Uncategorized

Summary

This discussion focused on innovative financing mechanisms to bridge the digital divide, particularly in developing countries. The panelists explored why traditional approaches to telecommunications infrastructure have failed to achieve universal access goals and how community-centered connectivity solutions can address this gap.

Carlos Rey-Moreno provided historical context, noting that despite recommendations dating back to the 1980s, private sector investment alone has been insufficient to close the digital divide. He emphasized the need for public finance and support for local, community-centered initiatives. Other speakers highlighted the unique advantages of community networks, including their flexibility to adapt to local conditions and ability to operate sustainably at small scales.

Regulatory challenges were discussed, with Dr. Emma Otieno sharing Kenya’s experience in creating an enabling environment for community networks through licensing frameworks and capacity building. Jane Coffin stressed the importance of regulators re-imagining financing models and gathering more data to support these initiatives.

The role of Universal Service Funds (USFs) was examined, with suggestions for making them more transparent, efficient, and inclusive to support smaller local connectivity providers. Panelists also discussed the need for innovative risk assessment models to attract investment in community networks.

Gender considerations were addressed, with Talant highlighting the Women in Digital Economy Fund as an example of targeted support for closing the gender digital divide. The discussion concluded with practical advice on building sustainable community networks and the importance of knowledge sharing between communities.

Overall, the panel emphasized the need for a multi-stakeholder approach, blending public and private financing, and adapting policies and regulations to support community-centered connectivity solutions as a complement to traditional infrastructure approaches.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– The persistent digital divide and failure of traditional approaches to achieve universal access

– The potential of community-centered connectivity initiatives to bridge the digital divide

– The need for innovative financing mechanisms and enabling policy/regulatory environments

– The role of regulators in supporting community networks through licensing, capacity building, etc.

– Addressing gender gaps and inclusion in digital connectivity efforts

The overall purpose of the discussion was to explore innovative financing mechanisms and policy approaches to support community-centered connectivity initiatives as a way to bridge the digital divide, especially in underserved areas.

The tone of the discussion was largely constructive and solution-oriented. Speakers shared examples, case studies and recommendations with a sense of urgency about addressing connectivity gaps. There was an emphasis on reimagining traditional approaches and taking calculated risks to support new models. The tone became more interactive and practical during the Q&A portion at the end.

Speakers

– Risper Arose: Africa Regional Capacity Building Coordinator for the Local Access Network, a LockNet initiative

– Emma Otieno: Representing Women International Digital Inclusivity Network; Communication Authority of Kenya

– Carlos Rey Moreno: Co-manages the LogMet initiative, focuses on policy and regulatory environment for community-centered connectivity initiatives

– Jane Roberts Coffin: Speaking in personal capacity; 28 years of experience working with communities, international financial institutions, and organizations focused on connectivity

– Lilian Chamorro: Part of Colnodo, an NGO in Colombia working with community networks

Expanded Summary: Innovative Financing Mechanisms for Bridging the Digital Divide

This discussion, organized by the Local Access Network, focused on innovative financing mechanisms to bridge the digital divide, particularly in developing countries. The session explored why traditional approaches to telecommunications infrastructure have failed to achieve universal access goals and how community-centred connectivity solutions can address this gap.

Session Structure and Participants

Risper Arose, the moderator from the Association for Progressive Communications (APC), introduced the session structure:

1. A keynote presentation by Carlos Rey-Moreno

2. A panel discussion with experts in the field

3. An interactive Q&A session with the audience

Keynote Presentation

Carlos Rey-Moreno, Senior Advisor on Community Networks at APC, provided historical context and current challenges in his keynote. He highlighted that despite recommendations dating back to the 1980s, private sector investment alone has been insufficient to close the digital divide. Rey-Moreno emphasized the need for public finance and support for local, community-centred initiatives. He also mentioned the ongoing WSIS+20 review and the task force on financial mechanisms, stressing the importance of community-centred approaches in addressing connectivity gaps.

Panel Discussion

The panel featured experts from various backgrounds:

– Dr. Emma Otieno, Director of Licensing, Compliance and Standards at the Communications Authority of Kenya

– Jane Coffin, Senior Advisor at ISOC

– Lilian Chamorro, Researcher at Colnodo

– Talant Sultanov, Co-founder of the Internet Society Kyrgyzstan Chapter

Key points from the panel discussion included:

1. Regulatory Approaches:

Dr. Emma Otieno shared Kenya’s experience in creating an enabling environment for community networks. She highlighted specific support measures:

– Flexible licensing frameworks

– Capacity building programs

– Guidelines for community network operators

– Reforms to universal service funds to support smaller providers

2. Reimagining Financing Models:

Jane Coffin emphasized the need for regulators to:

– Re-evaluate risk assessment for local connectivity projects

– Gather more data to support community network initiatives

– Explore blended finance approaches combining public and private funding

3. Sustainability Strategies:

Lilian Chamorro discussed sustainability strategies for community networks, including:

– Adapting to local conditions and needs

– Lowering costs through community involvement

– Knowledge sharing between community networks

4. Real-World Impact:

Talant Sultanov shared an example from Kyrgyzstan where a small investment in community connectivity catalyzed broader development. A village connected to the internet through a community network saw improved communication with relatives abroad and was able to advocate for other essential infrastructure improvements.

5. Gender Considerations:

The Women in Digital Economy Fund was highlighted as an example of targeted support for closing the gender digital divide. The fund focuses on:

– Supporting women-led initiatives in the digital economy

– Providing resources for skills development and entrepreneurship

Audience Interaction

During the Q&A session, Kossi Amessinou from Benin inquired about the Women in Digital Economy Fund’s eligibility criteria and geographic scope. Panelists provided information on how to access the fund and its current focus areas.

Conclusion

The discussion emphasized the need for a multi-stakeholder approach, blending public and private financing, and adapting policies and regulations to support community-centred connectivity solutions. There was a growing recognition of the potential of these alternative models to address the persistent digital divide, complementing traditional infrastructure approaches. The panel highlighted the importance of flexible regulatory frameworks, innovative financing mechanisms, and community involvement in developing sustainable connectivity solutions for underserved areas.

Risper Arose: Good afternoon, everyone. It’s my absolute pleasure to welcome you all to this important session. My name is Risper Arose, and I serve as the Africa Regional Capacity Building Coordinator for the Local Access Network, a LockNet initiative, which is a collective effort led by the Association for Progressive Communication, in partnership with grassroots communities and support organizations in Africa, Asia, and Latin America and the Caribbean. We aim to directly support meaningful community-centered connectivity initiatives while contributing to an enabling ecosystem for their emergence and their growth. It has been an enriching and insightful week, participating here at the Internet Governance Forum 2024 here in Riyadh, and today I have the privilege of moderating our discussion on a topic that lies at the heart of digital inclusion. The topic is innovative financing mechanisms to bridging the digital divide. In this digital age, ensuring universal access to telecommunication infrastructure remains a significant challenge, particularly in developing countries. Despite significant public and private investments, traditional approaches to telecommunication infrastructure, while impactful in certain respects, have failed to achieve universal access goals, even for basic voice connectivity for over two decades. However, as the saying goes, innovative technology solutions have emerged as a powerful alternative. These solutions are rewriting the narrative driven by distinct investment priorities. These providers not only connect underserved communities, but they also foster social, economic development. They represent a vital part of the micro, small and medium enterprises, SMEs’ ecosystem, which is the backbone of developing countries that has been largely overlooked by traditional large scale network operators. They remind us that connectivity is more than a utility. It is a foundation for empowerment and progress. And with all this said, they still face funding constraints and regulatory challenges that hinder their sustainability and scalability and their impact. Efforts to engage traditional commercial financial institutions that fund communication infrastructure have surfaced three intrinsic difficulties that needs to be addressed. At a limited scale, there are high real and perceived level of risks and the lower returns on investment. To address these constraints, there is a strong need to create an enabling and flexible policy, regulatory and financing environment that encourages the emergence of more innovative regional and local investment models for community centered connectivity providers, which by extension allows them to expand and operate cost effectively. And in this respect, to improve the balance between profit maximization and also reaching the universal access, the time has come to fully review where investments are made and how effective they are at addressing these challenges. digital inclusion. That is just a brief. For our session today, we will explore the interplay of policy, regulation and financing and fostering innovative connectivity solutions that bridge the digital divide. Our discussion will showcase new and innovative financing mechanisms, investing in small scale infrastructures that are already supporting emerging and successfully supporting community-centered solutions. I am thrilled to have a distinguished panel of experts and practitioners with us today. And without further ado, I will give them each less than a minute to introduce themselves. And I’ll start with those joining us online. I’ll give the floor to Dr. Emma Otieno.

Emma Otieno: Thank you for the opportunity. In the event that I’m not able to keep both the voice and the video sometimes I’ll be switching off, but I’m glad to join this very, very important session. My name is Dr. Emma Otieno. Currently based in Kenya. I’m on this call representing an organization, a non-profit organization known as Women International Digital Inclusivity Network. It has an abbreviation that is written in French. So back in Kenya I also work for the regulator. That’s the communication authority of Kenya. My background mostly at the moment I’m specializing on matters of digital inclusivity and specifically I’m passionate about digital gender inclusivity. I’m happy to be in this call.

Risper Arose: Thank you so much, Dr. Emma. We are also very happy to have you as part of the panelists. Next on, I’ll go to Dr. Carlos Rey Moreno. Carlos?

Carlos Rey Moreno: Hi everyone there in the room and also online. My name is Carlos Rey Moreno. I’ve been co-managing the initiative, the LogMet initiative that Risper mentioned at the beginning, focusing on policy and regulatory or creating an enabling environment for community centre connectivity initiatives, especially in policy and regulation. But lately, I’ve been doing quite some work around financial mechanisms as part of that. And it will be a pleasure to be in the session sharing that with you and joining from Spain. It has been amazing to be there with you, but it was impossible this time around. Thank you again. Thank you.

Risper Arose: Thank you so much, Carlos. Next on, we’ll hear from Jane Coffin.

Jane Roberts Coffin: Good evening. Good afternoon. My name is Jane. I’m joining you from the United States. And I’m speaking in my personal capacity, not professional where I work. And based on my experience over the last 28 years, and most recently, my experience working with communities around the world, international financial institutions, international organizations focused on connectivity, and the importance of how we can take a look at financing smaller community-based networks and or small ISPs. A pleasure to join you today. And again, I’m speaking in my personal capacity, and none of the information that I’ll be speaking about today is non-public. It’s all public information and based on my experience. Thank you very much.

Risper Arose: Thank you so much, Jane. And thanks for clarifying that. Now I’ll give this chance to Talant to start us off. You can introduce yourself. Thanks so much.

Speaker: My name is Talant and I’m wearing two hats here. One is the co-founder of Internet Society, Kyrgyz chapter within which we’ve launched several community networks in Kyrgyzstan. And also I am representing Global Digital Inclusion Partnership, which is a member of our consortium with GSMA and implementing project called Women in Digital Economy Fund. So I’ll talk about that as well. Thank you.

Risper Arose: Thank you, Talant, happy to have you in this panel. Last but not least, we’ll hear from Lilian Chamorro. Well, hello to all. Thanks for joining to this session.

Lilian Chamorro: My name is Lilian Chamorro. I’m part of the team of Colnodo. Colnodo is an NGO based in Colombia, in South America. We have been working with community networks since many years ago, but more helping communities to have their own infrastructure since 2017, approximately. And we have been involved in different projects with different parents and allies. Then, okay, I’m going to share with you some of the experience that we have in Colombia right now. Thank you so much, Lilian.

Risper Arose: Looking forward to those experiences and engaging. Maybe just a brief on the structure of our session today. We will include, we’ll have a keynote presentation to set the stage. And this will then be followed by a dynamic panel discussions from the speakers you’ve heard from. And then afterwards, we’ll open the floor to questions and contributions. And I encourage each of you to engage your questions, thoughts, and insights, etc. we really hope to make this session interactive and also enriching. So as we begin, I’d like to leave all of us with a question, maybe to think about and to reflect on, and that’s in how can we reimagine financing models and also financing models that can empower local connectivity providers and achieve universal access. And with that said, I’d now welcome Dr. Carlos Rey-Moreno to give us a keynote presentation. Carlos, over to you.

Carlos Rey Moreno: Hello. Thank you, Risper. It’s a pleasure to be with so many nice people in this panel. Let me actually share a screen. Yeah, okay. And let me know if you can see my screen. Those online? I can see you, Carlos. Yep. Yes, we can see your screen. Okay, sure. So yeah, I wanted to go back to the introductory remarks from Risper and why we are talking about this, right? Because the reality that, you know, I also want to frame this presentation in the context of the WSIS Plus 20 review that is taking place at the moment and to be concluded next year. That there is a reality, right, that is the continued inability to meet universal service aspirations that demonstrate that for ensuring the WSIS vision of a people-centered, inclusive, and development-oriented information society, where everyone can create, access, and utilize and share information, we cannot leave it solely to traditional technology. telecom incumbents operators to solve, right? That all the actors need to participate because as Riesfeld was saying, after 20 years, there is a massive persistent digital divide that those business models are not able to close, right? Because over this time, we’ve seen a shift in focus from access to telephony, to broadband internet, now to meaningful connectivity that underscores that changing landscape. But throughout that changing landscape, there is the essence of a business case that meets the profitability requirements of those operators continue to pose a challenge for these players to offer services that can bridge the digital divide in remote and rural areas with a small populations and low income. And despite being here today, despite many fora, especially after COVID discussing this issue, discussing the issue of the persistent digital divide, and this has been a longstanding challenge. I mean, this was introduced in the mainland report in 1985. It was known that private sector alone was not gonna be able to close the digital divide, right? Still in that context, donors and many international financial institutions, because it was thought that a for-profit, a fully for-profit model was gonna be able to do that, and that private investment were gonna find enough return as to be able to finance this capital intensive industry. They started to withdraw from the area in the early 90s, right? Because that private capital is stepping, right? And, but later on, as part of WSIS, there was a task force on financial mechanisms that was created to precisely look at what could be done, right? As it was realized that private capital could not do it alone. There were ideas of the Digital Solidarity Fund that were studied, the Digital Solidarity Fund was created maybe not as intended initially, but more with voluntary contributions which did not quite solve the problem. But one of the things that the task force on financial mechanisms highlighted back in 2004, 2005 was the vital role of public finance as well, right? Because, you know, from this graph from the World Bank from 2002 that we have seen in so many places, and there is, you know, an affordability frontier, a market gap, and then an access gap that the market isn’t gonna be able to cover and public intervention is gonna be necessary, right? And this actually led to the creation of many universal or that report and the task force on financial mechanisms influenced many discussions for countries to create a universal service funds and implementing agencies to actually utilize them and implement them. Some countries such as the US promulgated USF even before this type of reports, but ever since this report, many other agencies or funds have been created. A report from the ITU mentioned that in 2022 42% of their members had a USF agency or fund. And then the adoption of the strategies, how it has worked. whether efficiently or inefficiently is up for debate. In some countries it has a massive positive impact. In other countries there has been issues with its disbursement. It has been issues with many other things. I believe other speakers and during the discussions we will be touching precisely on USS but they were there to solve or to look at that problem from that perspective that the private finance was not gonna be able to close the digital divide, right? But there were other findings from the TFF that were incorporated in the Tunis agenda that I wanted to highlight here. One was helping to accelerate the development of domestic financial instruments including by supporting networking initiatives based on local communities and strengthening capacities to enhance the potential of securitized funds and utilizing them effectively, right? The Tunis agenda was adopted in 2005. And this is the path for the future that was adopted in September, 2024, that is three months ago where the digital divide is recognized as its first objective, right? That there is a persistent digital divide that is there and that it needs to accelerate it. The closing that digital divide needs to be accelerated in order to meet the sustainable development goals. And there are two commitments there that I want to kind of guide the presentation today. One is the development of innovative and blended financial mechanisms and incentives included in collaboration with governments, multilateral development banks and relevant international organizations on the private sector. Again, kind of saying that private and public and multilateral development banks are part of the solutions and blended financing is part of the solution. but also that there is a need to invest on local network initiatives, right? It was said in 2005, it is said again in 2024, right? 20 years after, in order to provide safe and secure network coverage for all areas including rural, remote and hard to reach areas, right? So why no change? Why we are still discussing this 20 years later, right? I think from our analysis and this is touching on the submission that APC did to the Commission on Science and Technology for Development on the WSIS plus 20 review, that there has been little resources that has gone to developing countries. The WSIS didn’t include a financial mechanism per se, a fund, mainly as a result of donor countries not wanting to make additional financial commitments, but also the fact that the lingering impact of structural adjustments, right? A trend in development aid to discourage global South governments relying on aid from investing on public sector infrastructure and services and the debt burden after a period of debt forgiveness in the early of the centuries, that is, you know, that current crisis of the debt is at the center of many of the issues that we are seeing in developing countries as well. And the idea that, you know, financial mechanisms are not just to address the infrastructure issues, but also there is a need to include, there is a need to invest on human capacity and digital public services to do this, right? There is not gonna be an infrastructure without the capacity, it would not solve this issue. But also because regardless of private finance and public finance, regarding of many other instruments, the logics have been supporting and using all that finance to support. for traditional incumbent operators and they’re trying to support their return on investments and their for-profit business model to do something that they are struggling to, that their business model is not able to provide the return on investment that they are seeking in those areas, right? And that again, something different needs to be done. A lot of the USF, pretty much 99% of that USF has gone to the very same operators that were using private finance for their operation. But also that the public finance over and beyond USF, the multilateral banks only use 1%, and this is a study from the Alliance for Affordable Internet, that around 1% of the multilateral development banks cumulative commitments in low and middle income countries over the period of 2012, 2026 in relation to ICPs and was 1%, was 5 billion over that period, right? There has been some changes. There are some initiatives such as, the World Bank including ICPs and as part of the digital, as part of their priorities, the European Commission for Team Europe, Global Gateway, the G7-led Partnership for Global Infrastructure Investment, the Digital Silk Road. There are many, many more investments, but still those investments are going to the very same partners and they are way less than what the ITU and others are considering to do that. And they are going to the very same places and investment and funding similar things in many cases than the private sector and private finance is funding, right? 5G, Leo satellites, submarine cables, and that tend to focus on profitable markets that maximize the return of their shareholders. They are not going into supporting. initiatives or supporting interventions that could potentially close the digital divide and address the issues that 30% of the persistent digital divide are facing. As Risper was saying, and I think many others have been saying over the years, there are 16 initiatives that are showing that there are other ways of doing this, right? And initiatives that are based on or business cases that are focused on decentralized, local and community center initiatives that are driven by completely different investment imperatives, right? Where it’s not only that they need to be sustainable, they need to have some revenue streams to be sustainable, but that they have a different bottom line around social and environmental concerns that move their interest, not only the seek of profit and return for their investors, right? They are part of the micro, small and medium size businesses that are, as Riesper was alluding to, part of the blood or the lifeblood of so many economies in the global South, but that they don’t, it’s only very recently that they are taking part of the telecommunications sector and that they are struggling to be part of a telecommunication sector that is built for traditional and national based footprint, right? This community center connectivity providers can operate and be self-sustainable at a very small scale and have a way more diverse range of ownership and operating models, right? By being community center instead of profit center, as I was saying, they are able to use all their financial mechanisms to reduce their costs and be a center on the communication needs of the community. rather than the profit that their shareholders are seeking. Over and beyond the initiatives, we’ve seen that the ITU and all their members have reached consensus that both at the World Telecommunications Development Conference in the bridging the digital divide resolution that this type of complementary access solutions are needed. Not only at the WTDC, but also at the Plenipotentiary Conference. Again, all the member states are agreeing that we need to look at complementary access solutions and enable them to close the digital divide. And the ITU in the recent Universal Service Financing Efficiency Toolkit is putting community broadband networks as part of the solutions that need to be considered. And because when we are looking at innovative financial mechanisms, those that are able to do the same at a lower cost are a financial mechanism in and by themselves, right? ABC is coming up with a financial assessment tool to compare last mile connectivity providers. And the initial findings that we are having is that they are considerably cheaper. And not only considerably cheaper, but that they bring along social inclusion related impacts to achieve meaningful connectivity that those incumbent traditional operators are not able to come up with. So how they are able to do this, right? Well, the investment comes from the users themselves. And they are also able to tap into other non-returnable support, such as subsidies and grants or donations from people that kind of align with that social mission, also public budgets and other. in mechanisms that private companies also use such as recovering the cost of hardware in the price of sales or private finance. But in the sustainability model, they also include other elements such as barter transactions, action-based subsidies, membership fees, and others that public operators are not, sorry, private operators are not able to meet. And that’s how they are able to provide pricing that is below market price. Sometimes it’s based on cost recovery and sometimes it is even free of charge depending on these other contributions on the capital investment and the sustainability models that members and other socially aligned actors are allowing them to achieve. So it’s not only that there are recommendations that are being incorporated in policy in some countries. It’s not only that our existing initiatives that are able to do this at a lower cost is that financial institutions themselves such as the Inter-American Development Bank and the Asian Development Bank in their publications are incorporating and are recommending governments to look at this as a financial mechanism in and by itself, right? As a way of closing the digital divide because traditional operators are not able to do so. The Broadband Commission in this report from 2021 looking at financing models for bridging broadband gaps incorporates recommendations that recommends government to explore the options and feasibility of funding allocations to empower smaller providers such as community networks, recommends the potential beneficiaries from USF to include community networks, propose an international fund where projects that are less scalable such as. community networks could be funded and that could ask that as a clearing house for knowledge and best practices and potentially provide loans and other resources in a condition at concessional terms. We have countries such as Argentina that are looking at supporting community networks, right? $3 million from the USF budget for 2020 to 2022 were made available to community networks. And one would say, but no, we cannot support community networks because bigger operators are doing a great job at that. 100%, that’s why we are referring to complementary solutions. That’s why Argentina allocated 0.63% of their budget to community networks. So they could continue supporting the other operations that they were doing with 99.37% of their budget, right? It’s not that what we are proposing and what others are proposing should be right front and center of these initiatives. It’s about complementing, it’s about testing things that haven’t been tested, supporting initiatives that haven’t been supported. So just coming to the proposed solutions and I’m coming to an end, and one is about capacity building, right? And again, I’m trying to talk to the WSIS, to talk to the task force on financial mechanisms because some of the findings are the same, right? We proposed a new policy of financial mechanisms where that could provide an information service that provide access to independent advice on how to evaluate the information that many governments and regulators are bombarded with from the private sector. and prevent them from looking at other solutions that prevent them to negotiate as equals. Such information is also relevant, and such advice is also relevant to other stakeholder groups as well, such as community-based initiatives and other of their partners. Because as the Task Force on Finance and Mechanism was saying, building human resource capacity and knowledge at every level is central for achieving the WSIS objectives. Diversifying the ecosystem. There is, you know, we have that, we have some countries, such as Kenya, where there is a national recognition, even a license for community-centered initiatives, but that’s the exception more so than the rule. So that recognition that is on the ITU, that recognition that comes from the multilateral development banks and other institutions need to be included, right? And streamlined, right? So there are licensing processes that reduce the licensing fees and make other enablers, such as Spectrum, and reporting bartends, and access to backbone available, right? If it’s illegal to do this, how someone is going to invest in them, right? There are many investors that are ready and willing to invest in this if they were legal, right? So please consider that as an enabled financial mechanism or as a prerequisite for this. And this needs to be accompanied by awareness-raising and capacity-building programs to develop the pipeline of initiatives that could use effectively these instruments that are created, right? And this starts, again, with a finding from the Task Force on Financial Mechanisms from WSIS that was saying that policy and regulatory incentives and more open access policies are also needed for private investment, civil society organizations, and community networks to contribute to expanding ICT to rural and low-income populations to address the bottom. of the pyramid population. That is to say, this was said in 2004. The other recommendations that I’m making were said in 2004. If we don’t include them in 2005, and in 2024, 2025, we are not gonna be able to implement the GDC. We are not gonna be able to invest in local networks in a way that they close the digital divide, right? And two more points on innovative financing mechanisms. For that investment in local network initiatives to be effective, new ways to make smaller products available are needed. Multilateral development banks, they recommend supporting this, but they don’t know how to do it. Because the minimum investment that they can do is $1 million, $2 million, $3 million. These are small operators, they don’t need, there is no need for $1 million. They could function with way less, right? But we understand the fact that making those deals available has the same transactional costs. So we need to look at reducing those transactional costs per loan, per grant, per whatever that we are doing, as well as finding ways of risking those investments so the rates are lower, right? They are donors out there that have guarantee pools that are willing to use these, to the risk these and reduce the interest rates. There are ways of working with local financial institutions and that are public and that could, you know, benefit from those concessional loans and pass them on in this product so they could be made smaller and with better rates for these social mission driven operators. We could create pools of projects and a standardized process and documentation that reduce the duplication of effort to again, reduce the transactional costs. And this is not new. This has been tested in so many other sectors that could take the form of that international fund as proposed by the UN Broadband Commission. The GDC is talking about blended finance. And that blended finance, those grants could be used in places where it is impossible to find a return on investment or to start initiatives off. And it could be used to cover some of the transactional costs that I was alluding above. And there is an interest on development finance, right? There is the UN Financing for Development Conference that is taking place next week, sorry, next year after 10 years that could look into all of this, that could put operators that are looking at development, not at profit, at the center of this investment in telecommunications. But there is a risk of, and we are seeing this already, of those profit-seeking companies looking at development finance that we need to be aware of and kind of be attentive. So the development finance is used for development, is not used for profit, right? And for increasing shareholder value. But this is the last comment that also was mentioned by Risper, right? We need to improve the balance between profit maximization and the goal of reaching universal and meaningful access, right? And the time has come of reviewing where those investments are going, right? And how effective they are when they are targeting universal and meaningful connectivity. And we really invite the stakeholders to implement the solutions that we propose in this presentation. We are open to discuss, to share our lessons, to work together to do that. But really, development should be put at the center and not profit maximization. Thank you very much.

Risper Arose: Thank you so much, Carlos, for setting the tone for this discussion. You have a brilliant presentation and has given us why this discussion now and why it’s important to start thinking around innovating financing mechanism for bridging the digital divide. You’ve mentioned a lot of the work that has already been happening, both in terms of the global processes as well as policy recommendations and also tools that have been created. So I would say that’s what we’re trying to do in bridging the digital divide and, of course, community-centered connectivity stand as a viable alternative solution that more focus and also visibility around supporting in bridging the digital divide. This really sets the tone towards our next segment of this particular session. Now we’ll move into the panel discussion and we’ll hear from our different speakers that are lined up. We’ll start with Lilian and Talant who are here with me. And for this segment, we’ll look at framing the challenge and ideally talk about what are the main barriers to universal access and why have traditional infrastructure approach failed. We’ll start by looking into your various experience and also your expertise within the work that you’ve done. And also, while at it, perhaps you can talk around why our community centered connectivity solutions uniquely suited to address this gap. So we can start with you, Lilian.

Lilian Chamorro: Thank you, Risper and Carlos. Well, just something that we have been talking about is that for the private sector is the rural communities are not something that they want to address. Because those are communities with low income that they cannot pay high prices for the services, for the communication services. But also they are few people in the remote areas. Then the investments that companies make in those spaces is difficult. They have the return to obtain the money that they invest in those spaces, because we have few people. And also, the cost of the deployment of the infrastructure in some of the rural areas is so, so high. This is because you need transportation, you need security also. Sometimes, for example, basic services in electricity are not available. Then they have to implement also other infrastructure, not only telecommunication infrastructure. Then the cost to deploy telecommunications infrastructure in rural areas is so high. And the low income and the few population in those areas is not enough to cover the cost. And this is if we don’t have in account other factors. For example, they’re difficult to access to some territories. In Colombia, we have areas where the violence, but also the geographic, is very hard to go to those areas. Then it’s something that is not easy to address, even for implementing infrastructure, but also for sustaining infrastructure when you need to repair something, or something like that. It’s not so easy to go to that areas. By other side, the governmental programs have failed also in sustaining the initiatives. Then they invest a lot of money putting antennas, putting some infrastructure. But when resources finish, then the projects also finish. And we have a lot of, I don’t know how to say, infrastructure that is not used, and it’s getting old. and without use in many rural areas. You can see antennas. You can see a lot of infrastructure that is not used in rural areas, because the program of the government’s finished, and no one could sustain the work of that kind of equipment. About the other question, why community-centered connectivity solutions are suited then for this, I think one of the principal things is the flexibility of these kind of initiatives. Flexibility to adapt to the diverse and unique condition that every community have. Then it’s so difficult that you see community networks that work equal in many of the communities. Each community network is different, have their own characteristics. Because the communities can establish their own infrastructure, adapting to the geographic conditions, but also to the necessities they have. Also, because the sustainability model that they adopt is different, and it depends on the context, the income that the community have. Also, the traditional ways to exchange, I don’t know how to say in English, but yes, to exchange the services we could be. And additionally, the communities can establish their own governance process to define how and for why the community network is for. And the other reason is not all the reasons, but just one more, the possibility to share basic costs. For example, the connectivity. For example, the transportation of some technical people to help to fix some problem. The community can share the cost, can have. different ways to a board. For example, they invite to the people to their house. It’s not just about money. It’s also about how the community organize themselves to have the services that they need for sustain the community network.

Risper Arose: Thanks so much for the opportunity to speak about the community networks.

Talant: And I wanted to share a story of how a small investment into a community network helped unlock major investments into infrastructure. So just before coming to IGF, I was reading news in Kyrgyzstan. And there was a news that a very remote village of Zardali in Kyrgyzstan was connected to electricity. And the Minister of Energy personally came to the village and announced that now the village has electricity. Just a few weeks before that, Minister of Transport came to this village and said that I’m going to provide you a road, because this village had no road, no electricity, no internet. And before that, a mobile operator came and installed a mobile tower. All of this is happening month after month in the village, which previously nobody has heard of. And if you heard of it, it would be once in a decade. Maybe some disaster happened or something. And the president himself flew to the village on a helicopter to say that we are going to help the village with infrastructure. While all of this was happening, a year before that, the village was connected to the internet as a community network with a small grant from Internet Society Foundation. And the very first thing that the villagers did was, of course, first to connect to their relatives around the world, saying that now we have a connectivity. Please call us. We can call you. And the second, they started making videos of the village, saying that, Mr. President, Mr. Prime Minister, we don’t have a road. We don’t have electricity. We don’t have mobile connectivity. Please help. And maybe, like Carlos was saying, that it wasn’t millions of dollars that were required to connect this village. It took maybe $10,000 to provide internet. But with this small investment, the villagers were able to attract hundreds of thousands of dollars from the government to do all of this infrastructure. So we were really excited that we, as the Internet Society Kirghiz Chapter, helped the village to be connected. And this was an interesting kind of case survey, which is not PPP, as we know, but I counted 6P. So it was a partnership of the public, the government, partnership with the private sector, the ISPs who provided the spectrum, partnership with the provincial or municipal government, partnership with the people who live in the village, and finally, a partnership of civil society organizations and international donors like ISOC Foundation, European Union, US Embassy. They have provided small funds that allowed us to connect this village to the internet. And the way we learned how to do community networks was actually in an IGF like this many years ago in Guadalajara. And that’s where we learned that there is such a movement of community networks. And I think today, there is a discussion that next year, there will be a decision, do we need the IGFs? And of course, for the villagers of Zardali, yes, we need the IGFs, because they do make a real impact on the people on the ground. So this is kind of my brief introduction. Hopefully, later on, I can share information about potential financing opportunities for such initiatives to close the digital divide, especially gender digital divide. And I wanted to talk about the Women in Digital Economy Fund. And I think we have colleagues online who are working with women-led initiatives. And this fund can provide support in terms of financing, in terms of technology. technical assistance and know-how and in terms of policy and regulations. So thank you. Back to you.

Risper Arose: Thank you so much, Talant. Such a great story. And just back to give what a community, connectivity can do in terms of even fundraising for this sort of initiatives. And also Lillian, thank you so much for highlighting from the community aspect and the governance of this type of networks and how by pulling the resources together, they can be able to sustain this network infrastructure and even reduce the cost of this type of community-centered connectivity. Now, next on, I’ll just jump into the next segment where we’ll now hear regional insights on innovative policies and regulation. And with us in the room, we have Dr. Emma Otieno and also Jen Coffin. And as I give you the floor, perhaps you can talk to us around what role do regulators play in enabling flexible community-oriented licensing framework, as well as how can universal service fund mechanisms be more transparent, efficient, and inclusive to support smaller local connectivity providers. We can start with Jane and then finish with Dr. Emma.

Emma Otieno: Thank you very much. And it was just very inspiring hearing everyone speak. And it has struck me so much that when you start to think about the localized approach to providing connectivity, it’s almost a very obvious correlation. area that you need a localized approach to policy regulation and financing. So if you’re, and that means looking at, as Carlos has said, different ways of assessing risk, different ways of bringing blended finance, meaning different pots of money together at different times with different funders and different instruments, financial instruments. It’s just very logical that you would look at this differently now. And as Carlos has noted, the 1985 Maitland Commission Report, known as the Missing Link Report, laid this all out for us years ago. And the regulatory and policy environment has changed so much over time and does probably need to be recalibrated to the local circumstances that we are all seeing. How do we find different ways of changing our policies and regulations to fit and adapt to making sure that different sized networks, which have different demand and supply side economics than larger network investments, how do we take a look at this again? And I think, and Dr. Emma will probably have a great deal to say here too, is that we’ve got to take some risks as policymakers and regulators and rethink how we’re looking at local connectivity, infrastructure assessment, feasibility studies, what’s out there in a country and how we would re-approach, re-imagine not only that policy and regulatory environment, because the investors want to see data. They want to see the facts. They want to know how many people are not connected, where is that community located, what’s the potential estimated cost of connecting that community, whether it’s through satellite technology, fixed infrastructure, fixed wireless infrastructure, or wireless solutions alone. They want to see the facts. they want to understand, but we also need some of those larger investment organizations and some of the localized investment entities to re-look at these, the demand and supply side issues, what the regulatory and policy frameworks are that are in existence, and what needs to be changed from that regulatory policy side and the financial side to match that local connectivity challenge. One thing I would say is that regulators and policy makers have a fabulous tool in their hands and something called the notice of inquiry or a gathering of information process. You can put out a notice and ask different organizations to provide you with information and you can pull in all that information to reassess, realign, and reimagine what you need to do. Look, the G20 this year and the Digital Economy Working Group has even acknowledged that innovative financing is super important to connectivity and that’s from the Brazil process this year. It’s rolling into South Africa next year in 2025, so there’s a recognition at the highest levels of government, at the highest levels of global organizations and financial organizations that that innovative approach to financing, the blended finance approach that Carlos indicated, needs to be looked at and you have to have that policy and regulatory corollary that match. It’s not just, oh we’ll bring in lots of money, but how do we bring in money at a certain point locally with a different vision of risk as well. There’s an old way of looking at risk that’s a bit, I’m going to say this out loud and this is my personal opinion, colonial. It’s a traditional different type of banking approach. We’ve got to de-risk investment differently and so it’s at that local level with the local facts and with the data. so that investors have confidence, but they’re local investors too, which might be more locally bought in to the solutions that could be provided. So really, if we’re looking and re-imagining on how we bring in, Talent has just talked about a network in Kyrgyzstan. That network is a completely different network economic and policy and regulatory solution based on what type of technologies can be brought in, how the local people can be brought in to also help with that productivity solution. And so the investors are gonna look at this differently. The government from a governance perspective is gonna look at this differently as well. So it’s matching that local sensibility, the local factors in place and just taking steps back. And I’m gonna circle back around. Sorry, it’s a little late here. So my brain is probably a little circular, but please as regulators and policymakers, give yourself a little breathing room to re-imagine, to take a step back and work with the public, work with the different financial institutions, work with ITU and the development financial institutions, but work with this multi-stakeholder community. You also have of APC, ISOC, other, other, where you can come in and get that information from all of the organizations who know that local circumstance. And then of course, some of those financiers and investors that know the different types of blended finance instruments that can be brought in. So we really are talking about taking a step back, gathering more data, looking at new models that are being brought in and looking at just the sheer fact that if we haven’t been able to solve some of the connectivity problems from since 1985 forward, we have seen how community networks can solve that problem. We’ve seen how regulators can come in and re-imagine their USFs. We’ve seen how that they can re-imagine their licensing and bring in community and other complimentary based networks. You really can create a match up with the financing side now and looking at the different demand and supply side. I’m gonna stop talking. So Dr. Emma. can jump in here, but I’m really excited to hear more from the panelists and others, but I think we really do have an amazing opportunity to just rethink, step back and gather more data. And for regulators and policymakers, use that tool of the notice of inquiry to gather more information. Thank you. Thank you very much, Jane and Carlos and the rest of the speakers who have really given a very pertinent points to this very important subject of discussion. And I will just augment the very many points that have already been stated very aptly. In terms of how the regulator can be this enabler for the community-oriented networks and in terms of coming in as the enabler for licensing or the existence, I would actually state the following and I’ll be using the case of Kenya just as Carlos has said that Kenya has made a bit of progress and very passionately and very intentionally. So when it comes to supporting the community-centered networks or connectivity. So one of the things and where Kenya started and it should be a good example for all the other regulators to go is to really take the issue of access gaps for the market when it comes to connectivity gaps and usage gaps very seriously. I think that’s where Kenya started to create this appetite and create a justification of where to place the community-centered networks and actually how to fight for their place in the frameworks of the regulation and in policy. So for the case here in 2021, there was an updated access capacity that was being undertaken and it went further to actually really take a microscopic view of the true gap because by that time, the connection in terms of population coverage had already gotten upwards of 78. So we’re indeed getting into the true gap space of what Carlos shared as the access gap model. And with that, the beauty of a space like Kenya enjoys is the combining of the regulator also being the board responsible for the ambassador service fund. So this very seamlessly speak to each other that when there is a data, empirical data that the universal service fund brings onto the table, the regulatory of the regulator really swings in and they’re able to come on board with issues like then how can we use these findings to update the market structure? And that is how the case of finding a place to review the market structure and starting to a process of incorporating the community centered networks into the regulatory framework and for Kenya. In 2020, the first day the license framework was adopted and since then several community networks have been licensed. So that’s another regulatory support that has actually been extended to enable these sorts of networks. And moving on actually, the regulator should also move away from being the police to enable and like the question that has been asked which is enabling. For instance, there’s been a lot of deliberate handholding that has come from the Kenyan regulatory setup that the regulator is reaching out and really nurturing the community networks and the constituents. Speaking to institutions like APC Locknet and other capacity building facilitators and trying to champion for can we have courses of capacity building opportunities that are actually centered to supporting the community networks. networks operators. And we’re seeing that really their capacity is a bit low. Rostive source was there also a bit not very enabled. So the regulator comes to the table and speak and actually champions for their rights actually and speak for them in terms of let us allocate, let us prioritize, let’s ensure we do not have a conversation where we’re talking about the various market segments and the various support, the various challenges without including the community centered network. So that has really been a nibbling role that the regulator has played in this perspective. And even this year we’ve had several collaborative initiatives with the Africa Telecommunications, the capacity building arm of the telecom sector and the Locknet and APC and the regulator, the ministry to really ensure that the capacity of the constituents in this space is being built. So there’s been practical example that actually that is an enabling angle to it. Further to that, there’s the issue of making that space very clear. Beyond the existence of just the licensing framework, they need to be additional guidelines that can really provide sort of like things like handbooks, things like guidelines on how to really domesticate or roll out networks in different typologies. And I think some previous speakers have talked about the various challenges that are facing this connectivity initiatives. The challenges in some areas are terrain, the challenges in other areas are security related, others are just about affordability and financial support. So actually coming up with guidelines that incorporate the feedback from this operators so that they’re out there. So the people who are interested to come into a field in this gap are able to be guided uniformly in terms of how they can go about it, even in terms of accessing support. What is the procedure? Where do you start from? When it comes to this license, apart from the the framework being there. How do we start? Whom do you talk to? Where do you go to for support? And we find that they’re quite not exposed because most of them are indeed from the community, they’re from the rural. So they really need a lot of guidance, like really broken down to a granular guidance to enable them. And that, again, speaking of the Kenyan situation, that is something that is ongoing and the process of even augmenting the guidelines to support them is happening. And also the issue of sustainability. We find that being a subject that is very critical, that has to be at the center of this discussion all the time. And if a regulator is coming in from the front of being able to support the community networks, when you have licensed a community network, you don’t want to license it to go and die. So what are these other discussions that can be put on the table from the policy perspective from bringing on the board, the other agencies as collaborators? For instance, the feedback we’re getting from the community networks in Kenya is that the revenue agency seeming to want to expand their revenue base would actually go for anybody who seems to be putting up a business, trying to speak for them. They cannot be able to go as individuals to speak onto those tables. So that you are like speaking for them and saying that this is a new model, which is working like this, we should be exempted, talking about exemptions in terms of our taxations, clear exemptions that are actually enacted in the law, but speaking to other players, like the Ministry of Finance, the central banks, like what avenues can actually come on board to assist to this community networks, especially that we are seeing that they have to get into the leveraging the usage gap, so that they come up with a bit of products that can create that sustainability interface between the connectivity and the keeping the business running. So that sustainability is a very major issue also to champion through the various forums that can be able to listen to whatever is being. being proposed as avenues and strategies of enabling the sustainability of these community networks. I’ll quickly speak to two or three points maybe that touch on the issues of how this transparent, efficient, inclusive ways of supporting this and using the Universal Service Fund. And we have to rethink as regulators, I think at the Universal Service Funds mostly, what are these other approaches that can be used to finance the community centered connectivity or networks. Key point here, speaking from the experience in Africa, I find that most Universal Service Funds are using subsidies as a key support to the telecommunications operators. And we find that this, even in the Kenyan situation, a subsidy to a network, a community centered network might not be it because it’s not for profit as unlike the other categories of licenses. So starting to move away from the traditional way of support to thinking wider about, even if it’s a government that is talking managing the Universal Service Fund, grants, frameworks for grants, that requires a bit of change in the laws, like the public financial management laws, the issues of like a loaning. And the other day we were having a conversation with Brazil and they have a very good model where the Universal Service Fund is loaning these small operators, community centered networks to loan. So that is a collaboration, a very major shift in law, bringing together the ICT ministry, the Ministry of Finance and the banks so that the Universal Service Fund can be used to offer loans. So many other models that if time allowed would actually speak about. And then also the issue of really getting the involvement, engaging the community centered connectivity networks, players in that space so that you get feedback that can improve decisions that are being made. And then also strategies, like for instance, I’ve seen the current strategy that’s being under development for the Universal Service Fund in the space of Kenya, community networks, community. a certain connectivity has been prioritized, very clear targets, like by when, how many do they want to support, what framework should be put in place, what kind of stakeholder engagement and mapping should be undertaken. And then of course, monitoring and evaluating how that is being implemented. Then finally, and the last one is really collaborating with the agencies or governments or other bodies, let’s say like the APC and networks, the people who have the global perspective to champion for the community-centered connectivity so that they can support the areas of research so that regulators can have updated data to inform decisions, both on the side of a universal service fund and the side of the regulation, because they have the part of the pie that makes decisions that can impact on this, but they require updated data and they may not have that resource or the expertise in all the instances to be able to make a decision. So thank you very much. Let’s see what other available opportunity can be to keep on discussing about this and so much about it.

Risper Arose: Thank you. I appreciate it. Brilliantly said. Thank you so much for our two presenters and Dr. Emma for coming in and talking from the regulatory perspective. Jane, also thank you so much for joining in at this hour and also just sharing and really underscoring the importance of regulators re-imagining, financing for initiatives like community-centered connectivity solutions and gathering more data as well as working with different stakeholders, really a multi-stakeholder approach to supporting the community-centered connectivity solutions. For Dr. Emma, thank you so much for also highlighting the case that has been happening in Kenya in terms of regulators hand-holding the community network and what that looks like in creating an enabling environment for community-centered connectivity solutions. And of course, just highlighting the role of USF and how that alternative models and frameworks that can really look into transparency of an inclusive universal service fund in supporting community-centered connectivities. I am just cognizant of time, and because of that, we’ll jump into question and answers, and we’ll have a discussion around that as we round up this very engaging conversation. So I’ll start with the online audience. Are there any questions online?

Carlos Rey Moreno: There were some comments in relation to, I believe this was made when Talan was speaking around how do we ensure that energy perspective is attendant as the critical enablers for Internet governance. There was others that request Jane to expand further on alternative risk perspective, and then request around how best practice areas for this topic, where those resources could be created. I can answer that one in the chat, and then maybe develop procedures or guidelines as highlighted by Dr. Emma. So those questions around Jane to expand on the risk perspective and maybe Talan touching upon the energy perspective around Internet governance as a critical enabler were the ones that appear in the chat so far.

Risper Arose: Thank you. Thank you so much, Carlos. Yes, so we can start with Jane, and then we can have talent come in and then see if we can finish up.

Jane Roberts Coffin : Absolutely, and I’ll be very quick so we can fit in more people. I think what we’d have to say is we’d have to take a look at the traditional risk checklists and risk matrices that are generally used for investment and look at how we would adapt them and look at our own risk tolerance and the specific market or area we’re talking about and what the feasibility is of developing that infrastructure, building it out, the different regulatory and policy parameters in a country. And by reassessing risk, it’s also taking a look at, there’s some complications when people take a look at risk and look at a country and say, oh, well, I’m not sure we can actually do business here. Well, if we’re talking about a different focus from a community-based perspective with the backing of different government organizations in the country, different communities of interest, the way you’re gonna look at the tolerance for risk, your checklist for risk, and whether it’s a social investment risk model, which is different, you’re gonna have different factors that you would use from both governance, policy regulatory, and then even from a more systemic financial perspective where there’s some very different models that are used for assessing risk. So this might be one of those topics that would be really great for another IGS or for, one of the speakers has typed in the chat about what some of the best practices might be for reassessing, assessing risk in a country and how we can work and speak with donors at a different level to speak their language from an investment perspective, but reassess how that would work with local community involvement. So I’ll stop there, but it’s more a question. And so when we get to the question of, if there are traditional ways of assessing risk that are tied to grants and loans, and or how government might look at a project coming into its country, or how local multi stakeholder approach to building connectivity would be put together, we, we’d have to start to take apart those traditional models and rebuild a different type of risk framework.

