a lot of members from the technical communities that fall under the CSO heading. So there is a lot of change, there is a lot of movement. So this is the landscape where we’re operating. And probably, you know, so strict of a definition, it’s probably not the right way to look at it, right? We have to be a little bit more, not flexible, but seeing what the agendas are, right? And it’s basically what those agendas are that tell us, you know, which stakeholder you belong to. So I would invite to see it, I would invite to see things from this perspective. 

The lady also mentioned a good point regarding recognition. This is precisely the aim of the work that we are doing, right? At the end of the work here, and now this is in the context of the project, this is what I can talk about. What we want is for civil society to be recognized as the valuable player that it is, right? Especially from the Global South. 

And in terms of the funding, I can only talk insofar as the funding for this project. It’s co-funded by the European Union, and the reason why there was a mapping was precisely to understand the landscape. What was the definition of CSO? Do we need a definition there? What is the landscape, right? I can, you know, compliment the EU for the way that it has, let’s say, put the call for proposals together, because in reality they, with the help of the EU, we, the partners, are able to do more than just the mapping, right? So the mapping is just the starting point, and in the next two years we will be developing capacity-building programs, but targeting the issues that I mentioned, right? So we’re going granular, and this is, you know, the, let’s say, the key aspect of this project. This is what I think it will differentiate it from other projects, right? We don’t want to tackle issues at the general level. It’s not just about funding. It’s so much more nuanced than that, right? And what we are developing for this specific camp, let’s say, the standard setting space, will probably be the same for other areas. 

Just one final comment, Imad, last but not least, although you asked, you intervened the first. Are diverse issues a barrier? No, because the competition is not between CSOs as such, right? The competition, to be heard, because it’s, if we can frame it as a competition, it’s between private sector and the government, right? It’s as Rosemary said, balancing the two. It’s holding both accountable. The fact that there are various needs, that adds to the strength of civil society, because they can come together, understand that there are needs, but also understand what their bottom line is, right? So from that perspective, it is, I feel it is certainly not a barrier. And I’ll stop there. And I think you want, would like to intervene.

Rosemary Koech-Kimwatu: Yes, especially the question on, is it a barrier? I think the CSOs, if they all came to us with the same issues, they’d not be doing their work. So let each CSO respond to the technical nuances, the local nuances of whatever they are, in order for them to give meaning feedback to the global and regional issues. So it would be, there’s no script in this. It’s all like a play. Everybody gives authenticity of what they feel on the ground. So it is not, it’s not a bad thing. I think they’re actually doing their jobs by covering for the issues. In one country, it could be internet shutdowns. In another country, it can be technology, emerging technology and the impacts. In another one, we all operate in different playing fields, but now the interplay comes now is sharing the next best practice amongst ourselves. 

For example, our democracy is a bit more advanced. This is how we dealt with internet shutdowns. Here’s a playbook. If technology, you’re caught in between tech, you’re caught in between regulatory issues. This is how we dealt with our legislators. For example, I’ll give an example of a current initiative. A very positive impact from regional CSO collaboration from the Kenya IGF to the East Africa IGF. We realized that in East Africa, we have got different data protection laws that you borrowed from Brussels, that’s a union, and the challenge has been, we’re having technical challenges in terms of cross-border data transfer, challenges on business, for example. The issue has been, how then do we convene legislators? 

We came together. We did a training. We trained our legislators on the need of harmonization of data protection laws, so that maybe you can have a unified law one day in East Africa. That’s a positive impact by CSOs. They probably weren’t paid for it, but they came with their passion, and they’re solving the problems. So that’s, I think, who talked about appreciation? That’s the kind of appreciation that needs to come up today. Yeah.

Kenneth Harry Msiska: All right.

Rosemary Koech-Kimwatu: What time do I make the presentation? The kick-start one?

Kenneth Harry Msiska: Oh. We only have five minutes. We only have five minutes, so I’ll give you two and a half.

Rosemary Koech-Kimwatu: Do I get a screen?

Kenneth Harry Msiska: No. That had to be done in advance. 

Rosemary Koech-Kimwatu: So I’ll speak to it. Some has been mentioned. Okay. Some has been mentioned. A bit has not. What does the face of African participation look like? It looks like complexity. And that is very honest. You mentioned it. We mentioned it. But you realize that there’s a complex interplay of both opportunities, challenges, and outcomes. And the research that we did at CADE actually just showed a few things. 

First and foremost is that there’s an uneven playing field. For example, as an African, try apply for a visa if you’re going physically to go somewhere. Compared to somebody maybe in the states who wakes up and the next day they can book a flight. It’s not like that in my country. For example, if it’s in Spain, I need a few months to plan. So you can’t call me tomorrow and say there’s a meeting next week, come to Spain, unless I had a Schengen visa before. Those are some of the complexities that are there. So it’s actually an uneven playing field, both in terms of best practice forums, policy networks, dynamic coalitions. 

But we have shown significant engagement, especially in regional and national initiatives. We’ve had 36 national and 7 regional initiatives that exist across Africa. And I think kudos. But global participation remains uneven. And accessibility is a key issue. However, there’s some light at the end of the tunnel. I guess post-COVID, we learned to work with what we have, hybrid. Some of us are here, many of us are online. That has been a great win. Hi, guys. Yeah, we’re in the same meeting. So post-COVID, that has been good. We also learned lessons on youth initiatives. For example, we had youth representation from all over East Africa at the East Africa IGF, where we sponsored young people to come and we put them in buses. We couldn’t do flights, but we put them in buses and you accommodate one thing. And they’re so excited to participate. 

We engaged in sideline meetings, teaching them about the IGF process, what it means for them. And an amazing thing is that we’ve seen that the best tech policy talent comes from the CSOs, whether they work for GIZ, Access Kenya – and sometimes we almost feel like we’re a pipeline for talent. Our biggest issue is retention, because after two years, we can’t afford them. Speak to them, even in private sector. The heads of data protection in the largest corporation, where did they come from? The CSOs. 

We’re building a… My two minutes are done. Almost. Almost done. Yeah, 30 seconds. And, of course, post-COVID was hybrid. And then, of course, I’ve mentioned the barriers. And, of course, participation is necessary. So what are the recommendations? We need to strengthen institutional support, increase funding for them, capacity. If it’s travel, if it’s digital, whatever, which way it goes. Increase capacity building, expand youth-focused initiatives, promote inclusivity, and we leverage on digital tools. 

But importantly, I’ll challenge back: How much investment is happening to build the capacity of the CSOs to respond to the future. They came in in very low economies, and the power imbalances are increasing. As big tech grows stronger in those markets, as governments become more powerful, there’s a need to continue supporting those CSOs. There’s only so far passion can take you, and we need to build frameworks. And we can’t have a situation where we have new entities coming into the IGF space and receiving most of the funding, and you complain that these small CSOs are still who they are. They’ve done this for 20-plus years. They have the DNA. Let’s support them, and let’s grow them.

Kenneth Harry Msiska: Thank you. All right. So just a quick recap. I’ve been shown the time. We have two minutes. So I think things that actually garner traction here, we need to use the convening power. There is need for research, and also for the funders to actually accommodate that, so that our advocacy is evidence-based. Then we also need to strengthen regional collaborations among CSOs, so that we’re able to move as a group. 

But there is also a need to define CSOs within these platforms that we engage with, especially at ICANN. Then I think there is also an agreement to say much stakeholderism DNA resides in the CSOs, and there is need to actually make sure that we maximize this. But we must also, as CSOs, we must also be proactive to invite ourselves to the table when we are not invited. I think these are some of the issues that I can quickly summarize. 

But in terms of continuing to hear from you, you can actually scan that QR code and give us feedback in terms of the mapping study or the discussions that we may not have covered today. Once again, I would like to thank you all for joining us, both online as well as in this room. Thank you to our speakers, Stephanie from Diplo and Rosemary from KICTANet. I was supported by Patricia from CIPESA, who is our rapporteur, and then Nipunika from Sarvodaya Fusion, who was our online moderator. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you.

Agreement Points

Financial constraints limit CSO participation

Stephanie Borg Psaila

Nana Wachako

Rosemary Koech-Kimwatu

Financial constraints limit participation, especially from Global South

Lack of technical capacity to engage effectively on certain topics

Need to strengthen institutional support for CSOs

Multiple speakers highlighted that financial constraints significantly limit CSO participation, especially from the Global South, affecting their ability to engage effectively and maintain technical capacity.

Importance of research and capacity building

Rosemary Koech-Kimwatu

Nana Wachako

Conduct research to become a trusted source for policymaking

Provide unrestricted funding for research and upskilling

Speakers emphasized the need for CSOs to conduct research and build capacity to effectively engage in policymaking and technical discussions.

Leveraging digital tools and hybrid formats

Kenneth Harry Msiska

Rosemary Koech-Kimwatu

Leverage digital tools and hybrid formats for increased accessibility

CSOs act as observers and offer next best practices

Speakers agreed on the importance of using digital tools and hybrid meeting formats to increase accessibility and participation, especially for CSOs from the Global South.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers highlighted the crucial role of CSOs in balancing interests and providing valuable perspectives in Internet governance processes.

Stephanie Borg Psaila

Rosemary Koech-Kimwatu

CSOs hold other stakeholders accountable and balance interests

CSOs act as observers and offer next best practices

These speakers emphasized the importance of CSOs in bringing grassroots perspectives to global discussions and building partnerships among various stakeholders.

Rosemary Koech-Kimwatu

Audience

Develop convening power and build trusted partnerships

CSOs bring grassroots perspectives to global discussions

Unexpected Consensus

CSOs as a talent pipeline for tech policy

Rosemary Koech-Kimwatu

Nana Wachako

CSOs are a pipeline for tech policy talent

Lack of technical capacity to engage effectively on certain topics

While discussing challenges faced by CSOs, there was an unexpected consensus on CSOs serving as a talent pipeline for tech policy, despite facing challenges in retaining technical expertise due to financial constraints.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement centered around financial constraints limiting CSO participation, the importance of research and capacity building, and the need to leverage digital tools for increased accessibility. There was also consensus on the crucial role of CSOs in bringing grassroots perspectives and balancing interests in Internet governance processes.

Consensus level

There was a moderate to high level of consensus among the speakers on the key challenges faced by CSOs and potential strategies to enhance their participation. This consensus suggests a shared understanding of the issues at hand and potential pathways for improvement, which could lead to more coordinated efforts to address these challenges in Internet governance processes.

Different Viewpoints

Definition and role of CSOs in governance bodies

Stephanie Borg Psaila

Audience

CSOs hold other stakeholders accountable and balance interests

Need for better definition of CSO constituency in governance bodies

While Stephanie emphasizes the role of CSOs in balancing interests and holding stakeholders accountable, an audience member points out the lack of clear definition for CSOs in governance bodies, particularly ICANN, which limits their effectiveness.

Unexpected Differences

Diversity of CSO interests as a barrier or strength

Stephanie Borg Psaila

Rosemary Koech-Kimwatu

CSOs hold other stakeholders accountable and balance interests

CSOs act as observers and offer next best practices

While Stephanie views the diversity of CSO interests as a strength for balancing stakeholder interests, Rosemary unexpectedly frames it as a unique position for offering ‘next best practices’, suggesting a slightly different perspective on how diversity of interests contributes to CSO effectiveness.

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement revolve around the definition and role of CSOs in governance bodies, approaches to research and capacity building, and the implications of diverse CSO interests.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among speakers is relatively low, with more emphasis on complementary perspectives rather than outright contradictions. This suggests a generally aligned view on the challenges and potential solutions for CSO participation in Internet governance, with nuanced differences in approach and emphasis.

Partial Agreements

Both speakers agree on the importance of research for CSOs, but they differ on how to achieve it. Rosemary emphasizes conducting research to become a trusted source, while Nana focuses on the need for unrestricted funding to enable research and upskilling.

Rosemary Koech-Kimwatu

Nana Wachako

Conduct research to become a trusted source for policymaking

Provide unrestricted funding for research and upskilling

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers highlighted the crucial role of CSOs in balancing interests and providing valuable perspectives in Internet governance processes.

Stephanie Borg Psaila

Rosemary Koech-Kimwatu

CSOs hold other stakeholders accountable and balance interests

CSOs act as observers and offer next best practices

These speakers emphasized the importance of CSOs in bringing grassroots perspectives to global discussions and building partnerships among various stakeholders.

Rosemary Koech-Kimwatu

Audience

Develop convening power and build trusted partnerships

CSOs bring grassroots perspectives to global discussions

Key Takeaways

CSOs face significant barriers to participation in Internet governance, including lack of inclusivity, financial constraints, and technical capacity gaps.

Strategies to enhance CSO participation include developing convening power, conducting research, strengthening regional collaborations, and leveraging local knowledge.

CSOs play a crucial role in amplifying marginalized voices, promoting digital inclusion, and balancing interests of different stakeholders.

There is a need for better definition and recognition of CSOs within governance structures.

Funding models need to be improved to provide more unrestricted and capacity-building support for CSOs.

Resolutions and Action Items

CSOs should proactively invite themselves to governance discussions when not invited.

Funders should accommodate research funding in their support to CSOs to enable evidence-based advocacy.

Efforts should be made to strengthen regional collaborations among CSOs.

Governance bodies should work on better defining the CSO constituency within their structures.

Unresolved Issues

How to address the power imbalance between CSOs and other stakeholders like big tech and governments

Specific mechanisms for improving visa processes and travel support for Global South participants

How to retain talent within CSOs given limited financial resources

Ways to harmonize diverse CSO interests and priorities in governance processes

Suggested Compromises

Adopting hybrid meeting formats to increase accessibility for those facing travel barriers

Leveraging digital tools and technologies to enable broader CSO participation

Balancing support between established CSOs with experience and new entities entering the governance space

CSOs see this as a very much stakeholder platform as compared to ITU, which is matriarchal.

speaker

Kenneth Harry Msiska

reason

This comment highlights a key difference between governance bodies and their openness to civil society participation.

impact

It led to further discussion of the unique challenges and opportunities for CSO engagement in different forums.

How then do you engage, if it’s subject matter experts, if it’s academia, if it’s government, how then do you become a convener? And it’s actually the key skill that becomes a convener that can be trusted, a convener that is able to go several miles ahead in order to build an ecosystem that then creates a flow of information that is useful, right from the grassroots level up to the global level.

speaker

Rosemary Koech-Kimwatu

reason

This insight emphasizes the critical role of CSOs as conveners and bridge-builders between different stakeholders and levels of governance.

impact

It shifted the discussion towards practical strategies for CSOs to enhance their influence and effectiveness.

So within the ICANN structure, if you look at the leadership, there is at least half of the leadership roles are taken up by the private sector, right? So this is a problem, obviously, but not only that, the baseline study that we carried out, the interviews with the experts, the respondents also felt that there are silos within the ICANN structure that is a recurring problem.

speaker

Stephanie Borg Psaila

reason

This comment provides specific data on power imbalances within ICANN and highlights structural issues limiting CSO influence.

impact

It deepened the analysis of barriers to CSO participation and led to discussion of potential reforms.

Is there a space for civil society organizations to unify in requesting for unrestricted funding for the core issues, for research, for upskilling?

speaker

Nana Wachako

reason

This question raises an important point about funding constraints on CSOs and potential strategies to address them.

impact

It sparked discussion about funding models and capacity building needs for CSOs.

I think that one of the problems that I see with civil society participation at these levels is how civil society is defined. If you look at ICANN, there is the government constituencies. Everything is based around constituencies. There is the GAC, which is government constituency. There is the Tegelco constituency in which I participate, the country codes, the generic names organizations, the IP addresses, and so forth. But if you look at the definition of civil society at ICANN level, it’s not there.

speaker

Paolo from Malawi

reason

This comment highlights a fundamental issue with how CSOs are (or aren’t) formally recognized within governance structures.

impact

It led to discussion about the need to better define and formalize CSO roles in Internet governance bodies.