Risper Arose: Thank you again. Thanks so much.

Talant: I think it’s a great questions. Thank you for asking about the governance because it’s a really good segue into the publication that I wanted to bring your attention to it’s called the policy actions to close the gender digital divide. We are here today to speak about innovative financing mechanism for generally digital divide and the organization where I’m working is now focusing on gender digital divide because it’s a major topic globally. And this initiative is called Women in Digital Economy Fund, which was launched by USAID, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and other donors, and which started as a $50 million fund now is growing to 18 million and more. Yeah. So may this initiative identified three areas where there are, there has to be a lot of work done. One is the financing. So there is funds set apart for to support women led organizations or organizations who are working on closing gender the digital divide. And the second area I think it’s the know how, how to do this kind of work. So, there is a opportunity for technology. technical assistance to organizations. And finally, third major area is policy and regulations. And there, myself and my colleague, Vakas here, who is sitting here in this room as well, we are working on with the governments that are interested and willing to do reforms to close the gender digital divide. And in this publication we have collected interesting, promising practices from around the world. And this will be annual publication and hopefully that next year we can see Columbia case, Kenya case, that would enable other governments also to get inspired and to work on closing the gender digital divide. And finally, I just wanted to say there are five core areas where the work is being focused on. One is access and affordability. Second is the relevant digital tools and services. Third is digital skills and literacy. Fourth is safety and security online. And finally, as Jane was mentioning, the importance of data and insights, which is crucial for policymakers and regulators to make decisions. Thank you.

Risper Arose: Thank you so much, Talant. Absolutely, we can’t finish without talking about how we are mainstreaming gender whilst talking around financing mechanism for this type of initiatives. And thanks for mentioning what WEDEF is doing. Now I’ll just hand it back to the onsite participants. Let me see how many questions we have in the room. So a couple of hands. Okay, yes, go ahead. Okay, thank you very much.

Audience: Thank you to all the panelists. This session was very comprehensive, and please let me present myself. I’m Kosi, I’m a senior. I’m from Benin. I’m from Ministry of Economy and Finance, but I’m also lead one NGO called Women Be Free. We provide employment for training and employment for ladies and women in our country. When we talk about community network is something very important for us. I want to know step by step what is the process to build a good community network where we don’t have problem on how we can make it sustainable for a time. That is my first question. The second one is leading the ladies and women. How can I put on table partnership directly, self and self organization to provide knowledge somewhere to another countries like mine in Benin? Can we make a partnership and provide knowledge directly to our different community? How can we do it now? Third one, the phone we are talking about, is it available for every region of the world or is specifically for some region and from some kind of stakeholders specifically? Thank you very much.

Risper Arose: Thank you. Thank you so much for those three questions. I would give the mic to Carlos. Carlos, I’ve seen you have shared some of the links in the chat. Thank you so much for sharing those links. You can come in and then also we can hear from Lillian and Challenge. You have something. Okay, go ahead. Yeah.

Carlos Rey Moreno: On the first question I hope someone in the room can share with you some of the links that are on the on the on the chat because I believe they provide some of those guidelines. I haven’t changed absolutely nothing about my setup can you hear me? I can hear you Carlos you’re loud and clear. Yeah we can also hear you. Sorry we still can’t hear you just give give me one one minute one second.

Risper Arose: Can you speak Carlos now let’s hear?

Carlos Rey Moreno: Hello hello no no we can hear Carlos I think it’s a respite is your side we can hear. Thanks Dr Emma it might be something in the room I mean with the audio setup of the room. Yes it’s on our side we’re trying to figure out. So you can hear me something somehow I know or you can hear me through the I’m confused now. Okay as we can’t hear Carlos in the room so we are we are sorting that out

Risper Arose: with the technicians but meanwhile we can hear from Lillian and Talant and then we’ll get back to you Carlos. Well I think the the question about the sustainability is the big question

Lilian Chamorro: no because I think we in Colombia have a methodology when we try that the community appropriate the network since the first beginning of the process then. have a series of steps to create a group that sustain the operation, but also the uses of the community network, when there is a problem, can fix the network. Then I think that is one of the things that make that the network can sustain in the time, to have a group of people in the community that lead the operation of the community. I think that is so important, try to find those persons that like the technology, but also like to serve the community, and try that they engage to the community network and sustain the operation of the community network. And then other part could be, try to find a financial method to sustain the expenses of the community network, the way to sustain the connectivity, but try to be creative in that. Sometimes people also make some festivals or things, that for them is easier to have the expenses, or in other communities they just put a contribution, an equal contribution to sustain the expenses of the community, then it’s different in each community. I don’t know. Okay, I think it’s okay for me.

Risper Arose: Thank you so much Talant. Briefly. Thank you. In terms of building community

Talant: networks, I think I could point out two organizations that are very strong at it, is one Internet Society, and we have colleagues here, and I think there are guides for, step-by-step guides on building community networks, and the other one is Association for Progressive Communications. APC, and Carlos, I think, could probably share some links, so very good resources. And in our case, in Kyrgyzstan, engaging the local community has been the biggest factor, that it has to be a bottom-up interest and approach. And in terms of the fund, in your question, this fund is available for organizations around the world, in the global south. But of course, the most priority will be the areas where the gender divide is the biggest challenge. Yes, and finally, I would like to say

Lilian Chamorro: that it’s important to exchange the experiences between communities. For us, has been a key to have some encounters where people from different communities can know what is the experience of other communities, can exchange the problems, because they said, OK, it makes me see that it’s not just my problem, that maybe many of us have the same problem, and many of us can find the solutions for some problems. Then the exchange of experiences, I think, is so important.

Risper Arose: Thank you so much, Lilian. I don’t know if we have one minute for Carlos. Carlos, you can come in now. Hello, hello, hello. Can you hear me? No? Can you hear me in the room? If you cannot hear me in the room. I can hear you online. Yeah, I guess it’s fine. OK, bye bye. Thank you for everything. Rizpra, I just wanted to draw attention to a huge conference in June and July. Unfortunately, Carlos, we can’t hear you for now. I don’t think we can hear them either, Jane. Yeah, now it seems we can’t hear them, they can’t hear us online. Hello, IGF, can you hear us? Hello, hello. Can you hear our private conversation here? Yeah, we need to have a separate workshop. Exactly. You know what they’re doing? They’re using different frequencies in each of the rooms. Talk about tricky. They did this in Baku in 2012, and it’s good. They have an open ceiling, that’s why it’s hard to… Let me try to see if somebody… But it looks like the session has ended anyway. Oh, has it? Oh, yeah, you’re right. I mean, it was due to finish two minutes ago, so… Let me try to call somebody who’s in the room to just advise us what’s happening. Sure, thank you. Dr. Emlin. Not speaking, let me try another one. For some reason, I was seeing the person in the room, but somehow the call is not… connecting. I think we can just chat and say we’re dropping off. Yeah, maybe we can write it on the chat. I think that’s a great idea. All right. Well, it was great to hear your voices. Likewise. I owe you an email, Jane, so I will be writing to you soon. Same here. Great to hear your voice, Dr. Emma. Yeah, yeah. Great to hear you, Jane. Yeah, we’ll connect again. Definitely. Okay, good to hear you. Bye-bye, Carlos. Bye-bye, Dr. Emma. Thank you so much. And reaching ideas. But they can hear each other. Thank you. Thank you. It’s great to hear that this type of consultation is happening. I love what she said about people who are starting to learn. I just don’t see any effort. I don’t know. I think I’d still be interested in people who are talking about keeping things that we have. Well, we’re just trying. Yeah. I feel like it’s just cool. Yeah. No, no. Thank you. Thank you.

Agreement Points

Traditional approaches have failed to achieve universal connectivity

Lilian Chamorro

Carlos Rey Moreno

Risper Arose

High costs and low returns in rural areas

Failure of traditional approaches and business models

Lack of sustainable funding for community networks

The speakers agree that traditional telecom operators and their profit-driven models have been unable to close the digital divide in remote and rural areas due to high costs, low returns, and lack of sustainable funding models.

Community networks offer unique benefits and flexibility

Lilian Chamorro

Carlos Rey Moreno

Risper Arose

Speaker

Flexibility to adapt to local conditions and needs

Lower costs through community involvement

Empowerment of local communities

Ability to attract further infrastructure investments

The speakers concur that community-centered connectivity solutions provide unique benefits such as flexibility, lower costs, community empowerment, and the ability to catalyze further infrastructure investments.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers advocate for innovative financing mechanisms that combine different sources of funding, including reforming universal service funds to better support community networks and smaller providers.

Carlos Rey Moreno

Emma Otieno

Blended finance approaches combining public and private funding

Reforming universal service funds to support smaller providers

Both speakers emphasize the need for regulatory changes to accommodate community networks, including flexible licensing frameworks and adapted risk assessment models.

Emma Otieno

Jane Roberts Coffin

Creating flexible licensing frameworks for community networks

Reimagining risk assessment for local connectivity projects

Unexpected Consensus

Multi-stakeholder collaboration for community networks

Emma Otieno

Speaker

Partnerships between regulators, communities and support organizations

Engagement of local communities in network development

There was an unexpected consensus on the importance of multi-stakeholder collaboration, with both a regulator perspective (Emma Otieno) and a community network implementer perspective (Speaker) emphasizing the need for partnerships and community engagement.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The speakers generally agreed on the limitations of traditional approaches to connectivity, the unique benefits of community networks, the need for innovative financing mechanisms, and the importance of regulatory changes to support these initiatives.

Consensus level

There was a high level of consensus among the speakers, which suggests a growing recognition of the potential of community-centered connectivity solutions to address the persistent digital divide. This consensus implies that there may be increasing support for policy and regulatory changes to enable these alternative models, as well as for developing new financing mechanisms tailored to community networks.

Different Viewpoints

Role of traditional telecom operators

Carlos Rey Moreno

Emma Otieno

Failure of traditional approaches and business models

Creating flexible licensing frameworks for community networks

Carlos Rey Moreno argues that traditional telecom operators have failed to close the digital divide, while Emma Otieno suggests creating flexible frameworks that could potentially include traditional operators alongside community networks.

Unexpected Differences

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement revolve around the role of traditional telecom operators and the specific mechanisms for financing community networks.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among speakers is relatively low. Most speakers agree on the importance of community networks and the need for innovative financing, but differ slightly in their proposed approaches. This suggests a general consensus on the topic, with variations in implementation strategies.

Partial Agreements

All speakers agree on the need for innovative financing mechanisms, but propose different approaches: Carlos suggests international funds, Emma focuses on reforming universal service funds, and Jane emphasizes reimagining risk assessment.

Carlos Rey Moreno

Emma Otieno

Jane Roberts Coffin

Blended finance approaches combining public and private funding

Reforming universal service funds to support smaller providers

Reimagining risk assessment for local connectivity projects

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers advocate for innovative financing mechanisms that combine different sources of funding, including reforming universal service funds to better support community networks and smaller providers.

Carlos Rey Moreno

Emma Otieno

Blended finance approaches combining public and private funding

Reforming universal service funds to support smaller providers

Both speakers emphasize the need for regulatory changes to accommodate community networks, including flexible licensing frameworks and adapted risk assessment models.

Emma Otieno

Jane Roberts Coffin

Creating flexible licensing frameworks for community networks

Reimagining risk assessment for local connectivity projects

Key Takeaways

Traditional approaches to connectivity have failed to achieve universal access goals, especially in rural and remote areas

Community-centered connectivity solutions offer a flexible, cost-effective alternative to bridge the digital divide

Regulatory and policy changes are needed to enable and support community networks

Innovative and blended financing mechanisms are required to fund smaller-scale connectivity projects

Multi-stakeholder collaboration is crucial for developing sustainable community connectivity initiatives

Resolutions and Action Items

Regulators should re-examine licensing frameworks to accommodate community networks

Universal service funds should be reformed to support smaller, local connectivity providers

Develop guidelines and capacity building programs for community network operators

Explore blended finance approaches combining public, private and development funding

Increase data collection and research on the impact of community networks

Unresolved Issues

Specific steps for building sustainable community networks in different contexts

How to effectively assess and mitigate risks for community connectivity projects

Mechanisms for knowledge sharing between community networks across regions

Ways to integrate gender considerations into community network financing and development

Suggested Compromises

Allocate a small percentage of universal service funds to community networks while continuing support for traditional operators

Develop tiered licensing systems with reduced fees and requirements for small-scale community providers

Create blended financing models that combine commercial investment with development funding and community resources

Despite significant public and private investments, traditional approaches to telecommunication infrastructure, while impactful in certain respects, have failed to achieve universal access goals, even for basic voice connectivity for over two decades.

speaker

Risper Arose

reason

This comment sets up the key problem the discussion aims to address and challenges the effectiveness of traditional approaches.

impact

It framed the entire discussion around the need for innovative solutions and alternative financing models.

We need to improve the balance between profit maximization and the goal of reaching universal and meaningful access, right? And the time has come of reviewing where those investments are going, right? And how effective they are when they are targeting universal and meaningful connectivity.

speaker

Carlos Rey Moreno

reason

This comment directly challenges the profit-driven model of traditional telecom investments and calls for a paradigm shift.

impact

It sparked discussion about alternative models focused on social impact rather than just financial returns.

By being community center instead of profit center, as I was saying, they are able to use all their financial mechanisms to reduce their costs and be a center on the communication needs of the community rather than the profit that their shareholders are seeking.

speaker

Carlos Rey Moreno

reason

This insight highlights a key advantage of community-centered networks over traditional profit-driven models.

impact

It led to further discussion about the unique benefits and sustainability models of community networks.

While all of this was happening, a year before that, the village was connected to the internet as a community network with a small grant from Internet Society Foundation. And the very first thing that the villagers did was, of course, first to connect to their relatives around the world, saying that now we have a connectivity. Please call us. We can call you. And the second, they started making videos of the village, saying that, Mr. President, Mr. Prime Minister, we don’t have a road. We don’t have electricity. We don’t have mobile connectivity. Please help.

speaker

Talant Sultanov

reason

This real-world example powerfully illustrates how a small investment in community connectivity can catalyze broader development.

impact

It provided concrete evidence of the potential impact of community networks, shifting the discussion from theoretical to practical.

So if you’re, and that means looking at, as Carlos has said, different ways of assessing risk, different ways of bringing blended finance, meaning different pots of money together at different times with different funders and different instruments, financial instruments.

speaker

Jane Roberts Coffin

reason

This comment introduces the concept of blended finance and new risk assessment models, offering a practical approach to financing community networks.

impact

It opened up discussion on specific financial mechanisms and risk models that could support community-centered connectivity solutions.

For instance, there’s been a lot of deliberate handholding that has come from the Kenyan regulatory setup that the regulator is reaching out and really nurturing the community networks and the constituents.

speaker

Dr. Emma Otieno

reason

This insight provides a concrete example of how regulators can actively support community networks.

impact

It shifted the discussion towards the role of regulators in enabling community networks, leading to further exploration of policy and regulatory approaches.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by challenging traditional telecom investment models, highlighting the unique advantages of community-centered networks, providing real-world examples of their impact, introducing innovative financing concepts, and exploring the role of regulators in enabling these networks. The discussion evolved from identifying the problem to exploring concrete solutions and policy approaches, with a strong focus on the social impact and sustainability of community-centered connectivity initiatives.

How can we reassess and adapt traditional risk assessment models for community-based connectivity initiatives?

speaker

Jane Roberts Coffin

explanation

Traditional risk assessment models may not be suitable for community-based initiatives, and new approaches are needed to properly evaluate and support these projects.

What are the best practices for creating resources and guidelines on implementing community networks?

speaker

Dr. Emma Otieno

explanation

Developing clear, granular guidelines can help community networks navigate the process of setting up and operating, especially in rural or underserved areas.

How can energy infrastructure be integrated into Internet governance discussions as a critical enabler?

speaker

Online participant (via chat)

explanation

Energy infrastructure is crucial for connectivity initiatives, particularly in remote areas, and needs to be considered in Internet governance frameworks.

What are the step-by-step processes to build a sustainable community network?

speaker

Audience member (Kossi Amessinou from Benin)

explanation

Detailed guidance on establishing and maintaining community networks is needed, especially for those new to the concept.

How can partnerships be formed to directly transfer knowledge about community networks between organizations and countries?

speaker

Audience member (Kossi Amessinou from Benin)

explanation

Facilitating knowledge transfer between experienced organizations and those starting out could accelerate the development of community networks in new areas.

What are the eligibility criteria and geographic scope for the Women in Digital Economy Fund?

speaker

Audience member (Kossi Amessinou from Benin)

explanation

Clarification on the fund’s availability and criteria is important for organizations seeking support for gender-focused digital initiatives.

How can Universal Service Funds be adapted to better support community-centered networks?

speaker

Dr. Emma Otieno

explanation

Exploring alternative models for Universal Service Funds, such as grants or loans, could provide more effective support for community networks.

What policy and regulatory changes are needed to create an enabling environment for community networks?

speaker

Carlos Rey Moreno

explanation

Identifying necessary policy changes can help remove barriers and create supportive frameworks for community networks.

How can we improve data collection and research to inform decision-making around community networks?

speaker

Dr. Emma Otieno

explanation

Better data and research are crucial for regulators and policymakers to make informed decisions about supporting community networks.

Summary

This panel discussion focused on the concept of digital solidarity and its implementation in global digital policy. Jennifer Bachus from the U.S. State Department introduced digital solidarity as a framework for international cooperation on digital issues, emphasizing human rights and multi-stakeholder approaches. Panelists from various sectors discussed the opportunities and challenges of digital solidarity.

Key themes included the importance of multi-stakeholder collaboration, the need to balance digital sovereignty with international cooperation, and the role of the UN and other international forums in promoting digital rights. Panelists highlighted the importance of inclusive infrastructure, data privacy, and cybersecurity in advancing digital solidarity. They also stressed the need for capacity building and support for civil society organizations in developing countries.

The discussion touched on upcoming international processes, including the WSIS+20 review and the future of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). Panelists emphasized the need to strengthen these mechanisms and ensure they remain inclusive and rights-respecting. The conversation also addressed challenges such as internet shutdowns, surveillance, and the potential misuse of cybercrime legislation.

Participants debated the hosting of international forums like the IGF in countries with problematic human rights records. They also discussed the impact of sanctions on international technical cooperation in cybersecurity. The panel concluded with a call for continued dialogue and collaboration to advance digital solidarity and address emerging challenges in the digital sphere.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– The concept of digital solidarity and how it relates to digital sovereignty

– The importance of multi-stakeholder approaches and collaboration in digital governance

– Challenges and opportunities for operationalizing digital solidarity, especially in developing countries

– The role of the IGF, WSIS, and other multilateral processes in advancing digital cooperation

– Balancing cybersecurity needs with human rights and privacy concerns

Overall purpose:

The discussion aimed to explore the concept of digital solidarity, its importance in global digital governance, and how it can be operationalized through multi-stakeholder collaboration and international processes.

Tone:

The overall tone was collaborative and solution-oriented, with panelists offering constructive ideas and acknowledging challenges. There was a sense of urgency about addressing digital divides and governance issues. The tone became slightly more critical during audience questions, but remained respectful and focused on problem-solving.

Speakers

– Jennifer Bachus: Western European and Others Group (WEOG)

– Nashilongo Gervasius: Public interest technology expert, media and communications lecturer at Namibia University of Science and Technology, founding president and board member of the Internet Society Namibia chapter

– Jason Pielemeier: Executive Director at Western European and Others Group (WEOG)

– Robert Opp: Chief Digital Officer at UNDP (United Nations Development Programme)

– Susan Mwape: Founder and Executive Director of Common Cause Zambia

Additional speakers:

– Barbara: From Nepal (audience member)

– Alexander Savnin: From Russian Federation, civil society representative (audience member)

– Hala Rasheed: Public policy and human rights expert representing Alnahda Society (audience member)

Digital Solidarity in Global Digital Policy: A Comprehensive Overview

This panel discussion, moderated by Jennifer Bachus from the U.S. State Department, explored the concept of digital solidarity and its implementation in global digital policy. The panel brought together experts from government, civil society, and international organizations, including Jason Pielemeier (participating remotely), Nashilongo Gervasius, Robert Opp, and Susan Mwape.

Defining Digital Solidarity

Jennifer Bachus presented digital solidarity as a concept embraced by the US government, rooted in the International Cyberspace and Digital Policy Strategy launched in May. This approach promotes cooperation while respecting rights, contrasting with digital sovereignty approaches that can potentially undermine economic and security objectives.

Nashilongo Gervasius, a lecturer and member of the Internet Society Namibia chapter, emphasized that digital solidarity should align with both global and regional ambitions, suggesting a nuanced approach to sovereignty concerns.

Multi-stakeholder Approaches and Collaboration

A key theme throughout the discussion was the critical role of multi-stakeholder collaboration in addressing digital challenges. Jason Pielemeier emphasized that multi-stakeholderism is at the core of digital solidarity, allowing diverse actors to come together and be “stronger than the sum of their parts”.

Robert Opp highlighted UNDP’s role in creating spaces for multi-stakeholder dialogues, focusing on digital policies and strategies, use of technology, and capacity building. Susan Mwape stressed the important role that civil society plays in multi-stakeholder engagement and provided examples of how citizens can participate in promoting digital solidarity, such as advocacy campaigns and supporting ethical digital platforms.

Challenges in Implementing Digital Policies

The discussion revealed several challenges in implementing digital policies, particularly in developing countries:

1. Resource constraints in enforcement

2. Potential risks to privacy posed by cybercrime conventions

3. The impact of sanctions on technical cooperation and solidarity

4. The need to consider local context and ongoing reforms in policy dialogues

Internet Governance Forums and Processes

The panel devoted significant attention to the role of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and other multilateral processes. There was broad agreement on the need to renew and strengthen the IGF mandate. Robert Opp suggested that both the IGF and WSIS processes need to become more mainstream and integrated with other global issues.

The discussion also revealed tensions surrounding the IGF, particularly regarding host country selection. Jason Pielemeier shared that his organization chose not to attend the current IGF in person due to concerns about the host government’s human rights record, sparking a debate about the benefits and risks of holding such forums in countries with problematic human rights situations.

Balancing Digital Sovereignty and Solidarity

The discussion highlighted the need to balance cybersecurity needs with human rights and privacy concerns. Jason Pielemeier raised concerns about the potential misuse of cybercrime legislation, while audience members emphasized the challenges faced by developing countries in enforcing digital policies.

Infrastructure and Capacity Building

Susan Mwape emphasized that infrastructure and data privacy are key components of digital solidarity. Jennifer Bachus acknowledged the challenges posed by lack of connectivity or digital capacity, linking these issues to the broader goal of achieving sustainable development. Robert Opp shared insights on how the COVID-19 pandemic prompted a shift from techno-optimism to a more holistic, rights-centered approach to digital solutions in development contexts.

Future Directions and Initiatives

Jennifer Bachus highlighted several US government initiatives:

1. A focus on responsible AI development and governance

2. Efforts to address the proliferation of commercial spyware

3. A $3 million initiative to build capacity for international stakeholders to engage in multilateral processes, especially related to AI

Conclusion

The panel concluded with a call for continued dialogue and collaboration to advance digital solidarity. Key outcomes included support for renewing the IGF mandate, agreement to hold a virtual reunion in early 2025, and acknowledgment of the need to address unresolved issues such as balancing digital sovereignty with solidarity, potential misuse of cybercrime conventions, and mitigating the impact of sanctions on technical cooperation.

The discussion underscored the complexity of achieving digital solidarity in a diverse global context, highlighting the need for ongoing dialogue, compromise, and innovative approaches to advance shared goals in digital governance. Jennifer Bachus emphasized the US government’s openness to feedback and criticism, reinforcing the collaborative spirit of the discussion.

Jennifer Bachus: Okay. Let’s go. Okay. Channel 2. Okay. Good morning. It’s very tough to be in the morning, although I don’t know, Jason, must be the middle of the night for you. So thanks for joining us in the middle of the night. So excited everyone here. For those of you who don’t know me, my name is Jennifer Bacchus. I am the number two in the State Department and Cyberspace and Digital Policy Bureau. We propose this workshop because we believe in the critical importance of digital solidarity, working together to address digital policy in a rights respecting manner. For this workshop, we’re going to start with introductory remarks and then have three rounds of questions and then we’ll finish with some audience questions. Before we get into the introductory remarks, I’m going to try to do my best to introduce our panelists here. My apologies if I missed the parts of your bio you’re the most proud of, please correct me. First of all, I’m so excited to introduce and oh, I should also say I’m really terrible with pronouncing names. So again, my apologies. Nacholongo Gervasius, I hope is correct, who is a public interest technology with extensive experience in our field, a media and communications lecturer at Namibia University of Science and Technology and the founding president and board member of the Internet Society Namibia chapter. There’s a whole bunch of other stuff here, which hopefully she will talk about as we go through this workshop. Remotely, we have Jason Peelmeyer, and again, thank you for joining us remotely, who leads the Global Network Initiative, which is a dynamic multi-stakeholder human rights collaboration which builds on consensus for the advancement of freedom of expression and privacy among technology companies, academics, human rights, and press freedom groups. He previously served as the deputy director and policy director and is now the executive director and had previous experience working at the State Department. and so seems to understand sort of those of us that are at the State Department. Very pleased and excited to have Robert Opp, who’s the Chief Digital Officer at UNDP. He is, for those of you who don’t know UNDP, but I really hope you do know UNDP, it’s the Global Sustainable Development Organization which works across 170 countries with more than 17,000 staff, which is actually a very close description of the State Department. We were talking about our similarities there. He is leading the agency’s digital transformation, which is an organization-wide effort to harness the power of new technology to improve the lives of those for this behind. And last, but really not least, is Suzanne Mwappe, who is Founder and Executive Director of Common Cause Zambia which is an organization that seeks to promote citizens’ participation in various government processes, leveraging technology to enhance public accountability and resource tracking. And really excited to have all of you here today and having been able to engage with all of you separately in various situations, I know you are gonna be amazing panelists here today. Because I’ve decided to play both the role of moderator and speaker, congratulations to all of you here for getting to hear me do both. I will start with my brief opening remarks, which are mostly to sort of situate us in our vision on digital solidarity and what it means to the United States and how we’re working to advance this concept. You know, digital solidarity is a concept that had been out there a little bit, but which we really fully embraced when we published the US International Cyberspace and Digital Policy Strategy back in May of this past year at RSA, which is a cybersecurity conference, and our Secretary of State launched it. We believe through digital solidarity that it’s the idea that we have a willingness to work together on shared goals, stand together, help partners build capacity and provide mutual. support. My colleague Stuart here has excerpts from our strategy. If you want to know more about this, I will try to go through some of it, but we did not bring our printed strategies with us, but he is a one pager for those of you who want to understand it and see the excerpts. Essentially, it’s about framing partnerships, building like-minded coalitions, people around the world can use technologies to achieve a more secure, resilient, inclusive, and prosperous digital future. We have through digital solidarity, of course, a never-ending firm commitment to multi-stakeholder, race-based, interoperable approaches to Internet governance, digital policy processes, and the design, development, and use of emerging technology. Simply put, digital solidarity is rooted in working together to seize the promise of technology while countering the risks. I think we all recognize the urgency of us promoting digital solidarity. There are just too many stakeholders that cannot fulfill that promise, so we need to really come together to do so. We recognize the lack of connectivity or digital capacity, and I know all of you are working on this, and these things can hinder the ability to fully participate in the digital economy and challenges our collective ability to achieve the sustainable development goal. Having attended one and participated in another panel, there was a lot of talk this week about connecting the unconnected, and I think we’re all coming together around this idea. We also recognize the huge financing gap to achieve the sustainable development goals. The financing gap right now, I think you all know, is estimated at around $4 trillion. It’s a lot of money. Cyber threats, which is another issue that my office focuses on by criminals and other bad actors, such as ransomware attacks. It’s another thing we have to continue to push back against, and we are pleased to also host a side event on the Counter Ransomware Initiative. We of course see authoritarian governments who continue to increase efforts to undermine the multi-stakeholder rights-based approach to Internet governance and digital policy processes, including across multilateral fora, recognizing where we are here today, which of course puts at risk the future of an open, interoperable, secure, and reliable Internet. We know that various actors are increasingly misusing technologies, especially emerging technologies and ways that undermine the development goals of emerging economies and human rights and democracy. But we always like to be a little bit optimistic in our organization, which is why we have the concept of digital solidarity. And we know that many people here today are seized with the urgency of building these international coalitions to build digital and cyber capacities to counter those threats and harness the benefits of technology. And to this end, the United States does and will continue to support a global, multi-stakeholder, rights-respecting approach to Internet governance, digital policy processes, like the WSIS Plus 20 Review, which has been the point of many conversations this week, and emerging technologies such as AI. We recognize, as I said, governments can’t do it alone. We need a broad array of stakeholders who help us by using their expertise to inform and drive action on these issues and participate meaningfully in various fora, such as this one. Thank you very much for your long travels here, as well as working closely with allies and partners to ensure digital technologies are designed, developed, and used in a responsible and rights-respecting manner. I just wanted to say, and this came up in a discussion we had yesterday, the U.S. Department of State and USAID are working very closely together with leading tech companies, as well as civil society, academia, and partner governments to ensure as many people as possible can benefit from safe, secure, and trustworthy emerging technologies. I will also here note work we’re doing on AI, and I do have a handout as well on our AI programs for those of you that are interested. Over the past few years, we’re very proud that our foreign assistance budgets for these issues has more than tripled, still not enough, but in my opinion, every year you just keep trying to do a little bit more and a little bit better. So we’ve already been engaged with over 140 countries around the world and are now poised to dramatically increase our bilateral and multilateral cooperation. We’re going to get into examples later because I really feel like I’ve been speaking for way too long, but I’m going to try to turn to our panelists now. So I will start with our first panelist, Nashilongo. Can you please, why don’t you give us your opening remarks, please? Thanks.

Nashilongo Gervasius: Thank you very much for being here and I appreciate the putting together of this panel and thank you, Ms. Bachos, for leading this conversation. I think in my very first introduction is really recognizing the importance of partnership, the importance of collaboration, particularly for many of the things that we face in an increasingly digitalized world. From engaging policy matters, whether it’s a local, regional or global level, from dealing with real issues that faces society and this is where, you know, places us as civil societies, but also academia in dealing with issues of skilling, in issues of cyber crime and cyber security issues at local level. So many of these things are increasingly becoming an issue that one cannot deal with by themselves, even just at local level. these networks of collaborators, of supporters, of partners who are able to provide the necessary funding to assist us to carry out necessary research that produces the evidence to compel policymaking at local level, but also helps us into getting in the rooms like this, that many of our partners and our collaborators at local level can only dream to be. I think we might not have this term, solidarity, as broadly as the US government has made it intentional to embrace at local level, at regional level, but I think it is an important concept. It is an important approach to be working together for all of us, I think. Thank you.

Jennifer Bachus: Thanks for that. Next, actually, I’m going to go to Jason. Thanks again for being with us at this ungodly, probably early, late hour for you.

Jason Pielemeier: Thanks, Pia Spokas. Can you hear me okay? Wonderful. Well, thank you very much. It’s a pleasure to be part of this panel. It is either very early or very late here, and I hope I can manage to stay engaged. I hope you’ll forgive me if I have a few yawns over the course of the panel, but I’m really interested to hear from the other panelists and to be a part of this conversation. Just to quickly introduce myself, I’m Jason Pielmeier. I’m the Executive Director of the Global Network Initiative, GNI, which is the world’s leading multi-stakeholder initiative committed to fostering respect for freedom of expression and privacy in the technology sector. GNI brings together over 100 members, including academics, civil society organizations, and investors, and tech companies from around the world to work together. And our members do that by sharing information about challenges to freedom of expression and privacy stemming from overbroad government regulations, policies, and demands, and working to support each other in pushing back on those scenarios. And we do this in four primary ways. First, through policy engagement. So we speak collectively on behalf of our broad membership to illustrate how diverse stakeholders from disparate regions, often critical of one another in other spaces, can nevertheless share common positions on a remarkably broad range of topics, from telecom regulations to AI safety. Second, we foster safe spaces for learning across our membership, through which companies can confidentially share insights into the challenges they face in different jurisdictions. And civil society and others can present research and recommendations to help companies understand risks and make more responsible decisions. Third, we facilitate a unique accountability process through which our member companies’ efforts to implement the GNI principles and implementation guidelines, which we refer to collectively as our GNI framework. So information is shared about how they implement that framework in a regular manner, and those efforts are independently reviewed and assessed. And these assessments allow companies to share, again confidentially, non-public information about their internal policies, structures, and systems, as well as the kinds of challenges they face in upholding their responsibility to respect free expression and privacy rights in the face of government pressures and demands. And finally, we work to share insights and good practices, as well as recommendations gleaned from. these internal member-facing processes with our outside partners, including governments, multilateral bodies, and other companies that are not yet members. So that’s a little bit about how we work. And at the core of all of that is this concept of multi-stakeholderism, the idea that different actors with different backgrounds and expertise can come together and be stronger than the sum of their parts.

Robert Opp: Okay. Thank you. Well, it’s a pleasure to be here. As Jennifer said, I’m Robert Opp. I come from the United Nations Development Program and I’m Chief Digital Officer there. And maybe just as sort of a little bit of overview of our work, we are, as Jennifer said, the UN Development Arm and present in 170 countries worldwide. I think our digital work has definitely accelerated over the last several years, particularly in the wake of the COVID pandemic when countries around the world really started to accelerate their own digital transformation, building their digital infrastructure kinds of efforts. And that has meant that we as a United Nations Development Organization need to look at what that actually means in terms of choices made every day by governments and communities and others when it comes to embracing technology. And I think it’s, I would say and characterize that prior to the COVID pandemic, a large parts of the development community, and we’re talking about, I’m talking about the conventional mainstream development community, were rather techno-optimist and looking at digital solutions as, well, I’ll sprinkle an app here and I’ll put a database there and this will result in magical development results. But COVID really was an inflection point for us in the understanding of how we need to move from being very solutions and oriented and somewhat fragmented into being more holistic and strategic in the way we use digital solutions. But very importantly, moving from that moment of techno-optimism into an understanding of the risks and the importance of putting people’s rights at the center of whatever we do in technical or digital solutions. And so as we work with countries around the world, we find that the work that we get requested to support with breaks down into three big areas. Digital policies and strategies, where countries are looking to see how they can better support and govern the use of digital solutions. So that might mean data protection laws, privacy laws and strategies, et cetera. And misinformation, information integrity, that sort of thing. Also in the second area of requests is around the use of technology. So this is where the kind of technologies like digital public infrastructure, digital identity, digital payments platforms, and things like that. Countries request support in those. And then the third area is capacity building, where it’s building the competence and capacity to be able to leverage those systems and those platforms. In all of that, our starting point is the individual person and that person’s rights. And in our digital strategy, we have a set of seven guiding principles. The very first one is that we put human rights at the center of what we do in digital. And so when we talk about digital solidarity, we talk about digital rights, this is absolutely fundamental for us. And I would just sort of finish by saying, when we work with countries, we often see that they’re in a big rush to put in place digital platforms and solutions, because we know how urgent these things are. We know how quickly technology is evolving. We feel that we need to get ahead with the right kind of advice when it comes to best practices, sharing lessons learned, cooperation mechanisms between other countries, or regional cooperation mechanisms. Countries tend to make the choices that are in favor of inclusion and rights, but they need the right frameworks, the right learnings, the right practices shared among them. And so that’s one of the fundamental elements for us that we look at as a UN organization.

Susan Mwape: All right, so thank you very much for having me on this panel. As a way of introduction, Common Cause Zambia is an organization that was established in 2013, and our role is to promote citizens’ participation in governance processes, and so we do this through providing empowerment programs, building capacity, and also just trying to provide tools that citizens can use to hold their leaders accountable. We have a wide range of programs that we undertake, starting from research in terms of our technology program, research around policy, research around the state of digital rights in the country, and also internet freedom. We also do capacity building. We undertake advocacy work as an organization, but also collectively at national level and also international level. So over the years, we’ve built different levels of stakeholder engagement. We have what we call a cyber network, which is a membership of organizations that work at community level, so we’re looking at community organizations, community-based media, community radio stations, and traditional leaders as well, because they play a very significant role. We do this to try and just bridge the digital divide that exists in the face of the reality of where technology is taking us. So we don’t do this on our own. We collaborate with the government in doing this, our IT regulator. We carry law enforcement agencies with us into the communities, and we found that it is very effective. And as much as we talk about the digital divide, there are serious issues that happen in these communities, and we’ve noticed that they have been able to hold, for instance, law enforcement officers accountable on issues of fraud and things like that, that involve things like mobile money, which is very popular now. We also engage at national level. We co-established a digital rights network, and it’s a multi-stakeholder platform that brings together different organizations to the table where we assess issues of policy and various issues, and we fight collective causes. I will talk a bit more about some of the work that we have done, but basically that is what Common Cause Zambia does. Thank you.

Jennifer Bachus: Thanks to all of you. So, we’re going to go to an interactive discussion now in what’s a little unconventional. I am posing myself questions. We were jokingly saying that I might just like jump seats to say when I’m the moderator. Not the moderator, but we’ve decided that’s maybe a little too interactive for this hour of the morning. And so, the question I got was actually partially came from the panelists because the question boy, the question is essentially what do I say to those who advocate for digital sovereignty or data sovereignty instead of digital solidarity and are these concepts mutually exclusive? I think I want to start by just underscoring the commitment of the United States to a positive and economic benefits that come from preserving openness while protecting privacy, promoting safety and mitigating harms. And I thought, Robert, your comments on this question about guardrails is really incredibly important and we believe that you can both have digital solidarity and guardrails. Those two things are not mutually exclusive, but what we see when we hear talk of digital sovereignty and protect, it’s mostly oftentimes an idea of protectionism. The idea of blocking access to markets, unduly preventing cross-border data flows, preferencing domestic manufacturers and service providers. And we see this as potentially undermining what is critically important when it comes to interoperability, security and market access. So we see the rise of this digital sovereignty or data localization narrative, including what we’ll acknowledge from partners, very close partners and allies, has a potential to undermine key economic and cybersecurity objectives. And essentially, the possibility to limit the potential of economic, social, and individual exchanges that the growing digital economy and cyberspace make possible. So, you know, over the last two and a half years, there’s been a lot of discussion about Ukraine, and I will, you know, even though this is not, we’re not currently sitting in Europe, I’m going to start by talking about Ukraine in terms of the value of digital solidarity. Just before Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the Ukrainian government changed its laws to allow government data to be stored on the cloud. They had refused to do so before, so to be clear, we had lots of engagements with them, but they felt like their data was going to be more secure if they could look at the servers. It’s a very common thing. If I can see it, I feel like it’s more secure. But in reality, this does, in many cases, undermine cybersecurity. And because of this very last-minute change, U.S. cloud service providers were able to safely and securely store Ukrainian data abroad. This protected the data from Russia’s brutal attacks. It allowed the government to continue serving its people, regardless of where they ended up in Europe and around the world. When governments erect barriers to the free flow of data, for example, or fail to take advantage of global cloud services for the sake of protectionism, it has demonstrably increased costs, slows innovation, and weakens cybersecurity. We need to continue to make sure that data can flow seamlessly and securely across borders because this is critically important as the backbone of our digital economy. We recognize the very, very real concerns that many countries have over the affordable and sustainable digital investments, the lack of which, ultimately, we know can undermine their sovereignty. But solutions proposed, such as data localization, network usage fees, other market access barriers, ultimately, as I said, can undermine economic and security objectives. These false solutions essentially contribute to that. to this idea that you have increased control, but in reality, they often cause real damage. There are other better ways to address these concerns. We in the United States have embraced the Global Cross-Border Privacy Rules, CBPR. It’s a mouthful. It’s a system which has certifications that can ensure privacy protections that travel with the data while at the same time facilitating cross-border data flows, crucial to supporting digital trade, international transactions, and other critical business deeds. The Global CBPR Forum demonstrates that countries can come together to protect privacy and democratic principles while fostering economic openness, interoperability, and integration. I think it’s also worth noting that oftentimes, some of the narratives around digital sovereignty are really an idea of localizing data so that governments can have better access to that data, ultimately to undermine the privacy of their citizens. We have been engaging with UNDP on digital public infrastructure, and we really strongly support the UNDP-led Universal DPR Safeguards Framework, which is designed to promote the protection of members of vulnerable groups online, including children, protect privacy and human rights, multi-stakeholderism, and fair competition, and to guard against cybersecurity vulnerabilities because, again, it’s great to talk about DPI, but if you don’t have those safeguards, DPI, again, creates potential vectors for inappropriate access to information. So we think that there is a middle ground where you can have protectionism, you can have protection, safeguards, but you don’t need to sacrifice digital solidarity, the idea that we’re going to work together and that we need to work together to advance digital safeguards and tools that mitigate the potential harms and ensure technology is. developed, used, and governed consistently with human rights and democratic values. And we’ve developed so many tools to do this in the past year, which includes, of course, as always, promoting the multi-stakeholder rights respecting approaches, including related to AI and information integrity. Some of those tools will be in a capacity building toolkit. We will share in the workshop report that results from the session. And with that, I’m going to, every once in a while, so for those of you in the room, I did learn this yesterday. You’ve got to point your little thing at one of the lights. If you didn’t know that, that’s my little, yeah, that one too. But every once, oh, just that one. So every once in a while, I lose my mic. So anyway, so now you get the question, which is, as a civil society leader, how do you think about the opportunities and challenges of stakeholder collaboration? How can we foster more effective collaboration across different stakeholders and groups? And please. This one, right?

Nashilongo Gervasius: So thank you again, Ms. Bacos, for this new level of engagement. So in terms of collaboration, I think, once again, there’s so many opportunities for many organizations like ours, who works closely with grassroots organizations. But again, engaging across all levels, at national level, from policy and implementation. We find a lot of challenges in making meaningful contributions or even finding meaningful ways in enforcing policies across sectors. But the opportunities are key. Many of these to engage in core issues at different levels. finding common grounds, but there are also key challenges as I’ve mentioned before in creating meaningful collaboration and even participation once again. Issues of accessing stakeholder platform in another, but also resource accessibility and limitation is the other. In many of the engagements that we have, we find in siloed by the fact that technologies, so private sector in engaging in platforms like this, for instance. I don’t know, maybe by observation, I haven’t seen many people from your usual tech in these platforms, your Meta, your Google and many of these platforms in really finding, getting together and answering those questions together. But I also wanted to really engage on the issue of digital sovereignty, issues of, whether this is mutually exclusive or not. I mean, we recognize, for instance, from the African Union and this is maybe something that’s a bit more closer to home for African civil societies. The AU has a digital transformation strategy, 2020, 2020, 2030. The prioritize digitally enabled socioeconomic development to stimulate job creation and poverty and reducing inequalities just amongst others and also dealing with issues of delivery of goods and services and that’s how the AFDTA, for instance, becomes a bit more relevant. And this could be controversial if you, the concept of sovereignty. need balance in terms of engagement of with issues of access and issues of control, right? With that, that doesn’t mean it cannot operate or cannot be aligned to solidarity, like you can have one and you can still have the others because the common goals are broader issues that affect everybody globally, issues of privacy, that’s a human rights issue, cuts across with whatever market that we have. And so, yes? This is much better, right? Okay, there is a real concern that over affordable and sustainable digital investments, this in itself can undermine issues of sovereignty altogether. And I think for many of the African countries in the African region, and I don’t want to speak for everyone, is investment in infrastructures that we are addressing within the UNDP and DPIs, that control of whether it’s the infrastructure itself or the data hidden over those infrastructure, can pose serious challenges that filters into cyber crime, cyberware that can tend to go beyond the control of any nation, but also provides more opportunities, right? Opportunities such as data that to us, particularly if, sorry, but. It’s a microphone, yeah, just hold the microphone. Yeah, that’s, again, on data, we’re looking, how do we find values of that kind of data at local level where we can entrust researchers, innovators, to use this, particularly if it is, you know, accrued through public funding means to be innovated and find solutions for local challenges, for instance. And many of these initiatives, so still requires investment, requires support, and that can also be enhanced through this digital solidarity concept that we are talking about, yes. Let me, and come.

Jennifer Bachus: I’m gonna turn to Jason online. So here’s your question. As the leader of a multi-stakeholder organization, what does the multi-stakeholder approach offer for digital solidarity, and where can multi-stakeholder approaches be strengthened? I’d appreciate your thoughts on that.

Jason Pielemeier: Yeah, thanks. So the cyberspace and digital policy strategy that the State Department has put out talks about digital solidarity as recognizing that all who use digital technologies in a rights-respecting manner are more secure, resilient, self-determining, and prosperous when they work together to shape the international environment and innovate at the technological edge. And it goes on to note that the State Department can’t accomplish its objectives in this strategy without strong partnerships with the private sector, civil society. and technical communities. So I think the strategy acknowledges both the core importance of international and human rights as a framework for bringing disparate actors together, both different countries, multilaterally and bilaterally, as well as different stakeholders in different kinds of multistakeholder spaces and processes. And really what the sort of the fuel that allows, I think, digital solidarity to work, and that allows this kind of collaboration across countries and across stakeholders is trust. So trust is really the kind of critical ingredient. And trust is something that, as the famous sort of adage goes, is difficult to build and very easy to lose, right? So the US government over years, going back to my time at the State Department, has pretty consistently tried to articulate approach to international tech policy that centers human rights and brings in diverse stakeholders. And we’ve done a lot through financial support, done a lot through our multilateral engagement, including things like the Freedom Online Coalition, but there’ve been many bumps in the road as well. It’s not a straight line, it’s not a linear process. And I think that the challenges are only in some ways getting, the barriers are getting higher, the challenges are getting more intractable, as you were alluding to in your remarks, Peter S. Baucus. It’s really great to see the State Department kind of doubling down and recommitting to this kind of approach. And I think there’s a real thirst and a desire among many other governments and states, as well as other non-state actors for this kind of approach rooted in human rights and this concept of solidarity. I want to just note a process that I was privileged to take part of earlier this year, the NetMundial plus 10 process. So NetMundial was a conference that was organized a decade ago by the government of Brazil and its Internet Steering Committee to bring together a really diverse range of stakeholders in Sao Paulo to talk about the importance of multi-stakeholderism. And this was in the wake of Edward Snowden and his revelations at a moment of pretty low trust. And notwithstanding that sort of atmosphere and context, NetMundial, I think, was seen by many as a very successful moment where the multi-stakeholder community really was able to assert itself and put forward some important principles for how Internet governance can be most effectively carried out. And so fast forward to 10 years later, as the sort of multilateral community, international community, is preparing for the WSIS plus 20 review and the Global Digital Compact was being negotiated, many of the same actors who organized NetMundial came back together and organized a reprisal in Sao Paulo in April. And I was a civil society representative on the high level expert group. for the NetMundial Plus 10 conference. And it was really just, I wasn’t a part of that process. And I was actually in the State Department 10 years ago when the original NetMundial took place. So it was really interesting to be on the civil society side and see how that process worked, the sort of very diverse views across not only civil society but other stakeholder groups that nevertheless coalesced around, I think, a very strong outcome document. At the core of this NetMundial Plus 10 outcome document which builds on the original NetMundial document are a set of guidelines referred to as the Sao Paulo Multi-Stakeholder Guidelines. And I just kind of very quickly talk through some of the key guidelines because I think they really underscore how trust can be built and how multi-stakeholder processes should work. The first of them reminds us all that we need to be mindful of power asymmetries between diverse stakeholders. In particular, I think we need to pay attention to the resource constraints that were mentioned earlier that can keep people from being able to effectively participate in civil society. In particular, I think often feels like they are under-resourced compared to governments, compared to the private sector. The second guideline focuses on informed and deliberative discussion. So really making sure that there is equal access to information and that there’s open space for deliberation. The third focuses on treating stakeholders fairly and equitably. The fourth centers the rule of law and respect for international human rights principles. The fifth talks about the value of linguistic diversity and the need to respect that and enable that. The sixth. focuses on the shared responsibility to uphold accountability and transparency across these kinds of processes. We often see actors nodding towards concepts of accountability and transparency, but really meaningfully building them into these processes is critical, especially for those moments when trust is tested. I won’t go through the rest just because there are 13 of them total, but you get a sense from the ones I’ve talked about of kind of the level of granularity and detail that are in these principles. They’re really born out of extensive experience that stakeholders in the technical community and academia and civil society and the private sector, whether through standard setting bodies or governance bodies have learned and crystallized. And I really wanna recommend those principles as sort of a playbook whereby different actors, whether at the national level, regionally, or internationally can use these principles to help build multi-stakeholderism and foster trust so that digital solidarity can prosper and sort of be the force that helps us push back against these more sovereignty-focused or kind of self-interested or national interest-focused approaches.

Jennifer Bachus: Thanks. So Robert, from your point of view, what are the advantages and opportunities or challenges of using the UN in multilateral fora?

Robert Opp: Yeah, well, Jason has done a beautiful job of describing the kind of elements of multi-stakeholderism that are so important for what we’re talking about here, ensuring a rights-based approach to digital solutions, et cetera. And I think we have a bit of, we have opportunities and we have challenges, as your question puts out there. On the one hand, we have a multilateral system that has just delivered a global digital compact that puts rights at the center, has quite strong language about the need for cooperation. It even has language in there about multi-stakeholderism, but it is a multilateral or an intergovernmental agreement. And there were some struggles on how best to incorporate multi-stakeholderism into that process and some dissatisfaction on the parts of some groups that it wasn’t a more multi-stakeholder-oriented process slash agreement. But it is the intergovernmental system that we have, the truly global one, and that has sent a strong signal in certain directions. I think it’s also fair to say, though, that the multilateral system delivers in the form of the WSIS Forum and the IGF in particular a very large and inclusive multi-stakeholder platform that has been going for 20 years. And so I do think that this shows the UN can create some space and the multilateral system can create space for multi-stakeholder dialogues. And I do think that it’s important that we maintain those spaces as we go forward. It’s probably more important than ever that we continue this tradition that started 20 years ago of ensuring that voices of individuals, people, civil society, private sector and others to be able to come together and talk about our digital future. That should continue. And I think the UN does make it possible to have those kinds of platforms in place. So I think I don’t need to say more than that. I mean, I think there’s more that we could do on the kind of intergovernmental side. And sometimes when we do these agreements, and I know that there’s a lot of goodwill to make that possible. So there’s more room to go, but we need to preserve what we have and make it better as well.

Jennifer Bachus: Susan, as the founder of Common Cause Zambia, which seeks to promote citizen participation, how do you suggest citizens participate in this concept?

Susan Mwape: Thank you very much. I think that there are so many ways in which citizens can participate in promoting digital solidarity. And I think that it’s a range of… Part of the efforts that citizens can undertake have already been… Okay. Part of that has already… We have seen it in other platforms, but I would point to advocacy and awareness campaigns. Citizens can do a lot of that to ensure that they promote the concept, using social media platforms to raise awareness. We have seen that happen in Zambia. I’ll give you an example of 2021 when we were going towards elections and young people, the youth of Zambia were dissatisfied with how government was conducting government business. And so they decided to hold a protest and then the government threatened to break their bones and not permit them because they needed to get a permit, a police permit to do that, but the government would not let them. So they opted to do their protest online. So we woke up on that day to maximum police presence on the ground, chasing after these young people who once threatened, had told their colleagues to stand down and decided to hold the protest in the bush and just live stream it. The impact of that was that they had more than 12,000 people that viewed that stream. They had… more outreach, more impact, and also there was a lot of solidarity around that. So in as much as they were getting their message across, they were able to use digital platforms to get their message across. Another strategy that citizens can use is also supporting digital rights and privacy, and this can be done through joining different movements. We’ve seen that there’s a lot of effectiveness in working collaboratively. A very quick example that comes to mind for me is the Keep It On campaign led by Access Now, which is a global campaign of different organizations that push back against internet shutdowns, and it has really, really created a lot of impact in the sense that it provides an opportunity for global communities to understand what’s going on, but also be able to lend a voice and provide that solidarity to push back against internet shutdowns. I would also look to supporting just ethical digital platforms, and I think that we all talk about using digital platforms in so many ways, but supporting ethical platforms is one way in which I think we can also stand up against bad practices that exist and also just push back on the platforms that do not serve the needs of citizens. So I think these are some of the ways that we can do that.

Jennifer Bachus: Thanks for that. So I think the next question that we’ll all answer, so I’ll just put it out there, is how can we more effectively operationalize this concept in 2025? What are some examples of practical approaches and tools? I know we’re running a little behind, so I’m going to run pretty quickly through some of those that we in the U.S. government are using and some of the work that we’re doing. Well, to start with, we have done a lot on cyberspace security, working on approaches to cybersecurity. We are working on law enforcement collaboration to build secure and resilient ICT infrastructure and governance and effective incident detection and response, recognizing that all of this needs to be in line with international law and reinforce arms of responsible state behavior in cyberspace. On AI, there’s just so much going on in this space. I could probably spend an entire panel on that. And I’m sure there’s been more than one panel on AI this week. We did launch the partnership for global inclusivity on AI, which I, again, I have some paperwork on if people are interested, which is bringing together the Department of State and some of the largest tech companies, galvanizing more than $100 million to help unlock AI’s potential. We established a group of friends of AI for sustainable development with our co-chair, Morocco. We are gathering to share best practices, figuring out ways to collaborate. With USAID, we launched an AI for development funders collaborative and an AI and global development playbook. Just a second on commercial spyware, which is an issue that we have also tackled very significantly in 2024, and which will continue in 2025. Really, it’s a whole of government strategy, which includes things like regulating the US government’s use of commercial spyware through an executive order, promoting accountability, using economic sanctions, export controls, visa restrictions, and then working diplomatically with partner countries to address this. And I would just say that as we undertook GDC, and again, I think was recognized that there are many complaints for the multi-stakeholder community on GDC, but we in the US government really thought it was important to engage with civil society, with the multi-stakeholder community, including from the global South. to promote multi-stakeholderism. We had lots of civil society roundtables. We did what we tend to do and we used these, we implemented these consultations into what we were gonna do. And I know we’re gonna talk about WSIS Plus 20, so I will leave our sort of forward-looking work on WSIS Plus 20 to the next question and I will hand it over to you.

Nashilongo Gervasius: Yes, so in amplifying operationalization of digital solidarities 2025, we should be looking at raising common voices on key issues. I think Susan have mentioned issues of standing up against repressive regimes and shutting down the internet, for instance. So how do we collaborate? How do we stand together when countries where communities that we join in partnership through digital solidarity is faced with issues of surveillance, for instance, you know, issues of internet shutdown. So really that requires a lot of coordination. So I see, we’re seeing digital solidarity being operationalized through collaboration, standing together, creating regional harmonization report, if that it is, whether it is coming through the regional forums, such as the regional IGF or the sub-regional IGFs and getting to platforms like this. The other is also creating evidence and this is possibly one of my favorites, really getting down and creating knowledge by researching and providing those evidences and bringing them to platforms like this, whether it is the IGF, whether it is. to the YSS and actually saying, look, this is actually what it is. This is actually how it look like at local level. But also capacity building, right? We appreciate opportunities like this because once we get down at home, you really go with a different perspective. You really go with a bit more informed voice that is able to tell private sector, that is able to convince your law enforcement to say, you know what, this concept of smart city, as you find it as effective for your law enforcement purposes, this is a contravention of human rights. You are putting people at risk. And so capacity building, I think, remains very key. And also, I mean, we faced with so many issues related to surveillance. I am possibly happy to be engaging with one of the projects that we are doing through the Digital Rights Network for Africa, a project led by the University of California, I think Alvin’s School of Law, where we are really researching how surveillance is taking shape within Africa and how that is seen by government, but also how civil society and all the other stakeholders at local level are engaging with that. And really, again, comprehensively looking at issues of digital rights, asking currently with the support through the solidarity, asking that human rights online must be recognized as true human rights, whether this is constitutionally or through other means. We should also be able to work together through other existing mechanisms. I think the UPR, yesterday we had that. a quick conversation, and we just found out that everybody amongst many of our colleagues are involved in the UPR mechanism or the assessments at local level. And many of us have been able to effectively do so because we’ve got partners, a lot of solidarity colleagues that stands with us and say, look, we know that many of the time, government when they are putting that report together from themselves, they decide who gets in the room. But we found ways and means to create our own reviews, particularly on digital rights. I think this was the case with the Internet Society during our last review and really presented. And we also found that even government was very receptive to come and say, look, we know you looked at human rights, issues of vulnerable communities, but this is what we’re looking at from a digital rights perspective, issues of privacy, freedom of expression online, access to information, just amongst others, and making sure that we’ve got the right frameworks that are human rights, respecting and making sure that they put people first. So there’s a lot of work that we possibly foresee ourselves 2025 and even beyond. Again, it requires all of us, and it requires partners who knows better, possibly who are better resourced, and to help us carry and bring our voices at platforms like this. Thank you.

Jennifer Bachus: Thanks for that. Smart cities is another topic, which, yeah, I have the same surveillance concerns. And I think there are very good things that can come out of smart cities, but we should all be a little concerned about them. So very glad to hear you’re raising your voice on that issue as well. Over to you, Jason.

Jason Pielemeier: Yeah, thanks. So, yeah, I really wanna echo Narsilingo. and Susan’s comments earlier as well about the way in which these interconnecting technologies can both enable free expression and freedom of association, can enable connectivity where it didn’t exist before, can promote voice where it may have been stifled, but also how when they’re misused, these technologies can be very, very dangerous to those who are trying to raise their voices and to call governments to account. So in that context, I think it’s important to note, and referencing also my earlier comments about trust, that I think the IGF itself is a really great sort of enabler of digital solidarity. And it’s not just this conference that’s happening right now, it’s the national and regional level IGFs that Narsha Nandga referred to, it’s the intersessional work, the dynamic coalitions, the policy networks. I mean, this is a sort of process, a community that’s been built over decades, and it’s incredibly valuable. It brings so much expertise, a tremendous repository of knowledge and experience together. But for those same reasons, it’s important to recognize that hosting the IGF in countries where those same human rights that we’ve been referring to are systematically repressed creates a real challenge. I am not with you in person because my board made a decision that we would not attend this IGF in person as an organization. organization, because we had real concerns about safety and security, as well as concerns about the human rights track record of the host government. And so we put out a statement that indicates our ongoing support for the IGF and the IGF community, but also raises concerns about the hosting decisions that the IGF and the broader UN have made, and the need to ensure that IGF is hosted in countries where the community feels safe, where there is trust, and where we can have these robust conversations without fear of reprisals, without fear of unwarranted surveillance, without fear of censorship. So I think, you know, this is an incredible mechanism that is available to the community. It is a medium for building trust and fostering digital solidarity. But we have to take care of this resource that is the IGF, and that means having some difficult conversations. And those conversations are going to come up in the forthcoming WSIS process, which includes, of course, the question of renewal and the mandate of the IGF. So I really hope that we can use that process not only to extend the mandate, but to strengthen the IGF, including how decisions about hosting are made going forward.

Jennifer Bachus: Thanks. Over to you, Robert.

Robert Opp: Yeah. Sure. I would – I want to talk about two different levels, now I’m doing – I don’t know what’s going on with the microphone. I think we are in an unprecedented time right now of the technical ability for the exchange of information, data, the need for greater data as we look at artificial intelligence systems. There’s a – you know, there’s parts of the Global Digital Compact that talk about data governance. At a technical level, I think we need to be thinking more than ever about cross-border flows of data, information, interoperability of systems, and so on. And this is, you know, again, a bit behind that, you know, UNDP’s interest in the space of digital public infrastructure on how can we really create greater economic and social prosperity coming out of the use of these digital platforms. which then of course have to be accompanied by the policy level, policy legal protections level that has a very careful focus on people’s rights. Because as we said, and I don’t wanna be repetitive, but I think it’s worth emphasizing that we should not be in the space. And as a UN agency, we are not in the space of offering technology support to countries without the accompanying governance mechanisms, policies, legal protections, et cetera. Because as Jason says, and other panelists have been saying, they present that risk. So in 2025, our intention is to continue to pursue the benefits of interoperability, of data availability and interoperability, better data governance that takes a global and a global cooperation approach, but doing that in a safe way that really puts people’s rights at the heart of it.

Jennifer Bachus: And over to you.

Susan Mwape: Thank you. And for me, I think it’s to talk about looking forward to how we can make operationalize digital solidarity. And so I just had a few things about that. I think, first of all, there was a lot of talk from Jason and yourself, Jennifer, around DPI. And so I think that building inclusive infrastructure to access technology will be helpful. We’ve talked a lot about the digital divide and how things are moving forward, but until we have infrastructure that is inclusive of those that have been left behind, this whole journey is going to be challenged because after all, solidarity is best with as many numbers as you can without leaving anyone behind. So infrastructure is very important. Also strengthening data privacy and security issues. Now, Sholongo talked about safe cities. We have a number of countries that are struggling with bad laws, data protection laws, nonexistent in some countries. So that is also something that is of great importance for us to move forward with. I think that we also… need to begin to think of platform designs for solidarity as well, where we can do this in a more open space. Robert raised a very valuable concern around, for instance, hosting of the IGF, and so when we think about those that are unable to travel, then, you know, if we have platforms that enable them to effectively participate, it is helpful. I think when we talk about cost of internet, for instance, I come from Zambia, a country that has one of the highest costs where data is concerned, so not many people would be able to participate in an event like this. We are struggling with issues of load shedding, endless hours, and so that creates a barrier in itself. Finally, I know that we are running out of time. I think there’s also need for support to NGOs, civil society, and also other stakeholders to look at how we can also bring the private sector on board, maybe providing incentives for things like corporate social responsibility that supports digital solidarity. Thank you.

Jennifer Bachus: Thanks for that, and public-private partnership is absolutely at a cornerstone of what the U.S. also works around the idea of public-private partnership because it’s absolutely accurate that the amount of resources the U.S. government is ever going to be able to put into this is going to be dwarfed by the amount of private sector resources, and I’m always really heartened when I talk to a lot of tech companies and I hear about the academies they have, the work they’re doing, and I think getting the word out on that can continuing to promote that, continuing to support that, which I try to do whenever I meet with them. And I think that I will say, and not just because you both come from Africa, but I’ve had the opportunity to travel through Africa and seen really impressive work with a wide range and also not because you’re both women, but particularly focused on bridging the gender digital divide. And in some of the cases, it’s so interestingly the way they’ve thought out things like transportation, childcare, food, because it’s great to say, we’re gonna empower you, we’re gonna train you. It’s another thing to say, we’re gonna do it in a way that’s gonna work in the circumstances that you live in. And that is, I think, incredibly important to understand that if you, for cost reasons, have to locate the thing you’re doing in a rural, a place that’s not in the center, get people there, right? What do you do if the people participating in the program get pregnant? Can you figure out a way? They go on parental leave, they have to be home, or they have to be home for their children. I mean, it’s just thinking through all these elements, it’s really complicated. And the best programs are the ones where it’s the private sector has come together with civil society who says, well, you need to think about this thing in our country. And I think that’s incredibly powerful. And again, I now went off, and we’re supposed to talk a little bit because we find ourselves situated between GDC and WSIS, and the question of the extension of the IGF mandate and what all this means. And I personally have listened to lots of conversations. I acknowledge, as I’ve acknowledged to many of you already, I’m not the expert on these things in the US government. Luckily, I have experts on all of these processes. And just to say, we will continue, the US government will continue to support IGF, we will continue to support multi-stakeholder approaches, internet governance, and. We know that this is a particularly pivotal year for IGF as we look at WSIS plus 20. I also was given the opportunity by my team to announce that we recently launched a three million dollar initiative to build the capacity of international stakeholders including civil society and governments of developing countries to engage more meaningfully in multilateral development and governance processes particularly related to AI because this is a demand again that we keep hearing and we hope that this could potentially include facilitating greater engagement in the IGF in Norway which it’s gonna not be cheap let’s be clear as well as the WSIS plus 20 review and the GDC implementation. I’m happy to say more on that and you know also to note that I’ve had the opportunity to meet with some of you that we’ve supported in traveling around the world to various events including interestingly Jason, Tenet Mundial plus 10, the UN General Assembly and of course this week. So in early 2025 after the IGF virtual workshop report report comes out we would like to host a virtual reunion of this panel to just follow up and see how things are going because it’s great to meet here but it’s also even better if we continue to meet and build on these engagements. So I will turn it to you all for your thoughts as we continue to look to some of these multilateral processes what you’re thinking about.

Nashilongo Gervasius: Thank you. Again appreciating just this engagement in the nature that it’s taking we appreciate the US government’s commitment for funding and making sure realize many of the efforts taking place locally but also participation again in platforms like that. With that also just recognizing that as we engage on this concept of digital solidarity and the support that the U.S. government is, for instance, able to put forth, it’s a recognition that many different countries are at very different levels of development or even engagement on digital issues. I think many of the countries are already thinking about how do we review our policies on cybersecurity, for instance, making sure that it is aligned to the UN Treaty on Cybercrime, but yet you also have countries that just do not have laws or policies in place. So we have many of those challenges of alignment and I hope that the digital solidarity provides us opportunities for sharing lessons learned, for ensuring that policies at some level reflects the ambitions, whether this is the global ambitions, but also the regional ambitions, for instance, again, the Malabo Convention and many others, the LOME declarations of this year that looks at cybercrime, for instance. So we have those challenges that as we move forward, we use these platforms to align interest, but also aligns policies and other framework emerging requirements. And then there is, from a GDC perspective, and I think this is something that you’ve mentioned is, we hope that WSIS and maybe IGF20 would really shape the clear reporting mechanisms for the GDC. It seems very ambition looks good to have, but maybe a bit more broader and does not give us specificity in terms of how do we deliver or how do we focus and say, this is what we have delivered on this particular. And then, of course, we had, I think I mentioned from Robert, on issues of cross-border flow, and I really appreciate the UNDP effort, as you’ve mentioned, making sure that in promoting platforms and in promoting sort of channels where this data is saved or is distributed, we’re also promoting safe containment of this data, that it does not lead to putting people at risk, whether this is your usual human rights defenders, but also just ordinary citizens. So much work that we see ourselves working, and this platform, I think, will help us with that. It also goes with the issues of interoperability, that, again, we faced in many of the countries, we have systems that don’t work, that don’t talk to each other. Why isn’t your ID, national ID system, talks to your election system, and really solve many of the issues that come with credibility of elections, and make it very seamless in processes like that? But so is the health sector. So many, and I think the UNDP’s effort through digital infrastructure, I think that is helping. Maybe this conversation from UNDP, I think I only saw those conversations happening in Namibia only this year, and as a person that has been engaging maybe through the little and limited means, I’m asking, but why are we studying only now? Particularly because, again, really aligning those efforts, what’s happening locally, but also what is happening globally. happening globally. And I think as in my closing here, is really the support that we need in the policymaking process. I think I’m repeating, I’m finding myself at the danger of repeating myself really supporting the policymaking processes, but also churning out easier mechanisms for civil societies, but also other stakeholders to really say, but this policy is legitimate, this policy puts people first, this policy respects human rights, just amongst us. Yes, thank you.

Jennifer Bachus: Over to you, Jason.

Jason Pielemeier: Thanks. Yeah, I’ll try and be brief. I know we’re running out of time. Yeah, I wanted to highlight something Nashi Lango referenced, which is the UN Cybercrime Convention, which is poised to be finalized this month and creates a framework that intends to enhance and facilitate more collaboration to address cybercrime. And that is certainly a good thing. We know that cybercrime is a scourge that needs to be addressed. However, we have been pretty consistent as GNI and many of our members, both private sector and civil society in pointing out some of the real potential challenges that this convention could pose by creating a sort of sanctioning system that allows for countries to put pressure on private companies and their employees domestically to require them to hand over data, to violate user privacy. for countries to continue the types of digital transnational repression that we are increasingly seeing around the world. And so there’s going to be a lot of work that needs to be done, including under the framework of digital solidarity to ensure that the Cybercrime Convention is used appropriately and not misused. As GNI, we are very committed to continuing to help civil society and private sector actors come together with rights-respecting governments to kind of shepherd this process, hopefully in a more rights-respecting manner. With WSIS plus 20, we are engaged and very hopeful that, as Nashilango said, that WSIS can remain sort of the central mechanism for, and the WSIS Action Lines can continue to provide the type of sort of framework that is needed to ensure more collaboration, more access and support for those who are falling behind the digital divide, as well as to renew the mandate of the IGF, and the Net Mundial plus 10 outcome document that I referenced earlier calls for a 10-year renewal of the IGF to sort of give it the sustainability and predictability that it needs as we continue to deal with all kinds of new technological challenges and opportunities. It also calls for strengthened funding and resourcing for the IGF, including improving the process for selecting host countries going forward, which I mentioned earlier. So the WSIS conversation will be an important one, and we really think GDC needs to be a process that supports and feeds into WSIS and doesn’t duplicate, doesn’t create sort of new separate tracks for similar conversations, which would allow for potential conflicts and also duplication of the burden for those of us who are trying to participate meaningfully in these various processes. So yeah, lots of important processes and conversations to be had in 2025. And we’re very much as GNI looking forward to participating them together with many of you.

Jennifer Bachus: Thanks, Jason. And we look forward to working with you on issues around the Cybercrime Convention because we also recognize the potential for misuse of the convention and are guarding against it as well as these questions of the future of IGF and I will say you’ve done admirably in the middle of the night and I think you get all your points. Congrats for that and with that I’ll turn to Robert.

Robert Opp: Yeah, I would agree with that. So it sounds like we all believe IGF, WSIS should be strengthened. I have a slightly different take on the whole evolution of this, which is 20 years ago when WSIS and IGF were first created, let’s face it, ICT for development was a bit of a niche community. And just as digital has become more mainstream in our lives, if you look at just the use of personal devices and all of the kinds of issues that are coming around that, I think IGF and WSIS need to be expanded and strengthened in a direction that makes it more mainstream. In a good way, not in a bad way, if I can put it that way. I think that we need to see more integration with some of the other issues that we have out there. Environmental sustainability is one of them that I find missing here. There’s some issues around children and gender violence and things that are somewhat here but not super well represented. So I think that this is the path for us because these issues are. absolutely crucial to the lives of everyone. And if you look at the number of connected people worldwide and the trajectory of that, it’s more important than ever that we’re seeing this as such a central platform.

Susan Mwape: All right, so I think for me, I will just conclude by saying, looking forward, I would be of the view that multi-stakeholderism is a very important aspect to digital solidarity. And it is my hope that we will be able to localize these concepts to the lowest level, because when we talk about digital solidarity, it means different things to different people. And so we have to find a way of ensuring that it’s interpreted as much as possible and taken forward. I really hope that the mandate of the IGF also will be renewed because I think that the IGF is one of those platforms that is really, really relevant and very important and being a platform that provides a multi-stakeholder engagement and people have a chance to lend their voice to all these different conversation that happen at local and international level. So that would be my hope, and I think that would be my parting words, thank you.

Jennifer Bachus: Great, I happen to know there are a couple of questions in the room. So what we’re gonna do, because I think we have three minutes, is at least get those questions down. We will do our best to answer them. And if we don’t get all the way through the answers, we promise to engage with you after the session. So anyone who wants to ask a question, we’re gonna have them all asked at the same time and then we’ll do our best.

Audience: This is Barbara, I’m from Nepal for the record. I have a question. We talked about digital solidarity and also we talked about digital sovereignty. In most of the case, In particular, developing countries where resources is very limited and the enforcement is very tough, especially to digital platform providers. So they talk about digital sovereignty because law enforcement are facing very tough times while enforcing cybercrime issues and other similar criminal cases or economic crime as well. So where we can find the solution about the digital sovereignty issue, comparing digital solidarity, avoiding strict legislation on data localization, they talked about. So what could be the alternative way for the governance model of that kind of situation? Thank you. Well, more bit notes, but also questions. Alexander Savnin from Russian Federation, not representing government, more than civil society and operations. I will turn to Jason and say, this process was created in Tunisia, which was really authoritarian country and democratic forces and organizations was used to meet people, to build capacity and to build solidarity then. As citizen of Russian Federation in opposition to my government, I really said that IGF have been moved to Norway. I’ve expected a lot of hopes for such organizations, such people, even state department to come and to talk to people. So please say my blames to your board and to board of other organizations. But again, if I criticize my government, it doesn’t mean I will not criticize or ask questions to US government. Because when we are talking in solidarity, we also, okay, the most solidarity in cybersecurity is built on technical community. People are working together and so on and so on. And I would like to criticize or ask question to US government. your sanctions are actually breaking solidarity. The latest question that’s few Russian-based or Linux kernel supporters was removed and it’s actually broke solidarity. One of them actually lives in the United States for years and work for Amazon. But again, some kind of sanctions. Another kind of example, especially related to cyber security, is that sanctions actually economical measures which is imposed before, even before what you call brutal attack. And as a Russian citizen based in Russian Federation have to call special military operation. Russian cyber security, huge cyber security companies, Kaspersky and positive technologies was sanctions and actually removed from all this processes of communications between technical community. And this actually, well, I don’t believe that I’m saying this, but well, I have to notice that not only Russian government breaks solidarity on cyber security and not joining Budapest conventions. And I definitely understand why they don’t do this. But also, well, some small thing, governments including United States may also. So please answer what could be done to improve or stop breaking technical solidarity even by this good looking measures. Thank you. Yeah. Hi everyone. So I’ll try to keep it brief. I just have a comment. My name is Hala Rasheed. I’m a public policy and human rights expert representing another society. So a little bit of context as to Saudi civil society. It’s a 60 year old women’s non-governmental nonprofit with UN ECOSOC consultative status. And we also lead the Saudi delegation to the W20. I appreciate Jason’s remarks about the IGF being hosted in Saudi Arabia, but I do have some comments. For these dialogues to achieve their objectives, it is essential to approach them with. an open mind and a clear understanding of the current legal frameworks, enacted policy reform and local context. Let us ensure that historical inaccuracies and biases do not cloud our judgment going into 2025. Thank you very much.

Jennifer Bachus: So, well, you can hear me, I’ve lost my mic or my ability to hear. I just wanna say, look, we were talking on our way in today and of course the United States government is always ready and willing to take any feedback. I understand the IGF, right after Snowden was quite complicated for the US government, but we show up, we listen, we try to respond. That’s what we’re here to do. We will not pretend that everything we do is perfect. If we don’t hear the feedback, we make bad policy. So I would say, I recognize your points and it is important. On the question of the non-responsiveness of platforms, look, it’s something I personally hear all the time. We push them very hard to be more responsive, but criminalizing speech, as you know, is of course at the same time, very problematic. I don’t know if they really wanna shoo us out, I don’t wanna give the opportunity to at least a couple of words if they feel obliged.

Robert Opp: Hello, super quickly, just on your situation as well, digital sovereignty does not equal cybersecurity. What I mean is we can’t assume that acting in ways that we think are protective is actually safer.

Jennifer Bachus: Before we get kicked out of the room, thank you to all of you for your participation. Thank you to the panelists. And please, if you haven’t read our strategy, I encourage you to. Thank you for your participation and we look forward to continuing these conversations. And thank you, Jason, from the other side of the world. Thank you.

Agreement Points

Importance of multi-stakeholder approaches

Jennifer Bachus

Jason Pielemeier

Susan Mwape

Robert Opp

Nashilongo Gervasius

Digital solidarity promotes cooperation while respecting rights

Multi-stakeholder collaboration is critical for addressing digital challenges

Civil society plays important role in multi-stakeholder engagement

UN/UNDP can create spaces for multi-stakeholder dialogues

Multi-stakeholder approaches need to consider power asymmetries

All speakers emphasized the importance of multi-stakeholder approaches in addressing digital challenges and promoting digital solidarity. They agreed that collaboration across different sectors and stakeholders is crucial for effective governance and policy-making in the digital realm.

Renewal and strengthening of IGF

Jason Pielemeier

Susan Mwape

Robert Opp

IGF mandate should be renewed and strengthened

IGF provides important platform for multi-stakeholder engagement

IGF and WSIS need to become more mainstream and integrated

These speakers agreed on the importance of renewing and strengthening the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) mandate. They view IGF as a crucial platform for multi-stakeholder engagement and believe it should be expanded to address a broader range of issues.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers expressed concerns about how certain approaches to digital sovereignty or cybercrime prevention could potentially undermine privacy, security, and economic objectives.

Jennifer Bachus

Jason Pielemeier

Digital sovereignty can undermine economic and security objectives

Cybercrime convention poses potential risks to privacy

Both speakers emphasized the importance of considering local and regional contexts in implementing digital solidarity, particularly in terms of infrastructure development and policy alignment.

Susan Mwape

Nashilongo Gervasius

Infrastructure and data privacy are key for digital solidarity

Digital solidarity should align with regional and global ambitions

Unexpected Consensus

Challenges in implementing digital policies

Jennifer Bachus

Jason Pielemeier

Audience members

Digital sovereignty can undermine economic and security objectives

Cybercrime convention poses potential risks to privacy

Developing countries face resource constraints in enforcement

Sanctions can undermine technical cooperation and solidarity

Despite representing different perspectives (government, civil society, and audience), there was an unexpected consensus on the complexities and potential negative consequences of implementing certain digital policies. This highlights a shared recognition of the challenges in balancing security, privacy, and economic interests in the digital realm.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement centered around the importance of multi-stakeholder approaches, the need to strengthen and renew the IGF mandate, and the recognition of challenges in implementing digital policies. There was also consensus on the need to balance digital sovereignty concerns with international cooperation and human rights considerations.

Consensus level

The level of consensus among the speakers was moderately high, particularly on the importance of multi-stakeholder engagement and the need for inclusive digital development. This consensus suggests a shared understanding of the complexities in digital governance and the need for collaborative approaches. However, there were also areas of divergence, particularly in how to balance national interests with global cooperation, indicating that while there is agreement on broad principles, the specifics of implementation remain contentious.

Different Viewpoints

Digital sovereignty vs. digital solidarity

Jennifer Bachus

Nashilongo Gervasius

Digital sovereignty can undermine economic and security objectives

Digital solidarity should align with regional and global ambitions

Jennifer Bachus argues that digital sovereignty often leads to protectionism and undermines economic and security objectives, while Nashilongo Gervasius suggests that digital solidarity should align with both global and regional ambitions, implying a more balanced approach to sovereignty concerns.

Hosting of Internet Governance Forum (IGF)

Jason Pielemeier

Alexander Savnin (Audience)

Hosting decisions for IGF need careful consideration

IGF should be held in countries with human rights concerns to promote dialogue

Jason Pielemeier expresses concerns about hosting IGF in countries with poor human rights records, while Alexander Savnin argues that holding IGF in such countries can be beneficial for building capacity and solidarity.

Unexpected Differences

Impact of sanctions on digital solidarity

Jennifer Bachus

Alexander Savnin (Audience)

Digital solidarity promotes cooperation while respecting rights

Sanctions can undermine technical cooperation and solidarity

While Jennifer Bachus promotes digital solidarity as a means of cooperation, Alexander Savnin unexpectedly raises the issue of US sanctions undermining technical solidarity in cybersecurity, which was not directly addressed by the panelists.

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement revolve around the balance between digital sovereignty and solidarity, the approach to hosting international forums like IGF, and the practical implementation of digital solidarity principles in the face of geopolitical realities.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among the speakers is moderate. While there is general consensus on the importance of digital solidarity and multi-stakeholder approaches, there are significant differences in how these concepts should be implemented and balanced against national interests and human rights concerns. These disagreements highlight the complexity of achieving digital solidarity in a diverse global context and suggest that further dialogue and compromise will be necessary to advance shared goals in digital governance.

Partial Agreements

All speakers agree on the importance of digital solidarity and multi-stakeholder approaches, but they emphasize different aspects: Jennifer Bachus focuses on rights-respecting cooperation, Jason Pielemeier on trust-building, Susan Mwape on infrastructure and privacy, and Robert Opp on the UN’s role in facilitating dialogues.

Jennifer Bachus

Jason Pielemeier

Susan Mwape

Robert Opp

Digital solidarity promotes cooperation while respecting rights

Digital solidarity requires trust-building across stakeholders

Infrastructure and data privacy are key for digital solidarity

UN/UNDP can create spaces for multi-stakeholder dialogues

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers expressed concerns about how certain approaches to digital sovereignty or cybercrime prevention could potentially undermine privacy, security, and economic objectives.

Jennifer Bachus

Jason Pielemeier

Digital sovereignty can undermine economic and security objectives

Cybercrime convention poses potential risks to privacy

Both speakers emphasized the importance of considering local and regional contexts in implementing digital solidarity, particularly in terms of infrastructure development and policy alignment.

Susan Mwape

Nashilongo Gervasius

Infrastructure and data privacy are key for digital solidarity

Digital solidarity should align with regional and global ambitions

Key Takeaways

Digital solidarity promotes cooperation while respecting rights and is seen as preferable to digital sovereignty approaches

Multi-stakeholder collaboration is critical for addressing digital challenges and fostering digital solidarity

Internet governance forums like IGF need to be strengthened and made more inclusive

There are challenges in implementing digital policies, especially for developing countries with resource constraints

Trust-building across stakeholders is essential for digital solidarity

Resolutions and Action Items

The US government announced a $3 million initiative to build capacity for international stakeholders to engage in multilateral processes, especially related to AI

The panel agreed to hold a virtual reunion in early 2025 to follow up on progress

Participants expressed support for renewing and strengthening the IGF mandate

Unresolved Issues

How to balance digital sovereignty concerns (e.g. law enforcement needs) with digital solidarity approaches

How to address potential misuse of the UN Cybercrime Convention

How to make IGF and WSIS processes more inclusive and representative

How to mitigate the impact of sanctions on technical cooperation and solidarity

Suggested Compromises

Implementing digital policies with strong safeguards and human rights protections

Strengthening IGF while improving the process for selecting host countries

Integrating digital governance discussions with other key issues like environmental sustainability

We believe through digital solidarity that it’s the idea that we have a willingness to work together on shared goals, stand together, help partners build capacity and provide mutual support.

speaker

Jennifer Bachus

reason

This comment introduces and defines the key concept of ‘digital solidarity’ that frames the entire discussion.

impact

It set the tone for the conversation and provided a framework for the other panelists to discuss collaboration and partnership in the digital space.

We recognize the lack of connectivity or digital capacity, and I know all of you are working on this, and these things can hinder the ability to fully participate in the digital economy and challenges our collective ability to achieve the sustainable development goal.

speaker

Jennifer Bachus

reason

This comment highlights a critical challenge in achieving digital solidarity and links it to broader development goals.

impact

It prompted discussion of specific challenges and inequalities in digital access and capacity throughout the conversation.

We need to continue to push back against, and we are pleased to also host a side event on the Counter Ransomware Initiative. We of course see authoritarian governments who continue to increase efforts to undermine the multi-stakeholder rights-based approach to Internet governance and digital policy processes, including across multilateral fora, recognizing where we are here today, which of course puts at risk the future of an open, interoperable, secure, and reliable Internet.

speaker

Jennifer Bachus

reason

This comment introduces the tension between digital solidarity and authoritarian approaches to internet governance.

impact

It sparked discussion about the challenges of maintaining open internet governance in the face of authoritarian pressures.

I think we might not have this term, solidarity, as broadly as the US government has made it intentional to embrace at local level, at regional level, but I think it is an important concept. It is an important approach to be working together for all of us, I think.

speaker

Nashilongo Gervasius

reason

This comment provides a perspective from outside the US on the concept of digital solidarity.

impact

It broadened the discussion to consider how digital solidarity is understood and implemented in different contexts globally.

And at the core of all of that is this concept of multi-stakeholderism, the idea that different actors with different backgrounds and expertise can come together and be stronger than the sum of their parts.

speaker

Jason Pielemeier

reason

This comment introduces the important concept of multi-stakeholderism as central to digital solidarity.

impact

It shifted the discussion towards considering how different stakeholders can collaborate effectively in digital governance.

But COVID really was an inflection point for us in the understanding of how we need to move from being very solutions and oriented and somewhat fragmented into being more holistic and strategic in the way we use digital solutions. But very importantly, moving from that moment of techno-optimism into an understanding of the risks and the importance of putting people’s rights at the center of whatever we do in technical or digital solutions.

speaker

Robert Opp

reason

This comment highlights a significant shift in thinking about digital solutions in development contexts.

impact

It prompted discussion about the need for rights-based approaches and consideration of risks in digital development.

I am not with you in person because my board made a decision that we would not attend this IGF in person as an organization, because we had real concerns about safety and security, as well as concerns about the human rights track record of the host government.

speaker

Jason Pielemeier

reason

This comment raises important issues about the tension between promoting digital solidarity and concerns about human rights in host countries.

impact

It sparked discussion about the challenges of hosting international forums in countries with problematic human rights records.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by introducing and defining the concept of digital solidarity, highlighting challenges in achieving it (such as digital divides and authoritarian pressures), emphasizing the importance of multi-stakeholder approaches, and raising critical questions about how to balance promoting digital solidarity with concerns about human rights. The discussion evolved from defining broad concepts to exploring specific challenges and tensions in implementing digital solidarity in practice.

How can we address the challenges of digital sovereignty while promoting digital solidarity?

speaker

Barbara from Nepal

explanation

This is important to find a balance between law enforcement needs in developing countries and avoiding strict data localization laws that could hinder digital solidarity.

How can the IGF process be made more inclusive for people from countries with authoritarian governments?

speaker

Alexander Savnin

explanation

This is important to ensure the IGF can continue to serve as a platform for building capacity and solidarity in challenging political environments.

How can US sanctions be adjusted to avoid breaking technical solidarity in cybersecurity?

speaker

Alexander Savnin

explanation

This is important to maintain global cooperation on cybersecurity issues despite political tensions.

How can we ensure dialogues about digital rights and governance take into account current legal frameworks, policy reforms, and local context in different countries?

speaker

Hala Rasheed

explanation

This is important to have more productive and accurate discussions about digital rights and governance globally.

How can the IGF and WSIS processes be expanded and strengthened to address more mainstream issues?

speaker

Robert Opp

explanation

This is important to ensure these processes remain relevant and address crucial issues like environmental sustainability and gender violence in the digital context.

How can we localize the concept of digital solidarity to make it meaningful at the lowest levels?

speaker

Susan Mwape

explanation

This is important to ensure that digital solidarity is understood and implemented effectively in diverse local contexts.

How can we improve the process for selecting host countries for the IGF?

speaker

Jason Pielemeier

explanation

This is important to ensure the safety and inclusivity of the IGF for all participants.

How can we ensure that the Global Digital Compact (GDC) supports and feeds into the WSIS process without creating duplication?

speaker

Jason Pielemeier

explanation

This is important to avoid conflicting processes and reduce the burden on participants trying to engage in multiple forums.

Summary

This discussion focused on the role of election coalitions in combating misinformation during elections worldwide. Panelists from Google, fact-checking organizations, and journalism backgrounds shared insights on forming and operating these coalitions. They emphasized the importance of collaboration between diverse stakeholders, including media outlets, fact-checkers, and civil society groups, to address misinformation effectively.

The speakers highlighted successful coalition models from various countries, such as Comprova in Brazil and Facts First PH in the Philippines. They stressed the need for building trust among coalition members and maintaining neutrality in leadership. The discussion also touched on the challenges of sustaining momentum beyond election periods and adapting to different cultural and political contexts.

Participants explored the role of technology companies like Google in supporting these coalitions, while also addressing concerns about potential conflicts of interest and the impact of government pressure. The conversation included debates on terminology, with some questioning the use of “misinformation” and suggesting a focus on specific harms instead.

The panel addressed the emergence of AI-generated content and its implications for election integrity, noting both potential risks and opportunities for leveraging AI in fact-checking efforts. They also discussed strategies for engaging young people and non-voters in the fact-checking process.

Overall, the discussion underscored the complexity of combating election-related misinformation and the importance of multi-stakeholder approaches. Panelists agreed that while challenges remain, election coalitions represent a promising model for promoting information integrity and supporting democratic processes globally.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– The importance and effectiveness of election coalitions in combating misinformation

– Challenges in maintaining momentum and addressing critiques of election coalitions

– The role of technology companies like Google in supporting election coalitions

– Concerns about government pressure and content moderation in relation to misinformation

– The need for clear policies, transparency, and relationship-building in election coalitions

The overall purpose of the discussion was to explore the role and impact of election coalitions in combating misinformation, sharing best practices and lessons learned from various global examples. The speakers aimed to highlight the importance of collaboration between journalists, fact-checkers, and other stakeholders in promoting election integrity.

The tone of the discussion was generally informative and collaborative, with speakers sharing insights from their experiences. However, it became more pointed and critical when audience members raised concerns about content moderation, government pressure, and the role of large tech companies. The panelists responded professionally to these challenges, maintaining a constructive dialogue while acknowledging the complexity of the issues raised.

Speakers

Speakers from the provided list:

– Mevan Babakar – News and Information Credibility Lead for MENA for Google

– Daniel Bramatti – Investigative journalist from Brazil

– David Ajikobi – Nigeria editor for Africa Check

– Alex Walden – Global Head of Human Rights for Google

– Jim Prendergast – Moderator

– Lena Slachmuijlder – Search for Common Ground and the Council on Tech and Social Cohesion

– Milton Mueller – Internet Governance Project at Georgia Tech

– Claes de Vreese – University of Amsterdam and executive board of the European Digital Media Observatory

Election Coalitions and Combating Misinformation: A Global Perspective

This discussion brought together experts from various fields to explore the role of election coalitions in combating misinformation during elections worldwide. Speakers from Google, fact-checking organizations, and journalism backgrounds shared insights on forming and operating these coalitions, emphasizing the importance of collaboration between diverse stakeholders to address misinformation effectively.

Introduction to Election Coalitions and the Elections Playbook

Mevan Babakar, News and Information Credibility Lead for MENA at Google, introduced the concept of election coalitions and presented the Elections Playbook, a comprehensive guide developed to help organizations form and maintain effective coalitions. The playbook outlines two main models for election coalitions: collaborative approaches, where multiple organizations work together, and independent approaches, where a single organization leads the effort.

Key Examples of Election Coalitions

Several successful election coalitions were highlighted during the discussion:

1. Electionland: A U.S.-based coalition that brings together multiple newsrooms to monitor and report on election integrity issues.

2. Comprova: A Brazilian coalition of media organizations that collaboratively fact-check election-related claims.

3. Facts First PH: A Philippine coalition that introduced the MESH concept, combining fact-checking with in-depth explanatory journalism.

These examples demonstrate the diverse approaches to coalition-building across different cultural and political contexts.

Strategies for Combating Misinformation

Speakers discussed various innovative approaches to address misinformation:

1. Pre-bunking: Babakar introduced this proactive strategy to inoculate against expected false narratives before they become viral. She noted successful pre-bunking efforts in Europe.

2. Context-based fact-checking: Daniel Bramatti, an investigative journalist from Brazil, emphasized that fact-checking should add context rather than censor speech.