We need to strengthen institutional support, increase funding for them, capacity. If it’s travel, if it’s digital, whatever, which way it goes. Increase capacity building, expand youth-focused initiatives, promote inclusivity, and we leverage on digital tools. But importantly, I’ll challenge back how much investment is happening to build the capacity of the CSOs to respond to the future.

speaker

Rosemary Koech-Kimwatu

reason

This comment synthesizes key recommendations for enhancing CSO participation and influence.

impact

It provided a framework for concrete actions and next steps to address the challenges discussed.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by progressively deepening the analysis of barriers to CSO participation in Internet governance, moving from broad structural issues to specific challenges within governance bodies, funding constraints, and definitional problems. The comments also shifted the conversation towards practical strategies and recommendations for enhancing CSO influence, emphasizing the unique role of CSOs as conveners and bridge-builders. The discussion evolved from identifying problems to proposing solutions, with a particular focus on capacity building, funding models, and formal recognition of CSOs within governance structures.

How can civil society organizations unify in requesting unrestricted funding for core issues, research, and upskilling?

speaker

Nana Wachako

explanation

This is important to address the financial constraints CSOs face in building technical capacity and engaging in research to participate effectively in digital governance processes.

How can the process for CSOs to apply for grants be simplified and made less burdensome?

speaker

Pratishtha

explanation

This is crucial to reduce barriers for CSOs, especially from developing nations, to access funding and support their work.

How can regional collaborations be strengthened to increase voting power and capacity to influence policy on an international level?

speaker

Audience member (unnamed)

explanation

This could help amplify the voices of CSOs from underrepresented regions in global digital governance processes.

How can local knowledge and community-based perspectives be better incorporated into digital governance principles and policies?

speaker

Audience member (unnamed)

explanation

This is important to ensure that policies reflect diverse cultural perspectives, not just Western approaches.

How can civil society be better defined and given a proper constituency within ICANN’s structure?

speaker

Paolo

explanation

This is crucial for improving civil society’s voice and influence within ICANN processes.

What lessons from the CARDI study can be applied to help civil society participate in the Global Digital Compact and WSIS+20 review processes?

speaker

Michael from OHCHR

explanation

This is important for ensuring effective civil society engagement in upcoming major global digital governance initiatives.

How can we build frameworks to continue supporting established CSOs in the face of increasing power imbalances with big tech and governments?

speaker

Rosemary Koech-Kimwatu

explanation

This is crucial for maintaining the role of experienced CSOs in balancing different stakeholder interests in digital governance.

Summary

This Parliamentary Roundtable at IGF 2024 focused on the role of parliaments in shaping global digital governance frameworks. Participants from various countries discussed challenges and opportunities in digital transformation, emphasizing the need for international cooperation and inclusive policies.

Key themes included bridging the digital divide, addressing cybersecurity threats, and balancing innovation with regulation. Speakers highlighted the importance of digital literacy, data privacy, and equitable access to digital resources. Many stressed the need for parliaments to keep pace with rapidly evolving technologies and to foster collaboration between government, private sector, and civil society.

Specific national initiatives were shared, such as Armenia’s focus on digital innovation, Pakistan’s efforts to support its IT industry and freelancers, and Norway’s commitment to an open and secure internet. Challenges like uneven digital adoption, cybersecurity risks, and the need for comprehensive data protection laws were discussed.

Participants agreed on the importance of capacity building for parliamentarians and creating mechanisms for knowledge sharing and collaboration. The multi-stakeholder model of internet governance was emphasized as crucial for addressing global digital challenges.

The discussion concluded with calls for actionable outcomes, including the creation of international parliamentary networks focused on digital governance, youth engagement in policymaking, and the development of regulatory frameworks that prioritize human rights and dignity in technological advancement. The upcoming IGF 2025 in Norway was highlighted as an opportunity to further these goals and strengthen global cooperation in digital governance.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– The role of parliaments in shaping international digital governance frameworks

– Challenges faced by parliaments in contributing to global digital governance, such as cybersecurity threats and the digital divide

– Strategies for fostering collaboration between parliaments, governments, and other stakeholders on digital issues

– The importance of digital infrastructure and connectivity for economic development

– Balancing innovation with regulation and data privacy concerns

The overall purpose of this discussion was to explore how parliaments can effectively contribute to and shape global digital governance frameworks, while addressing challenges and fostering collaboration across borders.

The tone of the discussion was largely constructive and forward-looking. Participants shared insights from their countries’ experiences and emphasized the importance of international cooperation. There was a sense of shared purpose in addressing common challenges, despite differences in national contexts. The tone became more action-oriented towards the end as participants discussed specific steps parliaments could take to strengthen collaboration.

Speakers

– Hakob Arshakyan: Vice President of the National Assembly of the Republic of Armenia, focusing on Armenia’s role in advancing regional digital innovation

– Palwasha Mohammad Zai Khan: Senator from Pakistan, Chairperson of the Standing Committee on Information Technology of the Senate, focusing on South Asia digital governance challenges

– Sigbjørn Gjelsvik: Member of parliament from Norway, emphasizing global data privacy and cybersecurity

– Maria Elago: Member of parliament from Namibia, leader in advancing Africa’s digital transformation strategy

– Pamela Calletti: Member of parliament from Argentina

– Issa Al-Otaibi: Member of the Shura Council from Saudi Arabia, Chairman of the Transportation, Communication, and Information Technology Committee

– Najwa Alghamdi: Moderator

Additional speakers:

– Yusuf: Mentioned but not identified further

Parliamentary Roundtable on Digital Governance at IGF 2024

This Parliamentary Roundtable at the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) 2024 brought together parliamentarians from various countries to discuss the role of parliaments in shaping global digital governance frameworks. The discussion highlighted national initiatives, challenges, and the importance of international cooperation in addressing digital transformation.

Key Themes and Country Perspectives:

1. Armenia (Hakob Arshakyan)

– Emphasized the importance of harmonizing legislation across borders

– Introduced Armenia’s “Crossroads of Peace” initiative to open blocked roads and railways, connecting East with West and North with South

– Highlighted Armenia’s efforts in digitalization, including the creation of digital public services and a unified platform for government agencies

2. Norway (Sigbjørn Gjelsvik)

– Stressed the need for creating inclusive and secure digital policies

– Emphasized Norway’s commitment to an open and accessible internet

– Announced that Norway will host the next Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in June 2025

3. Namibia (Maria Elago)

– Highlighted the need to address the digital divide and infrastructure challenges, particularly in rural areas

– Discussed Namibia’s digital transformation strategy, focusing on improving connectivity and digital literacy

– Emphasized the importance of making digital information accessible and understandable in local languages

4. Saudi Arabia (Issa Al-Otaibi)

– Discussed the importance of balancing innovation with governance

– Highlighted Saudi Arabia’s initiatives in digital governance, including investments in AI and smart cities

– Emphasized the need for capacity building and technical expertise among legislators

5. Argentina (Pamela Calletti)

– Emphasized ensuring human-centered technology regulation

– Discussed Argentina’s perspective on digital governance, focusing on protecting human rights in the digital space

– Highlighted the importance of addressing disinformation and manipulation of information

6. Pakistan (Palwasha Mohammad Zai Khan)

– Focused on empowering youth in digital transformation

– Discussed Pakistan’s cybersecurity challenges and efforts to strengthen digital infrastructure

– Emphasized the need for regional cooperation in addressing digital governance issues

Common Themes and Challenges:

1. International Collaboration: All speakers emphasized the importance of international cooperation in addressing digital governance challenges, including participating in global forums, establishing regional cooperation frameworks, and harmonizing regulations across countries.

2. Digital Divide: Many speakers, particularly from developing countries, highlighted the need to bridge the digital divide and improve infrastructure in rural areas.

3. Cybersecurity and Data Privacy: Speakers discussed the importance of addressing cybersecurity threats and ensuring data privacy in the digital age.

4. Youth Engagement: Several speakers emphasized the crucial role of youth in driving digital transformation and the need to involve them in shaping digital policies.

5. Capacity Building: Participants highlighted the need for technical expertise among legislators and capacity building programs for parliamentarians on digital issues.

6. Balancing Innovation and Regulation: Speakers discussed the challenge of fostering innovation while ensuring appropriate regulation and protection of rights in the digital space.

Conclusion:

The Parliamentary Roundtable at IGF 2024 provided a platform for diverse perspectives on digital governance, highlighting both shared challenges and unique national contexts. The discussion emphasized the critical role of parliaments in shaping the future of digital governance and the importance of international cooperation in addressing global digital challenges. As countries continue to navigate the complexities of digital transformation, collaboration and knowledge-sharing among parliamentarians will be crucial in developing effective and inclusive digital governance frameworks.

Najwa Alghmad: Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to the Parliamentary Roundtable, an essential part of IGF 2024. A powerful collective force for change, and a champion for a prosperous global digital future. It’s the theme for today that resonates as we stand at the crossroad of rapidly evolving digital landscape. transform nearly every aspect of our lives, connecting people, cultures, and economies. However, these advancements also present challenges that transcend borders, such as data privacy, cybersecurity, and equitable access to digital resources. Accessing these requires strong legislative frameworks and international cooperation. Today’s session will explore how parliaments can harmonize efforts to address digitalization challenges and maximize its benefits. We are joined today by distinguished parliamentarians who bring unique perspectives shaped by their regional expertise. Let me introduce our esteemed panelist. His Excellency Hakob Arshakyan, the Vice President of the National Assembly of the Republic of Armenia, focusing on Armenia’s role in advancing regional digital innovation. Mrs. Pulvasa Zeykhan, a senator from Pakistan focusing on South Asia digital governance challenges. She is the Chairperson of the Standing Committee on Information Technology of the Senate. Honorable Mr. Sigbjorn Jelsvik, a member of the parliament from Norway, emphasizing global data privacy and cybersecurity. Honorable Maria Ilago, a member of the parliament from Namibia, a leader in advancing Africa’s digital transformation strategy. Dr. Issa El-Ateibi, a member of the Shura Council from Saudi Arabia. He is the Chairman of the Transportation, Communication, and Information Technology Committee. Last but not least, Mrs. Pamela Calletti , she is a member of the parliament from Argentina. We have many pillars today to discuss, and we will dive deep into the first pillar, that it is basically focusing on how we could use digitalization to expand across borders. We will dive deep into the role that should Parliaments play in shaping the international digital governance frameworks. Starting with you, Yusuf, you have a lot of experience in international digital governance frameworks. Starting with you, your Excellency, Mr. Heikob Arshakian, so Armenia has made advancement in regional digital innovation. How can Armenia’s Parliament leverage its advancement to foster stronger cooperation within its international scope?

Hakob Arshakyan: Thank you. First of all, I would like to thank for this invite, and it is great to be here in this excellent, great environment in the country, and of course it is a very beautiful palace. Thanks for the question, it’s very important. I think Armenia has done significant steps in its recent history on growing high-tech sector, which is very much connected to the connectivity and Internet and digital infrastructure. We have got more than 50,000 employees in Armenia, who are making more than 7% of the GDP of the country. Different international companies, local companies, start-ups, some of them are unicorns, more than $1 billion valuation companies, and they are contributing very much to the industry, as well as to the infrastructure and governance system itself and the policy also. Because, for example, we have an Internet Governance Council, which includes Parliament members, includes people from Ministry, it is headed by the Vice-Minister for High-Tech Industry, and there are organizations, telecommunication operators, and different other NGOs, including the regulatory members, who are together influencing the policies of the Internet governance itself. Because sometimes we face the challenge of the lack of knowledge, both in the government or in the Parliament, because of the very rapid growth of the technology itself. So Armenia wants to share its knowledge in different ways. This is one of the ways, of course, in participation of… kind of valuable conferences. Another way is, of course, creating the frameworks that we already have as examples and sharing that with our partners. For example, we have in the IPU, International Parliamentary Union, there is a science and technology working group. I am trying to contribute also in the framework of these working groups, as well as different international organizations. I think the digital excellency and digital agenda is the thing that no only country can survive or have a success, because it’s interconnectivity the first. In cyber security, in artificial intelligence, in blockchain technologies, if we don’t shape our policies, we will become very much localized, which is not bringing to a growth. So we should be more of an internationalized. Of course, there are some other questions that are arising, for example, a digital sovereignty. When we move to that direction, however, there is no other way of having a balance, the right balance, to be open and to be protected and to be integrated and also to have a digital sovereignty. So we are open for cooperation and we are thankful for the other countries and states for sharing their experience. Thank you so much.

Najwa Alghmad: That’s indeed a huge stride, I would say, in digital innovation, Your Excellency. Moving to you, Mrs. Bulbasheh. So given Pakistan’s efforts to implement its digital Pakistan vision and the challenges of regulatory fragmentation. in South Asia, how can Pakistan parliament lead in fostering regional digital cooperation?

Palwasha Mohammad Zai Khan: Thank you very much. I’d once again like to thank IGF and the Shura Council for giving us this opportunity. So see, I personally believe that all of us are sitting here, some are from the developing world and some are from the less developed world. Each of us have our own particular environments and no two environments are the same. Each of us have our own pace in this march towards connectivity and digital revolution and our pace is shaped by our circumstances and when I say circumstances, I mean all of us are politically different, all of us are culturally different, we are economically at different places and so we have our challenges. So we are not going to march at the same pace together but of course, even standing where Pakistan is standing today, I call it a success story because Pakistan is generally a youthful country. More than 60% of the population are below 30s, 30 years of age, so that’s a huge something that helps us go ahead with this revolution and I’d like to praise the young people. I’ve met so many who have come here on their own yesterday and I was surprised to see the number of people, the number of youngsters who have come here on their own and they’re here spending their own money and trying to be a part of this very important conference. So that really surprised me although I am the chairperson of the Senate Standing Committee on Information Technology and I keep hearing but seeing them here at this global forum, now I realize that this is our success story, this 60% of population that is young and open to ideas and very tech-savvy is our future. And I would also like to say that in Pakistan, perhaps the government has not supported the IT industry as it should have because of course we have our economic problems, we have our security problems, we have a host of problems. But this… this revolution has been led by the youth of Pakistan. And they have done it by their own efforts. And the main force in leading this revolution is their own hard work. They’re reaching out to the rest of the world. And by dint of merit and their hard work, they have managed to create a vibrant IT industry in Pakistan where we have a huge number of freelancers who make their living by pursuing different projects worldwide. And that makes me very proud to say that these people have penetrated the global IT industry. There are many who are working everywhere in the world. There are many who are working in Pakistan, but there are many who are a part of the global IT revolution. I’d also like to say that this is purely by dint of merit and determination. And we are very optimistic that we will convert, because a young population is a plus point, is a human resource that we have. And we are going to make the best use of it. And they are the ones who are going to drive this story of prosperity. I’d like to mention that we’re the fourth largest, we have the fourth largest number of freelancers in the world today. And believe me, we have to do more for them. We try and do, the government tries and, you know, they’re trying to do more, make policies, which I’ll come back to later. But they are themselves, you know, the credit goes to the young people of Pakistan. And I think it’s a great success story. This is where the parliament is trying to step in, will step in to ensure that we do whatever we can do to make this, you know, go many steps ahead.

Najwa Alghmad: Wonderful. I just wanted to echo what you’ve said, how youth are really the driving force. And this is what we have seen in Saudi, where youth is the cornerstone of the Vision 2030 transformation in Saudi Arabia. Moving to you, Mr. Yalcific, we’d like to hear more about the role of the parliament in your country in shaping the international digital governance frameworks.

Sigbjon Gjelsvik: Well, Thank you so much, Excellencies and distinguished colleagues, it’s an honour to be here. In our interconnected world, parliaments play a key role in shaping digital governance. We must ensure digital policies are inclusive, secure and beneficial for all. In Norway, we have seen the benefits of strong digital policies. These policies promote inclusivity and security. We aim to create a legislative environment that encourages innovation while protecting rights and privacy. However, the spread of social media and breakthroughs in artificial intelligence have made it possible to spread this information faster and to more people than before. This has increased international security challenges. Norway believes the internet should remain open and accessible. We are committed to supporting the Global Digital Compact, with the goal of connecting all people to the internet. This will require significant investment from governments and stakeholders, especially the private sector. However, we must also ensure that everyone can use the internet meaningfully and safely. The Internet Governance Forum is crucial for maintaining a universal, free and secure internet. It must continue as a bottom-up, multi-stakeholder platform for dialogue on internet policy issues. Promoting diversity in IGF participation is essential, and Norway will encourage broad participation in next year’s IGF. IGF in Norway. We are committed to working against internet shutdowns and protecting the right to information and freedom of speech. Human rights are important to protect and promote both online and in our physical world. We will continue to work with partners and the IGF against all forms of online violence in accordance with international standards and human rights law. Last year I led the Norwegian delegation to IGF in Japan as Norway’s minister for digital policy. We work to promote an open global and free internet, emphasizing the importance of avoiding state regulations that hinders development and innovation. It’s a pleasure to continue my participation here in Riyadh as a member of Parliament this year and I look forward to contributing to next year’s IGF which Norway will host in June 2025. Thank you

Najwa Alghmad: Solange. Wonderful, indeed Norway is providing really an exemplary, I would say it’s an exemplary leader and especially in the data governance, cyber security and data security as well. It’s nice to hear all of these stories. Moving to Maria, so Namibia plays a crucial role in advancing Africa’s digital transformation strategy. How can Namibia Parliament ensure its national ICT goals align with border regional efforts?

Maria Ilago: Thank you very much for the opportunity and I would like to thank the IGF organizers for inviting me. I feel honored to be here. Parliament are more than policymakers, they are the architect of a fair, inclusive and secure digital future. Namibia has already taken impressive steps forward, providing that progress does not always require massive population, it requires clear vision and action. Take Namibia’s access to information at number eight of 2022, it’s a big step forward towards transparency and empowering citizens with the tools to make informed decision. But here, here is the thing. Access alone is not enough. Digital information must be clear, understandable, and available in languages that resonate with people. Otherwise, it is like giving someone the key to a library, but the books are written in a language they don’t speak. Namibia’s digital strategy aligns well with regional and global priorities. Look at Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030, which balances innovation with governance. Namibia is already on this path, focused on expanding information and communication technology. ICT access, creating digital job opportunities, and supporting e-governance. The challenge now is accelerating this momentum through strong policies that make sure no one gets left behind. Most importantly, Namibia must continue to claim its seat on global platforms like the United Nations Digital Forum and the Southern Africa Development Community, SADC. The population size does not define leadership vision. Reforming governance in the digital age isn’t easy. But Namibia is showing that with determination, it is absolutely achievable. I thank you.

Najwa Alghmad: Thank you so much, Honourable Maria. And it’s really great to hear all of these advances. Moving to Dr. Issa. And with Saudi Arabia leadership in digital… digital governance, and global forums like G20. How can the Shura Council support the international efforts to create equitable digital frameworks?

Issa Al-Otaibi: Thank you so much, Dr. Najwa, for moderating this important session, and it’s a pleasure to join this panel, and I would like to extend my warm welcoming to everyone here to be in Saudi Arabia. Now to address your question, actually, Najwa, our Shura Council has a shared responsibility to ensure that digital transformation benefits everyone, not just for a specific region or for specific groups. Therefore, the question becomes, how do we achieve that? Well, the first step is to recognize that digitalization is a global movement. This means that no single nation can manage its opportunities or its challenges alone. Why? Because it has reflected on all of us worldwide. Here in Saudi Arabia, we have been involved in the past couple of years in efforts such as the G20 Digital Economy Working Group, which has been working on issues such as AI, ethics, and digital taxation. Secondly, our Shura Council needs to continue to actively engage in shaping international digital governance framework. And we can harmonize legislation across borders to create compatible data privacy, and data protection, and cybersecurity standards. Another role for our Shura Council could be to ensure more inclusivity. This means providing better access to digital transformation and digital infrastructure in underserved regions within and across different countries. As we lawmakers, we can actually allocate essential resources to better prioritize investment in general. Also, the Shura Council should be better in protecting against the future impact of emerging technology by adopting legislation for that reason. Finally, I would just like to say that in doing so, our Shura Council can continue to serve as a bridge between government, civil society, and private sector and international bodies in the shaping of international digital government framework in the future. Thank you so much.

Najwa Alghmad: Thank you so much, Dr. Issa. And I can also reflect on what you are saying, because we’ve seen it on a daily basis, all these governance kind of activities that we are facing or living in Saudi, including the personal data law, PDBL. There is the NDMO regulations. There is the ethical guidelines for performing AI, which is something that’s been implemented in both private and public sectors. So this is really a reality that we are facing on a daily basis. And thank you so much for your input. Moving to you, Mrs. Kayiti, Argentina’s focus on digital governance and regional collaboration is critical for Latin America. What role should the Argentinian parliament play in strengthening the cross-border digital policies?

Pamela Calletti : Good afternoon. Well, I’m Argentinian, so I’m going to speak in Spanish. So, in a world that we can consider traditional cooperation between regions is inevitable when we talk about the digital world, where the interconnectivity is essentially in the DNA of cooperation. We cannot imagine not having cross-border cooperation, right? But let me clarify that when we talk about the digital world and the real world, definitely there’s only one reality, it’s just the two sides of one coin. And today, virtuality is reality. And this is not a difference that’s just intellectual, but it has factual implications because it indeed implies that the human is the beginning, the end, and the center of every single one of our actions, regardless of which stage of this human life is moving in or the human rights of this person. So, in this way, the world we call traditional or historical interrupts or disrupts technologies. It implies a transition that’s natural in humanity. Let’s consider the scientific revolution like Galileo Galilei, Copernicus, Newton. Imagine the disruption they had in the status quo in the social relationships in the economy and the cultural revolution that the Renaissance implied, for example, where they had an anthropocentric vision where human was the axis of everything that existed. The industrial revolution, imagine the gap that was created when there was Because industrial revolution in gender, in the difference between rural and the urban, the way people related to each other, the revolution now in technology and communication as well, radio, the internet, television, and now we’re talking about the digital revolution. So we mean with this crypto, AI, quantum computing, and we shouldn’t lose sight that all these technologies are tools that should benefit humanity. So what’s the role we can have as parliamentaries? I believe in first place we should reduce the drama in the situation. This is just something normal that humanity has been through so many times, like as I said in the industrial revolution, or any other of these historical moments, and we all came through. So remember the human, the person, it should be always at the center. So let’s lose all prejudice, all fear, and the biased interest in this, and understand that all these challenges are going to be faced in a collaborative manner. The private sector, CSOs, the parliamentaries, and the scientific community, the academia, the technical community, and the citizens. Since we were kids, and let’s say the history of humanity in the traditional way, we learned to be citizens in this traditional world. However, nowadays, all of us beyond our citizenship, regardless if we are Argentinian, Arab, Norwegian, we are digital citizens, inside and outside. So there’s a big role in education, so I believe that parliamentaries, first of all, should lose this prejudice because we are lawmakers, we create regulations, and we have an advantage, which is that we can create new laws that create rights and obligations. The limitation, though, is the territorial aspect, so that’s a challenge for us as lawmakers, the cooperation at local, regional, and international levels. At the end, as lawmakers, we shouldn’t forget that when we create a law or a rule, it has an advantage, it has different possibilities to create public measures, but it also takes time to create these laws, and technologies are advancing so fast that when we are trying to create frameworks and legal environments, we shouldn’t forget that we have to keep in mind the logic of the technologies that we are trying to regulate.

Najwa Alghmad: I really like what you’re saying, that all these regulations need to be human-centered at the end because we are all just a citizen at the end. Moving to the next, so we covered the first pillar, and we really have these great insights by our great panelists. Let’s move to the second pillar, which was we’ll dive deep into the challenges that the parliament face in actively contributing to the global digital governance frameworks. I will start with Your Excellency, Mr. Arkashian. Armenia works to expand and enhance its digital infrastructure environment. What do you think the Armenian plans in supporting the extension of that infrastructure to enable the international connectivity?

Hakob Arshakyan: Thank you. First, I would like to reflect to what my colleague from Argentina just said about drama. I believe every industrial revolution brought drama with it, starting from the engines to the electricity and then to the internet, and now AI. The humanity should grow, and the technology will grow. We want it or not, but we should grow further, and of course, and drama comes with a lack of information or lack of knowledge, but we should not be afraid of being more digitalized or more smart and use more technologies. I think it creates more opportunities for every one of us, and especially for the future generations to have more access to the health, to the information, as my colleague from Norway said, and be more free, have more rights. So, coming to the infrastructure, thanks for the questions. Armenia has been a long time, been at a close border with the neighbor of Azerbaijan and now the neighbor of Turkey. So, now we have a new initiative, the Armenian government, which is called Crossroads of Peace. So, in that concept, our proposal is to open all the roads and the railways that are blocked right now, and also include the connectivity pipelines, if we may say, which will connect east with the west and the north with the south. Right now, there are large infrastructural projects happening in Armenia, and we think that connectivity and infrastructure will bring prosperity, as well as will bring stability and peace among all the countries. Also, it will connect the international capacities with each other, the countries in the larger region, so they will have also their attention to our region. So, this is the new… and large initiatives which I would like to also call our international partners to support and to also contribute, maybe have their businesses there as it is it those are infrastructures that will also bring health and prosperity to the people and to the businesses as well. Another part of the connectivity projects is of course satellite communications and which we already allocated the frequencies and gave the licenses to the private sector so they can organize also satellite communication, internet communication and it was, I very much agree with a friend, colleague from Norway when he said about freedom of speech but I would like to also add the digitization process helps the transparency of the bureaucracy of the countries and it also helps prevention of the corruption and doing business in the indexes rises with also a free internet and the free connectivity and I think when my colleague from Pakistan said that many people are working through the internet and having their money as a freelancer, why do they do that? Because you provide them free internet as well as you give them the public policy that gives them enough transparency and less bureaucracy to make their business in a right way and this direction is also familiar for Armenia, we just adopted a law that gives privilege to the freelancers for just one percent of the revenue fee as a tax and that’s it so it’s very easy, you make your money, you pay one percent to the government and that’s it and with one click and the tax system, taxation system is all digitalized, every business enjoys it and of course the risk prevention is also artificial intelligence based so it also helps the government to be transparent and free of corruption. Thank you.

Najwa Alghmad: Thank you so much indeed, prosperous infrastructure will definitely boost the digital economy, I will 100% agree with you. Moving to Mrs. Bilbasha, so given Pakistan’s effort to implement its digital Pakistan vision and the challenges in regulatory, apologies I’m just repeating the question but let me rephrase it again, so Pakistan challenges such as an uneven digital adoption and cybersecurity threats. How can the Parliament address these obstacles to strengthen its role in global governance?

Palwasha Mohammad Zai Khan: Thank you, maybe I was not very clear but I still feel what I said in the beginning is a base on which I will now make my argument. Pakistan faces a number of challenges in this digital age and how we embrace them is also it’s quite an effort and it’s a very delicate balance. Some of the important challenges that we are currently facing, I’ll just tell you a few. The top is the cybersecurity threats that we face. Pakistan faces increasing cyber security, cyber attacks targeting critical infrastructure including energy, banking, public services and according to an estimate spyware attacks in Pakistan witnessed an alarming surge in the first quarter of this current year escalating by a staggering 300% just in this year. Compared to the same period in 2023. So there is a signal that there is a growing menace of espionage and data infiltration. So the thing is that most of these about 22% of these detected high severity incidents are recorded in the government sector followed by the IT companies and then closely followed by financial institution and industries and so on and so forth. So our biggest challenge is to counter these cyber security threats and Pakistan has risen to the tier one role modeling rating and is now amongst the top 40 countries in the global cybersecurity index. So we are making progress and this has been issued by the ITU. So it’s a notable improvement from our position which was about 79th position a few years ago. So this advancement reflects that Pakistan is dedicated to strengthening its cybersecurity but and then we also have problems with data privacy and governance. We have had an absence of comprehensive personal data protection and we felt how it left citizens quite vulnerable. So the need pushed the parliament to legislate on it. It is this personal data protection act is an act that we have been working on for the past many months and it is now almost in the final stages of being made an act. It’s going to be passed. We also have surveillance concerns and unregulated data collection that also requires parliamentary intervention. We have a lot of data currently we have regulations regarding data protection. I won’t bore you with the long list but then I’ll come to the other the third greatest challenge we have which is of course the digital divide. There is a digital divide in the world, there is a digital divide within countries. So in case of Pakistan also, all of Pakistan is not digitally connected equally. So there is a great divide and that is of course based on areas that are hard to reach and the political environments that exist in those areas of course, then we also have our legal environments, we have political environments, we have our social issues. So in terms of Pakistan, this is one of the key areas that we are now going to be addressing, that we are addressing. So I will tell you a few things that we are going to be doing currently. We are going to be starting, we are going to start auctioning our 5G spectrum very soon. Our 4G network coverage is now almost 80%, 81% and that has risen to 81% in 2024. Our average broadband connection speed has improved much better than what it was last year and then our exports have now risen to 3.25 billion and this is where we get an idea of how IT can help a staggering economy and this is again where the youth come in because this is, you know, you just, my colleague here was mentioning how, you know, governments create environments for the youth to make this difference but in Pakistan’s case, they have made us realize and they have pushed us to, you know, take a part in active, you know, policy making to help them. So I will not take the credit away from them. Also then the AI, AI needs to be regulated and especially in countries like ours where political environments are quite, can be hostile and we as a nation are very emotional. We do not hesitate to take to the streets in minutes and then we, you know, find out later that the news is fake. So in order to avoid this, we are in the process of, Pakistan is amongst the few countries which are actively working on regulating the use of AI and in this regard, we have tabled a bill titled the Regulation of Artificial Intelligence Bill 2024 which is being introduced and it’s being debated. So we will, inshallah, make our first artificial intelligence policy and we will announce it by early 2025. So these are some of the issues that we face and the others, I mean, the host of issues but the others are, maybe I can, you know, somehow touch upon them.

Najwa Alghmad: But I think there are many great steps have been taken, I think starting with the Data Foundation by doing some sort of regulation and maybe this is a topic if we really have time later on we could touch base on how do you manage between extreme regulation and also innovation because some regulation might impede steps in innovation. But maybe this is in a later discussion. I will need to move to you, Mr. Jelsvik, to talk more about what sort of challenges that you face in Norway and what are the steps that have been taken to face them.

Sigbjon Gjelsvik: Thank you so much. I think we must acknowledge the challenges parliaments face in digital governance. One major challenge is the rapid pace of technological change. Legislators often struggle to keep up, leading to outdated policies. Another challenge is the lack of technical experience. Many parliamentarians do not have background in digital technologies. This can make it hard to understand and also address complex issues. This gap can hinder effective legislation. Balancing national interests with global cooperation is also a challenge. We must protect our citizens and economies while working together to create international frameworks. This requires balance and also compromises. To overcome these challenges, we must invest in capacity building. Parliamentarians need the knowledge and tools to address digital issues. We must foster a culture of continuous learning and collaboration, both within our parliaments and internationally. Norway is committed to ensuring the Internet development sustainably. We believe the IGF should remain a vital platform for open dialogue on Internet governance. We are also committed to working against Internet shutdowns and protecting the right to information and freedom of speech. Our new Electronic Communication Act in Norway strengthens security and consumer rights. This legislation ensures our digital infrastructure is secure and protects consumer rights, reflecting our commitment to a safe and inclusive digital environment. I want to also say, additionally, the Norwegian government is working on a strategy, particularly directed at strengthening the resilience in our population against disinformation. This strategy highlights that fighting disinformation requires working together for a strong democracy where citizens have access to correct and reliable information that promotes freedom and diversity of expression.