3. Media literacy: David Ajikobi, Nigeria editor for Africa Check, highlighted the importance of media literacy efforts to engage youth.

4. AI-assisted fact-checking: Babakar discussed the potential of leveraging AI tools to scale fact-checking efforts, while also noting the challenges posed by AI-generated content.

Challenges and Considerations

Despite the overall agreement on the importance of coalitions, speakers acknowledged several challenges:

1. Building trust: Babakar noted that building relationships and trust among coalition members takes time but is critical for success.

2. Funding: Maintaining long-term financial support for coalitions was identified as a significant challenge.

3. Balancing diverse interests: Ajikobi highlighted the difficulties in managing diverse media organizations within coalitions.

4. Leadership: Bramatti stressed the importance of choosing neutral leadership to ensure coalition credibility.

5. Government pressure: Alex Walden, Global Head of Human Rights for Google, pointed out the need to navigate government pressure and legal challenges.

6. Local context: Speakers emphasized the importance of understanding and adapting to local contexts when forming coalitions, particularly in countries with limited civil society or media infrastructure.

The Role of Technology Platforms

The discussion touched on the role of technology platforms in election integrity:

1. Content moderation: Walden emphasized the need for platforms to balance content moderation with free speech concerns.

2. Transparency: Speakers called for increased transparency around content moderation policies and government removal requests.

3. Industry-wide collaboration: Claes de Vreese from the University of Amsterdam suggested that platforms should collaborate on industry-wide coalitions to address election integrity issues collectively.

Evaluating Impact and Future Directions

Speakers discussed various approaches to evaluating the impact of misinformation and coalition efforts:

1. Harm-based framework: Babakar proposed focusing on specific harmful narratives rather than all misinformation, using a harm-based framework to determine when intervention is warranted.

2. Measuring concrete harms: Ajikobi agreed on the importance of measuring tangible impacts, such as election interference percentages.

3. Online and offline impacts: Bramatti highlighted the need to consider both digital and traditional media impacts, particularly noting the importance of radio in African contexts.

Unresolved Issues and Future Considerations

Several unresolved issues emerged from the discussion, including:

1. Balancing content moderation with free speech concerns

2. Determining appropriate thresholds for platform intervention on misleading content

3. Addressing the challenges posed by AI-generated content

4. Adapting coalition models to diverse global contexts

Conclusion

The discussion underscored the complexity of combating election-related misinformation and the importance of multi-stakeholder approaches. While challenges remain, election coalitions represent a promising model for promoting information integrity and supporting democratic processes globally. The conversation highlighted the need for continued dialogue, collaboration, and innovation in addressing the evolving landscape of misinformation in elections, with a particular emphasis on building trust, adapting to local contexts, and leveraging technology responsibly.

Jim Prendergast: Good morning, everyone. I think we’ll get started. Let me just get to the screen, the appropriate screen. So thanks, everybody, for coming. Good morning, good afternoon, good evening. Whether you’re joining us in person or virtually, welcome. My name is Jim Prendergast and I’m your moderator for this morning or today’s session, which is titled Combating Misinformation with Election Coalitions. If this isn’t the session you thought it would be, we’d like you to stay anyway. So 2024 was a watershed year for elections. The UN called it a super year for elections. Sixty-plus countries held elections this year. I believe that’s an all-time record. At a time when elections around the globe are increasingly vulnerable to the spread of misinformation, the stakes couldn’t have been higher. Disinformation campaigns not only undermine electoral integrity, but they also erode trust in institutions, diminish civic participation, and in some cases, polarize societies. But there’s good news, and that’s what we want to talk about. Today, we’re going to focus on the role of election coalitions, essentially partnerships between governments, civil society, private sector, fact-checkers, encountering the rise of the tide of misinformation. These coalitions have emerged as a promising approach to build trust, promote credible information, and strengthen election resilience. But their effectiveness depends on a lot of factors, including strong coordination, shared resources, and clear strategies. I’m excited to be joined by a great group of experts on this topic who bring a diverse set of perspectives and extensive experience to the table, both in person and virtually. First off, let me introduce Alex Waldron, who’s the Global Head of Human Rights for Google. She’s seated here at the table with me. Wave to everybody online. Meevan Babakar, who’s the News and Information Credibility Lead for MENA for Google. She is joining us from London. London. David Adjokobi, he’s the Nigeria editor for Africa Check. He is also remote. And then, finally, Daniel Bramante, who’s joining us from Brazil. He’s an investigative journalist. And he wins the prize for the earliest time zone as a presenter speaker. Before we begin, just a couple of things to point out. Going to be, there are our speakers. Our session is going to start off with a couple of brief presentations from our speakers. I’ll kick it off with a couple of questions. But we really want this to be interactive. We want this to be highly participatory. So for those of you online and those of you in person, we really encourage questions and conversation and discussion. With that, let’s get started. Alex, could you sort of kick us off and help set the scene with explaining why you think election coalitions are important?

Alex Walden: Sure, thanks. I think this global elections has been a banner year for global elections. And Google has taken it seriously in all of these dozens of elections that have happened around the world this year. And so it’s timely for us to be having this conversation reflecting around the successes of the approaches that industry and our partners have had, and also looking forward to what do we need to do to strengthen those. So I’m really glad we’re having this conversation today. I also think it’s appropriate that we would be having this conversation at the IGF, where we are all focused on the multi-stakeholder model and the importance of that. Everything about what we’re doing here at IGF is focused on the necessity of government and civil society and companies working together to ensure that we’re all sort of realizing the benefits of what technology can deliver, and that those relationships and that working together also should inform how we address problems that come before us. And so that’s true across many types of issues. And in particular, that’s true across elections. And so I think my colleagues across the panel today are the best experts to demonstrate and talk through the ways that we’ve seen these successes. But at Google, we have billions of people who come to our products every day. And in particular, in the election context, people are coming to find information and information about where to vote. And so we have an obligation and responsibility to make sure that we are doing the best to deliver information to those users. But also, it is incumbent upon us to engage with the rest of the ecosystem to make sure that the things that are not really, or they’re not necessarily in our power to change entirely, we need to be working with the rest of the ecosystem to ensure that there is integrity in the way that we’re delivering information to all these billions of users around the world in the election context. So again, I’ll stop there. I think Google’s really excited to be having this conversation and hear the input from everybody in the room and online about how we do this work going forward.

Jim Prendergast: Great. Thanks a lot, Alex. I’d now like to turn to. Mevan, who’s going to explain to us a project she worked on, something she developed called the Elections Playbook. And Mevan, I’ll be driving the slides for you, so just let me know when you want to advance.

Mevan Babakar: Perfect. Thank you very much. Can you all hear me? Excellent. OK, great. Let me just quickly, OK. Hi, everyone. I’m Mi-Van. I work at Google as well. I actually work in trust strategy now across knowledge and information. So that touches on search, that touches on ads and other products that we have. But previously, I used to work in the Google News Initiative. And previous to Google, I actually worked in fact-checking for a decade. So I used to work at Full Fact, the UK’s independent fact-checking charity. And at my time at Full Fact and also at Google, I saw the power of election coalitions. And one of the things that became very clear to me is that election coalitions are actually quite a magical way of scaling the work of journalists and campaigners around the world, especially during elections. So I’m going to talk to you today a little bit about the short history of election coalitions, election coalitions, a research project that we’ve done specifically to capture some of the learnings from around the world, how you can form and organize an election coalition, some of the lessons learned from all of those interviews that we did as well. We’ve got 10 minutes. It’ll be a bit of a whistle-stop tour. But if anyone has any questions, feel free to just jump in and ask them. So next slide, please. So 2024 was a very big election year, as Jim mentioned. More than two billion people voted in over 60 different countries. But as we all know, misinformation, unfortunately, a big part of elections and has been around for as long as elections and probably longer. There are lots of ways to combat mis and disinformation in lots of different ways, but there is no silver bullet. There are very subtle and sometimes not so subtle nuances between countries that have quite a big difference in how you would combat misinformation. Things like public broadcasting, community participation, press freedoms, all of these things actually necessitate a specific country-level intervention. Over the past decade, journalists and fact-checkers have come together to form these election coalitions. What they essentially are, just as a very top line, is when journalists, fact-checkers, community organizations, sometimes lawyers, sometimes researchers, join forces and share resources or share the impact of the work that they do during a specific event like an election coalition. So it might be actually sharing the resources of their media monitoring, their actual research that they do. It might be sharing the learnings of the actual fact-checks or the journalism. It might be sharing the impact or scaling the actual outcomes of the work itself. One of the earliest examples was Electionland in 2016. This was a U.S. coalition that was set up and it was 1,100 journalists working together. It was a nationwide effort to cover voting rights in election administration in 2016. So there was a narrative going around that basically the election was rigged and that narrative is one that still exists today, but key claims come up each time that the election was rigged. Historically, at least in 2016, the newsrooms were primarily focused on reporting the outcome of what happened on election day and the run-up to the political ins and outs. Voting issues were sort of relegated to secondary coverage. So a bunch of journalists and newsrooms came together and started election land to kind of combat that, especially because in the US, the election laws vary drastically from state to state, and even country by country. So no national newsroom was at the time in a position to cover election administration through a wide lens. So all these newsrooms came together. And actually, one of the things that they did was actually quite new at the time was using social media to actually alert the local newsrooms and journalists that were taking part on specific claims that were coming up around the election being rigged so that they could actually localize specific narratives and specific claims to certain regions. And on top of that, they had 1100 journalists immediately and authoritatively rebut some of the pieces of misinformation that were coming out. It kind of showed at the time that news organizations a could work together, and they can collaboratively serve as a watchdog for like, for this crucial democratic moment that was taking place. And as it stands in 2016, the election land project won an online journalism award for its work. And since 2016, there have been at least eight more coalitions, I think probably more like 12 at this point. And they have operated not just for elections, sometimes across multiple elections. Like Comprova, for example, which we’ll hear more about later, has run for multiple years now. And more recently in 2024, although their logo isn’t on this slide, we’ve had the Shakti coalition in India, which is about 40 organizations coming together. And in the EU, the election 24 check, which was 45 organizations across Europe, and working across 37 countries, who published 3000 plus fact checks around the EU elections. I think it really shows that when newsrooms come together or when fact-checkers and community groups come together, the impact can scale quite drastically. There’s something quite special in that model. Next slide, thanks. So Google has a long history of supporting these election coalitions and we wanted to understand how to effectively build them and what they should look like to serve the needs of voters in the countries in the run-up to elections. But more importantly, there had already been so much learning from the past decade and it felt a bit like every single time everyone was starting from scratch. So we wanted to run a six-month research project and talk to all of the election coalitions that had come before to understand exactly what the best ways of setting it up are, what are all the lessons learned over the past decade and how can we effectively build them going forward. We ended up talking to 15 global experts and the countries that we touched on was France, Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, Nigeria and the Philippines as well as the US. One of the key things that I think has come out of the learnings is that there’s really no one-size-fits-all approach to building a successful election coalition because of the fact that each country is very unique in how it’s set up. There are often different election laws, different voting systems, there are different news consumption habits like radio, TV, social media. If these things are turned up or down you’ll need to change how you do your monitoring. There are also different types of misinformation taking place. Sometimes there are one-off instances of claims that maybe are more honest in the fact that it’s misinterpreted something. Well sometimes there’s types of misinformation and disinformation that direct foreign interference and of course these things would need different approaches. But having said that, there are some things that are shared across all the successful election coalitions. And by asking the right questions, we can start to build something much quicker and much more viable. So the things that have come up as sort of stages and needs in election coalitions is to identify the need, actually understand what is it that you’re trying to do in the first instance, although they’re called election coalitions, and a lot of them are around missing disinformation around election coalitions. That model has also been extended to pandemics, for example, so the COVID-19 pandemic and others as well, or epidemics in local regions, kind of share the same model. So figure out what it is that need that you’re trying to meet specifically. It’s become clear that we need to identify the lead as well. So a specific organization often takes charge of the larger coalition, not necessarily as the spokesperson, but as the organizing lead for any kind of coalition to take place. And I think it’s really important that this is one of the things that came out of the interviews, it’s really important that that organization that takes the lead in that country context is seen as neutrally as possible, or seen as balanced as possible. Because a really key point of the election coalitions is that you want a broad spectrum of actors and journalists that meet the needs of voters. And depending on how polarized that ecosystem is, you might want to use it as a means of building trust in institutions or building trust in journalism or fact checking or whatever it is that’s happening in those countries. So having that as a key aim really, really helps and identifying a lead that is as neutral as possible helps build that bridge. membership, whether it’s formal or informal, whether actually you’re focusing on subject experts or technology partners, these are all very important steps, and things to formalise before the actual coalition comes together. And then I think the next two are very important, actually. Implementing capacity building programmes is especially important for an election coalition when there are multiple media organisations working together, because historically, those media organisations work against one another. They’re competitors. And I think that what they’re doing here is actually quite unique. They’re coming together, sharing resources, they’re sharing sometimes outputs. And they’re working in a much more collaborative way. So trust building is an incredibly important part of these election coalitions. And trust isn’t something that is earned overnight. It is earned through example, it’s earned through case studies, it’s earned through the experience of working with one another. And the more times that you can bring people in the election coalition together in person, the better it will be for that. And then on top of that, making sure that people kind of have the same skills and resources available to them. Developing clear coalition policies is key. There are actually two models for election coalitions that I have seen so far, we call them the collaborative approach and the independent approach. In the collaborative approach, the organisations actually share resources to do the media monitoring together, they check together, they edit together, it actually becomes one mega newsroom. And actually, they publish the final outputs of the pieces across the multiple media organisations as well. That’s the collaborative approach. In the independent approach, and we see this more sometimes when people don’t have the trust necessarily to jump in together yet. In the independent approach, there’s no commitment to share the output, so often people will maybe share the media monitoring side of things, but then do the check or the article through their own independent editorial processes. And then that’s kind of shared across newsrooms or across a platform, and organizations can choose whether to share it or not, so there’s no commitment to share it. But still, there’s a lot of value there in understanding what are the shared narratives happening in that country, and actually what are the gaps that still need to be filled that haven’t been filled across the ecosystem. And then other things like figuring out the branding of the coalition, etc., the code of ethics and standards and correction policies is incredibly important when many newsrooms come together. Next slide, please. So some of the key things that came out were about preparation, starting early, and planning for scale is incredibly important. With an election coalition, you can’t start too early. I think that there’s a lot of prep to do for them, and the sooner you build trust, the better. Diversity and collaboration is a really key part. We’ve already mentioned that that scale and that width of partners is very important. But often you have a layer of journalists, and then that intersects with the community as well. And so in some places, you actually get media and civil society organizations taking part as well. And that’s an opportunity to go even broader and more diverse and trying to get the stories out there. And finally, context. So actually understanding how the context of your own country might be changing. In some cases, for example, there might be a growth in AI misinformation and understanding do you have tools across your AI, across your election? coalition to actually be able to come back up. Next, please. I’m going to just quickly touch on two case studies. And one of those was crosscheck in France. In 2017, it brought together over 30 organizations. And it was led by a Jones France Press FP, who took on the editorial leadership of it. They had 37 partners, and across the videos that they all shared, they had 1.2 million video views in total. And they published hundreds of articles between them. Gregoire Lemarchand, the chief editor, editor of the digital verification program at AFP, said this is, for us, one of the biggest wins in AFP history, crosscheck will always be special, personally. Sometimes I meet colleagues who took part in this project, and they say, Do you remember crosscheck? That was so great. And I think that’s a really key part is that that trust that it builds across journalists is really important. And it lives beyond the election coalition to. Next slide, please. Then we have facts first pH, which is one of my favorites. Sorry, everyone else. But they had 131 partners working together. And they published 1400 fact checks. And Jim Mendoza, the head of research and strategy at Rappler said the thing with these is that this is these are experiments. I wouldn’t say facts first pH was perfect. At the time we were experimenting. And the reason why you wanted to experiment was because there was a huge challenge. And it’s true, there is a huge challenge. And even when we look at these numbers 131 partners and 1400 fact checks, it might not feel like it’s big enough to meet the scale. But I think one of the important things we need to remember is that with misinformation, there are often just a handful of narratives. that are the most well-known and well-seen narratives and that cause the most harm. And actually, if we focus efforts on those narratives and those pieces that are being seen the most or the most harmful, you can actually go quite a long way to kind of interrupting the flow of misinformation in each country. Next slide, please. I think one of the things that the Rappler team did very, very well in the Philippines with FactsVerse.ph is that they introduced something called the MESH. And they had all of these authoritative information sources in blue. So these were journalists, expert institutions, fact-checkers. These were actually producing the research. And then in red, the MESH, they actually had over 100 orgs that were separate to the information providers. And these were influencers, NGOs, communities, trusted people in their communities. And they would then go out and share the outputs of the election coalition more broadly. And I thought that was a really amazing model of the kind of impact that that had in the Philippines in terms of building trust and showing people that there was an answer to misinformation was actually very, very powerful. And then just more broadly on top of that, there was also research. So taking all the learnings from that, and then finally, accountability and change. There are some actors around the world that take the outputs of the authoritative information that’s being found or being introduced into the world to combat harms, and then actually using it as evidence to hold people accountable, for example, in the International Criminal Court sometimes or in legal cases. And I think that that’s also a really important part of the misinformation challenge. It’s not just about combating misinformation. It’s also about looking for that systemic change that might improve the system overall. I’m going to leave it there. I appreciate I’ve been talking for a long time. But I’m really… really pleased to share this with you all today. If you want to learn more about all of the case studies and go into depth in any of this stuff, and there’s this election coalition’s playbook that we’ve published alongside anchor change. And actually, there’s a podcast as well with Claire Wardle, and Daniel, who’s here today, that took place as well, where you can get a summary of everything. So please download it, enjoy it, use it. And if you ever make an election coalition, get in touch. Thank you very much.

Jim Prendergast: Great, thank you very much, Mevan. I think I know the answer to this question before I ask it, but I’ve noticed at least in the room, some people are taking camera shots of the slides. Are you willing to share them with anybody who would like them? Yeah, perfect. That’s what I figured. Okay, great. So we’ve already had a couple of examples, case studies of country election coalitions. I’m going to now ask David to share his experience with election coalitions in Africa. Good morning, David. Are you there?

David Ajikobi: Hi, everyone. Can you hear me? Can you see me?

Jim Prendergast: We can and we can see we can hear and see you looking great.

David Ajikobi: Greetings from Lagos, Nigeria. So I think Meevan has already sort of set the tone to the conversation. I think I just wanted to add a few things. I think largely for us, at Africa Check, we are the continent’s leading first independent practical organisation. And what we’ve sort of done with election coalition work is to also help other countries around the elections to set up, you know, the coalitions. It can be very, it sounds very, very pretty when Meevan was saying it, but it can be very problematic, you know, particularly in a continent like Africa, where, you know, historically, media ownerships are often, the media is often owned by either politically exposed people or politicians or by government. So what we’ve been able to do essentially is to say, look, we would bring everybody on the table and we’ll have a common interest to say, we don’t want, we want elections to, we want our elections to hold, we want integrity in our elections, we do not want disinformation to be the third candidate or the fourth candidate in Africa elections. And so far so good, we’ve actually established some successes. And I’ll give you an example. So I just go back from Ghana, where, you know, we’re able to sort of foster an election coalition, comprised of Dubai, Ghana, FACTS, FACTSpace and other partners. And what we essentially saw was this. Traditionally, people did things in their own different, you know, corner, right? But together, it’s like coming together, we were able to sort of form a formidable front. And we saw how that panned out in the last elections in Ghana that brought about the election of John Mahama as the new president of the country. And so much so in the sense that the collaboration also helped with, you know, it was inclusive, the inclusive nature of the collaboration, because, for example, in Ghana, there were situation rooms in Accra, in the south, there were disinformation monitoring rooms in Tamale, which was in the north. So what that did was that we were able to also map out not just the actors, but also the patterns we’re seeing from region to region. And I can say the same thing about the Senegal elections that brought about Boussaou Faye, where we had an election coalition, we had the same thing even in South Africa. And if you follow what happened in the African elections, where for the first time, we had a government of national unity, because, you know, and we saw how this information played. out in all of that. I’ll give you my own context in Nigeria, where we had elections in 2023, which is dubbed one of the biggest elections in Africa, where we had more than 50 million voters in that election. Having a situation room, having an election coalition was a very great, not just about fact-checking alone or debunking, but also helped with debunking, because we already had experience with 2019 elections where we did coalitions to say, we would know that this kind of election disinformation would spread. On election day, we would have things like, oh, one candidate has stepped up for another candidate, so we can actually debunk that. But also, just like what Milind said, we were also able to use the coalitions to introduce AI tools, new tools, capacity building. So for example, the tool developed by Fufa in collaboration with Africa Check and CheckKado was provided for free to the coalition members in Ghana, Nigeria, and practically all the countries that had election coalitions in Africa. And for us, that is a very, very big step, because naturally, those individual organizations might not be able to access that. But with the coalitions, we were able to sort of give them for free, onboard them for free, in collaboration with Fufa. So for us, it wasn’t just about the election. It was the opportunity to collaborate at the largest scale. And I’ll give an example. For my context in Africa, radio plays a very important role. So you cannot talk about election coalitions without talking about the impact of radio. So at the level that, if you look at the structure that Milind presented, where you have the collaborative nature, what we did was that, apart from the fact-checkers, the CSOs, and the media agencies we were doing, we also partnered with radio stations across the continent when we were doing election work. What I did was that our content was able to reach a lot of more people, and also people who were in news deserts or on the sub-communities. or people who, what we would call media inclusion. So for us, that was very, very important. And we think that moving on with elections where they are coming around in 2025, it’s an opportunity to actually connect to do more. Thank you very much.

Jim Prendergast: David, thank you very much. Turn your camera back on for a second, because I want everybody to note that David gets bonus points for color coordinating his outfit with the theme color of the IGF. I also want to thank you for, you know, calling out the importance of radio. I think so many people are focused on the next technology and the future of technology and where these problems are happening that sometimes, including myself, we forget about what’s already there or how different environments consume news. So your comments about radio are certainly hitting home with me and I’m sure with others. So Daniel, you’ve got some experience with this in Brazil and I believe we got you up in the middle of night to share those with us. So why don’t you tell us how it went for you and some lessons learned there.

Daniel Bramatti: Well, thanks for having me. I am the editor of Estadão Verifica, the fact-checking unit of O Estado de São Paulo newspaper, and also a member of the advisory board of IFCN, the International Fact-Checking Network. I’m going to talk about the largest and most successful and most durable collaborative project involving journalism in the history of the Brazilian press, which of course is the Comprova Project. The origin, at the beginning of 2018, the Brazilian Association, the Brazilian Investigative Journalism Association, Abragi, was invited to organize and coordinate a coalition of 24 media outlets to combat misinformation and disinformation in that year’s presidential elections. I was then president of Abraji. And the invitation came from the researcher Claire Wardle, then head of first draft and author of the famous report Information Disorder from 2017. Google was one of the sponsors of the project. I have to say that at first, not all media outlets showed enthusiasm for the project. Of course, the news market is very competitive in Brazil. And there was no culture of collaboration between different companies here. But gradually, resistance was broken down, mainly because there was great concern about the impact of disinformation campaigns during the presidential race. Everyone knew that the challenge of containing this information was too great to be faced in isolation. And all decisions related to the project were made through consensus building without imposing directions or rules. Even the name of the project was chosen by the participants themselves. In Portuguese, comprova means to verify or to check, and also sounds like the words comprova, which means with proof. So there is a wordplay here. An important decision we made was to limit our verification work to content generated by social media users. We didn’t check the candidates’ speeches or statements. As one of the candidates lied a lot more than the others, it was probable that he would be the most contradicted. And so many media outlets were concerned about the possibility of conveying the idea that they were against this candidate or that they wanted to benefit their opponents. The vast majority of the media. media outlets invited to take part in Comprova did not have fact-checking units in their newsrooms. So dozens of journalists had to be trained using the methodology provided by First Draft. These professionals were from TV stations, radio stations, newspapers, magazines, and digital native media. Organizations of different sizes that reached different audiences in different parts of Brazil. In essence, Comprova put journalists from different companies to work together to debunk misleading content. And the final result was only published after a cross-checking process, meaning that at least three media outlets not involved in the original fact-checking had to give their approval to the work done by other colleagues. In addition to working together, another important aspect was the amplifying power of the media outlets involved. The fact-checks were almost always published by all 24 participants in the project. So after our first face-to-face meeting in May 2018, Comprova was officially launched in June and during the Congress of Abraji. And in August, we started publishing our first fact-checks. The election campaign, which ended in October, confirmed our worst fears. There was a huge circulation of misleading content and this content generated enormous engagement with a public that wasn’t prepared to deal with the problem. We had a lot of work, but also a lot of enthusiasm. All the work was done remotely, I’m talking about two years before the pandemic here, and to coordinate our activities. activities, we used a WhatsApp group. The amount of messages exchanged in this group was immense. In six months, around 50 journalists exchanged more than 18,000 messages in the group. And I did a word count on these messages and found that more than 315,000 words were written. For comparison, that’s more text than any book of the Harry Potter saga. So we learned some lessons. Number one, a shared purpose motivates journalists much more than competition. Number two, horizontal collaboration works best if there is central coordination. Also, number three, the role of the central coordinator, the project editor is not to give orders like a boss, but to act as a diplomat who seeks to build consensus and break down resistance when needed. And we learned fundamentally that fact checking is hard, very hard. Sometimes it took us days to get the information we needed to disprove a piece of content that clearly had been created in minutes. We managed to publish around 12 fact checks per week, or 147 in total. Organizers and participants were very satisfied with this experience. And as a result, Comprova did not end in 2018. As originally planned, the consortium remains active to this day, with the mission of fact checking rumors related to public policies, health, climate change, and other topics. We also worked together during the pandemics, fact checking false rumors about vaccines and the virus, and the electoral campaigns of 2020, 22 and 24. The number of participants grew to more than Our work in 2022 was especially important because in that year, there was a wave of attacks on the integrity of the Brazilian electoral process. There was a lot of content citing false vulnerabilities in the electronic voting machines and suggesting that there was fraud to benefit one of the candidates. We didn’t know at the time, but many of these rumors were created and spread by state actors, by intelligence agents from the Brazilian government, with the aim of destabilizing our democracy. Recent investigations by the Brazilian Federal Police have revealed that we almost suffered a coup d’etat that year and that the disinformation campaigns were part of the plan. We still have democracy in Brazil, and I don’t want to exaggerate our role, but I think I can say without fear of being wrong that journalism contributes to this result. Thank you very much.

Jim Prendergast: Great, Daniel, thank you. So, unlike many of the sessions you may have been at the IGF to date, we have this room, this room both physically and zoom room till 11am so that’s 45 minutes that we have set aside for comments, questions and discussion as I told you at the outset we wanted this to be as interactive and engaging as possible so I actually see we have a question already online but while I get my act together on that I’m going to throw one out to the group to sort of let folks in the room. Think about it but, you know, one of the things that I was struck by was, and Danny you talked about this is pivoting from an election to other things like the pandemic where you’re doing fact-checking. I guess for everybody, you know, how do you keep the momentum going? You know, I’m biased. I just came out of a national and congressional election in the U.S. where we were bombarded nonstop with election ads and all sorts of stuff. And frankly, we’re tired. I can’t imagine how journalists feel coming off of a cycle like that. How do you keep the momentum going both from elections and from other issues, you know, either state or local or other events like a pandemic? So whoever wants to take that first go ahead.

Daniel Bramatti: I can go first. In the Comprova case, the media outlets that participate in the project are the same, but not the journalists. We rotate the team so that more people can get together and learn from the others. So basically, we have a fresh team working together every year. So this is not a problem to us.

Jim Prendergast: Meevan or David, any comments on that one? Go ahead, Meevan.

Mevan Babakar: Sure. I think it’s really important in my experiences of being in election coalitions myself before Google and being a journalist for a long time is it’s really important to look after yourself in those situations and to look after the team. And it’s important to also step away when it becomes too much. I think that actually the emotional burden that a lot of people take on in these situations is quite high, especially, you know, And when we talk about elections, that’s one experience, but a lot of people are fact-checking during conflict in war zones, or like doing work that actually, where you end up seeing things that are quite harmful yourself. And I think the wellbeing of the team and the people is actually the thing that must be preserved and looked after beyond anything else. So I wanted to recommend a handbook that was written called, it’s called, it’s about vicarious trauma and how to look after people in a newsroom specifically. And I’m gonna put a link to it in the chat, but it has really great recommendations for how to look after journalists, newsrooms, and campaigners so that actually they don’t experience vicarious trauma through the work that they do. And I think it’s a really great resource for answering that question.

Jim Prendergast: Great, thank you. David, I saw you flash your camera on. You wanna weigh in?

David Ajikobi: Yeah, so for us, we had a very interesting case in 2019. So in 2019, we had an election coalition and it was sort of midwives by a foreign organization. And because the language or the reason, the thinking behind it was not so clear to some media partners. What happened was that, you know, you expect them to be paid. And I could tell you that when they got paid and when the money dried up, I mean, people left the conversation. Only Africa Check, Dubawa, and Fact Check Hub, three IFCN members stuck to that goal. But what we did with 2023 elections in Nigeria was that we said, look, we wanted people who understood the role of media in a democracy like Nigeria. For example, my country has had decades of military rule. So having elections. done properly and the outcome of the election done, you know, in a country like this is very important and, you know, the media has a role to play in that. And I also give you the example of the fact that we know, by doing so, we had partners who were committed to that. And in the election coalition in Nigeria in 2023, there was no single external funding. In fact, there was no single funding. What we did was to collapse our individual election work into the coalition work. So what I did was that we were all equal stakeholders, right? And also, just to speak to that point, Nigeria has off-season elections. So we’ve had state elections in about four or five states in 2023. And we’ve come together again to set up the coalition. Africa just set up the one in Lagos. Yubawa or Paktekum set up the one in Abuja, you know, for example. But we’re seeing across the continent that there’s a lot of funding and sponsorship and support coming from Google Initiative and other funders for the coalitions, you know. But we think that if we have journalists and fact-checkers and media partners who have a common sense of understanding the role of the media in democracies, it wouldn’t be a problem. It’s not been a problem so far in Africa and some of the election coalitions that we have coordinated. So I think that’s one of the key successes we’ve had.

Jim Prendergast: Thanks a lot, David. So we do have an online question, which I’ll read out. It is from Hazel Bitanya. I hope I got that right. Do you have any experience or thoughts in involving children or young people who are non-voters but would like to contribute to the discourse, either as fact-checkers or part of disinformation campaigns or as the target audience of these campaigns? Who would like to take that?

Mevan Babakar: I can jump in really quickly. I haven’t seen any young people being included in an election coalition specifically, but maybe David and Daniel will know more than I do on this, but I do know that there have been media literacy efforts that include young people, for sure. And one that comes to mind is the Teen Fact-Checking Network, that media-wise, that’s run out of pointer in the US, but they would actually go and work with teenagers and actually teach them what does it look like to even fact-check, what is a fact-check, how can you go out and check something that you see on social media. And a while ago now, Chequillado in Argentina used to run a really big schools network as well of fact-checking and fact-checkers, and they had a series of videos that actually had nothing to do with politics, it was a lot about, you have seen a post on the internet and it’s about your friend, and someone is pretending that your friend has done something that they haven’t, and actually they set it up in a way that it was almost like a series of, like you were a detective trying to figure out what had happened, and you could use a reverse image search and you could run a couple of searches that would actually help you get contextual information, and it really helped the young people who took part not just learn those skills, but also to ask the right questions. And I think that’s a really important part of it, it’s not necessarily to just learn fact-checking through the lens of politics, it’s actually just being critical in your day-to-day when you see something, and I think that question part of it is the most important. I’ll link to those two projects as well in the chat so you can see them.

Jim Prendergast: Thanks. David, did you want to add something?

David Ajikobi: Yes, I want to add quickly that specifically for election coalition work, we involved the Nigerian Union of Campus Journalists, these are actually students who are based, who are campus journalists, who are based on campuses, basically, pretty much like press clubs, you know. We invited them to the institutional rooms when we were doing the elections, which would typically last for like a week or two, to see how we were operating every day and how the fact-checking process works in newsrooms and also in that context. Then two, was the fact that we also had student volunteers, you know, students who would come out to say, oh, can we join you guys, you know, so that was very important. Beyond the coalition work that we did, we, for example, in Africa Tech, we also did, we were trying to do what we call the finish model, where we were trying to get across to school owners who were below a voting age. So we had a project sponsored by the UN agency, where we went to schools to actually teach them basic, you know, how to fact-checking, like, you know, with very simple exercises. And we actually incorporated games, because we think that young people, it’s easier to catch their attention with games and things like that. And we’re seeing that, you know, the feedback has been very fantastic, particularly when it comes to, because these school learners will turn 18 and will be the next batch of voters in 2027. And we thought that by raising the critical thinking skills now would help them access or, you know, navigate the more keywords of the election information when the next wave of elections are coming up in Africa. Thank you.

Jim Prendergast: Great, thank you. We’ve got a couple of questions in the room. So I’m going to pass this microphone to the woman to… Hopefully, it’s still working.

Lena Slachmuijlder: Yeah. Hi, my name… My name is Lina Slachmolder. I’m with Search for Common Ground and the Council on Tech and Social Cohesion. I just want to congratulate all of you because this is exemplary work. It also aligns with what Google has signed on to, which is the Voluntary Election Integrity Guidelines for tech companies that IFS worked with you and many other industry partners and where there’s hopefully a momentum to try and put these kinds of things in practice. So just want to really acknowledge that. It’s hard work. It’s good work. But I have four questions that I want to raise and I’m very curious to hear what you think. The first is that there is a lot of evidence about Google’s ad policy monetizing mis- and disinformation. And so while the fact-checking work is critical, you actually have an upstream driver of misinformation that doesn’t seem to be discussed in these kinds of conversations. Secondly, we see how generative AI is very quickly taking over search. And that includes your own AI summaries and plus all of the competition between all of the AI companies, which could seriously disrupt the things that Google has done so well in terms of upranking higher quality information over years. It’s been a big point of credibility. But this risks to disintegrate. Number three is that these countries and the examples of this in Indonesia and other places is excellent. But we had, what, 80 elections or 60 to 80 elections? And, you know, we work in places that are struggling, that are conflict-affected. And these kinds of coalitions don’t happen in places like Chad. You know, they don’t happen in other places where the, between civil society and government is so incredibly deep that it’s difficult. So the question is, you know, how does Google act when in fact there isn’t a coalition? Do you try and take the initiative? And the last question is similar in the sense that I believe Google was part of the pre-bunking effort in Europe to try to tackle misinformation through pre-bunking. And if I’m not mistaken, it was an initiative that you took. But you haven’t taken that initiative in all the other places, notably in the global south, where we have similar issues. And sometimes the consequences of misinformation in these conflict-affected societies is deadly.

Jim Prendergast: Thank you very much. There’s a lot to digest there. Mevan, do you want to take the first shot at some of it, what you can? I guess one of the things I would ask is, and it was one of the questions I actually had for David because he used the term first, pre-bunking. Up until this week, I’d never heard of what that, I’d never heard that word before. So explain what that part of your answer.

Mevan Babakar: Sure. Let me first say, I think those are all very important questions. And I’m grateful that they have a forum to be asked. Pre-bunking is when there is a narrative that is trending in a country, or there’s like a series of claims that add up to a narrative that might be seen at the sharp end of a news outlet, et cetera. And instead of dealing with it after it’s been published and after it’s actually trending and viral, pre-bunking deals with it beforehand. So for example, in the UK, I know that every single election, based on my years fact-checking, there’s going to be a claim that comes up around the election, around like day one of voting that, or the day before voting, that will say, if you use a pencil to actually mark your X on your piece of paper. paper, then your vote is invalid. And that’s a claim that comes up every single year. It’s not true. But it comes up and it’s used to disenfranchise people sometimes. Another claim that comes up is something that will say, if you’re voting for this party, you vote on this day, if you’re voting for this other party, you vote on this day. And it might feel innocuous, but these are things that we know are going to come up. And sometimes they can cause harm. And they might disenfranchise specific populations. So instead of dealing with that fact, that piece of misinformation after it’s actually going viral, a pre bunk will actually warn people that this is going to happen maybe weeks and months in advance. You know, it will say one of the kind of tactics that we’ve seen is these kinds of claims being used to disenfranchise people or will teach people about straw man arguments or the kind of tactics and manipulations that take place so that people are sort of inoculated or vaccinated against the misinformation when they see it. So that’s a pre bunk. I think a really important part of a pre bunk is that it’s not Google trying to push this out there. It’s actually the community organizations that have the relationships. And I think this kind of goes to some of the questions. In a lot of these cases, I think it’s really important. And this is why we do the work on election coalitions, that it’s not just one organization pushing out a narrative. It’s actually communities identifying misinformation that affects them. And then those same communities being empowered to combat that misinformation themselves. Because it’s one thing for somebody in that community to fix it. It’s another thing for an external party to come in and say this is how it should be. And we both know which one’s going to engender more. trust. And I think that that’s a really important part of this puzzle. In the case of pre bunking, it’s still a relatively new effort. And it’s one that’s led by jigsaw. And actually just last week, or the beginning of December, they graduated pre bunking into the real world, and actually handed it over to a series of community organizations. And the idea is that those community organizations will be the ones that kind of further it and grow it. And that includes people from across the globe. So it’s it shouldn’t be just a EU centric effort. It should be something that exists around the world. But I think it, it is resource intensive, and it requires infrastructure. And I think that part of the selection coalition’s work is building that infrastructure for things like pre bunking to actually jump off of. And because having that layer of community organizations and journalists working together, is the scaffolding that we need for things like pre bunking to actually take effect. Your other questions were about how does Google act when there isn’t an election coalition? Or whether isn’t that kind of infrastructure already in place? Like you mentioned, Chad, for example? I think that’s a really important question. And I also think that there’s an element of that that’s supporting understanding what are the prerequisites for an election coalition. And in some cases, yes, it does require community organizations to already exist, it requires services, it requires a certain amount of media organizations to be present. And I think in the cases when those things aren’t present, we have societal conversations, we have societal challenges that we need to tackle. And I think that’s not something that Google should do in isolation. It’s something that we all need to talk about together. And actually, Google plays a part in it. But so just figuring out actually how out how to create those structures in a completely different environment. And then finally, on Gen AI and ads. On Gen AI, I think it’s a really important question. And actually, a lot of my work at Google these days is about building tools to support fact-checkers working with Gen AI. I think it’s important to say that a lot of the fact-checkers are really excited about using Gen AI and AI tools. And I think that that’s sometimes missed as a part of this conversation. The scale of the misinformation that already exists is quite high. And I think we’re all aware that manual efforts alone are not enough to fix it. So there’s an opportunity there to use AI to actually help the battle. And that’s not to replace anybody, but actually to just support the efforts. And David already mentioned the full-fact AI tools that are used by over 50 organizations around the world now. And that helps fact-checkers actually spot repeat instances of misinformation to actually do some primary checking. And actually, it doesn’t take the fact-checker or journalist out of the equation, but it supercharges them to do more and more at scale. And I think that’s really important. And then I think, finally, on Gen AI, the EU election coalition that I mentioned, the election 24 check, we actually funded them to do some research with the 3,000 fact-checks that they did this time around to actually tag the ones that came out that were Gen AI. And actually, it was surprisingly low, the number of instances of Gen AI that caused harm in an election cycle. I’m not saying that it won’t cause harm. Obviously, it has the potential to. That’s an obvious thing. But I also think that it’s interesting to consider that at this moment in time, it’s not doing that. So how can we actually? find instances of where pre-monking might actually help with Gen-AI. So, in Taiwan, for example, one of the ministers would put out fake, deep fakes of themselves ahead of an election coalition to inoculate the population against it. And I think that’s a really interesting key study. But having said that, the harms of Gen-AI is still quite high. And there’s a lot of efforts at the moment across Google to combat potential harm from AI election information especially. So, there’s something called SynthID. This is watermarking. So, where we actually add like a little signature into any image that’s generated by Google. And we would be able to flag if it’s a generated AI image or not in any of our tools. We’re also part of something called the C2PA coalition. It actually is an industry standard for assessing where information has come from and the provenance of information. And those are being added into our tools right now. So, if actually if you see an image, you’d be able to say this is where it came from. And beyond provenance, we’re actually also working on a series of tools that are about giving people more context. So, when you actually see a piece of misinformation or when you see that it’s AI generated, you can also go to things like about this image or about this page on search which tells you how old is this image? Where has it come from? Who first published it? Are there any fact checks about it? And so, encouraging people to do lateral reading around it is a really important part of this. So, that’s the kind of user intervention side of it. And then finally, there are a whole host of policies that remove hundreds and thousands of ads, like thousands and thousands of ads every single day. And whether or not those thresholds are… like, are exactly in the right places, that’s a conversation that’s constantly being had and changes in each country and changes with different laws and regulations. But I think it’s an important challenge. But I think the thing that I’d like to leave you all here with, is this isn’t a thing where it’s just one answer. It’s different in every single country. It’s different in every single threshold, the context keeps changing. The tools keep changing. And actually, it’s something where the see-saw of it is hopefully going in the right direction. But we do keep see-sawing, if that makes sense. I’ve spoken a lot, but I’ll leave it there. Thanks.

Jim Prendergast: Yeah, you’re entitled to another sip of tea there. So great exchange. Lena knows the routine because she’s asked questions before. So when you do ask a question, which we have a couple in the room, just please identify yourself and your affiliation. So I’ll turn it over to Milton.

Milton Mueller: Thanks, Jim. I’m Milton Mueller. I’m at the Internet Governance Project at Georgia Tech. I want to begin by challenging the term, misinformation. I’m in a sort of a computer science, algorithmically-driven university. And the term tends to encourage the idea that misinformation is something that has a signature that you can just recognize and somehow kick out of the bit stream. And I think the Google speaker was very perceptive in pointing out that it’s really, it’s narratives, it’s interpretations. And I don’t know why we don’t just say false or misleading information, because that makes it clear that when you interfere in these discourses, you are essentially setting yourself as an arbiter of truth. I love this idea of coalitions of journalists coalescing to do fact-checking, because that is fully in line with the liberal democratic idea of the role of the press in a free society. You are… are you are not forcing anybody to do anything. You are just simply responding to bad speech with correct speech or good speech. But there’s an elephant in the room here that I hope to see addressed and that I want to ask you about. And I’m sure the Google people are very aware of this. There’s a high degree of concentration of communication and discourse around platforms. And as a result of that, contestation over what those platforms suppress and what they promote is the stakes are raised very high. And in particular, when governments get involved in trying to influence those decisions, you get problems. You also get problems with perceptions of bias from the platforms, which are well-known as being situated in liberal California and Silicon Valley as not being exactly in red state territory. And perhaps the Hunter Biden laptop story is a perfect example of where you think you’re suppressing misinformation, but you’re actually responding to maybe political pressure from people who think that a certain amount of information that might actually be true is going to harm the chances of their favored candidate in the election. So I’m concerned about how you set the threshold for where you actually intervene in these false narratives or misleading narratives. I don’t want to use the word misinformation. And I’m particularly concerned about how you handle the role of government. We have a series of court cases. Again, Murphy versus Missouri. We have the Supreme Court case. That went all the way to the Supreme Court. We have state legislation in Florida, which is trying to regulate the way you make these decisions and impose common carrier obligations. So this issue is really a lot more, I mean, it’s great to have these journalistic coalitions, but legally and economically, this issue is a lot more. rot than you’ve made it out to be here and I’d like to know how you handle those situations, particularly again when you know the government is an interested actor in the outcome of an election obviously right so what happens when you get pressure from governments to suppress information that may be damaging to them or that may be an extension of their policy?

Alex Walden: I just don’t know if you wanted to pass the mic to somebody else and take more than one at a time.

Jim Prendergast: Sorry yeah we’ll take a couple of questions from the room and then we can sort of bounce them around.

Claes de Vreese: I think there’s sound now that’s that’s a good start. So good morning everybody my name is Claes de Vreese I’m from the University of Amsterdam and also on the executive board of the European Digital Media Observatory. I have three quick questions I really appreciate the eye for sort of the local context in which these coalitions are built but I wonder if you could speak a little bit more as to how you choose partners who are in or outside of these coalitions since there are so many new and relatively unknown actors when building these coalitions in different election contexts. So the sort of how to build and which partners are in outside of the scope. The second question would be what in your google playbook are the best advices that you give the coalitions in dealing with critiques that they might get that they’re trying either to stifle free speech or to intervene in the elections which is a common critique that is coming from different vantage point in different kinds of elections. And then the third question would be how is google trying to be proactive in actually building a coalition that would also have multiple big tech platforms at the table so that you would see a coalition that is rather driven maybe by an industry interest the more so maybe than one or two individual companies. So those would be my three questions. Thank you.

Jim Prendergast: Okay great so move on I hope you your you’ve refreshed your palate because I think a lot of them are directed you but not all of them so do you want to start us off and then we’ll maybe work Daniel and David into the conversation.