Najwa Alghmad: Thank you so much. Honorable Maria, so Namibia faces the challenges of bridging the digital divide, which is something we’ve just touched base with Mrs. Pulvasa. How do you see the parliaments in Namibia basically looking into solving these issues within Namibia?

Maria Ilago: Thank you very much. Namibia, like many other countries, also faces challenges, but we are solving them step by step. Number one, bridging the digital divide. Rural and underserved areas often lack strong connectivity, but Namibia is tackling this through projects like national broadband policy, which aims to ensure that internet access reaches the most remote communities. This is not just about infrastructure, it’s about giving every citizen a fair chance to participate in the digital economy. Number two, staying ahead of emerging technologies. Digital literacy is a key. Technologies like artificial intelligence, software that can think and learn, and blockchain, a secure way of managing digital data, are becoming central to global systems.

Najwa Alghmad:

Maria Ilago: is catching up quickly by prioritizing ICT skills and training programs, ensuring lawmakers and citizens alike understand and embrace these innovations. Number three, representation on global platforms. Namibia may not yet be as loud as others in the global conversation, but our presence is growing. Events like this one allow Namibia to share its success and learn from global leaders. Representation is our strength, and we are providing that we belong at the table. Challenges are not setbacks, they are opportunities to innovate. Namibia is taking steady strides, and our parliament is well positioned to shape governance. Frameworks that are both globally relevant and locally impactful. Thank you.

Najwa Alghmad: Thank you so much. Moving to Dr. Issa, I think the Saudi Arabia Ambitious Vision 2030 aims for digital leadership, but we see cybersecurity and data privacy remain key focuses at the time being. So how do you see the Shura Council will help to manage these priorities?

Issa Al-Otaibi: Thank you Najwa. To address this question, let’s break it down into key points. Firstly, the incredible speed of changing technology has made it harder for legislative bodies to keep pace, especially when addressing issues around technology concepts such as AI or blockchain. Therefore, the Shura Council has already trained on all aspects of digital governance. This way, we are giving equal priority to all three aspects, digital leadership, data privacy, and cybersecurity. Secondly, since global coordination is complex to achieve, and this is one of the main reasons why we are all sitting here today, different countries have different priorities. But by coming together like today, we can figure out and see the best way to balance the priorities of digital leadership, cybersecurity, and data privacy. This is something, actually, Saudi Arabia has already been working on by hosting events such as Global Cybersecurity Forum and also Global Artificial Intelligence Summit, where four years from across the country over the world brought together to discuss the future of emerging technology. Thirdly, one major challenge, as my colleague said, is the lack of coordination between the government and the parliaments. To address this, the Shura Council is still working closely with the government ministries to develop digital policies under Saudi Vision 2030. Actually, we have already created, signed, passed, and implemented 13 regulation laws related to government affluent. We have also implemented a number of technologies related to internet and information technology, such as personal data protection law, anti-cyber crime law, and also telecommunication and information technology law. We have also speed, we have also passed and implemented more than 24 technologies related to internet and information technology. We are proud to say that Saudi Arabia currently ranks 5th globally out of 140 countries for the speed of its internet, and we were number one in the global cybersecurity rank in 2024, finally, Saudi Arabia was ranked as a second in communication and I.T. you. That was for the Social Security program, which we created in 2006, which issued by the ITU in 2024. These some things we are extremely proud of, as we feel it shows our ability to effectively balance the priority of the digital IT at the moment, for hundreds of sevens of visitors per year.

Pamela Calletti : They do not guarantee the availability of access. When it comes to T・mode, people that are in the United States, they are not able to access the T・mode. And it is quite difficult to talk about my colleagues that had such profound participations. But in general, in Argentina, as in many other countries, we are dealing with the T・mode. And it is not a problem. It is a problem for all of us. And it is not a problem for all of us. And it is not a problem for all of us. And it is not a problem for all of us. local challenges, regional challenges, and also international challenges. And I would like to mention five of these ones. But before that, I want to start by saying or mentioning one of them, which is the digital gap that our parliamentary colleagues were mentioning. And I would like to start by giving an example. I come from Argentina, from a province in the north. I don’t come from the capital, but from a quite poor province. And we are next to Bolivia. And we have people in the rural areas that don’t have access to the internet, which is the reality of a lot of people in the global south. So there is a policy from our government, and we recently provided different digital antennas for the connection of these children in rural areas. These cross the river through donkeys to get to different schools. Then we managed to install them, and we managed to watch the World Cup, and luckily, Argentina won. So the children were very happy to be able to watch the World Cup. But it’s very crazy, the fact that an antenna for digital connection should cross a river on a donkey because our children actually go to school by donkey, and this is a reality globally. So which are these challenges? Well, clearly, this information, this information, which actually, when it’s routed, it is very, very dangerous. Let’s think about COVID. Cybersecurity counts on more and more attacks, but they are always more and more precise, and it requires technical abilities of people that are not prepared enough. So obviously, in Latin America and Argentina, this is more. so. Also, the gap among the different employees, the workers, workers that require more abilities, therefore we need clearly more capacity building. Also, the gap of access to technology, first to infrastructure. We need to think that in the world one out of three people are disconnected. And I used to say, when I said earlier that the virtual is real. And one out of three people actually, but moreover, in the case of Latin America and Argentina, it is one out of two people. So, we are six people here. So, if it would be one out of three, I mean only four of us would have access. But most likely, Maria from Namibia and I most probably would have the worst connection, because not only we come from the southern hemisphere, but we are also women. So, one out of three are disconnected, as I said, in my country one out of two. So, you should also look to your left onto your right. So, either one of you would be connected and the other one wouldn’t be, or if they are, wouldn’t be connected or also wouldn’t have the translator to understand, because they don’t have these abilities. This is the issue of the digital gap. We also have the age gap. Seniors 60 plus years old are also disconnected. So, we have many challenges in terms of these digital gaps. So, it is clearly fundamental that we should reduce these. And each revolution that happened in the past generated these gaps. And we didn’t manage to overcome them, but also now they’ve deepened. So, therefore, we clearly need international cooperation. And I also… also want to mention the other challenges, disinformation, also information manipulation, cyber security, because if we don’t have data governance, we don’t have cyber security. In that case, we’re not going to have actual governance, AI governance, sorry. We cannot talk about responsible AI governance if we don’t have data governance. Also the environmental impact, the environmental impact of this digital innovation, this is something that we also need to tackle. And this is a great opportunity because AI allows as well to advance in the reduction of this environmental impact. And then finally, data privacy, it is fundamental as well. And we need to think that citizens, all of us, we give our data, we don’t know whom to of people that monetize this data. And if I told you now that all of us are going to give our phones, our data, our medical data, purchasing data all over to anyone or to the state, what would you say? A lady should say that. Well, it would be crazy. Well, actually, this is actually happening. All the citizens are providing all this data, they’re being monetized, and by a click, because otherwise we would be out of the system. So in this sense, we shouldn’t be scared of regulation. Regulation is not about prohibiting, it’s actually an important condition. So we have a sustainable development that is also inclusive and democratic. Thank you.

Najwa Alghmad: Thank you so much, Maria, and I, Pamela, sorry, so I see really there are many common challenges that have been mentioned across different countries. Just to be cautious of time, I’m going to skip one of the pillars that we wanted to discuss today, and we will move to the great news that Norway will host next IGF in June 2025. So this is a question to you, Mr. Jelsvik. What do you see the actionable outcomes that should emerge? parliament from this IGF?

Sigbjon Gjelsvik: Thank you so much. As Norway prepares to host the next IGF in June 2025, I envision actionable outcomes that empowers parliaments. We need capacity building programs for parliamentarians. These programs should enhance digital literacy, understanding of emerging technologies and skills to address digital challenges. We should establish a global network of parliamentarians dedicated to digital governance. This network would facilitate continuous dialogue, knowledge sharing and collaboration. By working together, we can harmonize legislation, address common challenges and promote best practices. We should focus on creating actionable policy recommendations. These should address key issues like cyber security, data privacy, digital inclusion and the ethical use of technology. I hope the next IGF will foster stronger partnership between parliaments and other stakeholders. These partnerships are essential for a cohesive and inclusive digital future. Norway will work to uphold freedom of expression, equality, media diversity and resilience against disinformation. We also aim to promote an international legal order in the digital space. Let us ensure that the next IGF builds on our progress and drives meaningful change. Our new Electronic Communication Act in Norway includes provisions for broadband access for all. This legislation ensures everyone in Norway has access to a functional internet, and that our digital infrastructure is robust and secure. The recent adoption of the landmark resolution on the impact of AI on democracy, human rights and the rule of law at the EPU Assembly in Geneva highlights the importance of a responsible AI governance. The resolution calls for transparency, accountability and the protection of human rights in AI development. It emphasises the need to address AI-driven misinformation, gender-based violence and economic inequalities. These principles should guide our efforts as we move forward. 2025 is a special year for the Internet Governance Forum. It marks the 20th anniversary of the IGF, and this year the UN will review the forum’s mandate. The event in Norway will celebrate the global multi-stakeholder model of Internet Governance and set the course for its future organisation. I am pleased that the UN has awarded Norway the hosting of the IGF in 2025, showing trust in our ability to bring together the global community for important discussions about the Internet’s future role. Open discussions about Internet Governance and close international cooperation are crucial to ensuring the Internet remains open, safe and free for everyone. As the host country, Norway will facilitate… and inclusive forum, where governments, the private sector, civil society, academia, technical experts, and international and intergovernmental organizations can exchange knowledge and viewpoints. Together we will address the challenges we face. This multi-stakeholder model is the cornerstone of the IGF and the global Internet governance. Today the Internet is one of the world’s most important infrastructures, and it’s governed through a multi-stakeholder model where all relevant parties collectively handle its challenges and governance. Norway wants this governance model to be preserved and strengthened in the United Nations. Having participated in the IGF last year in Japan, and now here in Riyadh this year, I also look forward to contribute to next year’s IGF, which Norway will host in June 2025, and I will welcome you warmly to Norway next June. Thank you so much.

Najwa Alghmad: Wonderful. I look forward to IGF 2025 in Norway. Now it’s time for a reflection session, so I was going to ask all our great parliaments who are with us today to give us a one actionable step that you think your parliament can take to strengthen the global digital governance, starting with you, Your Excellency.

Hakob Arshakyan: Thank you. It’s difficult, after this very fruitful discussion, to come up with one action item. I think, as my colleague just announced, IGF 2025 in Norway, we are going to participate to that with the delegation from the parliament, and we’ll do contributions to that. I think this is first that comes to my mind. Thank you.

Najwa Alghmad: Thank you so much. Mrs. Bhavasha? Could you kindly repeat? So, basically, if there is any actionable outcome, one actionable outcome, that you think, from the discussion that we have today, that you think your parliament can take to strengthen the global digital governance.

Palwasha Mohammad Zai Khan: I feel my esteemed colleague from Norway has made a very, it’s a point you need to ponder upon. If you can just raise the microphone. Maybe we should have a collaboration between all the parliaments and have a global. forum for enhancement of in facilitating global digital governance and enact laws that go hand-in-hand together and foster collaboration contributing to international dialogue towards that goal. I feel such a forum would be very productive and it would go a long way in removing most of the hurdles that we have when we communicate with each other’s parliaments which we do like Pakistan is part of many legal and legislative initiatives for alignment with global standards but if such a forum comes into being I think many things will be streamlined.

Najwa Alghmad: Great, thanks so much. What about you? What do you think the one actionable outcome that you wanted or steps that your parliament can take?

Sigbjon Gjelsvik: I just want to add one thing I think it’s very important to have cooperation between different partners and keep this multi-stakeholder model and of course it’s important to have partnership with private sector, technical community, civil society and also international organization but I want to add one more thing that haven’t been said so long. One successful initiative for us is our collaboration with youth leaders and engaging with young people in the digital sphere has provided valuable insights so this ensure our policies reflect their needs and aspirations so I hope also for the next year IGF that we will engage and collaborate a lot with the youth leaders.

Najwa Alghmad: Thank you. Wonderful. Honorable Maria, is there any thoughts you would like to share?

Maria Ilago: Thank you very much. We are learning from global examples and we are going to adopting strategies that make sense for us whether it is expanding ICT infrastructure, supporting start-up or empowering rural communities. Namibia is providing some, that small nation can dream it. If we can have a budget for digital training it will be good for us in Namibia.

Issa Al-Otaibi: I can take a reaction to the two previous speakers and then I think we just need to start considering what we want to indicate to the Arab world to improve then, and we will try to solution it. From wherever we breathe, we have to dig deeper to make it even more bearable and sensible than enemies. Thank you for a number of comments on the results of this very important Youth Standard Control Advisory Group created, and I would like to p크urik to change this dialogue mechanism. Let me give you one example of that. We can create National Digital Transformation Councils which would bring together parliamentarians and parliamentarians, and I would like to change this dialogue mechanism so that we don’t have to do it again. Thank you very much.

Najwa Alghmad: ≫ Thank you very much. Mrs. Kaliti, your thoughts?

Pamela Calletti : ≫ To conclude, I would like to convey a very simple message, but very direct as well, that is based on four principles, and I would like to conclude by saying that we have to create a framework, a general framework, regulatory one, for technologies that can respect the logic of these technologies but that puts humanity in the centre. The how, as my colleagues mentioned, through collaboration in regional and international levels, the IGF is a clear example of a global framework. It’s a frame workgan Oi fraction in Canada and around the world, where all the voices from different sectors are combined to achieve solutions. Thank you very much. I also want to highlight the great work from the parliamentary track has been doing and the team that has coordinated this, that has allowed parliamentaries to have a conversation, share good practices, regulations so that we can strengthen our capabilities to face these challenges. Also, who? All the people involved, of course, private sector, academia, technical personnel, public sector. Parliamentaries are one example. That’s why the parliamentary track is a good way to do this. The CSOs and citizens in general. And finally, what for, which is, I think, the most important. It’s the beginning of the end of all these conversations is that all technologies, no matter which ones, are used in the benefit of humanity where human, their rights and their dignity are the lighthouse for every decision we make. Thank you.

Najwa Alghmad: Thank you so much. I noticed that most of you have been actually highlighting the world collaboration. So, in a few minutes, if you can, just dive deep into how do you have or how do you implement strategies that could foster collaboration through the parliament? Starting with you, your excellency, as we see that Armenia has a growing digital ecosystem. If you could just quickly highlight how do you encourage such a partnership and collaboration?

Hakob Arshakyan: I think we have two main collaborative bodies in Armenia. One is the Science and Technology Development Advisory Council to the Prime Minister, the head of the government. And we have, I am the leader of the executive committee in that body. I am a parliamentarian. I mean, we basically, the thing is that there is also a gap between the government and the parliament. Of course, we work in the same country even. However, the ministries, for example, the Ministry of High Tech Industries, all the full job is technology and digitization. In the parliament, it’s a legislative work. It’s in general. And that’s it. We might lack of knowledge. We might lack of information. We might lack of different kind of things, which creates some gaps between these two bodies. And we created this advisory council that engaged two parliamentarians. One is the vice speaker, and another one, the head of the commission. The second one is, and also we have their scientists, entrepreneurs, different kind of technology company leaders who are also bringing in their experience. Which is the strategic future of the country, like the government programs that will be implemented. It’s strategic. And the second one is, of course, digitization and the Internet, where we have Internet Governance Council, where it is also created by the prime minister. And the parliamentarians, the industry experts, everyone is there. And the regulatory and also the ministry is also there. And these are the two main bodies. One is science and technology. Another one is connectivity and Internet governance. So, these are the two bodies who are giving us a look to the future and a strategic point of view. Thank you.

Najwa Alghmad: Great. Thank you so much. What about you, Mrs. Bilbasa?

Palwasha Mohammad Zai Khan: If you could highlight the, how do you foster the collaboration between government and the parliament? You see, we are already adopting global frameworks, as I said. We are also into regional collaboration. For example, the SAARC country, South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation. We participate in SAARC initiatives to harmonize our trade, environmental, and technology laws. Similarly, I’ll give you an example. We are also part of China’s Belt and Road Initiative. And Pakistan ensures legal compatibility in areas such as digital trade and investment protection. Furthermore, we also collaborate with our regional partners to address challenges related to cross-border data flow. We also ensure our participation in international forums such as the Center for the United Nations and the World Economic Forum. Also the very important Financial Action Task Force. We also have extradition treaties. That’s very interesting for the extradition of cybercriminals. We have mutual legal assistance agreements. We have our training programs for capacity building. In the Pakistani parliament, we have a tradition of having caucuses and friendship groups. For example, other than my responsibilities as a legislator, I also head the friendship group for Argentina. So all of us have a friendship group. Similarly, if there is an initiative, we could perhaps form a caucus for collaborating on digital issues with the rest of the world. Let’s say we are already, it’s a tested experiment as far as SARC is concerned, which is quite an important big body. We have many important huge countries of the South Asian region. So we could expand it. And so could others. And we could have mutual agreements with other parliaments. And that’s not very difficult. My colleague from Armenia knows it’s fairly easy for the speaker or the chairman of a senate or a parliament to initiate this. And then when it gets initiated, it’s fairly above bureaucratic controls. Parliament is above bureaucratic controls and parliament can take an initiative without going through the lengthy procedures. So my, and I would go back and advise my own chairman of the senate to try and form such a forum and then reach out to all the countries that are represented in Pakistan.

Najwa Alghmad: Thank you for sharing that. Mr. Jelsvik, how does parliament manage the partnership, the collaboration between the private and the public sector in your country?

Sigbjon Gjelsvik: Yeah, thank you. I think it’s a very important question and it’s very essential that we could have a greater collaboration between parliaments and the stakeholders. I think also that we must establish some formal mechanisms for dialogue and cooperation. For example, some regular meeting points, or working groups, and perhaps also some collaborative projects that can bring together parliamentarians, industry experts, and civil society in common projects. These platforms allow us to share knowledge, discuss challenges, and develop solutions together. So I think that it’s very important, the question here at the end, to discuss how we can develop this kind of cooperation. And like my colleague from Pakistan just mentioned, regional cooperation is also very important. And the Nordic countries have a long tradition in our region to have working together on digital issues. And the regional approach can serve as a model for other parts of the world as well. And not just only the Nordic countries, but we also have a lot of cooperation with the Baltic countries. So in our region, it’s very important to have this kind of cooperation. But also, of course, on the international level. And we also take part in European cooperation, and also follow the discussions inside the European Union about new legislation, and also adopt it in Norway. And finally, Norway is, of course, very dedicated, as I’ve always pointed out, to improve the multi-stakeholder model. And the internet is crucial for businesses, and we aim to promote the Norwegian industry also into this cooperation. So keep to the multi-stakeholder model. But I think it’s very important to have some tools, and also have some cooperation, some working group that makes some progress between these forums. That is very important every year. Thank you.

Najwa Alghmad: 100% agree. To you, Arnold-Marie, we haven’t touched base on the entrepreneurship. So how do you do this in your parliament? How do you manage to foster the collaboration between the private sector inventors and entrepreneurship, just to boost the digital entrepreneurship?

Maria Ilago: Thank you. Here’s the good news. Namibia already has some of the building blocks in place, like, number one, public-private partnership. Namibia’s start-up ecosystem is growing, driven by young, innovative entrepreneurs. We can strengthen this by creating policies that support digital businesses like tax incentives, grants, and easier regulatory pathways. Like in South Africa, innovation hubs have shown how public-private collaboration can create jobs and solutions. Namibia can take this approach even further. 2. Inclusive policymaking Strong digital governance comes from listening to everyone. Every citizen, business, and civil society. Namibia’s Access to Information Act lays the groundwork for inclusive decision-making. Imagine town halls or digital consultations where people even in remote regions can voice their concerns and ideas. Investing in digital education, Namibia has already prioritized ICT in schools. But we can go further by fostering partnerships with global organizations like the AU or the UNESCO Digital Literacy Program. Ensuring young Namibians understand tools like AI and cybersecurity doesn’t just prepare them for jobs, it prepares them to lead. Lastly, we must remember that governance creates trust. Innovation is exciting, but it can be risky. Strong laws and collaborative efforts ensure that digital tools save people, not exploiting them. Thank you.

Najwa Alghmad: Thank you so much. I think we have only one minute left in this session. We’d like to quickly hear your thoughts, Dr. Issa, about the international collaboration that the Shura could do, that can foster the collaboration with international organizations for the digital frameworks.

Issa Al-Otaibi: Thank you so much. We can continue to create new strategies, actually, and I would say that most important one would be to build on the foundation of current and new trust-based partnerships. Actually, here in Saudi Arabia, under our digital government strategies, we have a dubbed collaboration between the private sector and the public institutions to develop more effective smart services. And moving to a global level, we can help parliaments talk about their priorities in forms such as the United Nations Global Digital Compact, which we are already a part of it. Also, we actually would like to learn more from frameworks for emerging challenges, such as the European Union General Data Protection, the GDP regulation, and also the African Union Digital Transformation Strategy, and last but not least, from the Asian Pacific Economic Cooperation Digital Economy. All of these initiatives actually involve input from business, government, and technical communities, and will ensure a more balanced and inclusive approach as we go forward.

Najwa Alghmad: Thank you so much. Thank you so much. A final thought, Mrs. Calleti, before we wrap up. A final thought on what would be the role of the parliaments to foster the collaboration with governments and locals.

Pamela Calletti : I think definitely the collaborative framework in the case of Argentina, we have a lot of domestic work because we have different states and we should harmonize our judicial system so that we can compare our regulations with the region and then see the friendship groups that we have. Like my Pakistan colleague, this year in Argentina there was a parliamentary track where parliamentaries discussed all the good practices and regulations and in the framework of the IGF and the parliamentary track is this environment where we all can meet and talk about all these policies and develop capabilities and capacities for these challenges and have a forum like the IGF where everybody is represented, academia, private sector, scientists, technical community, parliamentaries and the CSOs as well as citizens in general.

Najwa Alghmad: I think it was a discussion or a session that is full of very insightful discussions, thoughts and ideas. It’s wonderful to hear and see what’s going on in every country. It’s very nice to see there are many common, I would say, steps across these different countries. But again, this is the time to close. So as we close, I extend my heartfelt thanks to our panelists for their thoughtful contribution and for our audience for your engagement. So today we’ve discussed the critical role of parliaments in shaping a secure and inclusive digital future, the challenges they face and the strategy. for collaboration. On behalf of the IGF 2024, thank you once again for your dedication to shaping a better digital future. We look forward to seeing you, the progress that we will achieve, inshallah, together. Thank you so much, and thank you for the audience. Thank you. Thank you.

Agreement Points

Importance of international collaboration in digital governance

Hakob Arshakyan

Palwasha Mohammad Zai Khan

Sigbjørn Gjelsvik

Maria Elago

Issa Al-Otaibi

Pamela Calletti

Harmonizing legislation across borders

Strengthening cybersecurity measures

Hosting inclusive multi-stakeholder dialogues

Adopting global best practices in digital policies

Creating partnerships between public and private sectors

Harmonizing regulations across countries

All speakers emphasized the need for international cooperation and collaboration in addressing digital governance challenges and shaping policies.

Addressing the digital divide

Palwasha Mohammad Zai Khan

Maria Elago

Issa Al-Otaibi

Empowering youth in digital transformation

Addressing digital divide and infrastructure challenges

Ensuring equitable access to digital resources

Multiple speakers highlighted the importance of bridging the digital divide and ensuring equitable access to digital resources for all citizens.

Balancing innovation with security and privacy

Sigbjørn Gjelsvik

Issa Al-Otaibi

Creating inclusive and secure digital policies

Balancing innovation with governance

Both speakers stressed the need to balance digital innovation with effective governance, ensuring security and privacy while promoting technological advancement.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the importance of supporting and empowering young people in driving digital innovation and entrepreneurship.

Hakob Arshakyan

Palwasha Mohammad Zai Khan

Supporting digital entrepreneurship and innovation

Empowering youth in digital transformation

Both speakers stressed the importance of human-centered approaches to technology regulation, particularly in the context of AI governance.

Sigbjørn Gjelsvik

Pamela Calletti

Promoting responsible AI governance

Ensuring human-centered technology regulation

Unexpected Consensus

Importance of youth in digital transformation

Palwasha Mohammad Zai Khan

Maria Elago

Empowering youth in digital transformation

Investing in digital education and literacy

Despite representing different regions (South Asia and Africa), both speakers strongly emphasized the crucial role of youth in driving digital transformation, which might not have been expected given their diverse backgrounds.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement included the importance of international collaboration, addressing the digital divide, balancing innovation with security, and empowering youth in digital transformation.

Consensus level

There was a high level of consensus among the speakers on the need for international cooperation and inclusive digital policies. This consensus suggests a shared understanding of the global nature of digital challenges and the potential for collaborative solutions, which could facilitate more coordinated efforts in shaping international digital governance frameworks.

Different Viewpoints

Approach to digital governance

Hakob Arshakyan

Palwasha Mohammad Zai Khan

Harmonizing legislation across borders

Empowering youth in digital transformation

Arshakyan emphasizes international cooperation and harmonizing legislation, while Khan focuses on empowering youth and leveraging their efforts in driving digital transformation.

Priority in addressing digital challenges

Palwasha Mohammad Zai Khan

Maria Elago

Cybersecurity threats and data privacy concerns

Addressing digital divide and infrastructure challenges

Khan prioritizes addressing cybersecurity threats and data privacy concerns, while Ilago emphasizes bridging the digital divide and improving infrastructure in rural areas.

Unexpected Differences

Role of youth in digital transformation

Palwasha Mohammad Zai Khan

Sigbjørn Gjelsvik

Empowering youth in digital transformation

Rapid pace of technological change

While Khan emphasizes the crucial role of youth in driving digital transformation, Gjelsvik focuses on the challenges faced by legislators in keeping up with technological change, unexpectedly not mentioning youth involvement.

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement revolve around prioritizing different aspects of digital governance, such as international cooperation, youth empowerment, cybersecurity, and infrastructure development.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among speakers is moderate. While there are differences in approach and priorities, there is a general consensus on the importance of effective digital governance. These differences reflect the varied challenges and contexts faced by different countries, which could lead to diverse strategies in addressing global digital governance issues.

Partial Agreements

Both speakers agree on the need for effective digital governance, but Gjelsvik emphasizes inclusivity and security, while Al-Otaibi focuses on balancing innovation with governance.

Sigbjørn Gjelsvik

Issa Al-Otaibi

Creating inclusive and secure digital policies

Balancing innovation with governance

Both speakers agree on the importance of aligning digital policies internationally, but Elago focuses on adopting best practices, while Calletti emphasizes harmonizing regulations across countries.

Maria Ilago

Pamela Calletti

Adopting global best practices in digital policies

Harmonizing regulations across countries

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the importance of supporting and empowering young people in driving digital innovation and entrepreneurship.

Hakob Arshakyan

Palwasha Mohammad Zai Khan

Supporting digital entrepreneurship and innovation

Empowering youth in digital transformation

Both speakers stressed the importance of human-centered approaches to technology regulation, particularly in the context of AI governance.

Sigbjørn Gjelsvik

Pamela Calletti

Promoting responsible AI governance

Ensuring human-centered technology regulation

Key Takeaways

Parliaments play a crucial role in shaping digital governance frameworks and policies

There are common challenges across countries in digital governance, including cybersecurity threats, digital divides, and keeping pace with technological change

International collaboration and multi-stakeholder approaches are essential for effective digital governance

Digital policies should be human-centered and protect rights while fostering innovation

Youth engagement and digital literacy are important for successful digital transformation

Resolutions and Action Items

Norway to host the next Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in June 2025

Create capacity building programs for parliamentarians on digital issues

Establish a global network of parliamentarians dedicated to digital governance

Develop actionable policy recommendations on key digital issues like cybersecurity and data privacy

Foster stronger partnerships between parliaments and other stakeholders in digital governance

Unresolved Issues

How to balance national digital sovereignty with international cooperation

Specific mechanisms for harmonizing digital legislation across borders

How to effectively regulate emerging technologies like AI while fostering innovation

Addressing the digital divide in rural and underserved areas globally

Suggested Compromises

Balancing open internet access with necessary cybersecurity measures

Finding the right level of regulation that protects rights without impeding innovation

Combining global digital governance frameworks with localized implementation approaches

Armenia has been a long time, been at a close border with the neighbor of Azerbaijan and now the neighbor of Turkey. So, now we have a new initiative, the Armenian government, which is called Crossroads of Peace. So, in that concept, our proposal is to open all the roads and the railways that are blocked right now, and also include the connectivity pipelines, if we may say, which will connect east with the west and the north with the south.

speaker

Hakob Arshakyan

reason

This comment introduces a novel geopolitical initiative that aims to use digital infrastructure as a means of fostering regional peace and cooperation.

impact

It shifted the discussion to consider how digital initiatives can have broader geopolitical impacts beyond just technological advancement. It prompted other speakers to consider regional cooperation in their own contexts.

Pakistan faces a number of challenges in this digital age and how we embrace them is also it’s quite an effort and it’s a very delicate balance. Some of the important challenges that we are currently facing, I’ll just tell you a few. The top is the cybersecurity threats that we face.

speaker

Palwasha Mohammad Zai Khan

reason

This comment brought attention to the real-world challenges faced by developing countries in implementing digital governance, particularly in cybersecurity.

impact

It grounded the discussion in practical realities and challenges, prompting other speakers to address specific issues rather than just broad concepts. It led to a more nuanced discussion of the balance between innovation and security.

Norway believes the internet should remain open and accessible. We are committed to supporting the Global Digital Compact, with the goal of connecting all people to the internet. This will require significant investment from governments and stakeholders, especially the private sector.

speaker

Sigbjørn Gjelsvik

reason

This comment emphasizes the importance of maintaining an open internet while acknowledging the need for significant investment and cooperation.

impact

It refocused the discussion on the fundamental principles of internet governance and the need for global cooperation. It prompted other speakers to consider how their countries could contribute to global digital initiatives.

Access alone is not enough. Digital information must be clear, understandable, and available in languages that resonate with people. Otherwise, it is like giving someone the key to a library, but the books are written in a language they don’t speak.

speaker

Maria Elago

reason

This metaphor effectively illustrates the importance of not just providing access to digital resources, but ensuring they are truly accessible and useful.

impact

It deepened the conversation about digital inclusion, moving beyond just infrastructure to consider content and usability. It prompted other speakers to consider the qualitative aspects of digital access in their countries.

Since we were kids, and let’s say the history of humanity in the traditional way, we learned to be citizens in this traditional world. However, nowadays, all of us beyond our citizenship, regardless if we are Argentinian, Arab, Norwegian, we are digital citizens, inside and outside.

speaker

Pamela Calletti

reason

This comment introduces the concept of global digital citizenship, transcending traditional national boundaries.

impact

It broadened the scope of the discussion to consider the global nature of digital governance and the need for international cooperation. It prompted other speakers to consider how their national policies fit into a global context.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by moving it from abstract concepts to practical challenges and solutions. They broadened the scope from national to regional and global considerations, emphasized the importance of inclusivity and accessibility in digital governance, and highlighted the need for international cooperation. The discussion evolved from focusing on technological infrastructure to considering the broader societal, economic, and geopolitical impacts of digital transformation.

How to balance regulation and innovation in data governance?

speaker

Najwa Alghmad

explanation

This was suggested as an important topic for future discussion, as some regulations might impede steps in innovation.

How can parliaments create a global forum for enhancing and facilitating global digital governance?

speaker

Palwasha Mohammad Zai Khan

explanation

This was proposed as a way to foster collaboration and enact laws that align across countries, potentially removing hurdles in inter-parliamentary communication.