Mevan Babakar: Sure I’m actually out of tea unfortunately I feel like I need a top up but I will say I just want to make it really clear based on that last question that these election coalitions are not Google-run election coalitions these are communities of journalists and fact-checkers and organ like social organizations that have come together created the coalition and then gone for funding and Google just happens to be one of the people that have funded it and I so I think that’s a really important part of this these are like interested important people in their own communities in their own countries coming together to build something that actually serves the voters of those countries and the only thing really that Google has done is supported them either with a resource or with funding and done this research project to kind of collect some of the learnings from them so that if another group of organizations comes to us with an election coalition we can say hey here are the lessons of the other coalitions that have come before you and you can learn from them and so I really want to just make that very clear so we don’t choose who are the partners that are in the election coalition it’s not us picking and choosing it’s actually the organizations themselves coming up with their own ecosystem their own collaboration their own policies their own membership models their own capacity building programs and I think that’s a really important part that you had a question about how do we how did they really like stop the challenges of being said to censor and and free speech and I’m going to take off my google hat for one second and put on my fact checker hat and when I used to work at full fact and we used to get full facts the UK’s fact checking charity we used to get a lot of you know fact checks are censoring speech kind of conversations and our response at the time and still is used to be fact checking is the free speech response to misinformation we’re not actually taking anything down as fact checkers we’re adding more context we’re giving you more information so that you can make up your own mind and I think that’s that’s how we used to deal with it as fact checkers but Daniel and David can probably give you a much better answer for where things are these days

Jim Prendergast: Milton I’ll ask uh we’ll we’ll get in response from Daniel David first then we’ll cycle back to you

Daniel Bramatti: I think that uh even even responses is perfect uh I I really uh contest and this idea that fact checking is is censorship you you you you have to have uh content moderation in in platforms you have content moderation regarding uh violence regarding pornography regarding other other things and and and also you have to have uh content moderation regarding uh the flow of uh bad information information that uh contributes to to to polluting our uh media ecosystem our information ecosystem so um the other thing uh uh there were so many questions uh I I just want to to to mention briefly that um how we decided uh uh who enters the coalition and in in the beginning in the beginning of the pandemic uh we wanted you know for from our side to uh introduce the communication towards uh people who are probably international innovators and so we in the very very early stage of of the the adoption of the of the framework which we we have put together against the and after. So in Comprova, at the beginning, our goal was to reach a large percentage of the Brazilian public. So we invited to the table all the big players in the media here. And also, we tried to balance different media organizations according to their editorial orientation, more to the left, more to the right, and also contemplating local players. So it was a very diverse group, in my opinion. And since then, since we decided to keep Comprova going, all the new participants are, they ask to enter the coalition. And we decide collaboratively, and everybody has a veto power if we give the OK or not to that applicant. And to this day, to my knowledge, we never close the door to anybody.

Jim Prendergast: So coming back to you, Mivan, to Milton’s question about thresholds and how do you determine when you take action and when you don’t, did I incorporate one of them?

Alex Walden: I can jump in just quickly on one about the challenges of how we engage with governments and the government pressure and how that does or does not impact us. And then I’ll kick it over to you, Mivan, to talk more about the definition of misinformation and the challenges around that. Although I will say on that piece, having worked on this from the beginning when fake news was the term, and then we all decided fake news was not the right term, and there are still many conversations happening all over where mis-dismal information. I think for us at a company, we sort of have to just land on something and figure out how to operationalize it while we’re managing these harms. And we also will continue to be part of conversations around what’s the appropriate lexicon for how we’re describing what are just sort of abuse or exploitation of the services that we’re providing. But when it comes to sort of the challenges of government, on the one hand, obviously, we are deeply committed to partnering with governments across a lot of the work that we do. And increasingly so, that’s the case. But also, I’m agreeing with you that also it’s the case that governments and parties are interested parties in the outcomes of elections. And so we have to be mindful of the role that we have in engaging neutrally. And so really, that gets. back to the importance of us having clear and robust policies in place to make sure that we are consistently addressing any of these issues as they come to us. So on the one hand, that’s about having clear policies that are the product policies. How do we define election misinformation or misrepresentation or the variety of other things that might come up? How do we ensure that that’s clear? And then we really do have to enforce that consistently across all of our policies in every country. And then also being clear about when it’s, for legal reasons, we might need to remove something under a national law. And so it’s perfectly legitimate for any government to say this content violates our local law and here’s an order and you need to remove it. In that case, we would evaluate it under our standards. And then if we, under our analysis, it’s consistent with the local law and we’ve received the appropriate process from the proper authority, we may remove that. And then that would be something that we put in our transparency report and make clear to everyone that we have complied with a law under the national, which is a national requirement. So I think those things enable us to, that’s what we rely on to make sure that we can be consistent everywhere we’re operating, even though it’s true that we are getting, we will get pressure from government, but we have to kind of have that to fall back on.

Jim Prendergast: Thank you Alex, Mevan.

Mevan Babakar: I think that was a great summary. And the only thing I would add on terms is, like Alex, I’ve seen like a lot of work done on the different terms in the space. And I think that sometimes different terms are helpful for different types of things. But I think the way that I like to think about it personally that makes it very real and, makes it very real and reminds me and others of the importance of this work, is thinking about it through the lens of harms. And I think that there is some really excellent work being done at the moment by a professor called Peter Cunliffe-Jones at Westminster University to develop a harms framework specifically for mis and disinformation. And the European Fact-Checking Standards Network is, well, a couple of organizations in Europe are looking to actually start using that in a meaningful way to actually highlight the harms of misinformation in like a completely different way. Because I think it’s one thing to say there’s misinformation, and it’s another thing to say there has been 5% election interference in this country, right, or vaccine misinformation that has led to this harm. And I think that that is the level of granularity we need to get to. And at that point, we kind of bypass some of the issues of the words, and we get more to those claims and those narratives and those harms. And it’s only at that kind of detail we can start to understand what interventions are meaningful and who should take them. Should that intervention come from a government? Should that intervention come from a platform? Should that intervention come from the community or the people affected? Because I think, actually, we need interventions at all of those levels. Thanks.

Jim Prendergast: Alex, did you have anything to add? No? Okay. I’ve just been shown the, we have five minutes to wrap up sign from our helpful tech support in the room. What I’m going to do is ask each of our panelists, I guess, if you had one piece of advice that you could offer people who might be interested in either participating in or starting their own elections coalition, what would that piece of advice be? And then a call to action coming out of today, what would you like to see happen? We’ll start with David, please.

David Ajikobi: I’ll say the first thing, if you’re, how do you feel about the election, or the listening fields, and do you think there are elections releasing, how would someone answer this? You know, it’s a good point to be if you’re not, if you’re not seeing things in the same perspective. I also got to give you advice, you know, but also I explain to you, I have to tell you that Google does not have all the charts on any election campaign that we have in Africa. You know, like Google Search has some, you know, some supporters, and I can tell you that, you know, I’ll tell you where that’s on this, this page. The top last thing you have to do is, you know, and it’s something that they will be probably a little bit challenging. And what we see that helps us in Africa is that we’re able to develop, develop expertise very early in the days. And many times the coalitions are sort of, that’s regulated, sort of, you know, coordinated by AFP members, whether it’s transparency of funding, transparency of election policies, the things we search. I want you to find out, I’m trying to say you can’t check everything. So we need, we have a sort of methodology of what we’re looking at, because we want to actually, like all the bonds to be very transparent around the elections. That’s, I think that’s, that’s where we should be coming from, and that’s really the challenge that we have. Thank you.

Jim Prendergast: Great. Thank you, David. Daniel, turn to you.

Daniel Bramatti: Yes. Sorry, my camera was off. My advice is choose wisely the organization that is going to coordinate your coalition. As Miwan said, it has to be some organization that is, if not neutral, the more neutral possible, equidistant in terms of political stance, independent from parties and from government and from private sector pressures. I know that sometimes it’s difficult to find an organization with that characteristics, but it is essential. to gain trust and to lead the work.

Jim Prendergast: Great, thank you, Daniel. Meevan.

Mevan Babakar: I’d say the relationships are everything in election coalitions. So similar kind of to Daniel’s points, but it’s really important to not underestimate the amount of work it will take to actually build those relationships across those media organizations and across those people. I think that when you get a group of people like that coming together who trust each other, that’s when something special can happen, but that takes time. And I’d also add, because relationships take time to build, maybe it’s not the first election that’s the best one, maybe it’s the second one or the third one. And I think that Comprova is a very good example of that. And I think that as those relationships build, so does the opportunity and the scale of those coalitions. Yeah, thank you.

Jim Prendergast: Great, thank you. And then finally here in the room, Alex. No, okay. So I wanna thank everybody. It was a great presentation, some very good questions, some very pointed questions, frankly, and a good discussion. For those in the room who wanna copy the slides, just come see me. I’ve already sent them to somebody online who wanted them. And I do wanna thank our panelists who all got up at varying degrees of the middle of the night to join us. And for Alex for joining us here in person. Thanks for everybody for showing up in person and online. More to come. And then for those in the room, Meevan’s been dropping links to various information into the chat. So when the recording is posted on the IGF website, be sure to go back and that information is for you waiting. So thank you very much everyone and enjoy the rest of your day.

Daniel Bramatti: Thank you so much. Bye.

Agreement Points

Importance of election coalitions

Mevan Babakar

Daniel Bramatti

David Ajikobi

Alex Walden

Coalitions allow journalists to collaborate and scale impact

Coalitions build trust across media organizations

Coalitions help combat disinformation in African elections

Coalitions are crucial for delivering credible information to users

All speakers emphasized the significance of election coalitions in combating misinformation and enhancing election integrity through collaboration and resource sharing.

Focus on specific harmful narratives

Mevan Babakar

David Ajikobi

Focus on specific harmful narratives rather than all misinformation

Measure concrete harms like election interference percentages

Both speakers advocated for targeting specific harmful narratives and measuring concrete impacts rather than addressing all misinformation.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the importance of balancing fact-checking and content moderation with preserving free speech, viewing fact-checking as a way to add context rather than censor.

Daniel Bramatti

Alex Walden

Fact-checking adds context rather than censoring speech

Platforms must balance content moderation and free speech

Both speakers discussed innovative strategies to combat misinformation, including pre-bunking and AI tools, highlighting the need for proactive and scalable approaches.

Mevan Babakar

Alex Walden

Pre-bunking can inoculate against expected false narratives

AI tools can help scale fact-checking efforts

Unexpected Consensus

Importance of neutrality in coalition leadership

Daniel Bramatti

David Ajikobi

Choosing neutral leadership is essential for coalition credibility

Coalitions help combat disinformation in African elections

Despite coming from different regions, both speakers emphasized the importance of neutral leadership in election coalitions, suggesting a shared understanding of coalition dynamics across diverse contexts.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement included the importance of election coalitions, the need to focus on specific harmful narratives, the balance between fact-checking and free speech, and the potential of innovative strategies like pre-bunking and AI tools.

Consensus level

There was a high level of consensus among the speakers on the core principles and strategies for combating misinformation in elections. This consensus suggests a growing understanding of effective practices in election integrity efforts across different global contexts. However, there were nuanced differences in approaches and emphases, reflecting the diverse challenges faced in different regions and the need for context-specific solutions.

Different Viewpoints

Role of tech platforms in content moderation

Milton Mueller

Alex Walden

Concentration of discourse on platforms raises stakes of moderation

Platforms must balance content moderation and free speech

Milton Mueller expressed concerns about the concentration of communication on platforms and their power to influence public discourse, while Alex Walden emphasized the need for clear policies and consistent enforcement to balance content moderation with free speech.

Approach to addressing misinformation

Mevan Babakar

Milton Mueller

Focus on specific harmful narratives rather than all misinformation

Balance addressing misinformation with preserving free speech

Mevan Babakar advocated for focusing on the most harmful and widespread narratives, while Milton Mueller emphasized the need to balance efforts to combat misinformation with protecting free speech.

Unexpected Differences

Terminology and framing of misinformation

Milton Mueller

Mevan Babakar

Balance addressing misinformation with preserving free speech

Focus on specific harmful narratives rather than all misinformation

Milton Mueller unexpectedly challenged the term ‘misinformation,’ suggesting it encourages algorithmic solutions, while Mevan Babakar proposed focusing on specific harmful narratives. This difference in framing the issue highlights the complexity of addressing misinformation.

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement centered around the role of tech platforms in content moderation, approaches to addressing misinformation, and the balance between combating false information and preserving free speech.

difference_level

The level of disagreement was moderate. While speakers generally agreed on the importance of election coalitions and fact-checking, they differed on specific strategies and the role of various actors. These differences reflect the complex nature of addressing misinformation in elections and highlight the need for continued dialogue and collaboration among stakeholders.

Partial Agreements

All speakers agreed on the importance of election coalitions, but they emphasized different aspects: Mevan focused on scaling impact, Daniel on building trust, and David on combating disinformation in specific contexts.

Mevan Babakar

Daniel Bramatti

David Ajikobi

Coalitions allow journalists to collaborate and scale impact

Coalitions build trust across media organizations

Coalitions help combat disinformation in African elections

Both speakers agreed on the need to scale fact-checking efforts, but they proposed different approaches: Alex emphasized AI tools, while Mevan suggested focusing on specific harmful narratives.

Alex Walden

Mevan Babakar

AI tools can help scale fact-checking efforts

Focus on specific harmful narratives rather than all misinformation

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the importance of balancing fact-checking and content moderation with preserving free speech, viewing fact-checking as a way to add context rather than censor.

Daniel Bramatti

Alex Walden

Fact-checking adds context rather than censoring speech

Platforms must balance content moderation and free speech

Both speakers discussed innovative strategies to combat misinformation, including pre-bunking and AI tools, highlighting the need for proactive and scalable approaches.

Mevan Babakar

Alex Walden

Pre-bunking can inoculate against expected false narratives

AI tools can help scale fact-checking efforts

Key Takeaways

Election coalitions are an effective way for journalists and fact-checkers to collaborate and scale their impact in combating misinformation

Building trust and relationships between coalition members is crucial but takes time

Pre-bunking and media literacy efforts can help inoculate against expected false narratives

Tech platforms play an important but complex role in election integrity, balancing content moderation with free speech concerns

Measuring concrete harms from misinformation is more useful than focusing on all potential misinformation

Resolutions and Action Items

Google to continue supporting election coalitions through funding and resources

Fact-checkers to focus on measuring and highlighting specific harms from misinformation

Coalition members encouraged to build long-term relationships beyond single election cycles

Tech platforms to increase transparency around content moderation policies and government removal requests

Unresolved Issues

How to form effective coalitions in countries with limited civil society or media infrastructure

Balancing the need for content moderation with concerns about censorship and free speech

How to handle government pressure on platforms to remove content during elections

Determining appropriate thresholds for platform intervention on misleading content

Suggested Compromises

Using a harm-based framework to determine when intervention on misinformation is warranted, rather than blanket policies

Platforms collaborating on industry-wide coalitions to address election integrity, rather than individual company efforts

Balancing fact-checking with adding context, rather than removing content outright

Pre-bunking is when there is a narrative that is trending in a country, or there’s like a series of claims that add up to a narrative that might be seen at the sharp end of a news outlet, et cetera. And instead of dealing with it after it’s been published and after it’s actually trending and viral, pre-bunking deals with it beforehand.

speaker

Mevan Babakar

reason

This introduces the concept of pre-bunking, which is a proactive approach to combating misinformation that many participants were unfamiliar with.

impact

It sparked further discussion about proactive strategies for addressing misinformation and led to examples being shared, like the Taiwan minister creating fake deep fakes to inoculate the population.

I want to begin by challenging the term, misinformation. I’m in a sort of a computer science, algorithmically-driven university. And the term tends to encourage the idea that misinformation is something that has a signature that you can just recognize and somehow kick out of the bit stream.

speaker

Milton Mueller

reason

This comment challenges a fundamental assumption underlying much of the discussion and pushes for more precise language.

impact

It shifted the conversation to consider the complexities of defining and identifying misinformation, leading to discussions about narratives and interpretations rather than just false information.

There’s a high degree of concentration of communication and discourse around platforms. And as a result of that, contestation over what those platforms suppress and what they promote is the stakes are raised very high. And in particular, when governments get involved in trying to influence those decisions, you get problems.

speaker

Milton Mueller

reason

This comment highlights the broader context and potential risks of platform-based approaches to combating misinformation.

impact

It led to a discussion about the role of governments, potential biases, and the challenges of setting thresholds for intervention.

I think that sometimes different terms are helpful for different types of things. But I think the way that I like to think about it personally that makes it very real and reminds me and others of the importance of this work, is thinking about it through the lens of harms.

speaker

Mevan Babakar

reason

This reframes the discussion of misinformation in terms of concrete harms rather than abstract definitions.

impact

It shifted the focus towards more tangible impacts and metrics, suggesting new ways to approach and measure the effects of misinformation.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by challenging assumptions, introducing new concepts, and reframing the issue of misinformation. They moved the conversation from a focus on technical solutions and coalitions to a more nuanced consideration of the complexities involved in defining, identifying, and addressing misinformation. The discussion evolved to consider broader societal impacts, the role of various stakeholders including governments and platforms, and the importance of focusing on concrete harms rather than abstract definitions.

How can election coalitions be formed in conflict-affected countries where cooperation between civil society and government is difficult?

speaker

Lena Slachmuijlder

explanation

This is important to understand how to implement election integrity efforts in challenging political environments.

How does Google act when there isn’t an election coalition in a country?

speaker

Lena Slachmuijlder

explanation

This explores Google’s role and responsibilities in countries lacking established election integrity infrastructure.

Why hasn’t Google taken the initiative to implement pre-bunking efforts in the Global South, similar to what was done in Europe?

speaker

Lena Slachmuijlder

explanation

This addresses potential disparities in misinformation prevention efforts between different regions.

How do platforms set the threshold for when to intervene in false or misleading narratives?

speaker

Milton Mueller

explanation

This is crucial for understanding how platforms balance free speech concerns with misinformation prevention.

How do platforms handle pressure from governments to suppress information that may be damaging to them or that may be an extension of their policy?

speaker

Milton Mueller

explanation

This explores the complex relationship between platforms, governments, and information control during elections.

How do election coalitions choose which partners to include or exclude?

speaker

Claes de Vreese

explanation

This is important for understanding how coalitions maintain credibility and effectiveness.

What are the best practices for election coalitions to deal with critiques that they are trying to stifle free speech or intervene in elections?

speaker

Claes de Vreese

explanation

This addresses a common challenge faced by fact-checking and anti-misinformation efforts.

How is Google trying to be proactive in building a coalition that would include multiple big tech platforms?

speaker

Claes de Vreese

explanation

This explores the potential for broader industry cooperation in addressing election misinformation.

Summary

This open forum focused on Connect.post, a Universal Postal Union (UPU) project aimed at digitally connecting post offices worldwide to promote digital inclusion and sustainable development. The discussion explored how leveraging the postal network can bridge the digital divide, especially in rural and underserved areas. Experts highlighted that post offices, with their extensive reach, are well-positioned to provide digital access and services to communities.

Key points included the importance of sustainable connectivity solutions, the need for hybrid models of service delivery, and the role of post offices as community hubs for digital services. Participants emphasized the critical need for digital literacy training and cybersecurity measures to accompany connectivity efforts. The potential of emerging technologies like drones for postal delivery in rural areas was discussed, along with the importance of community-centered approaches for sustainable implementation.

Experts from various organizations, including the Caribbean Telecommunications Union, UNDP, Internet Society, and Organization of American States, shared insights on regional initiatives, challenges, and opportunities. They stressed the importance of partnerships between postal services, governments, and international organizations to achieve the project’s goals.

The discussion also touched on the potential for post offices to offer digital financial services and e-government services, further enhancing their role in digital inclusion. Participants agreed that while connectivity is crucial, it must be coupled with cybersecurity awareness and digital skills training to ensure truly inclusive digital transformation. The forum concluded by emphasizing the need for holistic approaches that consider both technological advancements and human factors in connecting post offices and communities.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– Leveraging postal infrastructure to bridge the digital divide and promote digital inclusion

– Cybersecurity implications of connecting postal networks and services

– The role of emerging technologies like drones in postal services

– The importance of digital literacy training and capacity building

– Potential for postal services to offer digital financial services

The overall purpose of the discussion was to explore how postal networks and infrastructure can be leveraged to promote digital inclusion and connectivity, especially in rural and underserved areas. The speakers discussed the Connect.post initiative by the Universal Postal Union, which aims to connect all post offices to the internet by 2030.

The tone of the discussion was collaborative and optimistic. Speakers from various organizations shared insights on how postal services can contribute to digital inclusion efforts. There was a sense of excitement about the potential of postal networks to bridge digital divides, tempered with awareness of challenges like cybersecurity risks. The tone remained consistent throughout, with participants building on each other’s ideas and highlighting opportunities for partnership and cooperation.

Speakers

– Tracy Hackshaw: Moderator, Head of the .POST team at UPU Postal Technology Center

– Nigel Cassimire: Deputy Secretary General of the Caribbean Telecommunications Union (CTU)

– Yu Ping Chan: Engagement at the Executive Office of the UNDP

– Kerry-Ann Barrett: Chief of Cyber Security at the Organization of American States (OAS)

– Rodney Taylor: Secretary General of the Caribbean Telecommunications Union (CTU)

– Kevin Hernandez: Digital Inclusion Expert at the Universal Postal Union (UPU)

Additional speakers:

– Dan York: Senior Advisor at the Internet Society

– Kerry-Ann Barrett: Chief of Cyber Security at the Organization of American States (OAS)

– Mayssam Sabra: Colleague of Tracy Hackshaw at UPU Postal Technology Center

Expanded Summary of Connect.POST Open Forum Discussion

Introduction

This open forum focused on Connect.post, a Universal Postal Union (UPU) initiative aimed at digitally connecting post offices worldwide to promote digital inclusion and sustainable development. Kevin Hernandez introduced the project, highlighting its goal to connect 50% of post offices by 2025 and 100% by 2030. The discussion explored how leveraging the postal network can bridge the digital divide, especially in rural and underserved areas. Experts from various organisations, including the Caribbean Telecommunications Union, UNDP, Internet Society, and Organization of American States, shared insights on regional initiatives, challenges, and opportunities.

Key Discussion Points

1. Leveraging Postal Infrastructure for Digital Inclusion

There was strong agreement among speakers that postal infrastructure can play a crucial role in promoting digital inclusion. Kevin Hernandez highlighted the extensive reach of postal networks in rural and underserved areas, making them well-positioned to provide public internet access and digital services. Yu Ping Chan emphasised how postal connectivity supports multi-channel government service delivery, referencing the Global Digital Compact signed at the UN in September. Nigel Cassimire discussed the potential for partnerships between telecom/ICT organisations and postal services to enable rural connectivity. Rodney Taylor elaborated on how postal infrastructure can be leveraged for e-government and digital financial services, citing the example of US visa applications being processed through post offices in Barbados.

2. Cybersecurity Considerations

As postal systems become more connected, cybersecurity emerged as a critical concern. Kerry-Ann Barrett pointed out that increased connectivity creates new vulnerabilities for postal systems, emphasising the need for cybersecurity awareness training for postal workers. Tracy Hackshaw shared that the UPU is establishing a global information sharing and analysis centre for postal cybersecurity to address these concerns. He also highlighted that the .post top-level domain is one of the most secure on the internet. There was consensus that cybersecurity measures must be coupled with efforts to improve efficiency and accessibility of postal services.

3. Digital Skills and Literacy

The importance of digital literacy training alongside connectivity initiatives was a recurring theme. Audience members and speakers alike stressed the need for community-centred models to build local digital skills and capacity. An audience member mentioned the digital literacy training being done by the Internet Society Foundation. Kevin Hernandez suggested that post offices could provide digital skills training in some contexts and proposed partnerships between post offices and libraries to support digital literacy efforts. This approach highlights the potential for post offices to serve as community hubs for digital services and education.

4. Emerging Technologies in Postal Services

The discussion touched on the role of emerging technologies in improving postal services. Kevin Hernandez mentioned a recent UPU survey on the use of emerging technologies by postal operators. Audience members mentioned the use of drones for postal deliveries in remote areas and the application of AI to optimise delivery routes. Kevin Hernandez noted that emerging technologies like drones may be more suitable for rural delivery than urban settings. Rodney Taylor emphasised that local postal knowledge remains crucial to support tech-enabled delivery in unplanned settlements, suggesting a hybrid approach that combines technological advancements with traditional expertise.

5. Sustainability and Long-term Viability

Nigel Cassimire raised an important point about the sustainability of digital inclusion initiatives, noting that many projects fail due to lack of ongoing support or associated activities. This sparked a conversation about the need for holistic approaches that consider both technological advancements and human factors in connecting post offices and communities.

6. Broader Context of Digital Transformation

Yu Ping Chan connected the discussion to larger global initiatives, referencing the World Summit for Information Society and emphasising the importance of capacity building and inclusive enabling environments. She also mentioned the UPU’s partnership with Egypt Post. Dan York shared information about the Internet Society’s work with community networks and their DIY community networks toolkit. Yu Ping Chan suggested using Raspberry Pi-enabled Wi-Fi networks for postal connectivity in some contexts.

Agreements and Disagreements

There was a high level of consensus among speakers on the key issues discussed. The main areas of agreement included the potential of postal infrastructure to promote digital inclusion, the importance of digital literacy training, the need to address cybersecurity concerns, and the role of emerging technologies in improving postal services.

Minor differences emerged in approaches to implementation, particularly regarding digital skills training. While Kevin Hernandez suggested post offices could provide such training, other speakers advocated for community-centred models to build local capacity. However, these differences were more about implementation strategies rather than fundamental disagreements.

Resolutions and Action Items

The UPU is taking concrete steps to address some of the challenges discussed:

1. Establishing a global information sharing and analysis centre for postal cybersecurity

2. Working on formulating an MOU with the International Federation of Library Associations to create ecosystems of digital inclusion

Unresolved Issues and Future Considerations

Several issues remain unresolved and warrant further exploration:

1. Ensuring long-term sustainability of community networks and digital inclusion initiatives

2. Balancing efficiency improvements through technology with cybersecurity concerns

3. Effectively implementing digital literacy programmes across diverse contexts and communities

4. Addressing the challenges of connecting rural and unplanned settlements, as discussed by Rodney Taylor

The discussion also raised potential areas for future development, including the integration of digital financial services and FinTech into postal services, and the exploration of synergies between postal and library digitisation efforts.

Conclusion

The Connect.POST Open Forum highlighted the significant potential of postal networks in promoting digital inclusion and bridging the digital divide. While challenges remain, particularly in terms of cybersecurity and sustainability, there is a clear path forward for leveraging postal infrastructure to improve digital access and services. The discussion emphasised the need for holistic approaches that consider technological advancements, human factors, and long-term sustainability in connecting post offices and communities worldwide. The Caribbean Telecommunications Union’s work with postal services, as mentioned by Rodney Taylor, provides a regional example of efforts to integrate postal networks into broader digital inclusion strategies.

Tracy Hackshaw: Good day and welcome to the Universal Postal Union’s Open Forum on Connect.post, digitally connecting through the postal network. Today we have a wonderful lineup of speakers. On my left is Mr. Nigel Casimir, Deputy Secretary General of the Caribbean Telecommunications Union. Right, two chairs away, or one chair away. And there’s Digital Inclusion Expert from the Universal Postal Union. Directly across from me to my right is Mr. Dan York, Senior Advisor at the Internet Society. And, oh, let me get Yu-Ping’s actual title. We have Yu-Ping from the UNDP and her title is… Engagement at the Executive Office of the UNDP. Online we have Ms. Kerry-Ann Barrett. I can’t see you online yet, so I hope I can see the Zoom room soon. Kerianne Barrett, Chief of Cyber Security at the Organization of American States. Is Kerianne online? Kerianne, if you’re there, can you just pop in and say hi? And, as well, we have Mr. Rodney Taylor, the Secretary General. We can see physically, well, see virtually. Yes, Kerianne says hello. And, Rodney, welcome. We’re seeing you. And he is the Secretary General of the Caribbean Telecommunications Union, based in Trinidad and Tobago, from the Caribbean. And we hope to hear some good stuff from Rodney today as we proceed with our open forum. So, without further ado, I’m going to hand the mic over to Mr. Hernandez from the UPU. who will introduce the session to us and give us a quick presentation on the topic at hand. Kevin, over to you.

Kevin Hernndez: Hello, everyone. Can you hear me? Okay. Sorry about that. So, hi, everyone. My name is Kevin Hernandez and I am a digital inclusion expert at the UPU and the focal point for the Connect.post project. So, if you have any questions about the project, please do not hesitate to reach out to me. So, Connect.post is a project led by the Universal Postal Union which aims to maximize the sustainable development contributions of the postal sector and to help foster more inclusive and sustainable digital transformations that leave no one behind. And among those contributions are bridging the digital divide and promoting social, economic, and digital inclusion. So, very briefly, I think it’s important to make a clarification about what we mean when we say bridging the digital divide and promoting digital inclusion. Because although these concepts are often used interchangeably, in reality, they actually mean two different things. So, when we mention bridging the digital divide, we are talking about gaps in digital access. On the other hand, when we speak about digital inclusion, we are referring to people’s abilities to fully participate in societies as they undergo a process of digitalization. And the important thing to note about these two concepts is that the digital divide can contribute to digital exclusion but does not automatically cause it. Instead, digital exclusion occurs when there is a digital divide present and opportunities and services can only be accessed digitally. In those situations, those without access or who lack digital skills end up being left out and are put at risk of falling behind. And we believe that a connected global postal infrastructure Our postal network is well-placed to help mitigate both of these risks. Sorry, I’m having issues with the clicker. Next slide, please, if you can control it. Okay. So, connecting a post office can contribute to bridging the digital divide. If we connect post offices in rural areas, we can then leverage that connectivity to provide access to the communities surrounding it. And there are different ways of doing this. For example, you can offer public access to digital equipment or provide access to the Internet at post offices, such as Zimpost and Zimbabwe is doing, and that’s the picture in this slide. They have connected over 200 post offices and then turned them into community information centers. Or post offices can even host a community network, meaning that post offices can become an Internet service provider for their surrounding communities. Now, moving on to digital inclusion. So, as I mentioned earlier, the digital divide does not automatically lead to digital exclusion. Instead, it’s a combination of the digital divide and when opportunities and services are only accessible through digital channels, that leads to digital exclusion. And unfortunately, this trend has become widespread across the world. For example, the 2023 UN World Public Sector Report found that too many countries and service providers were taking a digital-only approach, which was then resulting in the digital exclusion of marginalized groups. And this has led many governments to rethink this strategy. And they stressed, the report stressed that, a just and inclusive digital transformation that leaves no one behind includes hybrid models of service delivery, including blended or multi-channel service delivery. Some governments try to provide multi-channel service delivery by setting up in-person one-stop-shops or service centers, where people and businesses can access a wide range of digitally enabled services from a single location. But unfortunately, as an FAO report released earlier this year found, service centers are often few in number, and they tend to be concentrated in urban and densely populated areas. So then this means that they are not easily accessible for people in rural areas, who end up continuing to be at risk of exclusion and being left behind even when service centers are introduced. Meanwhile, the global postal network infrastructure is the most extensive and expansive retail service network in the world. There are over 650,000 post offices globally, and the majority of them are located in rural areas. So this gives posts an unprecedented reach in digitally underserved areas, and means that post offices tend to have a service outlet presence in places where other service providers and government actors struggle to reach. For this reason, post offices are very well placed to enable a more inclusive multi-channel service delivery. Anyway, I’ll continue with my presentation. without the next slide, please. Next one. Next one. There we go. So for this reason, post offices are very well placed to enable a more inclusive multi-channel service delivery. And this is not just a concept, but something that is already happening in several countries. So the graphic on this slide is from Poste Italiane, who have connected 7,000 post offices in rural areas to high-speed internet, and then leveraged that connectivity to transform their post offices into one-stop shops for digital government services. And this allows their rural residents to access digital government services across multiple channels, including the post office counter, through electronic kiosks, through advanced ATMs, through a call center, and through the web. And this makes these services more easily accessible to people in rural areas, where the post office is often the only public institution with a presence in those areas. And this is the kind of use of the postal infrastructure which we want to promote at Connect.Post. So in summary, the goal of Connect.Post is to connect all post offices in the world to the internet by 2030. And we have created a workflow to get there, and I don’t really have the time to get into that. But a key point to highlight for all you is that making this vision a reality requires collaboration with governments, international organizations, donors, the private sector, civil society, and, of course, designated postal operators. And we are currently working on building a coalition of actors to make this vision a reality. And we are very keen on building and exploring partnerships so that together we can help maximize the potential of the postal network to facilitate more inclusive digital transformations and to help bridge the digital divide and to promote economic, social, and digital inclusion. Thank you.

Tracy Hackshaw: Thank you very much, Kevin. for that brief but very enlightening introduction on Connect.Post and I hope everybody got a sense of what Connect.Post is all

Kevin Hernndez: and how we are to move forward with this project which really is ambitious in its scope trying to ensure that the postal community, the post offices

Tracy Hackshaw: and the stakeholders involved are connected via this network. The approach I’m going to take today is sort of a talk show format going to ask questions of our experts who are here with us today including our Kevin Hernandez who may be asked to answer some questions and I’m going to start with the CTU, the Caribbean Telecommunications Union because I’m Caribbean so I’m taking moderator’s privilege and putting them first. So probably we could start and let’s give the hybrid model a good try so let’s start with the online participants so we’ll have Rodney say a few words as to what’s happening but I think Nigel will give an introduction of the CTU’s overarching thinking but Rodney maybe given you’re the SG just say a few words about what’s happening.

Rodney Taylor: Sure, good morning or afternoon, good evening everyone and thanks for including us in this very important discussion. It’s good to be able to join you online. We have been, since 2023 we have signed an MOU, the CTU that is which we are a regional intergovernmental organization based in Trinidad and Tobago serving 20 member states. Most of them are independent territories or independent countries but some are British overseas territories and Dutch overseas territories as well and we have been advocating for that bridge between the Postal Service and the Ministries of Digital Transformation. In some cases the same ministers or same policymakers have responsibility for postal services. which, of course, is a form of communication and information technology or communication or digital transformation. And so for us, the link is very clear for the reasons outlined in the presentation, because the postal service can allow or facilitate the closure of the digital divide and ensure that there is no, or at least the risk for digital exclusion are minimized. So in practical terms, we signed an MOU in 2023 with the UPU, and that was intended to promote assessments of our postal services in the region, how ready they were for e-commerce, how connected they were under the Connect.Post initiative, the drive is to, of course, ensure that they have good and robust connectivity that they can then in turn service their communities. In addition to that, my own experience working with the government of Barbados was that we partnered in particular during COVID to allow the delivery of driver’s license so that we were able to stand up online renewal of driver’s licenses and they were able to, even though the offices were closed physically, the postal service stepped in to allow for a seamless online renewal and delivery of those driver’s license that then evolved to passports and other services now where physical credentials are needed. So it allows for seamless end-to-end e-commerce. So I’ll stop there for now. I know there are many other speakers, but for us, it is to ensure that policymakers get it. They understand that the postal service is more than the delivery of letters, and that is a very integral part of our digital transformation in efforts, especially if we want to be inclusive. Thank you.

Tracy Hackshaw: Thank you very much, S.G. Rodney-Taylor. So I’ll hand now to your colleague, Deputy Secretary-General Nigel Casimir, who will elaborate a little further about the CTU’s role in the project. and connectivity in general in the Caribbean region. So I’ll hand over to Nigel now. Nigel.

Nigel Cassimire: Thank you very much, Tracy. I think I would like to say that a partnership between the CTU, as Rodney has mentioned, our mandate basically is to develop ICT policy and regulation in the Caribbean. And say the postal service, there’s this legacy PTT type governance in government. So certainly there is a history of relationship between an organization like the CTU looking at telecom development and the postal service as well. So I think it was quite natural that we eventually got into an MOU arrangement. There was an encounter between CTU and the UPU at the ITU’s plenipotentiary conference, and it was subsequent to that that the MOU was signed. We realized that there were opportunities for working together. In the Caribbean, around the many countries of the Caribbean, we do have some hard to reach areas, some rural areas that the telecoms infrastructure has not really reached out to or managed to get to us yet. And as Kevin mentioned, and as Rodney mentioned, in terms of the Barbidas example, the post offices in those rural areas have been quite useful. The general concept of using remote hubs is something that has been applied in multiple countries of the Caribbean. But one big challenge is making them sustainable. Very often, in many cases, they’ve gone out and created hubs, built a nice new building and for one reason or the other, the equipment breaks down, they lose the staff and so on. There isn’t another activity associated with it to make the operation sustainable. So in cases where there are post offices close by maybe, or that could be upgraded, those are some of the examples that we are seeing. Another option that makes itself available to help make it sustainable is that in reaching out to rural areas for improvement connectivity and access to services, that this can often fall under the rubric of universal service initiatives. And there is funding available to get those things going and to keep them going. So the partnership with the postal, with the UPU and postal services generally in the islands is one that we are seeking to leverage better and utilize the available resources as well to make them sustainable. So I’ll stop here for now. Thank you. And just to finish off on the CTU input, is there anything else you would like to add, Rodney?

Rodney Taylor: Maybe how the existing projects have gone thus far. I’ve worked with you on it, I recall. We’ve worked with Barbados, Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago, and we’re about to start working with Belize and Grenada. From your perspective, how have they gone so far in terms of driving this agenda forward? Well, thank you, Tracy. Well, the assessments that have been done have been very instrumental in informing policy as to what changes needed to be made to ensure that the postal services in the countries you mentioned are ready. So that work is ongoing. I think you also presented in the CTU-ICT Week in St. Kitts and Nevis on the benefits of this initiative. And subsequently, Grenada has made a request, and there’s a request in the works from St. Kitts and Nevis. So we look forward in helping those member states advance. Since then, we’ve also assisted the Caribbean Postal Union in the registration of a dot post domain for its operations so that it can benefit from the other service offerings under that dot post initiative. We’re advocating also for all of our member states to go ahead with the registration of the dot post domain for security purposes, for cybersecurity purposes, and also to benefit from the suite of services that are being offered by the ITU, by the UPU. So the work is ongoing. It’s not moving as quickly as we would like, but we will continue to push and advocate for resources to be allocated to ensure that the postal services form an integral part of the digital transformation strategy in our member states.

Tracy Hackshaw: Thank you. Thank you very much, SG Taylor, from the CTU, and Nigel as well. I’m now going to hand the mic over to Yuping from the UNDP. So Yuping, another partner of the UPU and now from the UN system, the UPU and the UNDP are already collaborating together on several initiatives, including connecting post offices. Now, what do you think will be the benefit of leveraging the postal network to promote digital inclusion and inclusive deployments of digital public infrastructure? Yuping?

Yu Ping Chan: Thank you so much, Tracy, and my thanks to the organizers for including UNDP and the UN system in general here. I think Kevin has already spoken to the core fundamentals of why the post really would be an instrumental tool in promoting global digital inclusion, right? The basic concept of connectivity and using the post as a means to have underserved communities that are in remote areas access the internet and have the opportunity to access online e-government services. you know, e-services, basic information, that’s at the core of the idea of bringing connectivity and then bridging digital divides. But I actually thought the element that Kevin had highlighted where we need to move beyond just connectivity, right? We need to look at hybrid models of delivery of government services. Is that sort of interesting nuance beyond just connectivity, which is what the UN has been talking about and digital inclusion, and really looking at this more interesting area where it’s not just about giving somebody broadband access or the ability to get online, but what more has to be done in remote places as well? Because as I think has been already said, there are places where it’s not that easy to bring in a satellite or fiber link and then say connectivity is gonna solve all these issues and that’s how you promote digital inclusion. Like, what more do you have to do to really reach, not even just the last mile, but the part beyond in these communities where it’s not possible at all? So for me, I think listening to Kevin’s presentation just now really illuminates how we have to go so much further than just what is already said at the UN when it comes to bridging digital divides and digital inclusion. And so when I think back to the Global Digital Compact, which was this agreement that was signed at the UN just this September, which is part of the Pact for the Future and promises to be sort of the next iteration of how we look at global digital cooperation, I’m struck by the fact that it doesn’t address some of these issues. And that in fact, if we go back to the origins of the IGF around the WSIS itself, the World Summit for Information Society, and go back to this concept around capacity building and inclusive enabling environments, that really goes to the heart of some of the broader issues and how we should be looking at digital transformation, not just assuming that it’s about connectivity or these types of things, but also going beyond to think of more innovative ways to conceptualize digital inclusion and making sure that everybody is not left behind. I’m also actually quite interested, and I will put this out to experts out there, whether, for instance, you would think that what we have right now around, let’s say, internet-in-a-box solutions or Raspberry Pi-enabled Wi-Fi networks might be another way of actually… equipping POST to be part of this important digital transformation. So again, going back to the question of it’s not just about broadband connectivity or bringing up fiber connection, are there innovative technical solutions that could also further this effort that we’re making to make sure that POST could be the center, the front line of reaching these underserved communities as well. It also would be remiss of me not to just also mention that from UNDP, we’ve worked with POST, as Tracy had mentioned, in a number of areas besides the UPU. So for instance, in Egypt, we’ve had a longstanding partnership with Egypt Post since 2005 to modernize the digital services and the postal system itself. We actually now have worked with Egypt Post to deliver 27 government services online. There’s a lot of budding digital products as well, but now I’m also thinking about whether that partnership could be taken a little bit further, used as a model elsewhere. I know it’s been recognized by the UPU as one of these consistent partnerships that’s delivered a lot, but really maybe we should think about this in other places as well. So just to end there, and to also see if perhaps any experts could address the question that I raised around new technologies that could potentially be used as part of Connect POST solutions as well. Thank you very much.

Tracy Hackshaw: And that’s a beautiful segue, Yupeng, into Mr. Dan Leok, who is the senior advisor at Internet Society. I know Dan for a long time, and Dan is extremely keen on the emerging technologies in this space. He’s been involved in community networks and now very keenly involved in the LEO thinking and how that can work in terms of connectivity for underserved regions. So Dan, let me pose this question to you. So given your experience in connecting public buildings and institutions and leveraging them as nodes for community networks, do you think there are any advantages to using these public buildings and institutions as nodes? For community networks, are there any unique opportunities in using POST offices?

Speaker: And of course, thread through there. the concept of L.E.U. and how that is now shifting, maybe shifting the playing field a bit in this discussion. And I’m looking forward to you paying with that. Thanks. So wait, Tracy, we only have how much for this session? We have 10 hours. Okay, you just added me a lot. So maybe let me back up, and for folks who aren’t aware, the Internet Society is a 30-year-old charitable organization. We’ve been around, and we have a vision that the Internet is for everyone. And that’s really our focus and our goal. We have about 132,000 individual members. I know Tracy is one of them. And we have 120-plus chapters out there, including you are in Trinidad and Tobago. And that’s where we know each other for so many years. We also, I know you were involved with our fellowship program and other pieces like that. And anybody here is welcome to go visit our booth. We have a whole bunch of information there. But to get there, we have a strategic goal for 2030 around the people everywhere will have access to affordable, reliable, resilient Internet. And this comes to what we’re talking about here. I have to say, honestly, and this is why I ask you why you invited me here on one level is because we have not done work yet with post offices. But it’s interesting because when we’ve dealt with a lot of other different kinds of anchor institutions. And so let me mention a couple of those. We’ve worked with, to date, around 85 different community networks spread out across the world. We’ve given over $3 million in grants out to these organizations through the Internet Society Foundation. We’re working with UNICEF and the ITU, the Giga Project, looking at how to go and connect schools, part of Partner to Connect and some pieces there. We also we came up last year with a community networks DIY do-it-yourself toolkit. You can find that online and walk through the steps there. And I’ll come back to that. Well, maybe I’ll go directly to you, Ping’s question. So often one of the challenges and you said it when you said about leo’s low earth orbit satellites we jump to the technology. But nigel’s point is really the key one we can go and drop in a technical solution that is great it would be awesome connectivity we can do that. I didn’t like it’ll be dead because either the people have left or the subscriptions run out or whatever else so really the biggest part is how do you have a sustainable. You know community network how do you have something there that has an econ that works and that also has this in reality i think this is where anchor institutions. Up with that because of the fact that that they do provide sometimes a stronger anchor in that kind of space. Again we haven’t worked with post offices but we have a lot. In armenia right now we’re currently in a program where we’re digitizing rural libraries and and and we’ve worked with library. This is an part of what’s interesting is as they start to develop it for patrons for people were there and coming in there people start to come in they get their wifi they get their access there then it starts to become more of a digital community center. People come in there and they do they’re having meetings they’re going in there to study they’re doing stuff like that and so it becomes this kind of home similarly in paraguay we’re working with a hospital. The went and and was adding connectivity and doing that in winnipeg up in in canada we were doing a project that was going and and taking a community center. And and giving it that connectivity it became a social hub it really brought people in in a way that was different in rwanda we did a school actually our chapter there help build a building. Would be able to go and help the school provide a computer lab and connectivity and pieces. What they found no of course was that then other people start to show up wifi and and they were able to go and work with that you know all of these i think are great examples of the kind of. What would also be would be part of that one key factor if you look at the mall. Yes yeah maybe we should swap my this one’s been in and out. So one key thing is that you know what we’ve seen in many places is. These anchor institutions in some way have a sense of resilience. That is stronger than other locations in some cases it may be that they’re economically sustainable that they’re perhaps funded by the government that they have some other elements around that. Often they’re they’re housed in a place that has additional electrical resilience might have generators might have solar panels might have something like that another just basic factor is that people know where it is. They know where the post offices they know where the hospital is they know where that is so they it’s a it’s a beacon where people can come there and be engaged with a digital life in some kind of way. So to all of those I think those are reasons why we found that that public institutions in particular are great places to to begin as a node or to be part of it they may not even be the center but they may be part of that. And providing that connectivity because people know where it is they can get there it’s maybe even a more rugged building in some form and they can do that so so that’s kind of where we see all of that going in there and I think we’d be delighted to talk to folks in post offices and other areas as well. As far as the technology Tracy has mentioned I we did do a project a couple years ago and we’re still monitoring all these low earth orbit satellites things like starlink one web pieces like that. I could go on for hours so you know you’d have to scope that to what you want me to say, but I would just say to you that they are another connectivity solution right. You know they’re they’re they’re great to give connectivity to especially rural and remote regions places that you can’t get to buy other mechanisms. and they can provide high-speed, low-latency connectivity. Still not as good as what you could get with like a direct fiber connection, but if you can’t get that, then they provide another alternative that’s there. We had a session earlier today talking about the policy and other issues around that, and there’s a bunch of them and some things, but they’re another tool in the toolbox that we have these days that are out there, and I’m glad to go into detail if you want on particular questions around that. Thanks for having me here. Thank you very much, Dan, and we really appreciate

Tracy Hackshaw: you being here. I know you were concerned about why we’re inviting Dan for this session. I think you’re seeing the benefit of it now, so that’s exciting. Maybe the post offices can become a new thrust in the internet society world. Why not? We’re happy to work with you. We’re here at the UPU. Give us a call. We’re right here. So we’ve said a few things about… Should I write you a letter? Sorry, I have to do it, Tracy. Yeah, no choice. Yes, postcard probably. So we’ve talked a bit about connectivity. We’ve talked about how to get to the last mile, different types of technology. We haven’t talked yet about securing that connectivity, ensuring that not just the physical layer is secure, but also transactions and how we communicate with stakeholders in both directions. It doesn’t make sense to just connect people, and there’s a risk in that connectivity. And how do we really treat with that? I have another colleague who I know quite well, which sounds like a lot of people I know very well on this open forum. It’s Kerri-Ann Barrett. She is also from the Caribbean, surprise, surprise, from Jamaica, but now she’s based at the Organization of American States, and she is the chief of the cybersecurity division there. So Kerri-Ann, I have a question for you. Maybe this is something that you can help us with. What are the cyber security implications of connecting postal infrastructure and how can countries best equip themselves to be more cyber resilient? Would you consider posts to be critical infrastructure for that matter? Over to you.