How can youth leaders be more effectively engaged in shaping digital policies?

speaker

Sigbjørn Gjelsvik

explanation

Collaboration with youth leaders was highlighted as a successful initiative that provides valuable insights and ensures policies reflect their needs and aspirations.

What strategies can be implemented to foster collaboration between parliaments and various stakeholders?

speaker

Najwa Alghmad

explanation

This was raised as a key point for discussion, focusing on how to implement strategies that could foster collaboration through parliaments.

How can regional cooperation models, like those in the Nordic countries, be adapted for other parts of the world?

speaker

Sigbjørn Gjelsvik

explanation

Regional cooperation was highlighted as an important approach that could serve as a model for other parts of the world.

How can parliaments effectively balance national interests with global cooperation in digital governance?

speaker

Sigbjørn Gjelsvik

explanation

This was identified as a challenge that requires balance and compromises to protect citizens and economies while working on international frameworks.

What mechanisms can be established for regular dialogue and cooperation between parliaments and stakeholders?

speaker

Sigbjørn Gjelsvik

explanation

The need for formal mechanisms like regular meeting points or working groups was emphasized to bring together parliamentarians, industry experts, and civil society.

Summary

This discussion introduced the Technical Community Coalition for Multi-Stakeholderism (TCCM), a newly formed group of internet technical operators. The coalition was created in response to upcoming internet governance events, particularly the WSIS+20 review in 2025. TCCM aims to provide a unified voice for the technical community in internet governance discussions, emphasizing the importance of the multi-stakeholder model.

The presenters explained that TCCM is an informal, opt-in coalition open to technical operators managing critical internet resources. Its primary goals are to defend and strengthen the multi-stakeholder approach, ensure the technical community has an equal voice in internet governance discussions, and maintain an open, secure, and interoperable internet. The coalition has grown rapidly since its formation, with over 28 members including registries, registrars, and regional organizations.

TCCM’s activities in 2024 included participating in the Global Digital Compact process and preparing for the WSIS+20 review. The coalition plans to focus on championing resources for the WSIS+20 review in 2025, aiming to influence the agenda early in the process. The presenters stressed the importance of acting quickly to have a meaningful impact on the discussions.

The Q&A session addressed concerns about potential fragmentation within the internet governance community, with the presenters emphasizing that TCCM aims to strengthen, not divide, participation. They also clarified the coalition’s stance on equal footing with governments in certain forums while acknowledging the different roles and responsibilities of stakeholders. The discussion concluded by highlighting TCCM’s flexible, lightweight structure and its goal of providing resources and coordination for the technical community in internet governance processes.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– Formation and purpose of the Technical Community Coalition for Multi-Stakeholderism (TCCM)

– TCCM’s activities and plans related to the WSIS+20 review process

– Membership structure and requirements for joining TCCM

– TCCM’s role in advocating for the technical community in internet governance forums

– Potential impacts and concerns about TCCM’s formation

Overall purpose/goal:

The discussion aimed to introduce and explain the newly formed TCCM to the audience, outlining its purpose, activities, and plans for engaging in upcoming internet governance processes, particularly the WSIS+20 review.

Tone:

The overall tone was informative and collaborative. The speakers were enthusiastic about the coalition and its potential impact. During the Q&A, the tone became slightly more defensive as speakers addressed concerns about fragmentation and legitimacy, but remained generally positive and open to feedback.

Speakers

– Jordan Carter: Moderator

– Jennifer Chung: From DotAsia organisation, part of the TCCM Secretariat

– Nick Wenban-Smith: From Nominet (UK country domain operator), part of the TCCM Secretariat

Additional speakers:

– Everton Rodrigues: From NIC.br (Brazilian CCTLD)

– Israel Rosas: From the Internet Society

– Yik Wei: From GraphiLab (decentralized physical infrastructure network company)

– Sandra Hoferichter: From the European IGF EuroDIG

– Ian Brown: Independent consultant

– Mark Nottingham (mentioned in chat)

Introduction of the Technical Community Coalition for Multi-Stakeholderism (TCCM)

This discussion introduced the Technical Community Coalition for Multi-Stakeholderism (TCCM), a group of internet technical operators formed in 2024 in response to upcoming internet governance events, particularly the WSIS+20 review in 2025. The presenters, Jennifer Chung from DotAsia and Nick Wenban-Smith from Nominet, both part of the TCCM Secretariat, explained the coalition’s purpose, structure, and activities.

Formation and Purpose of TCCM

The TCCM was formed to coordinate technical community input on internet governance and defend the multi-stakeholder approach. As Nick Wenban-Smith explained, the coalition aims to provide a unified voice for the technical community in internet governance discussions. Jennifer Chung emphasised that TCCM seeks to strengthen the multi-stakeholder model and ensure the technical community has an equal voice in these discussions.

Jordan Carter, the moderator, described TCCM as a lightweight, opt-in model for technical operators to collaborate. This structure allows for flexibility and easy participation. Everton Rodrigues highlighted that TCCM is particularly beneficial for smaller organisations that may struggle to engage in complex governance processes.

Membership and Structure

TCCM is open to technical operators that provide internet infrastructure. Nick Wenban-Smith clarified that to join, organisations must sign a statement of purpose. The coalition allows multiple contacts per member organisation, enhancing engagement opportunities. Jordan Carter noted that TCCM also offers a supporter category for those interested but not ready to fully join, which is not limited to technical infrastructure operators.

Since its formation, TCCM has grown rapidly, with over 28 members including registries, registrars, and regional organisations. This growth demonstrates the technical community’s interest in coordinated participation in internet governance. It’s important to note that TCCM is not a formal association or legal entity, but rather an informal coalition.

Activities and Plans

Throughout 2024, TCCM has been actively engaged in the Global Digital Compact process, as highlighted by Jennifer Chung. The coalition has made submissions to the CWG internet and issued a statement on the GDC adoption. TCCM uses various communication channels, including mailing lists and chat groups, to keep members informed.

Looking ahead, Nick Wenban-Smith stressed that the coalition’s primary focus for 2025 is the WSIS+20 review. TCCM aims to influence the agenda early, before formal processes begin, to have a meaningful impact on the discussions. The coalition held a day zero meeting before the ICANN meeting in Istanbul, where members discussed strategies and plans for upcoming governance events.

TCCM is also working to improve Internet Governance Forum (IGF) processes, with plans to develop a specific agenda for this in early 2025. This focus on the IGF demonstrates TCCM’s commitment to enhancing existing multi-stakeholder platforms.

Role of the Technical Community in Internet Governance

A key aspect of TCCM’s mission is to ensure the technical community has an equal footing with other stakeholders in internet governance discussions. Jennifer Chung emphasised this point, while Jordan Carter acknowledged the specific role of governments in formal decision-making processes. This nuanced approach recognises the importance of balanced participation while respecting established governance structures.

The legitimacy of the technical community’s participation was addressed during the Q&A session. An audience member argued that the technical community’s legitimacy stems from its role in operating critical internet infrastructure. Mark Nottingham added the concept of “output legitimacy,” highlighting the technical community’s contributions to the internet’s functionality. Nick Wenban-Smith emphasised that TCCM aims to provide technical expertise to inform policy decisions, highlighting the unique value the coalition brings to governance discussions.

Challenges and Considerations

The discussion also touched on potential challenges facing TCCM and the broader internet governance landscape. Nick Wenban-Smith provided a balanced perspective on the progress of internet governance and multi-stakeholderism over the past two decades. He acknowledged significant advancements in technology and connectivity but also noted increased polarisation as economies have become more digitalised.

Concerns were raised about potential fragmentation within the internet governance community. The presenters emphasised that TCCM aims to strengthen, not divide, participation. They clarified that the coalition’s structure allows members to opt-in to statements, providing flexibility when there are differences of opinion.

While Web 3.0 technologies were mentioned as a potential area of interest, the presenters noted that TCCM hasn’t specifically addressed this topic yet but is open to exploring it if members express interest.

Conclusion

The discussion concluded by reiterating TCCM’s flexible, lightweight structure and its goal of providing resources and coordination for the technical community in internet governance processes. The presenters stressed the importance of acting quickly to have a meaningful impact on upcoming discussions, particularly the WSIS+20 review.

Overall, the formation of TCCM represents a significant development in the internet governance landscape. By providing a unified platform for technical operators, the coalition aims to enhance the multi-stakeholder model and ensure that critical technical expertise informs policy decisions. As TCCM continues to grow and engage in key processes, its impact on shaping the future of internet governance will likely become increasingly apparent.

For more information about TCCM, interested parties can visit the coalition’s website at tccm.global.

Jordan Carter: All right, good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, and those of you in the village, paying attention to this launch event. We appreciate your company. On behalf of the Technical Community Coalition for Multi-Stakeholderism, we’re glad to have your attention for this briefing today. My name is Jordan Carter. My role is to be a very light-touch moderator of this session. All of the interesting things will be said by my colleagues on the stage and some who will pop up from time to time. There are three phases to today’s brief one-hour session. Nick and Jen, who I’ll introduce in a moment, will give you a presentation on the coalition, what it is, why it exists, what it’s for, what it’s working on. Then there’ll be a bit of a time for Q&A from them. Then the last part of the session will just mix and mingle, have a chat, and so on. That’s going to be the substance of it. When you two want me to swap slides, just say so. Our two panellists, Jennifer Chung, is from the DotAsia organisation, an Asia-Pac region organisation that operates the DotAsia domain. Nick Gwen Van Smith is from Nominet, a UK country domain operator. They are both part of the Secretariat at the TCCM. Later on, we’ll have a contribution from another colleague who’s in the process of joining to explain why they thought about joining the coalition. So without any further ado, I’m handing to Nick for the first slide. Thank you, Nick.

Nick Wenban-Smith: Thanks, Jordan, and welcome everybody. It’s great to see people here and thanks for giving us the opportunity to talk you through a little bit about this technical community coalition for multistakeholderism. So I think my reflection on the context is that there are a group of us loosely affiliated through the technical community. We see each other at ICANN meetings, we see each other at regional meetings, we see each other at IGF meetings, and we largely have a common agenda. And dare I say it, we’re all good friends. But when it came to the WSIS plus 20, which has been in anticipation now for at least since the WSIS plus 10, but more urgently in the last couple of years, I felt, the core group of us felt, that there was a lack of urgency and coordination around the technical community’s input to this multistakeholder issue. And each of us individually tend to be national or regionally based. But we’re all, frankly, in the global context, quite small operators. So it’s a very big topic area for us each individually to deal with. But collectively, we could divide up the work, put our thinking resources together, create common resources where it’s helpful for input to consultations or discussions with our respective governmental colleagues, and to build credibility to have a consistent drumbeat. So we realized, obviously, that 2025 was the WSIS Plus 20. We didn’t know much about it, but we knew inevitably as the months go on that it’s coming closer and closer. The GDC, if I’m honest, came on as a bit of a surprise, but we had to deal with that and we had to respond to the challenges of the GDC throughout 2024. And I think, if I’m honest, we treated it as a bit of a hors d’oeuvre, a bit of a warm-up for the WSIS Plus 20 next year. So we could see these were key years coming. I think when it came to the WSIS Plus 10, there wasn’t too much controversy that the mandate was going to be extended. It was much less clear to us what the future lay post the 20-year review. There was a degree of, one of my favourite multi-stakeholder words is un-clarity. There was a degree of un-clarity and we felt that we needed to mobilise the technical community to engage and to try to positively influence things. So we tried to provide everybody in the technical community with the same types of information because, as I think we’ve heard many times this week, the processes with the New York running of the tech envoy of the GDC has not been super easy. The deadlines have changed, the websites are out of date, there’s no clear opportunity for multi-stakeholder engagement. We needed to force our way to the table. And I think, if I’m not going to be pointing fingers at people, I think we felt that there was a lack of leadership in other parts of the technical community. We wanted to be on the front foot and to positively engage. Hence, to set up a small group of us initially and then build up and try to get a bit of momentum to help people with the things. So here we have formed the coalition. And by the way, I think it So, I’m a lawyer by background, so I’m very keen on the right pronoun. And we are a technical community coalition. We don’t profess to be the whole technical community. That would be a distinct overreach. So, it’s a technical coordination group. And I’ve put down on this last bullet point in this slide that I think the technical community needed to acknowledge that although we are huge advocates, as the name says, the technical community for multistakeholderism, we have to acknowledge that the experiment has not been 100% successful if you look at achievement towards the SDGs. Yes, of course, there have been massive strides in technology in the last 20 years, massive strides in connectivity, a degree of equalization. But in the same way, you have to acknowledge there’s been a degree of polarization as economies have become a little bit more digitized. So, I think we wanted to basically be upfront about that because I think our responses are positive but needed to acknowledge some of the shortcomings over the processes of the past few years. Because I don’t think although we are advocates for multistakeholderism, that it can’t be done better.

Jennifer Chung: Thanks, Nick. I think Nick gave us a really comprehensive background of how TCCTM came to be. We are a coalition, not the coalition. And really, you know, a group of technical operators from all over the globe welcomed this initiative that was started. And what you see right now on the screen is just an abbreviation really of the key points of the statement of purpose that you can actually read a little further on if you go on our website, tccm.global. Really, the three key things that we want to bring the message quite clearly, both to the technical community itself and also the other stakeholders of the Internet Governance Forum, and also the Internet Governance, I guess, community at large as well, is that there seems to be a rowing in the same direction. There is alignment that we want to keep defending, and having this multi-stakeholder approach evolve, and we want it strengthened as well. We also want the technical community to be on equal terms and equal footing when we’re talking about discussing all of the Internet Governance issues, the digital process issues that we’ve been discussing through this past year, through the GDT process, and looking forward to doing that in the coming year when we’re looking into the WSIS Plus 20 review, so on equal terms. We are, at the heart of it, we are operators that manage critical Internet resources. This is actually just a very small slice of what maybe a layperson might understand to be technical community, but this is also very important. We’re the ones who keep the Internet running. I like to say, when we do our good work, you shouldn’t actually notice it. You only notice it if we don’t do our work. When you cannot connect, you’ll be like, okay, what’s going on? With a growing number of members, we want to keep the Internet open, free, global, secure, resilient, interoperable. That’s the word I really, really like very much. I’ll add the word robust because I think Jordan really likes that word too, and available to all. I think we also looked at it in terms of this year, and previously, we did see a blog come out from ICANN, ARIN, and I think it was APNIC as well, calling attention to the global stakeholder the groups, the community, the IG community, that technical community is really important. We are the ones who keep the internet on. And I’ll stop again. Again, when we do our work, you shouldn’t notice. It should be like breathing. It should be seamless. It’s when you don’t have the connection, then you realize, oh, there’s this group of operators and all these people who control and manage the critical resources of the internet. They are the ones who really keep things going. Everything else is, there’s the ability to talk about it because we keep these things going.

Nick Wenban-Smith: Yeah, thank you. So what started out as a sort of a small, informal group. As a small IGON, in fact, this slide is out of date already because there are more members who have actually joined the coalition and are in the process of joining. You can see 28 members, which was accurate at the beginning of the week when we did the slide. It’s now out of date already, but you can see there’s a mixture of registries and that’s country code registries, but also GTLD registries. There’s a mixture of regional organizations and there’s also a mixture of registrars. So there’s a whole sector, broad sector, approach, different industries, some non-profit, some for-profit, some dealing directly with consumers, some dealing more on a regional basis, completely different cluster of technical operators, but providers fundamentally of the technical layer upon which everything else that is being discussed this week whether it’s AI or information or platforms or education or the impacts on the environment, none of this stuff really works without a stable underpinning of the technical layer, which is really what we’re here to advocate.