Kerry-Ann Barrett: Thanks for that and thanks to all the speakers who went before me. Thanks to the UPU for inviting OAS. It’s a critical discussion that’s happening and I think similar to the Internet Society, we haven’t had the opportunity to work with UPU as closely, but I think through this session we recognize that there’s a link that we can’t ignore and we will be working together going forward. I think the discussion so far have really laid the platform that as the postal system shifts towards automation and digitizing, doing all the e-commerce integrations, digital mail tracking, electronic payments, all these things to make more efficiency, unfortunately it usually means more vulnerability with this connection. It doesn’t mean that we should fear it or that the postal system should be worried in as much as to identify the risk and prepare itself for it as the question is about. Many of the countries are investing in smart postal infrastructure and in doing that and the connectivity just means that there are now more entry points for cyber attacks. If you think about what you are in the question to critical infrastructure, the more connected postal systems get, you’re now handling more sensitive data, including personal identifiable details. You now have more financial information and if compromised, it would lead to identity theft, financial loss, and in some rural areas where you are improving their connectivity and accessibility for the citizens, you’re also recognizing that the rural areas may not have the required staffing that’s needed on the technical side to do what’s required. So if you compare the postal system to other high profile examples, such as transportation or healthcare, I would probably say that a postal system in identifying whether or not it’s a critical infrastructure needs to start looking at one, the type of information and data and a criticality, if it is that the systems are stopped. In preparing for this, there was some thought about who’s impacted if the postal system goes down, and how does that actually affect society if the postal system goes down. And if you think about criticality, it’s as the postal system offers more and more services to people and citizens, especially in the rural areas, which we’ve spoken about so much in the session so far, you’d have to think the impact and the ability to be able to bounce back from such an attack and the agility that’s needed for that. Who will be targeted, if you think about it? A lot of the times we have the systems and that’s one thing, but we also have to think about the postal workers, recognizing that they are a key component to that value chain for offering the services. And oftentimes, if it is that you are doing more connectivity, it means that your postal workers as well would need to be focused on as a key entry point for cyber attacks. Phishing campaigns aimed at postal workers and customers could lead to unauthorized access to these data. How is this unique also to some of our countries that are similar to Latin America and the Caribbean in terms of them not being connected and some of the challenges? In looking at the solutions, Tracy, I’d probably say that we also have to take into account who we’re dealing with. As the postal systems across the globe start to connect and you compare it to some regions like Latin America and the Caribbean, there’s going to be varied levels of cybersecurity maturity. I’ve heard some of the examples already in this conversation in some more advanced countries, but we also have to take into account some of our countries who want already struggle with Internet connectivity, like our Pacific Islands, or some of our smaller Caribbean countries who may have emerging economies but lack the financial resources to put the cybersecurity infrastructure or talent to be able to secure the postal systems adequately. And then we also have to look at the more broad challenges of cooperation, which oftentimes cybersecurity requires. So to your last aspect of the question you asked me and just reflecting what are some of the solutions because it’s not a doomsday solution. I think the postal system has been robust for so many years and carried us through so many things. I think this other element of connectivity is just yet another challenge for them to overcome. And collaboration is going to be key, working with government to ensure that the postal operators have connections with cybersecurity firms that they understand the international landscape with other international organizations. We already have the UN as a part of this discussion. Also looking at how they would manage third-party risk. A lot of the postal workers and the postal systems work with other third-party vendors to be able to do their work. How you actually look at the reliability with the logistics for them and the technology that they’re employing to make sure that they are protected. And the last two critical things I would probably say is thinking about strategies, such as establishing for those who may not know an incident response team, which is really your firefighters when a cybersecurity incident happens, just to make sure that we start thinking about establishing those for the postal systems. The financial sector is a good example where they prioritize incident response teams and they have cross-network collaboration among themselves. And I think the postal system can start to think about it that way so they have shared resources. And the final recommendation I’d probably make to make yourselves more cyber resilient is cyber education. Our workers, as I pointed out, are critical entry points to the systems. They have the passwords, they log into the computers daily. How do we ensure that they recognize what is efficient attempt and how they handle data more broadly. And I’ll probably stop there. So at least we could continue the discussions. And I hope that some of these thoughts would be talked about throughout our session. Thanks, Tracy.

Tracy Hackshaw: Thank you very much, Kerianne from the OAS. I’m seeing a lot of comments coming in from Rodney in the chat, giving some information, some links. And just taking back to Kerianne’s point about cyber resilience. And the second last point you made about CSIRTs. I’m going to make a plug here for what we are doing at the UPU. We’re establishing an efficient sharing analysis center, an ISAC, which will be global for the postal sector. That’s currently underway. We’re in the last stages of our design. And we expect to have that up and running, if all goes well, next year in 2025. In addition to that, we’re also implementing secure.post platform, which would allow the postal, as you said, the postal employees, their stakeholders, to get, I would call user-friendly access to information, education, training, awareness, resources, generally about cybersecurity and how to become more cyber resilient. So I think from where we sit, we are trying to do the very best in ensuring that the sector becomes more resilient. And I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention, of course, the fact that we also run the .post top-level domain, which we’d like to think is one of the most secure, if not the most secure, top-level domain on the internet. And encourage all stakeholders who are interested in this sector to look into what that brings to the table, as well as the services we offer with that. So while I have just given a plug for ourselves, I’m going to pause now to open forum and ask the audience if there are any questions, any thoughts. I’m seeing two hands already going up. I would maybe pass the mic, is there the third mic, the third mic, mic number three, yes. And so I saw a gentleman in the red jacket first. Introduce yourself and let us know who you are.

Audience: Okay, hello, my name is Nicola Fiumarelli. You mentioned a lot about connectivity and inclusivity. For me, the postal services is a new topic. You also address about cybersecurity, but we are talking here about digital transformation as well. So I like to touch on the role of emerging technologies in the postal services. For example, in the UK, in the USA, they are using drones for postal deliveries in remote areas. In the US, it’s leveraging AI to optimize delivery routes. And countries like Rwanda, for example, have demonstrated drone efficiency in logistics. This technology not only improve accessibility, but also help reduce emissions, right, and enhance sustainability. So how can postal services in the Caribbean, right, adopt similar innovations to address infrastructure challenges while aligning to environmental sustainability goals? Thank you.

Tracy Hackshaw: Thank you. And the way I like to do things is not to do immediate answers. I’m going to ask Kevin, the UPU expert in the postal sector at our table today, to think about that for a second and to come up with an answer. There’s another question in the crowd, and I have my lovely Internet Society colleague, Alejandra, helping me here. Yes, please go ahead.

Audience: Hi, nice to meet you. I’m from the Internet Society Foundation. I just had a question. You mentioned that a lot of these post offices are rural, and Kevin mentioned emerging e-government services. So my question is, are there any plans or does this program include any kind of digital literacy training? for people. I know that we’re running, we currently have a chapter that’s doing training in rural areas so that people are able to use e-government services, but also thinking of it from, in terms of cyber security or cyber literacy, cyber security literacy.

Tracy Hackshaw: Thank you. And Nigel, did you have a question? I saw your hand go up. Yes, my hand did go up, but I think the question I had has come up. Excellent. Third question. Introduce yourself.

Audience: Okay, thank you so much. My name is Silekhoa from Lesotho. I’m the president of the intern society Lesotho. And I’m working as the system librarian. So I’m wondering if this concept go into the digitization of the library and bringing the library to the people, not people come to the library. Thank you. All right. Thank you very much. So I think all three of the questions seem like we can start

Tracy Hackshaw: with a response from the UPU, but I’ll also ask other colleagues to be able to give some responses. No, but let’s start with our expert from the UPU, Kevin.

Kevin Hernndez: So thank you very much for the question about drones. I think, yes, 100%. I think with drones, especially, it’s a very particular case, because I think this also democratizes delivery to rural areas. Why am I saying that? It’s because when you’ve seen pilots for drone delivery, they’ve tended to be concentrated in rural areas, because this is something that’s very hard to make work even in urban areas. So I think it’s actually one of the rare emerging technologies that works better in rural areas than it does in urban areas for delivery. So I think there’s a lot to explore there. And also at the UPU, we’ve recently did a survey where we’ve asked all the, well, over 150 postal operators about their use of emerging technologies. and drones were one of them, but we asked about a very wide variety. There are even some using things like exoskeletons and other really out there emerging technologies. So there is actually a lot of use of emerging technologies by postal operators, but I haven’t done the analysis yet, so I can’t tell you which ones are the most used yet or not, but that will be coming out in the near future. And then there were two questions that kind of were about digital literacy programs. So the reason why I came back to this slide is because this is the kind of thing that happens in this setup. So it all depends. Everything is context-specific. So in some countries, you’ll have postal operators who will set up this kind of community center inside the post office, and that’s what you see here. And the postal operator will offer digital training to its citizens. But in other places, that might not work. In other places, I think you made a great plug when you were speaking about libraries. So actually, Maria was here earlier from the IFLA, so the International Federation of Library and Associations, and we’re actually at the moment trying to formulate a MOU to kind of determine whether there are any potential or there is any potential to create ecosystems of digital inclusion where maybe citizens go to the post office for one type of service and then maybe they go to the library for another type of service because although in this example, you know, in this context, this works very well, in other contexts, the post office might not be set up to offer the digital literacy training. We might be better off having the e-government services and these kind of transactional services happening in the post office and then maybe some more of the digital literacy-type programs that you were explaining happen in the library. But the thing that we find is that this sometimes happens, but it happens informally. And we’re trying to see if there is any potential to formalize these kind of relationships between post offices and libraries so that, you know, people can be sent from one to the other quite seamlessly instead of… You know in ad hoc fashion. Thank you.

Tracy Hackshaw: And I know you’ve done a lot of work with libraries. I don’t know if you want to pick up.

Speaker: Well yeah I mean it actually kind of speaks to the more that you know we we talked about the sustainability of of community networks and and part of it is the financial aspect right and we and that was the part I focused on in my earlier remarks but you really have a much broader sense which is that they need to be human sustainable as well that digital skills training that digital literacy that ability to know and do that is is so critical because otherwise you you don’t have a system that’s long-term sustainable. One of the things we found is that this community centered you know model that we’re talking about here and that we’ve been working on really is is the way to deploy this because it comes it’s bottom up it’s coming out of the community and and this is where I would say as you look at your systems what we found works is that when it’s really of the community and by the community then then the people are bought into it and working with it’s not imposed by some central entity it says you know wire up every you know put put this in every in every post office you know something but it’s more of you know the communities that are around that are are you know wanting to provide that build that connectivity they’re using the the post office or other entity as that hub and they’re working with it in that way but we found that when communities do that and build that they develop the expertise they develop the ability to create this and and that means that they’re much more invested in it they also have that that that human resilience the the capacity to understand what it is how it works they’re able to ensure that that it keeps on working you know through in the caribbean you know the next hurricane or whatever you know the recovery time there the ability to do that so that digital skills and building that human capacity is vital to have sustainable you know community-centered connectivity in so many different ways. Thank you very much. Yuping, I think you have some responses, but let me see if any of our colleagues online have a response.

Tracy Hackshaw: I see Karianne, her hand is physically up.

Kerry-Ann Barrett: Yeah, I think the questions are really good. And I think what’s important as we even look at the efficiency, anything that is an IoT, whether it be a drone or any other smart postal infrastructure that’s implemented, I think the last speaker in terms of highlighting the need to have the digital skills is critical. It’s just always to keep in mind that the more connected that they get, it’s another surface or another attack point in which a cyber criminal can enter. And even as we improve efficiency, I think it has to be coupled automatically with the necessary cyber security at a minimum awareness training for the users that are being given these tools to make it more efficient. The idea of digitizing and improving or closing the digital divide for many persons and making these services more accessible, it’s also informing the users of these services, recognizing that if they are more sensitive to some of the risks that could happen, they would be able to partner with their service providers in rural areas, et cetera, to be able to keep their data more secure and their information more secure. So I just wanted to highlight that it’s one of those things that has to be a coupled approach, making sure that you kind of think about all the risk factors at the same time and ensure that not just standards are implemented, but that persons have the ability to implement the standards.

Tracy Hackshaw: Thank you very much, Karyana. Just to remind everyone, Karyana is Chief of Cyber Security at the OAS. I forgot to introduce who I am. I’m Tracy Haksho. I’m with the UPU. I am the head of the dot post team along with my colleague on my right, Mason Sabra. We work at the Postal Technology Center and I see my bosses online. So that’s what reminded me that I have to say who I am. Is it still there? I don’t know. So let me just say who I am, just for the record. So we have about five minutes left, so let me do this. I’m going to ask SG Taylor to respond, if he has any response, and to give a closing comment, then come back to Yuping. Same thing, respond and a closing comment, and I see Nigel, who may want to give a response and closing comment, and then perhaps if there’s time, Dan and Kevin. So let’s go to SG Taylor first, and then response and closing comment, and we have less than five minutes left. Thank you. I like the question on the drones and so on, and it further highlights the need to partner

Rodney Taylor: with the Postal Service that understands, in particular, rural communities in developing countries. Some of these communities are unplanned settlements, so there isn’t a very neat addressing system. Very often the postman or postperson is the trusted person in the community, understands where people live and so on. So even for delivery by drones, this is something that may be best done through the postal network, if we’re talking about rural communities and unplanned settlements. The skills issue is a very big one as well, where those persons who are unskilled from a digital perspective are able to receive that handholding for the application of online services at the Postal Service, and this is something that’s being done in Barbados, for example, with the application for the US visa, which is 100% online. It cannot be done in person. So I want to, again, in closing, thank Tracy and UPU for the partnerships that we have established and for the work that is being done to bridge the divide between Postal Services and digital transformation strategies, and we think this is a winning strategy that will help us to ensure that persons are not left behind, in particular, rural and underserved communities.

Tracy Hackshaw: Thank you very much. Thank you, Ashutosh. And thank you as well for sparing your time. It’s early morning, I know, in the Caribbean. And for you to bless us with your presence. And of course, thanks to Nigel, who will give us comments in a bit from the CTU. I’ll hand over to the UPU. Sorry, the sign threw me off. To Youfington from the UNDP for her final comments and a response if she needed to.

Yu Ping Chan: Very quickly, I think I just really want to pick up on this point on skills and capacity building. That’s what we have as the number one priority from the program countries that UNDP works with. And it’s particularly important for these developed countries and underserved communities as well. So, again, as we talk about all these global solutions, connectivity and so on, as a lot of other colleagues have said, it’s really the ability to use these in a sustainable fashion. And that really starts with building that digital capacity right there. So just to reiterate, it was a really great conversation. I’d like to pick this up with a lot of colleagues around the table. And thank you so much for having us.

Tracy Hackshaw: Thank you. Thank you very much, Youfington. So there seems to be time for Nigel and Dan to give a few comments and maybe a last word from Kevin. So, Nigel. Yes, very quickly.

Nigel Cassimire: Thanks as well from me to UPU for the opportunity. The point I wanted to make, we haven’t had time to discuss it here, was what about financial services? Because, I mean, I certainly recall a thing called a postal order. So the post offices were part of the financial system. And what about the technology associated with financial services or FinTech thing? Is that part of the developments going forward as well?

Tracy Hackshaw: Thanks. And I see great minds thinking like Rodney just raised that in a chat. Exactly the same point. Yep. So we’ll let Kevin answer that question. Maybe Dan, last thoughts, last comments, and then we let Kevin wrap it up. I’ll just say thank you, Tracy, for putting this and Kevin for putting this whole panel together. And this was a very interesting conversation. I look forward to further conversations around this. I think I said plenty before, so I’ll leave it there. Thank you.

Kevin Hernndez: Thank you very much for that question, Nigel. Yes, digital financial services are definitely a part of it. I didn’t really have time to delve into it. I have a longer presentation, which speaks about the types of services that we target, and they tend to be e-government services, digital financial services, and e-commerce, but actually any digital service that can be offered through the postal infrastructure, I believe would be more inclusive due to what I was saying earlier about their presence in rural areas. But yes, I think you hit the nail on the head, and it’s, one, digital financial services are offered by many, many posts. I’m analyzing data right now that shows, like, think about almost 60% of postal operators deliver some type of digital financial service. So it’s something that we want to build on and help even more postal operators deliver.

Tracy Hackshaw: Thank you. Well, thank you very much. Kerrianne, any last thoughts?

Kerry-Ann Barrett: I think the only thing I would probably emphasize is for persons to recognize that digital resilience has to be coupled with cybersecurity, and I think those would be my last words.

Tracy Hackshaw: Thank you very much. So I’d like to thank all of our participants and all those who’ve joined us in the room today for a wonderful open forum. We did be crafted in the nick of time. So thank you to Kevin, to Dan, to Yuping, to Nigel, to Rodney, to Kerrianne, and Maysam in the room, and everybody online, and everybody in the room, thank you so much for your participation and engagement. Please contact us at upu.post and trust.post for more information, and of course at connect.post for the project title that we talked about today. Just pretty obvious, right? Connect.post. Thank you very much, and see you somewhere else somewhere soon. Kevin, you wanted to say something? Yeah, connect.post is also our URL, so you can just type that in your browser and you will find us. And that is the most brilliant thing I’ve heard so far. Thank you. Bye-bye. Have a good day. Thank you.

Agreement Points

Postal infrastructure can promote digital inclusion

Kevin Hernandez

Yu Ping Chan

Nigel Cassimire

Rodney Taylor

Postal network has extensive reach in rural and underserved areas

Connected post offices can provide public internet access and digital services

Postal connectivity supports multi-channel government service delivery

Partnerships between telecom/ICT organizations and postal services enable rural connectivity

Postal infrastructure can be leveraged for e-government and digital financial services

Speakers agreed that leveraging postal infrastructure can significantly promote digital inclusion, especially in rural and underserved areas, by providing internet access and digital services.

Digital literacy and skills training is crucial

Audience

Speaker

Kevin Hernandez

Digital literacy training is needed alongside connectivity initiatives

Community-centered models help build local digital skills and capacity

Post offices can provide digital skills training in some contexts

Partnerships between post offices and libraries could support digital literacy

There was consensus on the importance of digital literacy and skills training to accompany connectivity initiatives, with various approaches suggested including community-centered models and partnerships between post offices and libraries.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the importance of addressing cybersecurity concerns as postal systems become more connected, highlighting the need for awareness training and information sharing.

Kerry-Ann Barrett

Tracy Hackshaw

Increased connectivity creates new cybersecurity vulnerabilities for postal systems

Postal workers need cybersecurity awareness training

UPU is establishing a global information sharing and analysis center for postal cybersecurity

Unexpected Consensus

Emerging technologies in postal services

Audience

Kevin Hernandez

Rodney Taylor

Drones are being used for postal deliveries in remote areas

AI is being leveraged to optimize delivery routes

Emerging tech like drones may work better for rural delivery than urban

Local postal knowledge is still needed to support tech-enabled delivery in unplanned settlements

There was unexpected consensus on the potential of emerging technologies like drones and AI in postal services, particularly for rural areas. However, speakers also agreed on the continued importance of local knowledge, especially in unplanned settlements.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement were the potential of postal infrastructure to promote digital inclusion, the importance of digital literacy training, the need to address cybersecurity concerns, and the role of emerging technologies in improving postal services.

Consensus level

There was a high level of consensus among speakers on the key issues discussed. This strong agreement suggests a clear path forward for leveraging postal infrastructure to promote digital inclusion and improve services, while also highlighting the importance of addressing associated challenges such as cybersecurity and digital literacy.

Different Viewpoints

Approach to digital skills training

Kevin Hernandez

Speaker

Post offices can provide digital skills training in some contexts

Community-centered models help build local digital skills and capacity

Kevin Hernandez suggests post offices can provide digital skills training, while the unnamed Speaker advocates for community-centered models to build local capacity.

Unexpected Differences

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement were minor and centered around the specific approaches to implementing digital inclusion and skills training through postal infrastructure.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among speakers was relatively low. Most speakers generally agreed on the potential benefits of leveraging postal infrastructure for digital inclusion and service delivery. The differences in viewpoints were mainly about implementation strategies and areas of focus, rather than fundamental disagreements. This low level of disagreement suggests a general consensus on the importance of the topic and the potential of postal infrastructure in promoting digital inclusion, which could facilitate easier collaboration and policy-making in this area.

Partial Agreements

All speakers agree on the importance of connecting postal infrastructure, but they emphasize different aspects: Kevin and Yu Ping focus on service delivery, while Kerry-Ann highlights the need for cybersecurity measures.

Kevin Hernandez

Yu Ping Chan

Kerry-Ann Barrett

Connected post offices can provide public internet access and digital services

Postal connectivity supports multi-channel government service delivery

Increased connectivity creates new cybersecurity vulnerabilities for postal systems

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the importance of addressing cybersecurity concerns as postal systems become more connected, highlighting the need for awareness training and information sharing.

Kerry-Ann Barrett

Tracy Hackshaw

Increased connectivity creates new cybersecurity vulnerabilities for postal systems

Postal workers need cybersecurity awareness training

UPU is establishing a global information sharing and analysis center for postal cybersecurity

Key Takeaways

The global postal network has extensive reach in rural and underserved areas, making it well-positioned to promote digital inclusion

Connected post offices can provide public internet access, digital services, and support multi-channel government service delivery

Partnerships between telecom/ICT organizations and postal services enable rural connectivity

Increased connectivity creates new cybersecurity vulnerabilities that must be addressed

Digital literacy training and skills development are crucial alongside connectivity initiatives

Emerging technologies like drones and AI are being explored for postal services, especially in rural areas

Resolutions and Action Items

UPU is establishing a global information sharing and analysis center for postal cybersecurity

UPU is implementing a secure.post platform to provide cybersecurity resources and training

UPU is working on formulating an MOU with the International Federation of Library Associations to create ecosystems of digital inclusion

Unresolved Issues

How to ensure long-term sustainability of community networks and digital inclusion initiatives

How to balance efficiency improvements through technology with cybersecurity concerns

How to effectively implement digital literacy programs across diverse contexts and communities

Suggested Compromises

Creating hybrid models of service delivery that combine digital and in-person options

Partnering post offices with libraries to provide complementary digital inclusion services

Leveraging local postal knowledge to support tech-enabled delivery in unplanned settlements

When we mention bridging the digital divide, we are talking about gaps in digital access. On the other hand, when we speak about digital inclusion, we are referring to people’s abilities to fully participate in societies as they undergo a process of digitalization.

speaker

Kevin Hernandez

reason

This comment provides an important distinction between two often conflated concepts, setting the stage for a more nuanced discussion.

impact

It framed the subsequent conversation around not just providing access, but ensuring meaningful participation in digital society.

Very often, in many cases, they’ve gone out and created hubs, built a nice new building and for one reason or the other, the equipment breaks down, they lose the staff and so on. There isn’t another activity associated with it to make the operation sustainable.

speaker

Nigel Cassimire

reason

This insight highlights a key challenge in digital inclusion efforts – sustainability beyond initial setup.

impact

It shifted the discussion towards considering long-term sustainability and the need for ongoing support and activities in digital hubs.

I’m struck by the fact that it doesn’t address some of these issues. And that in fact, if we go back to the origins of the IGF around the WSIS itself, the World Summit for Information Society, and go back to this concept around capacity building and inclusive enabling environments, that really goes to the heart of some of the broader issues and how we should be looking at digital transformation

speaker

Yu Ping Chan

reason

This comment broadens the scope of the discussion by connecting it to larger global initiatives and frameworks.

impact

It encouraged participants to think more holistically about digital inclusion, beyond just technical solutions.

Often one of the challenges and you said it when you said about leo’s low earth orbit satellites we jump to the technology. But nigel’s point is really the key one we can go and drop in a technical solution that is great it would be awesome connectivity we can do that. I didn’t like it’ll be dead because either the people have left or the subscriptions run out or whatever else so really the biggest part is how do you have a sustainable.

speaker

Dan York

reason

This comment challenges the tendency to focus solely on technological solutions, emphasizing the importance of sustainability and community engagement.

impact

It redirected the conversation towards considering the human and social aspects of digital inclusion initiatives.

Many of the countries are investing in smart postal infrastructure and in doing that and the connectivity just means that there are now more entry points for cyber attacks.

speaker

Kerry-Ann Barrett

reason

This comment introduces an important consideration about the security implications of increased connectivity.

impact

It broadened the discussion to include cybersecurity concerns, leading to a more comprehensive view of the challenges in digital transformation.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by expanding it beyond simple technological solutions for connectivity. They introduced important considerations about sustainability, meaningful participation, cybersecurity, and the need for holistic approaches to digital inclusion. The conversation evolved from a focus on bridging the digital divide to a more nuanced exploration of how to ensure long-term, secure, and meaningful digital inclusion across diverse communities.

Are there innovative technical solutions like internet-in-a-box or Raspberry Pi-enabled Wi-Fi networks that could be used to equip post offices for digital transformation?

speaker

Yu Ping Chan

explanation

This explores alternative technologies that could potentially be more accessible or cost-effective for implementing Connect.POST solutions, especially in underserved areas.

How can postal services in the Caribbean adopt innovations like drones and AI to address infrastructure challenges while aligning with environmental sustainability goals?

speaker

Nicola Fiumarelli (audience member)

explanation

This explores the potential for emerging technologies to improve postal services in specific regions while considering environmental impacts.

Are there plans to include digital literacy training as part of the Connect.POST program, particularly for e-government services and cybersecurity awareness?

speaker

Audience member from Internet Society Foundation

explanation

This addresses the need for education and training to accompany technological improvements, ensuring users can effectively and safely use new digital services.

How can the concept of digitizing libraries and bringing them to people be integrated with postal service digitization efforts?

speaker

Silekhoa from Lesotho (audience member)

explanation

This explores potential synergies between postal and library digitization efforts to improve access to information and services.

What about financial services and FinTech? Is that part of the developments going forward for postal services?

speaker

Nigel Cassimire

explanation

This explores the potential for postal services to expand into digital financial services, building on their historical role in financial transactions.

Summary

This discussion focused on developing a global, risk-adaptive AI governance framework. Participants from various organizations and regions shared insights on balancing innovation with responsible AI development. Key themes included the need for flexible, context-specific approaches to AI regulation and the importance of multi-stakeholder collaboration.

Speakers highlighted ongoing efforts to create risk-based governance frameworks, such as the OECD’s AI classification system and the Council of Europe’s convention on AI. They emphasized the challenge of translating high-level principles into practical guidelines and standards. The discussion touched on regional differences in AI adoption and regulation, with examples from Europe, the MENA region, and the United States.

Participants agreed on the need for interoperability between different governance frameworks while allowing for cultural and contextual variations. They stressed the importance of ongoing dialogue and adaptation as AI technology evolves. The role of education in empowering users to make informed choices about AI was also discussed.

The conversation explored the complexities of defining and mitigating AI risks, with speakers noting the differences between advanced AI systems and everyday AI applications. The need for sector-specific assessments and tailored approaches was emphasized. Participants also discussed the challenges of developing technical standards for AI and the importance of regular review and revision of governance frameworks.

Overall, the discussion converged on the idea of creating adaptive frameworks that can evolve with technological advancements while maintaining core principles of human rights, democracy, and the rule of law. The speakers agreed that ongoing international cooperation and knowledge-sharing are crucial for effective global AI governance.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– The need for a risk-based, adaptive approach to AI governance that balances innovation with safety and rights protection

– The importance of multi-stakeholder collaboration and cultural context in developing AI governance frameworks

– The challenge of defining and assessing AI risks across different use cases and sectors

– The role of standards, education, and ongoing review processes in AI governance

– Balancing global interoperability with flexibility for local/regional differences

Overall purpose:

The goal was to examine various global initiatives on AI governance, identify commonalities, and explore how to develop a more interoperable, global approach to AI governance while accounting for different cultural and regional perspectives.

Tone:

The tone was collaborative and constructive throughout. Speakers shared insights from their diverse backgrounds in a spirit of mutual learning. There was general agreement on key principles, with nuanced discussion of implementation challenges. The tone remained optimistic about finding balanced solutions through ongoing dialogue and adaptive approaches.

Speakers

– Timea Suto: Moderator, Global Digital Policy Lead at the International Chamber of Commerce

– Lucia Russo: Artificial Intelligence Policy Analyst at the OECD

– Thomas Schneider: Vice Chair of the Council of Europe’s Committee on AI

– Sulafah Jabarty: CEO and Founder of Clear Vision, Chair of ICC Saudi Arabia’s Digital Economy Committee

– Noora Al-Thani: Vice Dean at the College of Computer and Information Sciences in King Saud University

– Paloma Villa Mateos: Head of Digital Public Policy at Telefonica

– Melinda Claybaugh: Director of Privacy Policy at Meta

Additional speakers:

– Amal Ahmed: Works in DGA (Digital Government Authority)

– Jacques Beglinger: Board member, EuroDIG

– Wouter Cobus: Dutch Government, Standardization Advisor

Expanded Summary of AI Governance Discussion

Introduction

This discussion, moderated by Timea Suto from the International Chamber of Commerce, focused on developing a global, risk-adaptive AI governance framework. Participants from various organisations and regions shared insights on balancing innovation with responsible AI development. The conversation explored key themes including the need for flexible, context-specific approaches to AI regulation and the importance of multi-stakeholder collaboration.

Key Themes and Discussion Points

1. Risk-based Approaches to AI Governance

A central theme of the discussion was the need for risk-based, adaptive approaches to AI governance. Lucia Russo from the OECD emphasised the importance of flexible, context-based risk assessment, highlighting ongoing efforts to create risk-based governance frameworks, such as the OECD’s AI classification system. Thomas Schneider, Vice Chair of the Council of Europe’s Committee on AI, stressed the importance of cultural considerations in risk perception, noting that different societies may have varying tolerances for risk.

Paloma Villa Mateos from Telefonica highlighted the challenge of balancing innovation and regulation in risk frameworks. Melinda Claybaugh from Meta advocated for focusing on marginal risks specific to AI, suggesting that existing legal frameworks could be leveraged for AI governance.

2. Challenges in Operationalizing AI Governance Frameworks

Speakers discussed the difficulties of translating high-level principles into practical guidelines and standards. Lucia Russo pointed out the challenge of operationalising governance frameworks, while Thomas Schneider noted the tension between harmonisation and local/cultural adaptation. Paloma Villa Mateos highlighted the need to balance people’s rights and innovation in governance, while Melinda Claybaugh advocated for allowing sufficient time to properly define high-risk AI practices.

3. Cultural and Regional Perspectives on AI Governance

Regional perspectives were shared, with Sulafa Jabarty from ICC Saudi Arabia noting heavy investment in AI and digital transformation in the MENA region. Noora Al-Thani from King Saud University highlighted the key role universities play in AI governance and research, particularly in Saudi Arabia. Thomas Schneider emphasised the importance of considering cultural differences in risk perception and governance approaches.

4. Role of Education and Awareness in AI Governance

Sulafa Jabarty highlighted the crucial role of public awareness and education in enabling effective AI governance. Noora Al-Thani stressed the importance of universities in conducting AI research and contributing to governance discussions. Speakers agreed on the need for ongoing dialogue and education to adapt governance as AI evolves.

5. Importance of Multi-stakeholder Collaboration

There was broad consensus on the importance of multi-stakeholder collaboration, including governments, private sector, academia, and civil society, in developing effective AI governance frameworks. Lucia Russo emphasised the role of global forums in facilitating multi-stakeholder and cross-cultural dialogue. Sulafa Jabarty advocated for developing harmonised global frameworks with local flexibility.

6. Role of Standards in AI Governance

During the Q&A session, the importance of standards in AI governance was discussed. Speakers highlighted the need for technical standards to support the implementation of governance frameworks and ensure interoperability. The discussion touched on the differences between internet governance and AI governance, noting that AI may require more proactive and comprehensive approaches.

Areas of Agreement

There was broad consensus among speakers on several key points:

1. The need for adaptive and flexible AI governance frameworks that can evolve with technological advancements while considering local contexts and cultural differences.

2. The importance of multi-stakeholder collaboration in developing effective AI governance frameworks.

3. The recognition that cultural differences play a significant role in risk perception and governance approaches.

4. The need for ongoing dialogue and adaptation as AI technology evolves.

5. The importance of education and awareness-building around AI risks and benefits.

Key Takeaways and Unresolved Issues

The discussion yielded several key takeaways:

1. The need for risk-based, adaptive approaches to AI governance that balance innovation with risk mitigation.

2. The importance of flexible frameworks that account for cultural differences and evolving technology.

3. The crucial role of multi-stakeholder collaboration and dialogue in developing effective, interoperable AI governance approaches.

4. The potential need for sector-specific and use case-specific governance rather than one-size-fits-all approaches.

5. The importance of standards in supporting the implementation of AI governance frameworks.

However, several issues remained unresolved:

1. How to specifically define and categorise high-risk AI applications.

2. How to balance regional approaches with the need for global interoperability.

3. How to operationalise risk-based frameworks in practice across different sectors.

4. How to address cultural differences in risk perception and tolerance while maintaining a coherent global approach.

Conclusion

The discussion highlighted the complex challenges involved in developing global AI governance frameworks. While there was broad agreement on the need for flexible, adaptive approaches that balance innovation with risk mitigation, the operationalisation of these principles remains a significant challenge. The conversation underscored the importance of ongoing multi-stakeholder dialogue, collaboration, and adaptability to address these challenges and develop effective, culturally sensitive AI governance frameworks.

Timea Suto: Global Risk Adaptive AI Governance Framework. I am very glad that you’ve decided to spend an hour and a half of your time with us this afternoon. My name is Timo Schütte, I am the Global Digital Policy Lead at the International Chamber of Commerce, and I will be moderating this session today. We have proposed this session for the agenda of the IGF, not because there are not enough conversations on AI, because there clearly are quite a few, but because we wanted to find a way to discuss, or take stock, rather, a little bit of all the various initiatives that are out there on AI governance and governance frameworks, and try and see if we can find some commonalities, or perhaps some ideas, through which we can look at AI governance from a truly global perspective, and push for a more interoperable outcome, or some sort of common approach on how we look at artificial intelligence governance. I’m not going to spend too much time introducing the landscape of AI, because we all have heard a lot about it, and I’m sure our speakers will talk a lot about it as well, but I will take a moment to just introduce the speakers that are going to be here with us today, trying to uncover some of these questions. In the order in which they will be speaking on the panel, I have Ms. Lucia Russo, who is Artificial Intelligence Policy Analyst at the OECD, Mr. Thomas Schneider, who is Vice Chair of the Council of Europe’s Committee on AI, Ms. Sulafa Jabarti, CEO and Founder of Clear Vision, and Chair of ICC Saudi Arabia’s Digital Economy Committee. I also have Ms. Noora Alkhani, who is Vice Dean at the College of Computer and Information Sciences in King Saudi University, and Ms. Paloma Villamateos, who is joining us online from Spain. Thank you, Paloma, for being with us, who is Head of Digital Public Policy at Telefonica, and Ms. Melinda Claybaugh, who is Director of Privacy Policy at TED. So to start off the roundtable, I am just going to ask our panelists to share a little bit about their experience in fostering trusted and responsible and inclusive AI, and share a few of the good practices or projects that they’re working on that incorporates a risk-based approach to AI governance framework. Why have we chosen to ask our panelists about a risk-based framework? It’s because we hear a lot when we look at the governance frameworks around the world that say, yes, our governance framework is risk-based. The approach to AI governance needs to be risk-based. So there seems to be agreement on that, but there’s little agreement on what it actually means. So that’s what we’re trying to figure out together in this session. So to first look at this, I’m going to turn to Lucia, and I hope that you can share a little bit of information on how the OECD is looking at facilitating cross-border collaboration on AI governance, and what are some of the key challenges and opportunities that operationalize or look at this risk-based approach?

Lucia Russo: First of all, let me thank you for organizing this very important session, and welcome all the other speakers and participants here. So I will talk a bit about the way the OECD is promoting interoperability in international AI governance, and I will mention a few examples of how we are putting this risk-based approach into practice. So just to start off, at the cornerstone of the work of the OECD is the OECD recommendation on artificial intelligence that was adopted in 2019 and recently revised to take stock of some technological and policy development, and notably advanced AI, advanced systems. And since then, our work has been really focusing on how to move from these high-level principles into practice. And when we talk about risk-based approach here, of course, we mean having a proportionate system of duties and obligation that is tailored to the level of risk that each and every AI system brings. And so already in 2022, the OECD has developed its own AI classification framework in the form of a scoring table that evaluates AI systems according to five different dimensions, people and planet, economic context, data and input, AI model and task and output. And I don’t want to go too much in detail here, but basically under each of these dimension, then there would be an evaluation of where, for instance, in the data and input, there are considerations related to privacy or copyright under the task and output on the autonomy level of a system. And then in the economic context, the business function of the system, which in turn, it’s basically telling us about the impact that this system may have on this business environment. And so this risk-based approach is what then we see also in a regulatory framework such as the EU AI Act that of course takes this risk-based approach and establishes stricter measures for systems that are deemed to bring, to have a highest risk for safety and fundamental rights in the EU. And we see this risk-based approach also emerging in other frameworks. For instance, the G7 Hiroshima process that was launched under the Japanese presidency in 2023, led to the adoption of a voluntary code of conduct for AI developers that also calls to develop and implement and disclose AI governance and risk management policies in line with the risk-based approach. And to build on this code of conduct, what we are currently working on at the OECD is supporting the G7, the Italian presidency in the development of a monitoring and reporting framework for these commitments, which means moving from this code of conduct that can be again, high level in a sense to what it means in practice for companies to adhere and to respect the commitments that are embedded in this code. And this is obviously to respond to the needs of transparency, accountability, but also it is I think a good example of how we go at a level up from the national borders to an international cooperation that really is across jurisdictions because it is developed by the G7, but of course is not limited to companies in G7 member countries, the adherence to this code of conduct. And lastly, I would just perhaps talk about another initiatives that we have at the OECD, the AI incident monitor, because again, when we talk about risks, what we need to take into account is also the evidence on which we build the frameworks and the objective of this monitoring reporting framework is also to understand where the actual harms materialize and so to have a better informed decision making when it comes to establish what are the high risk categories and how to regulate these categories. And so this is an online tool already and is also a reporting framework that is harmonized across different countries. I’ll stop here and happy to engage in the conversation later.

Timea Suto: Thank you so much, Lucia. Quite a lot going on at the OECD, but it’s not the only forum that does work. You mentioned also how the OECD’s work inspires work in the EU AI, how it inspires work at the G7. And I also want to ask Tomasz on how you are collaborating from your previous role as chair of the CHI and now as vice chair on some of these risk-based approaches into AI, both as you were negotiating the convention itself and now the risk-based impact measurement mechanism.

Thomas Schneider: Thank you very much. And actually, yeah, it’s good that somebody, one of the sessions actually tries to concentrate on the risk-based and what that actually means because we talk a lot about legal texts and we forget about the operation. operationalization of all of this. So before going into how the Council of Europe’s work fits into all of this, let me also again start with the allergy to engines, because there are many similarities. We have engines in machines that produce goods that are more or less big, more or less dangerous for the people. We have engines in cars, in airplanes, in tanks, in many other vehicles. It may be the same engines or similar engines. And they all have, of course, opportunities to produce something, but they also have risks. But we do not have one regulation for the engine. We have thousands of legal norms for the engines, but for the vehicle itself, for the drivers, for the infrastructure, liability rules for parts of a car or parts of an airplane, for the airplane company, for the one selling the tickets and so on, and we have thousands of technical norms and we have social cultural norms from culture to culture. There are different expectations on how to deal with risks. In some cultures, they expect the king or the president or the state to take care of your risk. In other cultures, you have more than expectation that people are capable of dealing with risks themselves. And you have everything in between. And basically the same logic applies to AI as well, because, again, the risks are very much context based in terms of where you apply a certain algorithm or a set of algorithm. And normally it’s not the algorithm itself. Algorithms are part of machines, of tools that we buy, like we have an engine as part of a car or part of an airplane. And and I think one is to look at the legal texts and the convergence and all the legal texts. As you say, they talk about risk based approach. They talk about impact. The Council of Europe Convention is built on a graduated and differentiated approach, which I think is a slightly more exact, because it’s not just vertical risk, high or low, but it’s also horizontal. It may be in different areas. The same thing may be different, although it’s the same algorithm, even if it’s in the health sector, you may have differences and so on. And for instance, the Convention of the Council of Europe, that is an open convention to all countries in the world. So it’s not an instrument for Europe. It just requires states to have mechanisms in place. So it’s a very general requirement to have functioning mechanisms in place. And it says what they should be able to deliver, i.e. identify risks with regard to human rights, democracy and rule of law, and that states have remedies in place in case risks become actually impacts and a mitigation plan and so on. It doesn’t go into further detail. This is where the second instrument comes in that the Council of Europe is currently working on, and this is done in cooperation with the technical standards bodies, with the OECD, with UNESCO, with hundreds of experts from civil society, academia and businesses. It’s a non-binding instrument on the contrary to the Convention. It’s a non-binding instrument on several levels. It’s a methodology for human rights, democracy and rule of law, risk and impact assessment tool. Also, the Level 2 document is a document of about 20 pages explaining, giving guidance what you should need, which is a context-based risk, initial risk analysis, stakeholder engagement in order to see whether your initial risk analysis goes in the right direction or whether you’re missing something, then it’s the actual risk analysis, which is a classical checklist question thing, then there’s a mitigation plan. So if you realize that risks become reality, how are you going to react? How are you protecting people? And then, of course, some logic about iteration, how you do this with technology that is evolving. And it’s building on the work of the technical standard institutions that are also participating, tries to make the link between the legal text, a legal norm and the technical norm, but also giving the flexibility to take into account social, cultural norms and expectations of how to deal with risk, which you may not be able to harmonize. You may be able to harmonize technical norms, but not social, cultural norms. And I think this is important. Just one final thing. And we see how difficult it is. The EU has given a mandate to send Senelec two years ago to develop technical norms, to operationalize and implement the AI Act. And both sides are still struggling to understand each other and to see whether they actually are able to come up with something. So this shows it’s just one example. I don’t blame them. It’s really a difficult, difficult issue. But how important it is that there is cooperation and the OECD is very helpful in bringing people together, the Council of Europe as well, standardization organizations and others. We need to build bridges between these technical bodies and the legal bodies and the cultural bodies in the end so that we understand how how to make this work as a whole and not just on paper, as a legal text or in a questionnaire for programmers. So this needs to fit together. And there’s a huge work ahead of us.

Timea Suto: Thank you, Thomas. That was a great intro to the work of the Council of Europe on this. And I want to keep focusing on this element of regional cultural differences and approaches to context. And as we move out from the OECD setting and the Council of Europe setting into the MENA region, and I want to turn to Sulafa next and ask, what are your insights working in a technology company in this region and maybe perhaps even further than Saudi Arabia in the entire MENA context? What are some of the views that you see on how AI technology works here and how are the risk based approaches on the table here? And also, what are some of the elements that we can maybe elevate into a more global approach?

Sulafah Jabarti: OK, so I guess we all agree that AI has been reshaping the economy and the society all over the world and based on such a globalized economy and a globalized area that we’re speaking about, which is AI, one of the most advanced technologies in the world. So globalization aspect here is much more wider than regular business and regular digital transformation aspects. And so speaking about what’s kind of unique or specific, if we want to go out, zoom out of this globalized space, I think the uniqueness of the MENA region led by countries like Saudi Arabia that are investing heavily in AI. So one of the very unique pointers in the MENA region is heavy investment and leadership in the digital transformation supported by government, supported by private sector, as an example, the Alat company that has been launched under the PIF recently with a capital more than one billion dollars. And that is a specified company just for investing in AI, deep technologies, manufacturing and localizing all of that out of here, making the best of the international minds, the international technologies and the investment environment here. Also, the investment in the sector, whether it’s a financial investment or investing the minds, the regulations, the government mindset, has actually gave us a result that we have reached number one this year in the United Nations indicator of digital government, where we stood six years back in number 52. And that just says how much investment is going on and the speed. And speed cannot be based only on financial investment. It is definitely a mandate collaboration between mindsets, government, private sector, academia, all together, based, of course, by a very strong economy. Second uniqueness aspect, in my opinion, is something everyone also, I guess, agrees upon is such a young, let’s say, generation and tech savvy youth, which makes the biggest amount of our population. So that also adds to the speed of imbedding these technologies. I mean, a lot of technologies are just imbedded and live before even we know about them. And I guess this is also part why regulations are very important. We need, when we speak about risk-based regulations, the advantage of that is that they are flexible, supposedly, and to meet this kind of different levels of maturity of these applications and these technologies. And that’s why flexibility is very much needed in this kind of regulations. Also, the adaptability to the kinds and the ongoing different risks and differentiation between the kinds of applications versus the kind of blanket regulations that are not definitely needed for these kinds of technologies. So if we consider back to the globalized framework, and I guess we all know that the European Union this year has activated their… landmark AI law, which is considered the leading global law and nothing met before this mature, based on the EU Act, AI Act 2021. And considering that kind of effort put in such a law, we speak today about localization. Basically we’re just speaking about, we don’t need, in technology we never believe in starting from scratch. You capitalize on what’s there, open source and other technologies where you can build on. It needs to be the same kind of mindset in terms of regulations. So what we need to do in MENA is that, okay, we take those frameworks and then just fill the gap, taking into consideration the unique, let’s say, socio-economics, cultural, technology, differentiation of aspects, which I don’t believe are going to be a lot, speaking in this kind of making, which is the AI, and then imbedding them. And I guess as we speak there’s a lot that has already been done in Saudi Arabia in terms of, and I speak about Saudi Arabia as leading in the region in this area. We have the Sadae, which is the authority for data and AI. They have launched a couple of frameworks in different areas, and I believe we can definitely match and fill the gap between what’s been done internationally and locally to move this faster. And so summing that up, I guess what we all agree, MENA and globally, is that this kind of risk-based framework supposedly gives a much wider space of flexibility and adaptation and inclusivity, supposedly, for everyone to make the best of what’s going on all around the world, and for us to be able to lead that ongoingly for sustainable

Timea Suto: framework adjustments. Thank you. Thank you very much, Latha. A lot to learn from. I’m always amazed every time you quote this number from 68 to number one in six years. I think this is an amazing feat, and I like how you put that into the context of what that requires. Of course, investment, collaboration with the various expert groups, but of course also the energy and the talent of young people, which brings me to Noura and to ask you what role do you see from your perspective? I’m sorry I messed up your title before, but your work at the University in the Information Technology Department, how do you see the role of universities in building this new generation of developers and tech works?

Noora Al-Thani: Hello. First of all, I’m just pleased to be among the distinguished speakers. As I want to start with, I would like to add, as Ms. Latha mentioned, Saudi Arabia and the MENA region is the leading. So according to Vision 2030, AI actually has a pivotal role at the core of Vision 2030, basically, because they want to diversify the economy, reduce dependency on and establish a kingdom as a global leader in technology and innovation. And Saudi Arabia actually spearheads that effort and aims to develop robust AI and generation AI ecosystem. As Ms. Latha mentioned, they published several frameworks. They published the framework in 2023, September, and again, they published the AI adoption framework in September 2024. And recently, they published in January 2024, the AI intelligence guidelines. So they are keeping up updated with all what’s coming within the technology and legalization. And in the latest publication, the AI, the artificial intelligence guidelines, Saudi ensured responsible use of AI and emphasizing data privacy and ethical standards, and tried to balance innovation with societal values, potential risks, and mitigation strategies. They talked about explicitly certification fraud as a risk, since, as you all know, AI now could produce human-like content. You could write, you could have essays, even detailed research, undermining all traditional educational and professional standards. Therefore, Saidiya also stated mitigation measures for assessment, education, and training explicitly here in Saudi Arabia. And in terms of AI adoption in higher education institutes, actually the adoption and management of new technology in higher education institutes can be complex due to their diverse constituents, including faculty, students, staff, each with different needs and priorities. But there is a paper that was published in September 2024. It is titled AI Governance in Higher Education, Case Studies of Guidance at Big Ten Universities. It was published in the journal Future Internet. This study examined how the prestigious universities in the United States are approaching the governance of artificial intelligence, particularly in response to the growing influence of generative AI in higher education. They reviewed AI governance policies and strategies in 14 prestigious universities. What we can see from this study is that universities started investing generously in AI governance. For example, you could see Massachusetts Institute of Technology developed a comprehensive framework for ethical AI governance and has invested $1 billion in AI initiatives. University of Utah launched a $100 million responsible AI initiative aimed at using AI to tackle societal issues while protecting civil rights. And Tsinghua University established the Institute for AI International Governance and the Center for AI Governance focusing on AI ethics, policy development, and international cooperation. And the University of Oxford launched the Oxford Martin AI Governance Initiative to understand and mitigate AI risks through research and collaboration. And also University of Birmingham’s Center for Artificial Intelligence and Government. And lastly, universities also recognized the importance of dialogue and take innovative steps to promote it. For instance, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign harnessed the power of social media and they created an online space discussion to discuss issues related to gen AI within the university community. So these universities are not only investing financially but developing comprehensive programs, research initiatives, and governance structures to address all these issues. And to go back to the MENA region, again I’ll go back to Saudi Arabia. In Saudi Arabia, universities are focused on AI within, obviously, the vision 21st 30th. In KSU, we have established KSU Zakat Center and KSU Zakat Office. Both are concerned with AI. The KSU Zakat Center has educated its efforts to its numerous partnerships to localizing knowledge and technology within the field of AI, while the Zakat Office is concerned with developing AI research and applied programs that serve different academic and professional disciplines. And again, there’s KAUST. Also, they established the Center of Excellence for Generative AI, which is dedicated to placing Saudi Arabia at the forefront of AI research in the region and globally.

Timea Suto: Thank you very much, Nora. Quite a lot that universities are able to do, and I guess also when they’re able to do that, when they’re supported to do it. So again, I think what you’ve said fits very nicely in what the panel has said earlier already in how we make sure that expert communities that are either based in academic circles, in private sector circles, or government or international organizations manage to come together and build on each other’s knowledge to further this work. And that we need the expertise of all of them if we want to get the approach right. So in that vein, I also want to turn to Paloma online and ask where do you see the role of the private sector’s efforts in driving this responsible AI innovation by design? And what are the role of the policies that are necessary around this to help us make sure that private sector can do this?

Paloma Villa Mateos: Yeah, thank you. Thank you. Can you listen to me well? It’s okay? Okay, great. Well, thank you. Well, I do think that the magic word here is AI governance. And this applies for private and public sector. I do think that We need to be humble and have a substantial conversation between us, because otherwise we will not benefit from the AI. I think we have done a great job in the last decades in the different international organizations and also in the companies. And the question for us is, in the end, how to ensure AI that is developed responsibly while fostering innovation. And I do think that the AI governance from the company perspective lies in four interconnected pillars of AI governance, which are really important. The first one is principles and guidelines, mainly come from international organizations. Regulation is the second pillar, technical standard, and industry self-regulation. Most of them have been already mentioned, but I think it is important trying to get this interconnected proposal, starting from some principles to the more sophisticated development of AI. Regarding, for example, the principles and guidelines, I do believe that the OECD, Council of Europe, UNESCO, Hiroshima principles, executive order, all this going around the world is directly connected to what companies are doing. I think the development of what we have been doing in the last two decades has been going in parallel, and this is very good news. The principles are there when we talk about transparency, fairness, privacy, human rights, democracy, rural flow. We have been telephonic with many other companies, Microsoft, Meta. We have been working with the Council of Europe, with OECD on a daily basis. With UNESCO, we have signed. These principles are there, and I do think, this is my positive insight, that we are in the same role. The problem comes when, I think Thomas has said, when we come from the high-level principles to the earth. We don’t know how to apply all these principles. Now, for example, at the OECD and many other organisations, we are developing in a more sophisticated way things related to the AI, not only high-risk. I mean, the high-risk approach, everywhere the high-risk approach, there is no discussion about that. But we are now discussing more specific topics. For example, AI and intellectual property. And this is, again, the problem of how we make possible this interoperability of regimes in Europe with other regions, where the history of the juristical, the law tradition, is completely different. How we can find this common interplay? So, the second pillar is regulation. And I think that here, companies, in the case, for example, of Europe, where the AI is already in place, and based on the principle we have already discussed, I do think that companies are doing a great job, for example, signing the EU pact, which is really relevant for companies trying to voluntarily implement the ETAG before it is into force. And many companies are engaging in core commitment, in AI governance strategy, mapping the AI system, and developing AI literacy in the companies and outside the companies. These three core commitments of companies are relevant for what we are talking now. I mean, this collaboration between the institution, the public sector, and the companies are extremely relevant. The problem here in this second pillar in regulation is how we will implement regulation. Again, this is the problem. Maybe the problem is not the regulation itself, but all the standardisation, what it implies in high-risk systems. And sometimes there is a grey zone. Sometimes when we talk with companies, with institutions, the problem is that the discussion is not substantial. I mean, because we are trying to very quickly resolve the standardisation process, which is very difficult, and the technical details are really difficult. So when I start talking about being humble and having a substantive conversation between the public and private sector, because sometimes we have a legal instrument from the 20th century, but the technology is from the 21st century. This is a challenge, a challenge for the institution, but also for the companies, because we have to comply with this regulation when the legal framework is not fit for purpose. For the third pillar, which is the technical standard, I have to say that companies, Telefonica, many others, I’m talking about Telefonica, we are involved in the standardisation process, participating in all the conversations, also with the AI office, with the standardisation of code of practice. But we do have also international standards with ISO and NIS and so on. In the end, what we have, we are seeing also in the ITU, is a complex scenario with many standardisation processes going around. So here we have a lot of work ahead. But I have to say that this conversation is taking place also with the participation of companies. And the fourth pillar has to do with self-regulation. And here I have to say that the companies in the last decade, especially those who are using AI internally and offering the data service, we have put in place AI governance strategy with a very substantial model, scaling the process internally with the responsible within the companies, and also ways to identify the risks internally that are really in line with what you have already said. I think self-regulation is relevant because the technology goes very fast. We have seen that during the process of the AI Act. We started talking about AI. In the end, the global purpose AI was in the middle because the technology is faster than the legal framework. So I do think that self-regulation and responsible AI is critical here. And I stop here because I think we can go in depth later.

Timea Suto: Thank you. Thank you. So thank you very much for that, Paloma. And it’s quite a complex framework, as you said. I think one commonality out of all those four pillars is the collaboration between industry and regulators to make sure that we get the balance right, that we balance the innovation and the rapid development of technology with some of those commitments and goals that we want to address through risk management. So I want to stay with some of this idea, as I turn to Melinda, and we’ve heard a lot about safety risks of AI, and there’s been a number of global summits already on this issue. So I’m just wondering if you might want to draw out a few lessons learned there and see what we can do to maintain or get this balance in act right between innovation and investment risks, but also what is it that the private sector is already doing to help that balance? Over to you, Melinda.

Melinda Claybaugh: Great. Thank you so much. Just a little bit of context to explain Meta’s, to explain my company’s context and how we’re coming at the AI conversation. So we have two main buckets of AI products. So one is our generative AI products, which are in the app, in any app, in Facebook and Instagram and WhatsApp, you may have seen a Meta AI assistant. So it’s basically a chat bot powered by a large language model that you can interact with and ask it to do things and answer questions. Also, we have image generation tools, things like that, that help you create content online. The other bucket of our… AI products is a large language model called Lama that we have released several generations of. And it’s an open source model, which means we make it freely available to anyone to download. So it’s essentially giving away, you know, many, many millions of dollars of investments to entrepreneurs and developers who want to build on it for their own applications. I think that’s just important context to set for kind of how we come at the conversation as both a model provider and a gen AI system deployer. So at the model, let me start, at the gen AI system level, so our meta AI assistant, we assess risk in the way we would assess privacy risks in general. So we built our AI risk management program on top of our privacy risk management program. So it’s to say that any time a new feature or product or assistant is developed or improved in a certain way, it goes through a risk assessment and review process and mitigations are identified and applied. And there’s kind of a cycle of improvement in the same way as happens on the data privacy side. With respect to our large language model, their risks are assessed and mitigated at different points in the development of the model. So at the stage of the data collection, the pre-training stage, we’re identifying, you know, we’re actually going out of our way to not collect personal data, and then we’re identifying potential personal data, removing it, identifying, you know, data that may have copyright protections, you know, going through all of those risks at the pre-training stage, training the model once it’s trained, implementing certain red teaming, other, you know, safety testing and risk assessment and mitigation processes to make sure that the model we’re releasing is safe, and then we release it and developers can build on it. I think, you know, so in addition to those and kind of the product development process, we also, if you’ve mentioned, have signed up to multiple kind of international frameworks. So domestically, to start, in the U.S., we were an early adopter of the White House commitments, which are kind of high-level commitments to the safe deployment of advanced AI. And then we signed on to the sole frontier AI safety commitments. And so I think what we’re seeing is a really positive harmonization at around safety frameworks for advanced or frontier AI. I think that level of, and I think that will be furthered in addition by the development of the various AI safety institutes and how they are going to be working together to understand the science of risk identification, mitigation, evaluations, benchmarks, all of that. And so I think that those are really positive developments. I think where some of the challenges arise is in the more bread and butter AI. So not the kind of frontier AI, you know, safety stuff we’re talking about, but how is AI being applied in our everyday lives to maybe make decisions about us or offer us goods or services? And I think that’s where some of the stickiness comes up in terms of reaching consensus about what are the risks that we are trying to identify? What are the mitigations that should be applied? And is there a global view on that or should it be kind of nationally determined? Because there’s going to be differences in how different societies view different risks. So I think that’s a really interesting thing to keep in mind, the difference between kind of the very advanced AI safety concerns and then kind of the day-to-day bread and butter AI concerns. And just a few general thoughts on risk. So I think it’s really important to focus on the marginal risk we’re talking about, because I think we tend to come to this and think, oh, my God, AI is new and it’s different and it’s terrible. And, you know, in fact, we’ve been dealing with AI, classic AI, for a really long time. And I think what people get concerned about is this really advanced stuff that maybe we’ll lose control of, you know, people worry about, or maybe it’s doing things we don’t understand and all of that. And so I just, you know, we have a whole legal, we have many, many legal frameworks that already govern things like data privacy, that already govern things like kids’ safety online. And so we have a lot of mature frameworks to draw from. And I think from a company’s perspective, what is going to be really important is how these things are rationalized. And so I think there’s a risk of imposing in the lens of, you know, AI, imposing a whole new framework and regime on top of all of the ones we already have. And then how do those relate to one another? We’re seeing this to some extent in Europe, in the AI and privacy conversation, and how data can be used in AI or not. And how does the legal regime on data privacy intersect with AI? And that balance of innovation and privacy protection is really at a tension point, where we all recognize data is needed for AI advances, but of course, there’s limits around it. And I think the unique nature of large language models means that we may not be able to implement data subject rights or other things that arise in data privacy frameworks the way that we can in other types of data processing. So there’s a real life tension there that I think has to be grappled with. And then another, just two other points I want to make real quick is, I think it’s really important to focus on the use cases. So for us, as a large language model provider, and particularly as an open source LLM provider, we release our model, we do all the mitigations that we can, we release it, and we have no idea how it’s used. Anyone can build on it for any purpose, and it’s up to them to put into place the mitigations that are necessary for their particular use cases. And so I think it’s important to, I know the OECD is looking at the value chain and really breaking down what are the roles and responsibilities of the various actors in the AI value chain, and what is in their control to identify and mitigate. I think that’s a really important conversation, and again, the use case conversation, and then particularly looking at what are the laws we already have in place. We already have in place laws about discrimination in employment in most places. We already have in laws discrimination in housing services. So what is net new here that is already not covered, and can we cover those risks in existing frameworks, as opposed to new frameworks?

Timea Suto: Thanks. Thank you, Melinda, for that. I forgot to turn on the microphone. It’s been quite a rich first round around this table. We’ve heard a number of ideas coming out of the speakers here on what is it that we’re facing in terms of risk-based approach to AI? What are some of the elements that we can build on? So I want to focus on our second round of questions. I have the same question to all of you. And in addition to reacting to what you’ve heard from one another, is to just really share a little bit on how you think forums like where we are sitting today, and these global conversations at the IGF, and other global fora, can help bring what you’ve mentioned in your interventions into fruition for an actual global approach to the governance of AI in a way that, as most of you highlighted, it balances the rapid growth and allows the rapid growth of technology and innovation while making sure that some of the harms that we fear from are actually mitigated. So I don’t want to summarize what you’ve all said because it’s going to take too much time, but I hope we can take this one question and do a round-robin around the table and react to one another and bring out those elements that can actually help in global conversations. So Lucia, you spoke first. I’ll hand the microphone over to you.

Lucia Russo: Thank you, Tima. It’s truly fascinating to hear from such a diverse group of speakers. And I think, for me, what resonates the most with what we heard is, on one hand, this need for multi-stakeholder conversation and collaboration, the need also to have a contextual and cultural approach to this type of regulation, and also the need to think in practical terms of what it means to translate these principles into concrete requirements and along this risk spectrum. that we have advocated and so what I want to get at is that we see some sort of regulatory fragmentation and this is no news to anyone and we perhaps shouldn’t seek to have full harmonization because that’s maybe not achievable not even perhaps desirable because we have heard there are some cultural considerations to be made that local values or technological developments but even cultural and institutional history so I think the way we are approaching this issue at the OECD is really to have this multi stakeholder groups coming together and discussing so we have these expert groups overall we have a network of 600 experts that work with us and they are divided into expert groups that focus on specific topics and for instance one of them is working on a group which is called risks and accountability so it’s a group that’s the name that speaks for itself and it really is taking this approach of looking at the different risk management frameworks that have emerged so far and try and see where they share commonalities and where they differ and so the idea is to develop responsible business conduct for enterprises which is not yet another framework they have to comply with but more of a framework that would indicate to companies especially those operating trans-border when they comply with a given requirement what it means for instance in the EU what it means in terms of complying for in the US or in another jurisdiction so the idea is to really put this interoperability in practice meaning having a level of alignment or a level of understanding for operators of where these different requirements intersect and so this is the project that we are currently carrying out and we should have the due diligence guidance ready next year and perhaps the last point that I would like to add and Melinda hinted at that is that it’s a risk management framework that is not only looking at one specific actor in the chain but it looks at AI development and deployment across the value chain because of course it’s not only one part of the chain that is responsible but there are upstream and downstream operators that also have due diligence requirements to abide with and so that would go down to data to the very first investment and data labeling so it’s really a more holistic approach so yes I would say that the value of these conversations is really to bring together these perspectives and it’s the way to go there is no other alternative.

Timea Suto: Thank you Lucia. Same question to you Thomas. What is the role of the global community here?

Thomas Schneider: Yes, thank you. It’s actually interesting to see to what extent and I think the value of a forum like this is to hear from each other where we are and to what extent we are on the same page or going in the same direction, to what extent processes are converging, legal processes, standardization processes and also to what extent they may be not converging or they don’t have to converge and a fundamental question that hasn’t been raised here is actually who defines what a risk is and who defines what a high or a too high risk is and that largely diverges from country to country and not just with AI. Just to give you one example, in England in Liverpool you have the River Mercy and nobody would ever think of going in the river to swim. On the contrary, you have a metal fence that is from 1920 that tells you forbidden water, danger, beware. You have a second fence one meter ahead of it from the 1930s that says, oh danger, water, don’t go in, there may be ships and there’s even a third fence added in the 50s. In Switzerland, in Basel for instance, you have a river with cargo ships but thousands of people go swimming in the water, they go beneath bridges, they navigate between cargo ships and the ships between them because this is one of the greatest things to do in summer if you live in Basel and have no access to the sea. So if the government would decide to forbid swimming in the river because there are cargo ships and it may be dangerous, the people would just say no and this is just, and the UK and Switzerland is not like 5,000 or 10,000 or 20,000 kilometers apart, but just to say that while in an airline business where people are okay to trust experts because it exceeds their personal knowledge also in the airline business, people are willing to agree on internationally harmonized risk management because they want to be sure that the airplane lands safely because they can’t run it themselves. But the closer it gets to your own capabilities, to your life where you want to take a decision and that will also be the same with AI on the heart surgery operation. You may be happy that it’s clear what the red lines are, what the doctor can do, what the tools, what safety tests the tools need to pass, but when it’s about AI-generated content with your freedom of expression, expressing your cultural political views, you may not want some expert or I don’t know the government to tell you what is right or wrong, but you may want to decide it yourself. So I think this is something, there will be harmonization which is fine for people, people will want to have harmonization so that they don’t have to care, they can trust experts, but there will be areas where people want to be the master and use AI the way they want and discuss it with their neighbors what is right or wrong and not with any with the government or people from far away. So I think we will have to live with some kind of diversity in this

Timea Suto: field. Thank you Thomas. Sulafa, how do you see this?

Sulafah Jabarti: Well capitalizing on what they just said, which is I guess I can see how we’re all coming closer to the same area, which is I really liked what you said in terms of what we need to develop or not develop, because this area is actually re-qualifying the whole drive because it’s just okay we need to regulate this sector so let’s go and drive and do regulations every day and question everything and as she said this is a scary new thing and the idea is actually we really need to be very objective but also very connected to the technology itself and to the society itself. So I think Pamela or if I’m not mentioning the name right or wrong, but yeah she’s Paloma, she said something about that the speed of technology sometimes exceeds the speed of regulations and it’s not fair to like ask the businesses to slow down and just wait for regulations, which does happen sometimes. On the other side in a business world, as an example for the cyber security area, which is a very very highly regulated area and still part of this whole as they say crowd, a very small example and some of the applications we provide to some very highly regulated entities, we every now need to adjust the applications we provide with the regulations of cyber security, which are very highly adjusted in our country and so we ended up realizing that some entities because they’re just giving us the regulations and the updates just like they are and they want us to just you know adjust the application to it without actually having an eye for the business itself or the business owners themselves in the organization, we end up to a place where the authorized users can’t enter to the to the to the application and then we have to you know drive some concept into it and we actually bring our business culture, our business understanding to them and and this brings us back to why we need a multi-stakeholder governed frameworks because we need to bring the society in academics and technology people, business people all together and I guess if I want to sum that I think we need flexibility, coordination and awareness. Awareness is a very important part because to give people the right establishment and the right ground to be able to think with us on the same harmonized approach, we need to enable them first to know what they need to know and that also brings us back to exactly being very clever and actually inviting the right entities and the right stakeholders to participate in this. Some people are very closed in boxes of regulations, law or academia despite the other side which is the business itself. So no one should work on this in a closed box, they need to be very much attached with a lot embedded data, informatics, and this is what it’s all about. So we sometimes, I’m sure we all sometimes find people who are working on this who are very isolated from the core of itself and the spirit of this technology, AI, which is based on very live data and information flows. So I think what we need at the end, we all aim to reach a very robust, trusted, and adaptive framework that everyone can use all over the world.

Timea Suto: Thank you very much, Rafaq. Noura, how do you see this going for you?

Noora Al-Thani: Actually, I see the global forum as a very good place to get everyone thinking together. I would like to, I was noticing that like now AI is having, is actually getting everyone is afraid of what AI will do, how AI will develop, and I could see that because when I started AI, when I started studying, it was just I’m doing an AI algorithm or machine learning algorithm in one specific area and it will, for example, find a tumor. Now it’s a different thing. It’s a generalized model and what happens that creators of the AI really don’t know how the AI will respond because they teach the AI the learning model and then the AI will respond the way it responds. So regulating it, I see it’s important to regulate it from the beginning, from entering the data, from the early steps, because whenever the data is in, or whenever, like, anything is in is very difficult. For example, a cake, can you eat it? If you take the ingredients before mixing the ingredients, you could do that. But I would ask you to take this ingredient or whatever data after baking the cake, it’s kind of impossible. And that’s what happens. Whenever the risk comes, it will come anyway. So I do see why there is a great concern and I see some positive things have a great concern just to regulate it. But I see that it’s coming and it’s coming strongly because it is very beneficial and you can see the benefits of it day after day with healthcare, with every aspect. You can see that it’s very beneficial. Like last year, there’s a surgery that happened that there’s a blind girl that managed to be seen now because of an AI surgery. So there is huge benefits. The fear is, we could understand. But I think, like, and other than this also, the government should be very specific for each sector. It should be very different. We can’t have just one framework that governs everything. Every sector is completely different and has its own characteristics that we need to, other than society, other than the region. So I think we’re on the right track. We’re working and it’s a work in progress. And let’s hope for the best.

Timea Suto: Thank you. Step by step and no one-size-fits-all, I think.

Paloma Villa Mateos: Paloma. Yeah, thank you. So Thomas and also Zulafa have said something which is for me really relevant. I mean, the definition of high risk, no? I mean, if we think on Europe, on AIAC, in the end, what we have here is a regulation on high risk application, mostly. And here we are developing this standardization process. And the problem is how to go from the theory to the real world. And this is something more difficult than some of the policymakers thought it is. Last week, for example, we were in Brussels having some conversation with the AI office. So they have a mandate that in the next seven months they have to come with this code of practice. And they have thousands of people participating in this code of practice. And at the same time, we have responded to a public consultation, again, on the definition of some of the application on high risk and so on. So it’s more difficult than it is. And in the end, it is true that we as a company, we have to protect people’s rights, safety and so on. But we have also to protect in Europe innovation and also how to compete in the global economy. So this pattern is really difficult. And I do think that engaging with companies is really relevant because having this theoretical approach sometimes is against what we are trying to do. And in parallel, I have to say that companies, we are also learning how to provide or how to work with a responsible AI. GSMA, for example, you know GSMA, we are now working on a responsible AI maturity roadmap. So trying to provide a framework for companies to work in an AI governance strategy that from the beginning to the end, we are able to provide ethical AI system. So this is going hand by hand. And I think it is important, as I said, to combine and to balance people’s rights and innovation. This is something that is relevant and more relevant in the next year, where in Europe, for example, we will see this new code of practice, standardization and sense and elect. So it’s critical now in Europe to balance that because it could be a regulation that in other parts of the world are looking to. So it is important that we do it right. Thank you.

Melinda Claybaugh: I mostly echo what other people said, but just on the point about the EU AI Act, I think that it’s an interesting reflection of how unsettled things are. So with the code of practice in particular, there’s still live conversation and no consensus on what even is a prohibited practice or what is a high risk practice. And so you would think the prohibited practices would be fairly understood generally, but it’s not. And so I think just as we, I guess my recommendation for kind of convenings and global convenings is to take some time to do it right. Because I think what’s happening is that the EU AI Act was finalized in a frenzy around gen AI development and advanced gen AI development. And now they’re kind of having to figure out, oh, actually, what is prohibited and high risk? Meanwhile, the clock is ticking on compliance for all the companies. And so it’s really a difficult situation to be managing. So I think building more consensus around some of the risks and some of the high risks and what’s inbounds and out of bounds, recognizing, of course, there will be cultural differences. But taking some time to set that step right rather than rushing ahead as the technology is still advancing as well.

Timea Suto: Thank you so much, Belinda. So a lot to take away from the panel. We’ve discussed the importance of multi-stakeholder approach and a cross-cultural approach. The importance of bridging fragmentation in regulatory spaces and trying to build towards common principles, but not a one size fits all approach. To try and work together to define what high risk and low risk is. And also the value of conversations and the acknowledgement that it might not be the same across regions. To make sure that we are looking and are connected at the technology when we’re trying to pass regulations. Again, the value of multi-stakeholder approach here so that we don’t pass regulations that are actually restrictive to the benefits of a technology that we’re trying to regulate. To go step by step and make sure that we place the regulatory at the right moment. Not necessarily taking an approach that covers everything from one go. The role of standards. and balancing innovation and regulation with an approach to standards and industry initiatives. And then, of course, taking the time to do slides and allow time to tell us where actually the risks are and to look at that from also the user perspective, the way that the technology is being used in the field as opposed to where we think risks might be coming. So a lot coming out from the panel. We have about maybe 20 minutes, a little bit to turn to the audience, a little less than that, both online and here in the room. I understand Paloma will have to leave. So if there’s anything last second that you want to share before you have to move to the next meeting, please go ahead. Otherwise, we thank you very much for being here. If there are people in the room, the rest of the speakers or online, please, we’ll get you a microphone and then we’ll try to get your answer as well. You and then them. Thank you very much.

Audience: My name is Amal Ahmed. I’m currently working in DGA. I’m not asking a question. I’m just having an emphasis. First of all, welcome here in Saudi Arabia. It’s an honor to have you all here. And my experience is a total of three years. Two, I’ve spent in the private sector and one in the governmental sector in DGA. And I want to say that it’s really exciting working here. And I’ve seen how the government sector is working very closely with citizens to be human-centric. And I’ve realized a challenge that we are facing to enhance the practices of creating new products, which is the first one is how to actually adhere to the best practices that are available to doing what humans really need. Because the more we contact through the workshops the different stakeholders, we realize that some of the practices we’re doing, they’re not very fit. And on a product level, when it comes to, let’s say, creating some sort of a feature, going through the right process sometimes is not the very best option to it. So this is one of the things that I’ve seen. And it’s kind of like a balancing between the frameworks and the reality itself. My name is Jacques Beglinger. I’m from Switzerland. I’m here with the Eurotech, the European IGF, and with the Swiss IGF process, but also in the business ICC team. My question is following on what Thomas was saying on different perception, means different aversion to risk or embracing risks. And wouldn’t that call for governments and for business to engage much more in education and explaining as much as possible so that the users can make a free choice?

Timea Suto: Thomas, the question was addressed to you, I think. But all of you around the table, if you’d like to elaborate a little bit on how we educate around AI.

Thomas Schneider: Well, I do not necessarily think that it’s addressed to me. But of course, what I said before about people swimming in the river in Switzerland, they don’t want the government to forbid swimming in the river. They want the government to make sure that the water quality is okay, so there’s no damage. They want the government to make sure that everyone properly learns how to swim at school. And society teaches also foreigners and immigrants how to deal with water. And they also want the drivers of the cargo ships to know that, okay, I go on the left and the people are on the right, so I will not kill them. So education is key to freedom of choice. And to also make people adaptive to be able to assess the risks in a situation that may not be foreseen. Because you may set up rules, but reality may be not foreseen by the rules. And then what do you do? And the more people are able or the system or the society is able to deal with risks, also in unforeseen moments, and we will have them probably also with AI, then, of course, it’s easier for people to react.

Timea Suto: Thank you. Does anybody else want to react to what we’ve heard from the audience? Are there any other questions? The gentleman in the back there. Hello? Yeah. Okay, great.

Audience: Thank you. My name is Wouter Cobus. I’m with the Dutch Government and Standardization Advisor. I’m seeing a difference between the Internet, which we discussed at the IGF, and AI, where the Internet is confounded by standards, really based on standards. And in AI, we are now trying to develop new standards. And I can imagine that difference has also implications to how we govern it. So, what are your opinions about how this difference affects the governance model that we have to choose for AI compared to the Internet?

Timea Suto: Some question there about the role of standards and whether standards need to come before development or development needs to come before standards, if I understood the question correctly. Any other questions that we could maybe walk together? No? It’s quite unfortunate that Paloma had to leave because she always has a lot to say on standards, but perhaps others? Melinda, do you want to take that up?

Melinda Claybaugh: Actually, I’m not that close to the standards development work. In the U.S., I can say that the quote-unquote standards, I mean, not the ISO things, but the NIST is the primary soft standard body in the U.S., they’ve been focused primarily on risk management frameworks for Gen-AI. I think there’s a place for that because that is kind of a standardization of a process of how to assess and mitigate risks that you want to make standard across anyone developing and deploying AI. As for the technical standards, which I know are so important to the Internet, I actually don’t have a view on them. I defer to you if you’re saying it’s more challenging in the AI space.

Timea Suto: Johannes?

Thomas Schneider: Maybe just a quick reaction. The question is, what do you mean by standards on the Internet? I mean, of course, the TCPIP is there for a few decades, but the IETF is continuing to develop norms and standards. And also there, basically, it’s probably not fundamentally different because somebody proposes a standard, you test it, and like a running code and so on, and if nobody has a problem with the standard, then it may get de-standard, although you may have competing standards or a variety of standards, and you had this with television and previous, so you may have competing standards. And over time, maybe one of the standards or two will succeed in just being the most attractive, not necessarily the best, but the most attractive for businesses or whatever. So I don’t see a fundamental difference. But of course, it’s a difference between a standard for an infrastructure, if you take the Internet as an infrastructure, or service using an infrastructure. So of course, it’s also there, standards are case-sensitive. But I don’t see a fundamental difference in logic, because also there you just try and see what happens, and then you standardize as you go, more or less.

Timea Suto: Thank you, Johannes. Yes, just one thing, if I can add from my role as the moderator. We also need to make sure that as we develop standards, we are mindful of not fragmenting the space further. So that standard, the inter-appropriate approach that we want to take to regulation, to the actual use of technology, also that standards do not add to creating pockets of technology, that this technology works on this standard, and the other one works on that standard, and the two don’t talk to one another, because then we are actually fragmenting the opportunities that we can get out of the technology. That’s just two cents from me. But we have a question there.

Audience: When we talk about standards, we also need to bear in mind that standards are not carved in stone. So for me, and also from my experience in business, it’s okay to have standards, but they shouldn’t be too rigid to start with. But then there must be a serious review process, or at least the expectation that it’s going to be reviewed once that flaws are expected. So in that sense, what has been done at the Council of Europe, principle-based, is fine. Whether the AI Act went a little bit too far in this respect, and not enough expectation to be revised pretty soon, as we saw it with the GDPR, which was not revised so quickly, you might learn from it. But I think it’s fine. really essential that there is a perspective and certain know-how on the subject that there will be a revision.

Timea Suto: Thank you for that addition. I think we seem to have exhausted the questions from the audience. I hope not the audience itself. We have, yes, about five minutes to end our session. So I just want to turn back to the panelists here on the podium and ask, what is your main takeaway from the session? If it still had the character limitations that we have on social platforms to express our opinions, what would be your one sentence takeaway from this that we can put in the report about what we discussed today? I’m going to skip the speaking order and I’m going to start with Sulafa and just go around the people here.

Sulafah Jabarti: I think mostly it’s to make this sustainable. It’s actually the harmonization of the global framework that we’ve heard bits and pieces from different backgrounds, and we all, I guess, agree that as much as the process is flexible, inclusive, and as they say, connected to multi-stakeholders as well, and listening out to everyone, giving everyone the space to imbue their process, and I think that’s the way to actually make it faster and more convenient and more sustainable, let’s say, because at the end, this is an ongoing process. So as much as the flow is connected to multiple entities, as much as it’s sustainable and objective, if we may say, and considering all of the aspects together.

Melinda Claybaugh: Yeah, I echo that and I agree that finding the balance between what we agree on and then allowing for variability, so setting a floor and then you can add to it as needed for the use case, for the country, for the context that something is being deployed in, and so firming up the foundation and then whether looking to kind of sector-specific assessments beyond that, however that differential should be implemented is unclear yet, but like that super floor and then allow space to move around.

Timea Suto: Lucia?

Lucia Russo: Yeah, I think for me as well is this notion of having an adaptive framework, not having something set in stone that you can’t review and can’t reopen, especially in light of the speed of the technology and the length of the policymaking process, and so this notion of footer-proofing legislation or regulation in a way that is not set in stone or that you have processes to update your requirements, and also I think this really the need of what we call a risk-based, well, tailored approach to the use cases but to the sectors as well, and I think Melinda expressed it very well, this notion that we have advanced AI systems and then we have what we may call everyday AI, and also Nora was mentioning that transition from the narrow AI to now the large foundation model that can do much more, and so I think that is at the core of what we call risk-based approach, I mean to tailor the requirement that are imposed to really a careful consideration of what the impulse will be.

Noora Al-Thani: Hello, yes, I do agree with Lucia that it should be adapted, and especially since it’s a global, as also Melinda said, we should have a basic and then different differences, and I think all that could be done through dialogue, and again dialogue, and reiterative process of setting the standards on, and it should be like regularly and continuously, because things change, our beliefs or our point of view change with the changing world, so I think as I will actually emphasize whatever they said, and that’s how it is. Thank you, Thomas. Yes, thank you, I also think

Thomas Schneider: what a surprise that adaptive is the key word I think of this afternoon, and I think it is important that the framework is adaptive, but not necessarily, the goal should always be the same, to make sure that people are free, but people use their freedom with responsibilities, that there is protection, human rights, for democracy, for rule of law things, and also like clear rules for the industry, that they know what can they do, what can they not do, at least when a certain level of risk is reached, so the principles should be stable and reliable, but the way they are implemented, the way it’s made sure that people continue to be free, but safe to the extent that they want to be safe, need to be adaptive, and I think also, my country is not a member of the EU, but we are grateful to the EU that they dared to do something, of which we can all learn, and of course, a colleague from Telefonica is right, it’s not easy, but not doing anything and just letting everything go may not be the right thing too, so we watch closely what the EU is doing, what difficulties the member states have in implementing this in the local level and so on, and of course, yeah, they are the front runner, they have some advantages, but they also pay a price, but as long as we stay engaged and can learn from each other, I think it’s a mutual benefit. In my small country, we will try to achieve the same goals with something different, something more agile, something smaller, because also we have to, we don’t have the resources that the EU as a group of countries have, so as long as we can learn from each other, I think, yeah, we will go in the right direction if we share the basic fundamental principles of freedom and respect and autonomy and human rights and solidarity and so on.

Timea Suto: Thank you. So, we started from one word or one hyphenated word, risk-based, and then we added quite a couple to this, but I think Thomas is right, the end word that we seem to converge around is adaptability, an adaptive framework that moves with the times, that moves with the technology, that moves with the changes of our views and perspectives and the way that we, our culture develops with the technology together while making sure that we keep our eyes on the prize, keep our eyes on the right goals that we’ve set for ourselves in the beginning. To all the words that we’ve said today, I will just add two more, which is thank you. Thank you to all of you who have come and share your knowledge and expertise with us for the past hour and a half. Thank you to all who came to listen and contribute to the conversation. Thank you to those who joined us online. I know Paloma had to go, but the audience that is there still. I hope this was as useful for you as it was edifying for me, and hope to see you next year at the next IGF and see how we progress from adaptive to who knows what the next word be. Thank you, everyone. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Agreement Points

Need for adaptive and flexible AI governance frameworks

Lucia Russo

Thomas Schneider

Sulafah Jabarty

Noora Al-Thani

Paloma Villa Mateos

Melinda Claybaugh

Need for flexible, context-based risk assessment

Tension between harmonization and local/cultural adaptation

Developing harmonized global frameworks with local flexibility

Promoting ongoing dialogue to adapt governance as AI evolves

Balancing innovation and regulation in risk frameworks

Allowing time to properly define high-risk AI practices

All speakers emphasized the importance of creating AI governance frameworks that are adaptive, flexible, and can evolve with technological advancements while considering local contexts and cultural differences.

Importance of multi-stakeholder collaboration

Lucia Russo

Sulafah Jabarty

Noora Al-Thani

Facilitating multi-stakeholder and cross-cultural dialogue

Need for multi-stakeholder collaboration in framework development

Universities playing key role in AI governance and research

These speakers stressed the need for collaboration among various stakeholders, including governments, private sector, academia, and civil society, in developing effective AI governance frameworks.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the need to consider cultural differences in AI governance approaches while working towards globally harmonized frameworks.

Thomas Schneider

Sulafah Jabarty

Importance of cultural considerations in risk perception

Developing harmonized global frameworks with local flexibility

Both speakers highlighted the importance of balancing innovation with regulation, focusing on risks specific to AI rather than overregulating.

Paloma Villa Mateos

Melinda Claybaugh

Balancing innovation and regulation in risk frameworks

Focusing on marginal risks specific to AI

Unexpected Consensus

Role of universities in AI governance

Noora Al-Thani

Sulafah Jabarty

Universities playing key role in AI governance and research

Need for multi-stakeholder collaboration in framework development

While not typically emphasized in AI governance discussions, both speakers highlighted the crucial role of universities in shaping AI governance frameworks and conducting relevant research.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement included the need for adaptive and flexible AI governance frameworks, the importance of multi-stakeholder collaboration, and the consideration of cultural differences in risk perception and governance approaches.

Consensus level

There was a high level of consensus among the speakers on the need for flexible and adaptive approaches to AI governance. This consensus suggests a growing recognition of the complexity of AI governance and the need for frameworks that can evolve with technological advancements and varying cultural contexts. The implications of this consensus could lead to more nuanced and context-sensitive approaches to AI governance on a global scale.

Different Viewpoints

Approach to risk assessment in AI governance

Lucia Russo

Thomas Schneider

Need for flexible, context-based risk assessment

Importance of cultural considerations in risk perception

While both speakers advocate for flexibility in risk assessment, Russo emphasizes a more technical, multi-dimensional approach, while Schneider highlights the importance of cultural factors in risk perception and tolerance.

Focus of AI investment and development

Sulafah Jabarty

Noora Al-Thani

Heavy investment in AI and digital transformation in MENA region

Universities playing key role in AI governance and research

Jabarti emphasizes government and private sector investment in AI, while Al-Thani focuses on the role of universities in AI governance and research.

Unexpected Differences

Role of existing legal frameworks in AI governance

Melinda Claybaugh

Other speakers

Focusing on marginal risks specific to AI

Claybaugh uniquely emphasizes the importance of leveraging existing legal frameworks for AI governance, while other speakers focus more on developing new AI-specific frameworks. This unexpected difference highlights the tension between adapting existing regulations and creating entirely new ones for AI.

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement revolve around the specific approaches to implementing flexible AI governance frameworks, the role of cultural factors in risk assessment, and the balance between regional investment and global interoperability.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among the speakers is moderate. While there is general consensus on the need for adaptive and flexible AI governance, speakers differ in their emphasis on specific aspects and implementation strategies. These differences reflect the complex nature of AI governance and the need for continued dialogue and collaboration to develop effective global frameworks that can accommodate regional and cultural variations.

Partial Agreements

All speakers agree on the need for flexible and adaptive AI governance frameworks, but they differ in their emphasis on specific aspects such as cultural considerations, sector-specific approaches, and the balance between innovation and regulation.

Lucia Russo

Thomas Schneider

Sulafah Jabarty

Noora Al-Thani

Paloma Villa Mateos

Melinda Claybaugh

Difficulty translating high-level principles into practice

Tension between harmonization and local/cultural adaptation

Need for multi-stakeholder collaboration in framework development

Importance of sector-specific governance approaches

Balancing innovation and regulation in risk frameworks

Allowing time to properly define high-risk AI practices

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the need to consider cultural differences in AI governance approaches while working towards globally harmonized frameworks.

Thomas Schneider

Sulafah Jabarty

Importance of cultural considerations in risk perception

Developing harmonized global frameworks with local flexibility

Both speakers highlighted the importance of balancing innovation with regulation, focusing on risks specific to AI rather than overregulating.

Paloma Villa Mateos

Melinda Claybaugh

Balancing innovation and regulation in risk frameworks

Focusing on marginal risks specific to AI

Key Takeaways

There is broad agreement on the need for risk-based, adaptive approaches to AI governance that balance innovation with risk mitigation

Governance frameworks should be flexible enough to account for cultural differences and evolving technology while maintaining core principles

Multi-stakeholder collaboration and dialogue is crucial for developing effective, interoperable AI governance approaches

Sector-specific and use case-specific governance may be needed rather than one-size-fits-all approaches

Education and awareness-building around AI risks and benefits is important

Standardization efforts for AI should aim to promote interoperability while allowing for adaptation

Resolutions and Action Items

Continue multi-stakeholder dialogues and collaboration on AI governance at global forums

Work towards harmonized global frameworks that allow for regional/cultural flexibility

Develop adaptive governance mechanisms that can evolve with AI technology

Unresolved Issues

How to specifically define and categorize high-risk AI applications

How to balance regional approaches with the need for global interoperability

How to operationalize risk-based frameworks in practice across different sectors

How to address cultural differences in risk perception and tolerance

Suggested Compromises

Establish a common ‘floor’ of basic AI governance principles, with flexibility for regional/cultural adaptation beyond that

Focus on use case and sector-specific governance rather than blanket regulations

Allow for regular review and updating of AI governance frameworks as technology evolves

We have engines in machines that produce goods that are more or less big, more or less dangerous for the people. We have engines in cars, in airplanes, in tanks, in many other vehicles. It may be the same engines or similar engines. And they all have, of course, opportunities to produce something, but they also have risks. But we do not have one regulation for the engine.

speaker

Thomas Schneider

reason

This analogy provides a fresh perspective on AI regulation, highlighting the complexity and context-dependence of risk management.

impact

It shifted the discussion towards considering more nuanced, context-specific approaches to AI governance rather than one-size-fits-all solutions.

We need to be humble and have a substantial conversation between us, because otherwise we will not benefit from the AI.

speaker

Paloma Villa Mateos

reason

This comment emphasizes the importance of collaboration and open dialogue in AI governance.

impact

It reinforced the theme of multi-stakeholder cooperation and encouraged participants to consider how to foster more substantive conversations between different sectors.

I think it’s really important to focus on the marginal risk we’re talking about, because I think we tend to come to this and think, oh, my God, AI is new and it’s different and it’s terrible. And, you know, in fact, we’ve been dealing with AI, classic AI, for a really long time.

speaker

Melinda Claybaugh

reason

This comment provides a balanced perspective on AI risks, countering alarmist views and encouraging a more measured approach.

impact

It prompted a more nuanced discussion of AI risks and the need to build on existing regulatory frameworks rather than starting from scratch.