Jennifer Chung: So currently we have mailing lists that we have not only just TCCM members who have signed on to our statement of purpose that I talked about a little earlier, but it’s really for information exchange. It is for opportunities to input, well, previously this year into the GDC and then looking forward to all the different consultations that will feed into the WSIS Plus 20 review. We also have chat groups that are on different chat platforms to be able to quite quickly and informally notify these members of what is going on. Some of us are here on the ground in Riyadh, others are joining remotely online, looking at all of the different happenings at IGF. It’s a good way, a good informal way to keep our members actually informed with what’s going on. There is a greater group of technical community who actually are considering joining and have said to us, this is actually really useful information that I’m getting from the TCCM network and from the coalition that I’ll bring back to my own organization, my leadership to see if we can take this further or if there are actually positions that TCCM puts out on the website or actually develop through the mailing list and with members as well that they might be able to adopt and take on some of the key points. I think a lot of it is the messaging that would come from different parts of the technical community and if we have all of these voices coming from different parts of the technical community that do say fundamentally the same things, that perhaps global community will take note and understand, okay, well, there is many different voices talking about this and it’s from technical community and this is really what they care about. I think looking forward into 2025 as well. TCCM is looking to leverage our membership and leverage the wider community who are interested in TCCM work to help us draft positions, especially going into WSIS 20 review and also on topics that are near and dear to the community’s heart.

Jordan Carter: Just to add one thing with the moderators prerogative, this is not an association. This is not trying to create a big, heavy structure that tries to speak on behalf of its members. It’s meant to be a rallying point, an exchange of views, a way to learn from each other, perhaps shape each other’s views through that learning, and to test where consensus exists and where it doesn’t in this slice of the technical community. And so it’s a very opt-in process. If a statement is developed, you choose whether to sign on. The coalition doesn’t speak for all its members. It’s designed to be as easy and simple and low-key to be a part of as possible, designed not to create any complicated terrors for people about being signed up to someone else’s agenda, which I know is a real challenge in parts of the internet technical community, where people are very clear about their mandate, where membership communities are often very suspicious of outside organizations. So that’s something I’ve really kept in mind about how the coalition works. There’s my interruption. We need to pick up the pace a little bit. Lovely speakers.

Nick Wenban-Smith: Yeah, thanks, Jordan. And those are important points. To be honest, when we were setting up, most time we spent was on the statement of purpose. And once the statement of purpose has been signed up to, people can have access to everything. And as Jordan said, we don’t craft statements which need to be agreed. We don’t craft statements which people sign up to if they want to, but they don’t have to. So just a quick recap of our activities in 2024. 2024 has gone in the blink of an eye, it seems, from a discussion to… test the idea in March at the ICANN Puerto Rico meeting. Secretaria developed its ways of working, the email list and WhatsApp groups and other ways to share information, whether it’s a consultation date changing or some new input requiring some thought or just general chat or exchanges of useful blogs and information that’s all been done with the statement of purpose. There are now six, seven of us on the call Secretariat and Jen mentioned it earlier, but we have a website, the tccm.global website, thanks to my friends at CIRA who help out. There’s a lot of places there for a centralized resource and to publicize our work more broadly.

Jennifer Chung: I will listen to our lovely moderator and try to be really quick with this. Really, this is just showing that TCCM has been involved quite deeply in day one with the global digital compact process. We did a lot of blogs and statements and inputs. We did spoken statements. We did written inputs as well. I mentioned earlier our statement of purpose, which we publicized on our website in June. In September, we had a submission to the CWG internet on the development aspects to strengthen the internet. I think there was, finally, when the GDC was adopted in October, that was two months ago, we had a statement regarding what we thought about the entire process. November, right before the ICANN meeting in Istanbul, we had a full day zero meeting, which actually first part was strategizing how the secretariat wants to organize the work so it makes it easier and lightweight for members to be able to input and sign on to statements, as Jordan has mentioned which is the high-level plans for 2025.

Nick Wenban-Smith: Thank you. So the high-level plan for 2025 is essentially to champion our resources for the WSIS plus 20 review. We anticipate it’s going to be a rewrite essentially of the GDC processes, so we’ve already had a bit of a practice on it, but that’s really clearly the key area of focus, although some of this is in anticipation of and what happens after the WSIS 20 review.

Jennifer Chung: And on the screen you see actually the results of our day zero activity with the members. We did a series of roundtables, we had very good interaction and input with current TCCM members about how we can look into some input and written input, either goals we want to reach for the WSIS plus 20 review, you can see that on the screen, to secure of course the multi-stakeholder process and ensure the implementation of GDC doesn’t cut across the WSIS plus 20 review process as well. And certain goals also for the technical community would be to ensure that the WSIS action lines, really the ones that concentrate more on technical aspects of the internet are preserved in a way that benefits the current operations of the internet as well as the multi-stakeholder model as well. And then the fifth one is of course always in a controversial run about enhanced cooperation, how we can look at it in the GDC text and how we can look at it going into the WSIS plus 20 process.

Nick Wenban-Smith: So what tangible opportunities have we got to contribute to these multilateral UN processes? And I think if there’s one call to action that I want to get across today is no good waiting until the co-facilitators are appointed and the zero drafts in circulation. That’s too late. So any hope of positively influencing the agenda and to make across our advocacy needs to be done now, maybe before now. The train is leaving the station and if we leave it too long, we’ll miss it. And we will just be spectators in this process, not contributors. So that’s the one call to action to remember. And if you look forward here, we could see there’s a degree of certainty for things which are in the relatively near future and a degree of uncertainty as you go further into the future, but it’ll become a clearer, I guess, like a waterfall, the closer you get to it. But we know there’s, for example, the ITU consultation on the WSIS action lines, that’s already due by the 31st of January. There are other forums and consultations, which you can see here on the things through the first quarter of 2025. I think these are absolutely key positioning points and is what we are thinking of in terms of our thought evolution about how to put forward our advocacy in a way that does not look self-interested, which way is as a positive agenda, recognizing the shortfalls and essentially leaning in and giving a commitment to the future on behalf of the technical community towards a safe and secure underlying technical layer of the internet.

Jennifer Chung: And this is the, well, second half of the year pretty much. And I think we should definitely cross the opportunities that Nick mentioned really earlier on in the year where we’re able to have some effect to the process, especially when we know that, I think they’re hoping to have the co-facilitators appointed before May, 2025. We don’t know for sure right now if that’s going to be possible, but certainly a lot of the work needs to be done. closer to the beginning of the year in 2025 than the later ones. You already see there that the middle of the year is jam-packed with many events that many of you will be at. Perhaps not everyone will be at them as well, but by that time it might be a little bit closer to a place where maybe we can’t really pull the train back from the station if the train is going somewhere that we’re not quite sure. So I’ll hand this back to our moderator to open up for, I think, our Q&A.

Jordan Carter: Just before we do do a Q&A, to give you another couple of minutes, up on the stage we were part of the secretariat, but there are some people who have been looking at joining, and I’m going to invite Everton Rodrigues from NIC.br, Brazilian CCTLD, to just give us a minute or two about why it is that you’re considering joining. You can use the lectern or you can grab my mic.

Audience: Definitely. Thank you very much. Thank you, Jordan. Thank you, Jennifer. Thank you, NIC. Hello, all. Well, NIC.br is considering to join the Technical Community Coalition for Multistakeholderism because of the great importance and momentum of the Internet governance-related issues that we see not only from the standpoint of a political perspective in which CGI.br already deals with most of the issues, but also for the outcomes of those decisions and discussions which may have great impact for the technical community, which at times hasn’t been as united in one single coalition as we have seen this one or in any other place. So discussions should happen somewhere, and everyone stay looking at each other, saying when will it happen, where will it happen, and TCCM became the place to discuss that for the purposes that we have. We have all seen, as you mentioned, the timelines and the deadlines are happening, the discussions are happening elsewhere. So why elsewhere and not here when it also concerns the operations that we have, the services and initiatives that we undertake as well. So that’s one of the reasons why we’re considering that. Thank you again for the invitations. Congratulations for the talk. And I just would like also to say that it’s important to say that TCCM is open also for those who are looking for, are still not sure if they are joining or not. So you have many initiatives, many approaches to other members of the community. I’m here speaking on my own behalf as we have been approached by TCCM members to put more people, more institutions actually, on the group. And this has been a great difference that we see from other initiatives in which some at times they stay so close. And TCCM is approaching to so many people, as you saw, 28 and counting members hopefully will be joining you soon. Thank you very much.

Jordan Carter: Thank you. Thanks. Thanks, Everton. So that’s just a bit of a flavor of someone who’s considering. We have 10 or 15 minutes for any questions that anyone has. See a couple of hands up and Charles in the front row is our microphone. Oh, we have a microphone. So I’ll do three. I’ll do you and then Lito and then you.

Audience: Okay, I will be quick. Israel Rosas from the Internet Society. First of all, congratulations. I think that you are doing a great collaboration in the community. Among your objectives, you are mentioning that you… discussed some potential improvements to the IEF, could you share a little bit more about what the group has discussed, like, how are you seeing that the IEF could evolve?

Nick Wenban-Smith: I’ll save you on that one. So we know that we need an agenda to improve the IGF, I almost said the IETF, I would have been crucified if I’d said that, so I said the IEF. And we want, that’s going to be one of the first pieces of work that members do together at the start of next year to define that agenda. I’d imagine it would be things about more sustainable resourcing, about improved participation, but we haven’t had that dialogue yet, so at the moment it’s just a headline, there’s no secret plan as yet, and it will be worked out between and among the members in the first quarter of next year.

Audience: Thank you. I also think it’s a great initiative. And I would like to ask, what are the requisites for an organization in the technical community to join? I mean, do we need just one contact name? What is the level of granularity? I mean, it can be an association of CCTLDs be part, but also a CCTLD individually, likewise for ISPs or IX. So what is the scope of the membership that you are expecting? Thank you.

Nick Wenban-Smith: Thanks for the question. We’ve had this issue discussed a number of times. We have a degree of informality in the sense there’s not a legal constitution or a legal body that we’ve set up. It is an informal coalition and is designed to be inclusive and diverse and very… participatory, and as we’ve discussed, sort of opt-in. But we do require you to be essentially a technical operator. But all of the examples that you gave seem to be exactly what we’re looking for in terms of technical operators. You could see the types of members that we have so far. So it’s those folks who provide the technical air operation as their primary focus. And we’re looking for organizations rather than interested individuals. But particularly, if you’re part of that group of technical operators, you are extremely welcome. The only hard requirement is that we ask you to sign up to the statement of purpose, which I think is not a difficult task because it’s essentially, if you are a supporter of the multi-stakeholder model of internet governance, this should be like motherhood and apple pie. It should resonate very strongly. If you had any questions about it, you should obviously ask. But really, we ask for you to sign up. If you provide a name, then we will put them on the WhatsApp group as part of the group. And then they’ll receive coalition information, updates, announcements. And we will have coalition meetings. But they’re voluntary. Obviously, our membership is very geographically diverse. So we don’t expect people to turn up. It’s supposed to be an opt-in resource model so that people can find out for themselves more quickly than they could do individually. I think we all appreciate the big task which is ahead. And it’s easier to do that together as a group of like-minded people with sharing information rather than each having to go away and do it all for ourselves. So it’s supposed to be a common resource really for the technical community. So you’d be extremely welcome on that basis. And just one more thing. There’s no limit like one contact per organization. So some have one, some have two, some have three people signed up. So it’s designed to be flexible. Thanks, Lito.

Jordan Carter: Can we pass the microphone to this gentleman at the back? And then I’ll come to Sandra at the front.

Audience: Hello, thank you for your presentation. I’m Yik Wei from Malaysia. I’m with GraphiLab, decentralized physical infrastructure network company. I’m just curious from a Web 3.0 perspective, as we are one, what is the stance and position of TCCM on dealing with Web 3.0, and have there been any efforts to bridge the gap between Web 2.0 and Web 3.0 within the technical community? And what I see now from Web 3.0 is that they have their own conferences, they have their own infrastructure ecosystem. It works independently from Web 2.0 to a large extent. Have there been efforts to bridge this fragmentation from your side, or what is the strategy to move forward if you would like to share? Yeah, thank you.

Jordan Carter: Thanks for the question. I think Jen’s got a brief response to some of your questions. Brief responses.

Jennifer Chung: I think the internet governance community itself is already welcoming Web 3.0 discussions. I know that there’s not that many workshop topics and materials right now that you see here on the ground in Riyadh. Or perhaps if you were in the Kyoto meeting last year, there could have been some topics that touched on that. But as a whole, TCCM is pretty brand new. As you can see, we just formed this year. And because it was formed in response to this kind of inflection point of internet governance, looking at the WSIS plus 20 review coming up in 2025. So it was really a very quick, lightweight, informal group in response to something. Now, your question about looking into how to bring Web 2.0, 2.3 together, I think that could be topics that, if the TCCM membership would love to explore. more, I wouldn’t close the door on that at all. I think it’s really important to get all different parts of technical communities, with the plural, at the end together. Because I think, like I said earlier, we’re all rowing in the same direction. We want to support the multi-stakeholder model because that allows us a seat at the table. Without that, we won’t be even at the table.

Jordan Carter: Thank you. And the interaction between those two environments is something that is capturing attention in the ICANN and traditional community as well, because none of us wants to see confusion between these two at the user level. So it’s an important issue to follow on. Thank you. Sandra at the front.

Audience: Thank you very much. Sandra Hoferichter from the European IJF EuroDIG. I pretty much welcome this initiative and I can fully understand that there was a desire as a technical community to stand together, in particular when there at least was the risk that the technical community is not recognized in these processes as a separate stakeholder group. So I fully understand that. But I would like to ask, is there a risk that we are now separating or fragmenting multi-stakeholder for us? Speaking for national or for regional IJF, I must say the participation of the technical community in our forums is not huge. And I would fear a little bit that now that you’re forming your own group, this might even throw away more of the participation on the – and I’m not only speaking about EuroDIG, but also about the national and the global IJF, which is sometimes seen critical by the technical community. So I can hear that because topics are not relevant enough and so on and so forth. So is there a risk or what are you doing against that this will happen in terms of that the technical community is not fading away? from the IGF and IGF-led initiatives that are existing already. Thank you.

Nick Wenban-Smith: Thanks, Sandra, for the question. And I guess I can appreciate the concern. I think my answer is completely the opposite, which is this should lead to a more integrated approach from the technical community, firstly as regards the WSIS review, because we should try to have a more consistent message amongst the technical community, which would be more credible and should help to actually reinforce the IGF outcomes in terms of the WSIS review. And I think if you look at the three of us on the stage, we are all very integrated with our own national and regional IGFs. And I don’t think any of us have got any plans to discontinue that. If anything, it should make it stronger and more integrated and more credible as a thing. This is a mobilising point, not a fragmentation point.

Jordan Carter: Thank you. Just one other point to follow up the earlier question from Lito about what categories of membership. We’ve also got a supporters category. So if you think you might want to be a member, but you’re not sure, what that does is lets you join the email list, see some of the discussions, join some of the meetings. So that’s another option that’s available. If that is something you want to do, come and talk to one of us afterwards. You still need to be a technical operator, though. I’ll need to follow that up. I read it very quickly on my WhatsApp group. And we’ve got one more question in the front from Everton. Or maybe it’s a comment.

Audience: Hello. Yes. Just a brief comment regarding the point by Sandra, is that at times, some members or some interested parties are already looking to join. left out of the discussions. They just can’t follow because they are small and they don’t have the resources to follow up many other discussions. So many discussions which are taking place. So this is one of the advantages of having a TCCM which becomes one of the focal points for discussion with common peers. So I would say that this would be a win for those smaller organizations which are not able to reach out to their governments with so many useful resources shared already by many members of the community. So I see that more as a reinforcement of existing structures rather than a separation, so to say, of them. So just a brief comment. Thank you.

Jordan Carter: Thank you, Everton. And one, yes.

Audience: Ian Brown, I’m an independent consultant. Jumping up to a much higher level because this is IGF after all. From one of your earlier slides you said the technical community, as you defined it, should participate in internet governance. I forget the precise three Ds, but debate, discourse, and decision-making, I think it said, on an equal basis with governments. And I wondered what governments think of that. I wondered where your legitimacy comes from compared to democratic governments or authoritarian governments.

Jordan Carter: I think that probably depends on the forum. So in a forum like the IGF, in a forum like the IGF, as an example, we’re all here on an equal footing. If we were talking about an aspect of regulatory policy that needed to be implemented through law, I don’t think any of us would claim that we think we’re on an equal footing with states. Or if there was the negotiation of an international treaty, we’re not decision-makers in a decision like that. So it’s more saying that. as it’s the general formulation of the technical community saying in the forums that are either broadly dialogue based or the ones where we do the work that we do through ICANN, for example, stakeholders have their roles and responsibilities, but there are a lot of forums and processes where people genuinely are on an equal footing, which is distinctive from lots of other governance processes where that just isn’t the case. This is a UN meeting where everyone is here on an equal footing for the discussion. So that is absolutely integral to the DNA of the Internet Governance Forum.

Nick Wenban-Smith: I need to go back to the original Tunis formulation because it does talk about the different stakeholder groups and according to their respective roles and responsibilities, so no one is trying to step into the shoes of governments, it’s just that I think all of us believe that better policy making, decision making and discussion happens through a degree of transparency and openness and accessibility to participate in the discussions. At the end of the day, I don’t expect governments necessarily to do what I tell them to do, in fact I’d be horrified if they did, but I feel that an open line of communication so that at least, especially in areas of technical policy where they are going to intervene or regulate or legislate, they’re doing it essentially with their eyes open as to the perspectives of everybody else before they break something more important.

Jordan Carter: Yes, there’s another question here.

Audience: I’m sorry, my background is political science and IR, so maybe this question is concerned with more political stuff. So two questions, but very briefly. One is, how would you resolve conflictual opinions within yourself? Now you presume that you’re a community. But, you know, traditionally what I understand is in the technical community often conflicts are resolved based on the technical rationality. So one that is superior to the inferior ones wins, right? But it’s given the nature of the technical community, it’s more or less concerned with political stuff. So how are you planning to resolve such conflicts? That’s one. And the other one is, so how are you planning to influence policymakers? So are you going to just talk about, so what are the, so let’s say measures, like policy measures, do you, are you planning to, are you considering to wield?

Jordan Carter: Who wants to take that? Jen?

Jennifer Chung: Really good questions. I think, well, I think we mentioned that we had a full day of meetings, especially just actually last month, on how we wanted to take this coalition forward. It’s a coalition, not the coalition, of course. And we wanted this to be the most lightweight opt-in model that would be able to get the best information for input, opportunities for input for different members. So I think we haven’t got to the stage where there is a difference of opinion, then simply the member doesn’t have to opt in any kind of statement. It’s an opt-in method in that aspect. If you’re talking about creating some kind of conflict resolution mechanism, I think we are going to make the mechanism of the coalition a little more complicated, a little more clunky. I think it is important for you to bring this up. We haven’t gotten to the level where, you know, it’s more a reaction when this coalition was formed. In the future, if the TCCM members think that there are certain things that we need to look into that members would like to work on, both topically and subject-wise, and we feel that collectively that there is a need to create such kind of mechanism. systems that may help or hinder, I think that’s a point where we might be able to consider looking into that.

Nick Wenban-Smith: And I was going to say, today we haven’t really had any conflicts, and that’s because we don’t require people to sign up. And in fact, if there was a TCM statement which a member liked some of it and not all of it, we would, like an open source free resource, take the bits you like, change it, and use that, that’s completely fine. We provide these resources as a help and assistance, not to create conflict. And if there are bits of it you are less happy with, or you don’t think that’s within your remit or role because of the technical operation that you form, or for whatever reason in terms of your domestic or regional area, completely fine. That is absolutely fine, and we encourage you to cannibalize the good bits and discard the bits that you don’t like. It was supposed to be helpful rather than constraining or creating points of tension within the community.

Jordan Carter: There’s one more aspect that it’s worth pointing out. Because there is the orienting and political statement of purpose at the start, that does mean that people come in with some alignment before they’re part of the community, which helps mitigate people being completely at odds with each other. It isn’t like a situation where you were managing a resource, and you have to include all voices, and people might have radical conflicts of direction or interest, so that helps as well. I also have to correct something I said earlier about the supporters category. It isn’t only open to technical infrastructure operators. There’s some dear friends who are sort of associated within parts of the technical community that don’t operate infrastructure that are also supporters, so I’m not going to single anyone out. But I just needed to correct my mistake from earlier.

Jennifer Chung: Not forgetting your second question, because you had a second question, and one really good thing is a lot of the, well, all four of the founding members… members are CCTLDs and to many different degrees that they do have a lot of interaction with their national governments, so that is already a starting point. Of course, the group now consists of not just the CCTLDs, there’s also the generics, which .Asia is one of the generics, and it encourages you to talk to like-minded governments and your national governments that you’re already tied to, but not only that, we’re looking into coordinating, cooperating with other stakeholders, loose informal coalitions too. So there’s a lot of collaboration going on and of course we know certain views are expounded more in certain quarters when you’re able to get the ear of your national governments, but I think right now the TCCM is quite well positioned to be able to expand and amplify that voice.

Jordan Carter: Thanks Jen, and there was one comment I’m just going to offer from the chat because here in the room we find it a little bit difficult to see the chat, I think I’m right in saying, but it was a comment from Mark Nottingham, I think on your point about democratic legitimacy, he said the technical community doesn’t have democratic legitimacy and doesn’t pretend to, it has output legitimacy through making the internet work. So that’s another perspective to add. Look, I think we’ve achieved the purpose of today in one sense, which was to introduce the coalition to you, hopefully for some of the audience it was a new thing to find out and learn a bit about. Thank you very much for the questions and discussion that have come. I’ve been asking that and there aren’t at the moment, there’s just that comment that I’ve just read out. So yes, thank you for asking that question before I get fully into wrap-up mode. If you do want to find out any more information about the work the coalition has done, the statement of purpose and so on, you can find that on the website at tccm.global. We will organise to put a copy of this slide pack on the website as well. So if you want to get some of that information, whether it’s the dates or what we see ourselves as doing, you’re welcome to do that. And some of the members of the audience are members of the coalition. If you are a member of the coalition and you’re comfortable to just want to like wave your hand in the air or stand up or something. So you might want to talk to those people or to those of us on the front if you want to find out more. But for now, it’s pretty much time for us to evacuate the stage. So on behalf of Nick, Jen, myself, the TCM team, thank you for your attention. And I hope you have a lovely remaining one day in two hours of IGF 2024 here in Riyadh.

Agreement Points

Formation and purpose of TCCM

Nick Wenban-Smith

Jennifer Chung

Jordan Carter

Coalition formed to coordinate technical community input on internet governance

Aims to defend and strengthen multi-stakeholder approach

Provides lightweight, opt-in model for technical operators to collaborate

The speakers agree that TCCM was formed to coordinate the technical community’s input on internet governance issues, defend the multi-stakeholder approach, and provide a flexible collaboration model for technical operators.

Focus on WSIS+20 review

Nick Wenban-Smith

Jennifer Chung

Focusing on WSIS+20 review as key priority for 2025

Engaged in Global Digital Compact process throughout 2024

Both speakers emphasize the importance of the WSIS+20 review and the Global Digital Compact process as key priorities for TCCM’s activities.

Equal participation in internet governance discussions

Jennifer Chung

Jordan Carter

Seeks equal footing with other stakeholders in discussions

Acknowledges governments’ role in formal decision-making

The speakers agree on the importance of equal participation for the technical community in internet governance discussions, while recognizing the specific roles of different stakeholders in formal decision-making processes.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize the importance of early engagement and proactive participation in internet governance processes to effectively influence the agenda and outcomes.

Nick Wenban-Smith

Jennifer Chung

Aiming to influence agenda early before formal processes begin

Engaged in Global Digital Compact process throughout 2024

Both speakers highlight the inclusive nature of TCCM membership, emphasizing flexibility in participation options for technical operators and interested parties.

Nick Wenban-Smith

Jordan Carter

Open to technical operators that provide infrastructure

Offers supporter category for those interested but not ready to join

Unexpected Consensus

Legitimacy of technical community in governance discussions

Jordan Carter

Audience

Acknowledges governments’ role in formal decision-making

Claims legitimacy through operating critical internet infrastructure

There is an unexpected consensus between Jordan Carter and an audience member on the legitimacy of the technical community in internet governance discussions. While acknowledging the formal role of governments, they agree that the technical community’s legitimacy stems from its operational role in maintaining critical internet infrastructure.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement include the purpose and structure of TCCM, the focus on the WSIS+20 review and Global Digital Compact process, and the importance of equal participation in internet governance discussions while recognizing different stakeholder roles.

Consensus level

There is a high level of consensus among the speakers on the core objectives and operational approach of TCCM. This strong agreement suggests that TCCM has a clear direction and unified purpose, which could enhance its effectiveness in representing the technical community in internet governance discussions. However, the specific strategies for influencing policy and the exact nature of the technical community’s role in decision-making processes may require further clarification and consensus-building as the coalition develops.

Different Viewpoints

No significant disagreements identified

The transcript and arguments do not reveal any clear disagreements among the speakers. The discussion primarily focuses on explaining the purpose, structure, and activities of the Technical Community Coalition for Multi-Stakeholderism (TCCM).

Unexpected Differences

Overall Assessment

summary

No significant areas of disagreement were identified among the speakers

difference_level

The level of disagreement among the speakers appears to be minimal to non-existent based on the provided information. The speakers primarily focused on presenting a unified message about the TCCM’s purpose, structure, and activities. This lack of disagreement suggests a cohesive approach within the coalition, which may be beneficial for its effectiveness in engaging with internet governance processes. However, it’s worth noting that this unified front might also limit the diversity of perspectives within the coalition.

Partial Agreements

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize the importance of early engagement and proactive participation in internet governance processes to effectively influence the agenda and outcomes.

Nick Wenban-Smith

Jennifer Chung

Aiming to influence agenda early before formal processes begin

Engaged in Global Digital Compact process throughout 2024

Both speakers highlight the inclusive nature of TCCM membership, emphasizing flexibility in participation options for technical operators and interested parties.

Nick Wenban-Smith

Jordan Carter

Open to technical operators that provide infrastructure

Offers supporter category for those interested but not ready to join

Key Takeaways

The Technical Community Coalition for Multi-Stakeholderism (TCCM) was formed to coordinate technical community input on internet governance, particularly for the WSIS+20 review in 2025.

TCCM aims to defend and strengthen the multi-stakeholder approach to internet governance.

The coalition provides a lightweight, opt-in model for technical operators to collaborate and share information.

TCCM has been actively engaged in the Global Digital Compact process throughout 2024 and is focusing on the WSIS+20 review as a key priority for 2025.

Membership is open to technical operators that provide internet infrastructure, with a supporter category for those interested but not ready to fully join.

The coalition seeks equal footing with other stakeholders in internet governance discussions while acknowledging governments’ role in formal decision-making.

Resolutions and Action Items

TCCM plans to develop an agenda to improve IGF processes in early 2025

The coalition aims to influence the WSIS+20 review agenda early, before formal processes begin

TCCM will continue to expand its membership and collaborate with other stakeholders

Unresolved Issues

How TCCM will resolve potential conflicts of opinion among its members

The specific measures or strategies TCCM will use to influence policymakers

The role of Web 3.0 technologies and how to bridge the gap with traditional internet governance structures

How to ensure TCCM’s formation doesn’t lead to fragmentation or reduced participation in existing IGF processes

Suggested Compromises

TCCM allows members to opt-in to statements, allowing for flexibility when there are differences of opinion

The coalition encourages members to use parts of TCCM resources they agree with and discard others, promoting a flexible approach to collaboration

We have to acknowledge that the experiment has not been 100% successful if you look at achievement towards the SDGs. Yes, of course, there have been massive strides in technology in the last 20 years, massive strides in connectivity, a degree of equalization. But in the same way, you have to acknowledge there’s been a degree of polarization as economies have become a little bit more digitized.

speaker

Nick Wenban-Smith

reason

This comment shows a nuanced and balanced perspective on the progress of internet governance and multistakeholderism, acknowledging both successes and shortcomings.

impact

It set a tone of critical self-reflection for the discussion, encouraging a more honest assessment of the current state of internet governance.

We are operators that manage critical Internet resources. This is actually just a very small slice of what maybe a layperson might understand to be technical community, but this is also very important. We’re the ones who keep the Internet running. I like to say, when we do our good work, you shouldn’t actually notice it. You only notice it if we don’t do our work.

speaker

Jennifer Chung

reason

This comment clearly articulates the unique role and importance of the technical community in maintaining the internet’s infrastructure.

impact

It helped clarify the specific niche and value proposition of the TCCM within the broader internet governance ecosystem.

This is not an association. This is not trying to create a big, heavy structure that tries to speak on behalf of its members. It’s meant to be a rallying point, an exchange of views, a way to learn from each other, perhaps shape each other’s views through that learning, and to test where consensus exists and where it doesn’t in this slice of the technical community.

speaker

Jordan Carter

reason

This comment provides crucial context about the nature and purpose of the TCCM, emphasizing its lightweight and flexible structure.

impact

It addressed potential concerns about the TCCM’s role and helped frame subsequent discussion about its operations and goals.

From one of your earlier slides you said the technical community, as you defined it, should participate in internet governance. I forget the precise three Ds, but debate, discourse, and decision-making, I think it said, on an equal basis with governments. And I wondered what governments think of that. I wondered where your legitimacy comes from compared to democratic governments or authoritarian governments.

speaker

Ian Brown

reason

This question raises important issues about the legitimacy and role of the technical community in relation to governments in internet governance.

impact

It prompted a discussion about the nature of multistakeholder participation and the specific role of the technical community, leading to clarifications about the TCCM’s position.

How would you resolve conflictual opinions within yourself? Now you presume that you’re a community. But, you know, traditionally what I understand is in the technical community often conflicts are resolved based on the technical rationality. So one that is superior to the inferior ones wins, right? But it’s given the nature of the technical community, it’s more or less concerned with political stuff. So how are you planning to resolve such conflicts?

speaker

Unnamed audience member

reason

This question raises important points about potential internal conflicts within the TCCM and how they might be resolved, especially given the political nature of some discussions.

impact

It led to clarifications about the TCCM’s decision-making process and its opt-in nature, highlighting the coalition’s flexibility in dealing with potential disagreements.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by prompting clarifications about the TCCM’s role, structure, and decision-making processes. They encouraged a nuanced examination of the technical community’s place in internet governance, balancing optimism about its potential with realistic acknowledgment of challenges. The discussion moved from introducing the TCCM to critically examining its purpose and operations, ultimately providing a clearer picture of how this new coalition fits into the broader internet governance landscape.

How could the IGF be improved?

speaker

Nick Wenban-Smith

explanation

The coalition plans to develop an agenda for improving the IGF, which is important for enhancing multi-stakeholder participation and effectiveness.

How can the technical community bridge the gap between Web 2.0 and Web 3.0?

speaker

Yik Wei

explanation

This is important to address potential fragmentation in the internet ecosystem and ensure cohesive development of internet technologies.

How will TCCM ensure the technical community doesn’t fade away from existing IGF and IGF-led initiatives?

speaker

Sandra Hoferichter

explanation

This is crucial to maintain the technical community’s engagement in broader internet governance discussions and prevent siloing.

How would TCCM resolve conflicting opinions within itself?

speaker

Unnamed audience member

explanation

This is important for understanding how the coalition will handle internal disagreements and maintain cohesion.

What specific policy measures is TCCM planning to use to influence policymakers?

speaker

Unnamed audience member

explanation

This is crucial for understanding the coalition’s strategy for engaging with and impacting internet governance processes.

How can TCCM leverage its membership to draft positions for the WSIS+20 review?

speaker

Jennifer Chung

explanation

This is important for preparing the coalition’s input into a major upcoming internet governance process.