We need flexibility, coordination and awareness. Awareness is a very important part because to give people the right establishment and the right ground to be able to think with us on the same harmonized approach, we need to enable them first to know what they need to know

speaker

Sulafah Jabarty

reason

This comment highlights the importance of public education and awareness in AI governance.

impact

It broadened the discussion to include the role of public understanding and engagement in effective AI governance.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by moving it towards a more nuanced, context-specific, and collaborative approach to AI governance. They highlighted the complexity of AI regulation, the need for flexibility and adaptability in governance frameworks, the importance of building on existing regulatory structures, and the crucial role of public education and multi-stakeholder dialogue. The discussion evolved from considering broad regulatory approaches to exploring more specific challenges and opportunities in implementing effective AI governance across different cultural and regulatory contexts.

How can we define and reach consensus on what constitutes ‘high risk’ in AI applications across different cultural contexts?

speaker

Thomas Schneider, Sulafah Jabarty, Paloma Villa Mateos

explanation

Multiple speakers highlighted the challenge of defining high-risk AI applications, especially given cultural differences in risk perception. This is crucial for developing effective and culturally-sensitive AI governance frameworks.

How can we balance innovation and regulation in AI governance to ensure competitiveness while protecting rights and safety?

speaker

Paloma Villa Mateos

explanation

This balance is critical for developing AI governance that fosters innovation while addressing potential risks and harms.

How can we develop sector-specific AI governance approaches while maintaining a coherent overall framework?

speaker

Noora Al-Thani, Melinda Claybaugh

explanation

Speakers emphasized the need for tailored approaches to different sectors, while also maintaining some level of consistency across frameworks.

How can we ensure AI governance frameworks remain adaptive and flexible to keep pace with rapidly evolving technology?

speaker

Lucia Russo, Thomas Schneider

explanation

Given the fast pace of AI development, ensuring governance can adapt quickly is crucial for effective regulation.

What role should education play in preparing society to make informed choices about AI risks and benefits?

speaker

Jacques Beglinger (audience member)

explanation

Education was highlighted as a key factor in enabling people to assess and manage AI risks effectively.

How can we develop effective standards for AI that allow for innovation while ensuring interoperability and avoiding fragmentation?

speaker

Wouter Cobus (audience member), Timea Suto

explanation

The role of standards in AI governance was raised as an important area for further exploration, particularly in comparison to internet governance.

How can we operationalize risk-based approaches to AI governance in practice?

speaker

Timea Suto

explanation

While many frameworks claim to be risk-based, there’s a need to clarify what this means in practice and how to implement it effectively.

How can we ensure global interoperability in AI governance while respecting local cultural and regulatory differences?

speaker

Lucia Russo, Sulafah Jabarty

explanation

Balancing global consistency with local flexibility was identified as a key challenge in developing effective AI governance frameworks.

Summary

This panel discussion focused on addressing the gender gap in technology-related fields, particularly in network engineering and cybersecurity. Participants from various countries shared insights on challenges women face in tech and potential solutions. Key issues highlighted included cultural barriers, lack of role models, and workplace discrimination. The importance of education and early exposure to STEM fields for girls was emphasized, along with the need for mentorship programs and supportive policies.

Speakers stressed the significance of having women in decision-making roles when creating policies affecting them. They discussed the need for flexible work arrangements, childcare support, and addressing unconscious biases in the workplace. The concept of “diversity by design” was proposed, suggesting intentional inclusion of women in tech programs and initiatives.

The discussion touched on the varying contexts of women’s rights and opportunities across different countries, acknowledging that progress is uneven globally. Participants emphasized the role of both government policies and industry partnerships in promoting gender diversity in tech. Suggestions included offering incentives for companies employing women in tech roles, creating repositories of opportunities for women, and evaluating the success of existing programs.

The importance of male allies in supporting women’s advancement was noted. Speakers also highlighted the transformative potential of the internet in empowering women, especially those with limited mobility or in conservative societies. The discussion concluded with a call for systemic changes and continued advocacy to achieve gender equity in the tech industry.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– The underrepresentation of women in tech fields, especially in leadership roles

– Cultural and societal barriers that prevent women from pursuing STEM careers

– The need for mentorship, role models, and support systems for women in tech

– Policy changes and initiatives needed to increase gender diversity in tech

– The importance of creating inclusive and equitable work environments for women

The overall purpose of the discussion was to examine the gender gap in technology fields, particularly in areas like cybersecurity and network engineering, and to explore ways to increase women’s participation and advancement in these areas. The panelists shared experiences and perspectives from different countries and contexts to highlight challenges and potential solutions.

The tone of the discussion was passionate and candid, with speakers openly sharing personal experiences and frustrations with gender inequality. There was a sense of urgency in addressing these issues, but also optimism about the potential for change. The tone became more action-oriented towards the end, with panelists proposing specific initiatives and policy recommendations.

Speakers

– Sonal Zaveri: Moderator

– Amrita Choudhury: Director of SIGCHIAU, Chair of Asia-Pacific Regional IGF, Chair of IGF Support Association, Chair of APRALO at ICANN, President of ISOC Delhi

– Joyce Chen: APANIC’s Senior Advisor for Strategic Engagement

– Arinola Akinyemi: CEO of Omar Ventures and Digisphere Limited

– Ekaterine Imedadze: Commissioner of Georgian National Communication Commission (ComCom)

– Noha Ashraf Abdel Baky: Technical support engineer at Dell Technologies

– Lima Madomi: Research and teaching assistant at the University of Geneva

Additional speakers:

– Gulalai Khan: Lecturer at LAMS university, teaches internet governance and tech policy

– Harisa Shahid: Associate Information Security Engineer at Strategic Systems International

– Audience members (unnamed)

Gender Gap in Technology: Challenges and Solutions

This panel discussion, moderated by Sonal Zaveri, brought together experts from various countries to address the persistent gender gap in technology-related fields, with a particular focus on network engineering and cybersecurity. Zaveri opened by highlighting stark statistics: women represent only 19% of entry-level positions and 10% of executive-level positions in tech.

Speakers and Their Contributions:

1. Joyce Chen (Taiwan): Emphasized the importance of role models and mentorship, introducing the concept of “diversity by design.” She highlighted the ITU Network of Women initiative and stressed the need for safety and personal security in creating inclusive environments.

2. Noha Ashraf Abdel Baky (Egypt): Discussed cultural barriers in conservative societies and the lack of female representation at tech events in Egypt. She introduced the Digital Egypt generations program and advocated for flexible work policies.

3. Arinola Akinyemi (Nigeria): Addressed workplace discrimination and harassment, proposing incentives for companies that employ and promote women in tech roles.

4. Amrita Choudhury (India): Focused on work-life balance challenges and the importance of women’s participation in policy-making.

5. Lima Madomi (Malaysia): Highlighted barriers to accessing education and opportunities in developing countries. She emphasized the need to evaluate the success metrics of programs supporting women in tech.

6. Ekaterine Imedadze (Georgia): Stressed the importance of targeted training programs and addressing the digital divide in developing countries.

Key Challenges:

1. Cultural and societal barriers, particularly in conservative countries

2. Lack of role models and mentorship

3. Work-life balance issues

4. Discrimination and harassment in the workplace

5. Limited access to education and opportunities

6. Digital divide in developing countries

Proposed Solutions and Strategies:

Education and Training:

– Specialized training programs for women in tech fields

– Digital literacy initiatives

– Leveraging online learning to overcome physical and cultural barriers

Workplace Policies:

– Flexible work arrangements and parental leave

– Creating inclusive work environments

– Addressing discrimination through targeted policies and training

Government and Industry Initiatives:

– Government-industry partnerships to drive change

– Incentives for diverse hiring practices

– Ensuring women’s participation in policy-making

– Promoting multidisciplinary expertise in tech fields

Empowering Women Through Technology:

– Using the internet as an educational tool

– Addressing the digital divide

– Supporting women-led online networks and communities

Challenges in Conservative Countries:

The discussion highlighted unique challenges faced by women in conservative societies, including internalized biases and societal pressures that shape women’s choices. An audience member from Afghanistan shared personal experiences, emphasizing the need for tailored solutions in different cultural contexts.

Government Policies and Industry Partnerships:

Speakers agreed on the importance of collaboration between government agencies and private sector companies. They emphasized the need for policies that address both personal empowerment and systemic barriers, recognizing the complexity of achieving gender equity in tech.

Call to Action:

Amrita Choudhury concluded with a powerful call for systemic changes and continued advocacy. The panel emphasized the importance of moving beyond equality to focus on equity, as highlighted by Arinola and reinforced by Sonal Zaveri.

The session ended with a photo opportunity, capturing the diverse group of experts who contributed to this important discussion. Rapporteurs Harisa and Gulalai were acknowledged for their role in documenting the session.

In conclusion, the panel recognized that addressing the gender gap in technology requires multifaceted approaches tailored to different cultural and regional contexts. The discussion underscored the need for ongoing efforts to empower women, create inclusive environments, and drive systemic change in the tech industry.

Sonal Zaveri: social norms that influence both the study and the career choices. The other problem is that there is a definite talent shortage in the workforce. And when women do make it to the tech workforce, and not all women who have studied in STEM make it to that tech workforce, there is a skewed representation with only 19 percent, 19 percent at entry-level positions and mid-level and only 10 percent in executive level positions. And these numbers become smaller if we look at some of the specializations. So the network engineering field, for example, the women in network engineering has increased from only 8 percent in 2014 to 14 percent in 2020. Fact number two, companies with diverse, gender diverse teams outperform by 15 percent when compared to those without gender diversity. And we have research that backs this up. So it’s not just about reducing the gender gap, but there are tangible economic benefits of being gender friendly. And it brings innovation, it brings creativity, and we are ensured that the diverse end-user demographics are considered in network solutions. Fact number three, I don’t want to confuse inclusion and gender. Gender itself is a very complex issue and it intersects with disability and other vulnerable groups. So we really need to move from tokenistic participation to more meaningful ones. And let’s never ever forget that gender rights are human rights and the internet empowers human rights. So unless we increase the supply and demand generation, to promote change and encourage a positive deviance in the industry, we need to address the male-dominated norms. Fact number four, women in the tech industry, including those in cyber security, DNS and network engineers, have shattered stereotypes in a male-dominated field. And testimony to that is this panel of extremely experienced women who are going to speak to us about some of the challenges that they have overcome and how they are transforming the industry. So I’m going to quickly introduce my esteemed panel, an all-woman panel. Amrita Choudhury, and she’s sitting here to the right of me. She’s an active member and contributor at national, regional and global internet governance platforms. I think everybody knows Amrita. She’s always being hailed as we walk down the corridors. She serves as the Director of SIGCHIAU, Chair of Asia-Pacific Regional IGF, Chair of IGF Support Association, Chair of APRALO at ICANN, and the President of ISOC Delhi. We have Joyce, who is online. And Joyce is APANIC’s Senior Advisor for Strategic Engagement. She’s responsible for managing key relationships with stakeholders such as governments, intergovernmental organizations and the wider Asia-Pacific internet community. May I add that the APANIC Foundation has worked extensively in gender empowerment. They also have a program called the SWITCH program, which provides a mentorship and capacity-building program for women engineers and lawyers across the… six economies of the Asia-Pacific. And as our hashtag goes, action not words, that’s what APNIC Foundation does. We have Arinola, who is online as well. Unfortunately she couldn’t make it to the IGF, but we welcome you online for this session. She is the CEO of Omar Ventures and Digisphere Limited, and she’s based in Nigeria. She’s a visionary entrepreneur and a seasoned tech leader with over 29 years of experience in the IT industry, driving digital inclusion, empowerment, and innovation, especially in Africa. We are very proud to also have Ekaterina Imidadze, and I hope I pronounced that correctly, and she’s the Commissioner of Georgia, Georgian National Communication Commission, called ComCom, and since March 2021. And she brings 13 years of professional experience in the telecom sector, including leadership roles in international companies. We have to the left of me, Noha. She is a technical support engineer, high-end storage, one Dell Technologies, and a very distinguished engineer in her own right. Online we have Lima Madoni. She’s the research and teaching assistant at the University of Geneva. Thank you very much, Lima, to have come online. A special thanks to Joyce, who is up, I think, in the middle of the night in Australia. And thank you, Arinola, for joining from Nigeria. So the way we are going to do this session is we are going to have a set of policy level questions, and we are going to learn from our esteemed panelists. I will be posing the question to three of the panelists, the second question again to the next three, and the third one will be open to all. And in between I will pause because we have two very special people here who is going to help us with the reportering. That’s Harisa over here to the left of me and Gulalai who is a lecturer at LAMS which is a renowned university and she teaches internet governance and tech policy. And Harisa is the Associate Information Security Engineer Strategic Systems International. So thank you very much for being present here today. So I’m going to start with a general question and this is going to be addressed to first Joyce, then Noha, and then Ekaterina. The first question is how can policymakers support initiatives that aim to increase gender diversity and inclusion in network management as well as operational and infrastructure development roles? So to you Joyce, from your experience, can you share why gender is important in the technical and operational roles and in infrastructure development? And how do you see that link between gender, human rights, and the technical standards that we produce? Also remembering that the technical operational roles is a bit of a boys club and so how can we include gender in these roles? Over to you Joyce.

Joyce Chen: Thanks very much Sonal and thank you so much for the very flattering introduction. I’m coming to you indeed from Australia. It’s quite late in the night but I’m very happy to be here with you even if it is from online. I think three major points that I wanted to bring up to respond to your question, the first one. I think first, of course, is to highlight the importance of supporting access to the internet. It seems sort of very obvious, the internet ultimately empowers people in many, many ways. So whether it’s upskilling, career development, supporting freedom of expression as a basic human right, everything. So first of all, it’s to talk about access. And freedom to access this thing that we call the internet. My second point is that policymakers can do more to promote role models. I think over the years, we’ve seen more women taking on STEM-related jobs, becoming network engineers or engineers in general, et cetera. But I think the reality remains that many, many women who are in these fields and who have worked many years to be in these fields still find themselves in support roles or service roles. They’re not in decision-making roles. And as you said, Sonal, it’s really hard to break into the boys’ club, particularly in technical fields. There are lots of reasons for it, whether it’s physical requirements, whether it’s just being plain excluded by colleagues, et cetera, there are many reasons why this is happening. It’s also not always a very welcoming environment, I think, for women, just because. It’s quite easy, I think, to say, well, okay, there are more women now at the table than before. Yes, thank you. But being inclusive does not necessarily predicate being included. They’re quite different, being inclusive versus actually being included. And I think that the boys’ club exists at every level of the hierarchy. So, my point is we need to do more to promote our role models, and what this means also is being confident to step up as a role model. When I question why there are not more women or many women in executive positions such as board members, the most common refrain or answer that I hear is, well, no woman applied, nobody nominated themselves for the role, and so they were all male. I think there already exists a problem of women not wanting to put themselves forward is the first thing, for various reasons, but also that even if there were such positions, it’s very hard for women to take them on board. My third point, and my last point for now, is that I think to be in policy and in decision-making roles, there needs to be more support for multidisciplinary expertise and skills. When we’re in internet governance spheres, we often talk about multi-stakeholderism, but I don’t think that we talk enough about multidisciplinary. Each stakeholder group is not meant to embody only a specific set of skills, so governments don’t just govern, the technical community doesn’t just tech, and it seems blatantly obvious, but sometimes, even when we are operating in a multi-stakeholder environment such as in the IGF, we still tend to pigeonhole ourselves, when I think we really should aim to reach across the aisles. Practicing multi-stakeholderism requires multidisciplinary skills, expertise, knowledge, and going back to your question, Sonal, the same is true that policymakers, I think, should require initiatives to be multidisciplinary by design. I’ll stop here, and I’ll leave the time for the others to respond as well.

Sonal Zaveri: Thanks a lot, Joyce. You’ve given us a lot of points to think about. I think about what you’ve said that, you know, what is the difference between inclusion and being included? There is a huge gap. There’s a gap in what women can do for themselves, but there is a lot that can be done also to create an enabling environment so that women can thrive for the various challenges that they face. So, I’m going to now turn to Noha on my left. Noha comes from Egypt and in your country, are there initiatives to encourage and build capacity and help women to build their careers and increase their skills, such as, you know, upgrading skills as the industry is evolving continuously? Over to you.

Noha Ashraf Abdel Baky: Thank you, Sonal, and I wanted to echo everything that Joyce said. So, I thought that we in Egypt are in a very good shape when it comes to gender balance in tech until I was representing my company Dell at a very big tech event, the biggest one in Cairo. It’s called Cairo ICT, where each, like, tech company has a booth and has representatives, and all the representatives were men. So, I was, like, shocked. Why? Because these men, they talk to the decision-makers in companies and make deals with them. But I guess in Egypt we have many culture barriers we’re tackling that filter, like the filtration you mentioned at the beginning of your speech when you said, like, women tend to study humanitarian fields rather than studying tech or STEM fields. So, yeah, we were told that you’re smarter in history rather than math or science. STEM fields are very demanding, so you’ll not be able to balance home, and work. You will not be able to take managerial levels or tasks. So, yeah, we need more women to represent us, to be our role models. We tend to, like, be intimidated to talk about our achievements and what we did, and to even share our experience with other women. But I guess I work in a corporate, and we have, like, initiatives to include more women in managerial levels, and even mentor college students to join the STEM fields. These days, it’s not necessary to study tech, to come from a tech background, to work in You can still study at any time of your, like, career time, and join the tech field. I’ve seen women from a low background who are, like, programmers now, and they shifted to other career paths. So, in Egypt, we have, like, very good governmental initiative called the digital Egypt generations, where, like, they divided the age groups, so digital Egypt cubs, digital Egypt youth, digital Egypt pioneers, and they offer tech courses in different fields for the different age groups. They also offer mentorship, and soft skills courses, and they introduce freelancing to the trainees, and they aim to train thousands of citizens from the different age groups, and this contributed in a very good way in the job finding, because we have, like, many big tech companies investing in Egypt, because I believe we have a very good range of skill sets. So, yeah, it was a very good way to equip the different age groups with the needed digital skills. Back to you.

Sonal Zaveri: Thank you very much for that, Noho. And I guess in every country there are initiatives in order to encourage more women to enter the tech force. And Joyce was talking about role models. I guess you are one in Egypt yourself. I’m going to now move to Ekaterina. And from your perspective on regulatory strategies and advancing connectivity in diverse contexts, what is it that you feel is absolutely critical that we must do?

Ekaterine Imedadze: Thank you so much. It’s a pleasure being here. It’s a pleasure to discuss the topics related to gender equality and diversity for everybody in a quite broad context, I think, as you’ve opened this panel. And also, once I’ve mentioned that I hope very soon we will have time that there will not be need for women-specific or diversity-specific discussions, because it will become normal for everybody to be, the world to be balanced in that way. So to answer your question, I think that I will echo Joyce’s first topic. The most important, I believe, you would agree, for policymakers, for regulators, is ensuring the access and skills that are there. So there is no gap in providing digital infrastructure, digital enablers, devices. There is no gap. And there is no gap in skills of using those digital services. there should be similar opportunities for all the gender groups or diverse population groups. So this is first thing that we take care of, and in case of COMCOM, as we have, we are supporting infrastructural projects, for example in Georgia, which delivers the fiber optic to different regions of Georgia, and our supporting program is bringing the media literacy to the villages where the internet will be brought, and specific focus on top of the general trainings, there is specific gender-specific, and also for people with disabilities, there are specific trainings provided. It’s always needed, and you need to pay more, invest more resources. This is the first layer we need to do. Another layer, we think it’s important, is collaboration with different organizations, donor organizations, educational organizations, because if we speak about them, about them, the quality in the society, it starts from education. So different memorandums, or collaborations with universities, also with high schools, and where you can speak and encourage, just speak about telecommunications, digital, and tell them how important now, how big the area, where can they can grow up as an expert, and that there are equal opportunities, especially bringing role models, as it has been mentioned, and for example, if I can go and speak about what was the path for me, starting from some technology education, and still it was very difficult to get to the, to break this glass ceiling, as we call, right? Because, on the one hand side, in the universities you can find in Georgia almost 50-50 gender distribution between male and female. But somehow we see that around 20% on managerial position then. What happens in between from graduating university, why it is so difficult for women to speak about it, what were the barriers, what were the lessons learned. And I think that for the second question I will have more time to speak about the mentorship programs. And I try to be transparent. So I think that for women it’s also, especially on senior positions, it’s a special responsibility to be a role model or speak more about the challenges on your path or on your career path. And this is somehow we need to take this responsibility to be more vocal, more visible, and play somewhere mentors, somewhere mentees, being mentees or changing roles. So I think this kind of opportunities are also very important for us. So I would say that there is no one specific solution to this problem, but we need to act as diverse way as possible.

Sonal Zaveri: Thank you. Thank you so much for sharing your experiences from Georgia. And what I took away from what you said was that you have to invest resources. And yes, you require financial resources, but human resources to go out there, to encourage, to talk about personal challenges. And so we have to make it more personal and to encourage women to not only get into STEM, but also to move into more decision-making roles. And absolutely, it’s a different way of trying to ensure that women enter the workforce. And we have to make it as personal as possible. So I’m going to pause here and come to Gulalai. Any comments or questions from the online community?

Audience: One question on Maureen asking for advice for completely inexperienced women if they want to move to network, you know, engineering. What’s the advice from all of you for them?

Sonal Zaveri: Okay. Please go ahead, Noa.

Noha Ashraf Abdel Baky: Thank you for the question. So there are many basic courses to start with. They are offered by many big companies, big vendors. I don’t want to mention any, but you can just Google, like, basic network courses to, like, know what is an IP, what is routing, what is switching. And you can start by studying some certification. So you can add a value to your CV. And then you can go to the more technical or more deep levels of these. Like, in networking, there are many fields inside, but you need to start with the basics first.

Gulalai Khan: A comment from the fact that when women join, for example, when they become part of infrastructural projects, sometimes the work in odd hours is also an issue. And that is a barrier for a lot of women. A lot of women engineers, they are not able to, you know, leave, like, stay there at night. And even if they want to stay at night, the men on the field will tell them, it’s better you don’t stay there. So anybody who’s had that sort of an experience and…

Joyce Chen: Thanks very much for the question, Maureen. That’s a great question. And just to add on to what Noha said, each of the internet organizations, so whether it’s APNIC, where I come from, or ICANN, or the Internet Society, each of us all have different, very basic online courses that you can take to do with networking, to do with the DNS or the domain name system, to do with internet governance. So there’s a lot of very rich resources that you can tap on, all for free. You just need to sign up into our portals and basically you can do the course online. It’s not a big barrier. They’re all free, so you just do it in your own time. There are also certain workshops and training courses that each of our organizations regularly conduct, and oftentimes we also go to the countries themselves to train the local community. So there’s a lot of capacity building that is happening, especially when it comes to networking and basics for networking and networking 101, that sort of thing. And so I think, as Noha was saying, you start from the basics. There are a lot of free materials out there, and when you are in these courses, when you are in these capacity building initiatives, try your best to get to know the network. So, you know, make friends with your fellows who are there, make friends with the mentors who are there, and that’s how you build, basically, your own human network. It’s not just about learning the skills or learning the knowledge and applying it, but it’s also really making those human connections, because that’s where it really helps your career to grow. I also wanted to… touch on the point that Sonal was saying, which is that especially, I think, in the engineering field and network engineering space, the network operators, very often, there are a lot of men. When the men socialize, they have a very specific way of socializing, and sometimes it may not be so friendly for women to participate. And that was one of the reasons that I said that, you know, you can have a setup where it is inclusive. So yes, there are women around. But it doesn’t mean that the women are being included, because sometimes it really can be quite hard for us to be included, especially in social events, especially when we are trying to network. I would say the best way is to try and change cultural norms. Is it really necessary, for example, if we are going out on a social event, that everybody has to be heavily drinking? You know, that sort of thing happens a lot when it is an all-men kind of social event, and it might not be a very safe space for women. And so I think in this session, when we’re talking about how do we create a welcoming or inclusive environment for women, we also have to talk about safety, talk about personal security. I think these are things that people take for granted. They just do what they’ve always done. It’s a very generational habit. I think we can change that, you know, make it a more welcoming and safe environment for women to also operate in.

Sonal Zaveri: Thank you for that, Joyce. I’m sorry, I have my back to the audience, but if I can take one question, if there’s anybody from the audience, if you could just put your hand up, and I’ll ask my colleagues to help me.

Audience: Thank you. Hello, good evening. My name is Atikullah. Can you hear me? My name is Atikullah. I came here from Kabul, Afghanistan. As the Internet become the powerful tools for empowering women globally and providing them different opportunities, so as the current government in Afghanistan is day by day limiting education for women and banning them from working in the organization, so is there any special program from APNIC Foundation or any other organization where the women can learn from Internet? Thank you.

Sonal Zaveri: Thank you for that suggestion, and I’m sure we’re going to take that up very seriously. We already have a program called Digital Leap, and we had a session at 11.30 today, and we also have a switch program, but thank you for that interjection. I’m going to move now to the second question. It’s also a policy-level question, but I want to go a little bit deeper in how do we address the gender gap in tech-related fields, so we are becoming a little more specific, such as cybersecurity, and how do we encourage more women to pursue careers in that field? Should you have incentives? How do we get them to sustain their education? How do we address some of their barriers? So I’m going to turn to Amrita, and from your experience, Amrita, what is it, what sort of policies do we need for education, capacity development in the industry in terms of employment, policy issues at the macro level, local level? Can you share anything from India?

Amrita Choudhury: Thanks. I hope I’m audible now. To begin with, I would say that when policies are being made in government, in business, women should be there in the table. That’s the first thing. It should not be someone else who’s making it on your behalf that patronizing attitude should not be there Especially if you want to make it work, for example, you know We’ve been talking about making it more welcoming for women to join and be there and grow up What about women who have to take? You know a leave go back for two three years and come back is industry or government welcoming them Do they get the similar kind of jobs which they left and went they don’t they’re left behind the question which comes is Why do women not go up? Sometimes they have to sacrifice for their families, but industry or governments are not so welcoming so do we have such processes or Or I would say areas where they can be upscaled and taken at the same level because normally if you go to industry and What you hear informally obviously of officially they can’t say is oh they you know, they went back earlier, you know It’s three years. They’ve lost a lot of time. Where is their colleagues move much up and then they can’t do that so what kind of You know processes are we having is it welcoming if that’s welcoming that it would encourage many more women who have perhaps Joined those industries to move up because they see some opportunity You know, that’s very important if I look at countries and I would only comment upon India there are various schemes If you look at the papers, there are various schemes, you know, it starts with stem cell Encouraging at the school level stem cell even in rural areas promoting women Young girls in stem cells upgrading their skills at the next level You also have programs for women scientists in exploratory research. So a very higher up even PhD candidates you have skilled development or even entrepreneurship You have banks giving loans to women to start businesses because that’s also empowerment It could be using tech related things. You have startups coming up where women are incentivized but how what are the challenges which comes you you know you may have schemes but how can you scale them up or make them work is something perhaps we need to do a bit more rethinking how they work how they do not work I think that’s something which is I feel it’s important the other question which was being discussed you know it was posted in this group was I think the question which was posed is she is new she wants to become more you know experienced in this thing how to leverage the network I think women can have to help other women at least some who have risen or have known because if you kind of help each other the entire community gets uplifted and I think many of them do mentorships informally also help networks help you can use tools like LinkedIn etc which I commented upon to help and I think if you can come to know of best practices of some policies which some countries or you know have kind of implemented sharing it within community at different countries helps to say to go to your come you in country you know authorities and say look this is the kind of thing it’s not criticizing but you’re saying that this could be made better and I think companies also have to stop the lip service and move ahead you know we say we want to encourage women but in our terms if a woman wants to go in for maternity leave for six months go ask their bosses what faces they make at least in South Asia I’ll leave it at that.

Sonal Zaveri: thanks Amrita for talking you know the reality that most women face in their biological role for their families and you know how women can have the power to empower others and I think that’s absolutely vital. I want to turn to Lima and Lima you can speak a great deal about conservative countries and how would you apply basic rights of women in such countries? For example we talk about education, we talk about mobility, what does it mean when we speak you know these words of empowerment, responsibility of the international community to address these issues? What comes to your mind? Over to you Lima.

Lima Madon: Thank you Sona. Listening to all of the women’s in this panel talking about their countries and the initiatives that they are having in terms of empowering women and in terms of helping them to develop more in engineering field makes me happy, really makes me happy, but at the same time it makes me sad to think about the women’s in my country who does not even have the basic rights to pursue their education and to finish school. After sixth standard they have to stay at home and they are not allowed to even pursue their further education. So when I think about empowerment for women, for me as a woman coming from a very conservative country, it is about until when I could access certain education or certain opportunities that are available or from a perspective of an Afghan woman, what type of opportunities are available for us and until when. It’s more about, for us it’s more about access because we don’t have at the first place access and after access I think for us it will come to be empowerment because we don’t even have the basic rights that a lot of women in the world might have. Women from certain developing countries, they have these rights much easier compared to women from Afghanistan, for example. I heard that in Georgia, the gender balance in universities are almost 50-50. That’s wonderful. That’s one of the best things I think I have heard for a very long time in terms of gender equality. But then I come back to Afghanistan and then I think about all of these things where it doesn’t even exist. When we are talking about all of these things, I think for Afghan women, it will be that Amrita mentioned that not a lot of women in certain parts of the world does not have the same rights. Even within Afghanistan, if we compare rural areas with urban areas, it’s still very different. The conservative culture of rural areas are much more severe or much more stronger compared to the urban areas. For example, I grew up in a city, in an urban area, and I had much more access to education for better opportunities compared to a woman that was from the same country and coming from a village. She might not even know there are certain areas in Afghanistan that they are not even aware that the internet exists or if the internet is something. A lot of women don’t even know how to use a phone or make a call. So when I think about it, to reach to the level of access so that then we could talk about empowerment. So that’s I think there’s a lot when I talk about these things about Afghanistan and countries like Afghanistan but I think I will leave it at this and back to you Sonal.

Sonal Zaveri: Thank You Lima and what you’ve mentioned is that we have to be contextual. It’s not the same everywhere. It’s not the same in each country also and you mentioned something very important is that it’s not that women can’t do it. Sometimes the environment is such that somebody is assuming, somebody is making the decision that you cannot achieve in these STEM fields, let alone education. So it’s somebody’s decision, mostly male, deciding what 50% of the population can or cannot do. So I’m now going to turn to Arinola and thank you for your patience being online. Arinola, you have a lot of experience working with youth and women and so how do we going to address the gender gap in tech related fields? What’s been your experience and what are some of the lessons that we can learn? Over to you.

Arinola Akinyemi: Okay, thank you Sonal. Hi everyone. I trust we are having a good time at the IGA. It’s an interesting question really for me because having worked in the STEM region, personally, I’m an engineer by profession. So being in the STEM industry, from my own personal experience, it started at a very tender age for me. Personally, I was fortunate like Lima was saying to have grown up in an urban area and I had what you call the support from home. My dad told me before I turned, while I was a toddler and he said, I think there was something coming up that I was not aware of. And I was like, okay, I’m not going to do this. I’m not going to do this. I’m not going to do this. And as Africans, generally, you have the tradition where you believe that, OK, this is a female thing, this is a male thing, that cultural thing. And he called me, and he said, don’t you ever tell yourself that, OK, you can be whatever you want to be, and you can do whatever you want to do. And that is where self-confidence, self-belief comes in for me. And that is meant to be applicable to all women, believing that we can do it. We’ve got the ability, and we’ve got the potential, and then we can move on. And that helped me in my daily life, and it helped me in my career, in my choice of career also. And I ended up studying Computer Electronics Engineering at the University. And interestingly, the percentage from gender is amazing, really, because at the time I was getting into the University, in my class, we were 31. It was 30 male and one female. At graduation, it was 20 male and one female. So that is something we need to get over, that gender negative stereotyping. I cannot do it. We need to help ourselves. That’s the best way to empower ourselves as women, and that’s the best way we can do it. And then another thing we could also look at is mentorship. We cannot take that away. Those of us who have been opportune to come out and privileged to be in the positions we find ourselves, maybe successful in your business, successful as a techie, go back and give back to the system. Hold somebody. Let that person know that, OK, there is support. There is guidance. This is the way to go. You can do it. and then we’ll see ourselves making it forth. Also, there’s also the need for ROS, because oftentimes, in my experience, having worked with youth and women, I have discovered that financial literacy and planning is also a major challenge that we have. Oftentimes, we cannot save, we don’t have the right budgeting skills, we cannot do the right investment. So these are areas wherein we need to help also as successful ones to mentor and to show this direction, because once you can do most of those things, you’ll find yourselves excelling in this, and then you find the gap being bridged, because the moment you have financial literacy and then you have the planning skills, the issue of not being involved will not be there. Also, you can also go into time management and prioritization. When you look at it, as women, we have certain roles that are meant for us. We take care of the kids, we take care of the home, and then how do you balance these two together? So the ability to be able to balance is where the success rate of bridging that gap will come. Because, okay, an example will be as a techie, for the male, they can go to work and come back at about 12, 1, midnight, nobody says anything, but as a woman, you’ll find it difficult to do that because you think of the kids. So how do you balance this? These are where policies needs to be made by the government that will encourage for women to be able to balance their work from home and then enjoy equal opportunities as a male counterpart. at will, equity, not equality now, but equity, because there’s a lot of difference between equality and equity. For me, I believe in equity rather than equality, because when you say equality means I would still be at a disadvantage. But when you say equity, that means you’re looking at where the disadvantage is currently for me, which is considering that I have a family life that I have to work with, and then the government should be able to enact laws that will make it possible for me to still do the same thing without necessarily jeopardizing my family life. For us in Nigeria, especially in Africa, ICT Alliance currently, where I sit as the vice chair for West Africa with a vision of the promise of the digital age for Africa, interestingly, it’s almost an all-female leadership. And that is where we are coming up with ideas for women to be able to take rules where policy decisions are being made, because our absence has contributed greatly to most of these laws being enacted without our imputes into them. Additionally, part of the steps that could be taken to mitigate this or to bridge this gap would also be addressing discrimination and harassment. A lot of us have experienced it. Well, it might not be intentional. It could be an unintended one. But oftentimes, we experience it where people make mockery of you. And then you have to dress like a male to look like, to fit in, in the techie world and all of that. But most importantly, In my experience, I think advocacy and awareness is very key to the success of bridging the gap. We need to empower and awaken the consciousness of the woman to know the importance of Internet access, how the Internet can empower them, and then how being in the STEM field is a possibility. When we advocate for these policies and initiatives, like currently in Nigeria, we have some initiatives that are going on, and the success rate is quite interesting. There’s the Women in Tech in Nigeria, where we offer a mentorship program to female and experienced professionals. The experienced professionals provide guidance. It’s a mentoring program. Currently, 80% of the mentees have reported improvement in their career prospects. That is the strength of mentoring. About 70% increase in confidence and self-esteem. Those are the things we should be looking at. I believe when we continue to do these things and work on these policies, we will eventually get to where we will sit and not be talking about equality, but we will be feeling like it’s a norm. Thank you.

Sonal Zaveri: Thank you very much. Women should be at the decision-making. Women should be there when policies are made for them. That point was also made by Amrita. You talked about many of the issues that we have been discussing here today, about social norms, cultural norms. I know Gulalai mentioned one of the problems about if you’re working late in infrastructure, what can you do? I’m sure there’s a lot you can do, but one has to put one’s head to it. Think about it as important and address some of those cultural and social norms. You can always shatter the glass ceiling I’m going to pause again and If there are any questions this time, I’m going to ask from the audience Behind me. All right. Thank you, please

Audience: Am I audible Okay. Thank you There were like very interconnected discussions about women empowerment especially what Amrita mentioned and what Leymah said about women in Afghanistan and You also pointed that it should be contextualized but now like that question is as Amrita said like women should be there to decide and in terms of like policymaking regulations these things As you also say that it depends on the cultures and the society so how it’s gonna happen especially for like women who Are not allowed to decide for themselves. So that is the biggest question and the second thing I’m gonna say is the it’s not a question, but share of my idea that empowerment of women starts within women especially in Societies like ours. I have experienced Living in Pakistan as a refugee back in 90s and also living in Afghanistan, which is my own country and seeing the culture of in India by visiting and as well as by watching their Bollywood movies so that women Most of the women they don’t believe in themselves that they are similar to women I mean as strong as women as capable as women and especially like for example, I will be giving a very stupid example that when they want a child, so the first person who wants a son is the mother herself. So the woman empowerment starts before a woman is born. So if mothers believe that they are stronger and if they got a daughter, the daughter would be the same as their sons, then I think the woman empowerment will start from there. Thank you very much.

Sonal Zaveri: Thank you for that comment. We’ve got two hands up. Shall I come to Lima? Would you like to comment?

Lima Madon: Yes, thank you, Sona. The thing I wanted to mention was about Rayoob’s comment that he mentioned. It was about the fact that when a woman is pregnant and she’s having a child, she’s the first one that wants a son. I think in here, it’s the societal norms that making the woman sort of forced to want that. Because even coming from Afghanistan myself, in our society, it is a very big thing if a woman gives birth to a son because she is then valued much more and much larger compared to if she gives birth to a daughter, for example. So in that sense, it’s not the woman who decides. It’s the community and the society that, in a way, decide for her. And she has no other option to survive. It’s a way of survival for her and in a way of protection of her child because she wants her child to be protected. And she doesn’t want a daughter to have the same… sort of future that she had. That’s why she wants a son. Not because she doesn’t like a daughter, but because it’s the society, it’s the community that’s forcing her to have that. And coming back to the women empowering women, I think it’s a very important point. Mentorship from women and community, women-led communities and women, the communities that are made by women for women, the mentorship programs that are from women for women, these are very important for the empowerment of women and for development of women in any field, but especially in technology and STEM.

Sonal Zaveri: Thank you, Lima. That was very passionate and coming from the heart. Joyce, you had your hand up, but may I request you to keep it to one minute because we still have one more question to go through.

Joyce Chen: Thank you. Thanks very much. And thanks also for the question. So I come from a very sort of more traditional patriarchal kind of family as well. And these are all lived experience. I genuinely believe there are not many women out there, even in that room, who have not come from such a background. I think it’s partly a generational problem. It’s also partly that progress is just very slow. And I would say from personal experience that one of the ways to counter cultural bias or discrimination is honestly to just fight through it. It’s a lot of fighting. It’s very tiring. It’s a lot of suffering as well. But I think that, as Lima said before, education is such an important thing because education enriches the mind. And when you know that there’s a bigger world, out there, there is something to fight for that is bigger than yourself and bigger than your personal circumstance. And I think coming back to internet governance, that is also the beauty of the internet. I mean, we talk a lot about the problems that come with the internet, a lot of internet evils that are happening and no doubt, but I think also we need to appreciate the beauty of which the internet is able to broaden people’s lives and experiences to live and learn things that are beyond your physical circumstance. And that’s one way I think for women to be able to break free and to join that fight. I have a comment that came after Lima, I think you were talking about experience in developing countries and how it is so difficult even to have basic fundamental rights. I wanted to follow on to say that unfortunately, even in the developed countries, what we used to think were fundamental women’s rights are very quickly getting eroded as well. So it is a fight that we keep fighting and we can’t take for granted that the rights that have been given to us will always be there for us and we have to keep fighting for it. And I think that that is the reality. Sorry Sonal, I think I took more than a minute.

Sonal Zaveri: Perfectly fine, I know that this is something that’s so personal to us that we cannot not respond. And I think Amrita also wants to have a quick word. And I will take it from Gayur’s question and I will flip it off.

Amrita Choudhury: In a repressed society where women have zero rights, for centuries she’s not allowed to think. How do you think that she will suddenly arise and come out? It’s very difficult. I would flip it, what are the men in that house doing to help her? Obviously Sonal, I think yesterday or day before Shared that you know the community can work work with others in that society religious people try to get in a bit of Education etc to move it, but I think it is not just the woman’s Duty to one day rise shine think I can make it because she will be repressed in those kind of places Some rise millions just perish But I think it’s the responsibility also of the family and especially men That’s why you know having many men in the in the room helps because it’s just not a woman’s issue. It’s everyone’s issue

Sonal Zaveri: Thank you for that it is everyone’s issue and gender is not just about women it’s about men and women and who holds the power and we have to recognize that and be very forthright about You know who is going to help whom not just women but men have to also take their share and acknowledge and step up I do want to talk And I’m going to come to the online community a bit later because I do want to get to the third question and then we’ll Open it up This is for everybody, but I want to look at it a bit way forward so What sort of government? Policies or industry partnerships, do you think that we need to have? networking leadership opportunities For professional women in the tech sector, and I’d like you to talk about say three main topics Three main ideas that you think from your position you think we have to do as we move forward So I’m going to ask a Katrina first, and I know she’s been wanting to share some of her experiences

Ekaterine Imedadze: Thank you Thank you, yeah, it’s okay. Thank you so much actually I Think I Think that today’s discussion is also I think something is wrong with my headset, but if you can hear me, that’s okay. Remove? Okay, now it’s better. So today’s discussion is also part of what I think we need to do, and we need to do more, because IGF is a global forum, and paying more and more attention to the topics that are discussed now is becoming, is still, it is, we need to retain as a very important agenda point on the global forums in the technology, in the world of technology. So if we speak about the mentorship, I think that the ladies have mentioned it, it’s absolutely vital, because role modeling and speaking about personal experiences, personal challenges, it’s only possible through this very intimate relationship that is possible through mentorship cycle, because in the technological trainings, for example, you can gain some very good technical expertise, but I personally, I think that it has been three cycles with IT network of women. I’m trying to be a mentor on different tracks, like policy track, cyber track, and this, and first it has started with the European region, but also there is an opportunity to work with women in different geographic areas. It’s tremendous experience, and you do not always feel like you are a mentor, you learn a lot as a mentee, as a female, about the culture, about the solutions, so I think that international organizations have this mandate, I think, and state and policies, state has very, best situated to collaborate with international organization and promote women in their organization to be part of this mentorship cycle. I’ve heard from different women that it’s even sometimes limited at workplaces to be part of some mentorship cycle. I think that we also on the senior positions, male and female, are responsible giving the opportunity to the younger women being mentees in this type of of them of platforms because there are several very important platforms available. I mentioned ITU, there are different international organizations like GIZ and I don’t want to give you more names because there are a lot and lot and coming more and more platforms. So I think that what as a policy makers and just employees at our workplaces and as managers and leaders, we need to take care of people who want to grow, who want to take part of this kind of opportunities and you’ve mentioned also key takeaways for a way forward. I think that three main topics, maybe it’s not everything is in our power to change but first as a citizens we need to fight for the equal rights at work in the workplaces, changing the laws and policies and regulations so as the citizens to fight for it, to have this child care, to have flexible hours for women. This is something still a challenge in my country where for example at the educational level it’s available but not at the workplace level. The flexible hours for women, child care and this kind of the opportunities. Also it’s very important on the educational level, I mean from kindergarten in the families, in houses, and our fathers and brothers and friends, male friends, they play a crucial role to give us some kind of this support and to grow up your child or support your sister in this career path. I think those are the most important takeaways way forward. Thank you.

Sonal Zaveri: Thank you very much. Absolutely very very important points that you said. It talks about personal, it also talks about what states can do, it acknowledges that women have challenges and you need to have policies to address that, such as child care, and you also mentioned very importantly what do international forums such as this, what are they going to do, how are they going to connect countries to be able to share among each other, you know, their experiences and to put this as a very important point on the agenda. I think far more can be done. I’m going to now turn to Noha.

Noha Ashraf Abdel Baky: Thank you Sunal. So I believe the government role here is crucial. First things first, the law need to ensure the safety of women in the workplace and her right to report any gender-based violence in her workplace. Also her right to take a career break, take a child care break or maternity leave, and also her right to return back to work. And it’s also crucial for the government to partner with the industry and tech companies to provide women with the needed digital skills to join the tech scene and to offer mentorship opportunities or internships and also to like push or force for diversity and inclusion in these companies as a KPI. And last thing I guess this partnership between government and industry needs to promote more the remote jobs and flexible environments so women can feel more comfortable when they choose tech as their career path.

Sonal Zaveri: Thank you very much and thank you for saying that you need to have KPIs. Make people accountable right not just talk but walk that talk. I’m going to go online three takeaways or a couple of important points that you’d like to say. May I go to Joyce?

Joyce Chen: Thanks very much Sonal and I think I just before we close also wanted to say how much I enjoyed the session honestly and I really enjoyed the radical candor I think that all of our speakers on this panel have have shown in this session. I think one thing that policymakers can consider to do is think about diversity by design. So we often hear the phrase security by design and etc and you know spinoffs of this race so why why not have diversity by design and I have a few examples. So the APNIC fellowship for example is mandated that we have 50% gender parity in the program for APNIC fellows. We have the Asia-Pacific Internet Governance Academy which is another you know is one of those internet school of internet governance that also has the same by design it has a gender parity mandatory that 50 percent of the participants in this academy who want to learn about internet governance have to be split gender. So I can see that there is a trend now in programs to basically build this in already when they are recruiting for fellows, when they are recruiting for participants and I think there are many arenas that are already tracking and monitoring that there is equal participation from women. So we can definitely do more in this area. Whether or not we’re going to pass a law to do this, I don’t think we need to, but I certainly think it’s the kind of best practice that we can try and adopt just by being conscious about the sort of diversity that we are tracking. Thanks very much.

Sonal Zaveri: Thank you, Joyce. I like that diversity by design and some of the initiatives that are already in place to ensure that that happens. May I go to Arinola? A couple of takeaways, way forward.

Arinola Akinyemi: Okay, thank you. For me, coming from the business or the industry perspective as a businesswoman, I would advise like we do, what I do is we have what you call the unconscious bias training that is provided for all employees so that that way, because it’s only natural. Oh, she’s a girl. So why should I want to work with her? So we do that so that it gets you to let go of that inbuilt, you know, unconsciousness or conscious belief, and then you’ll be able to work together freely in a more amiable environment. Also, the synergy between the government and the industry is very key to this, because the government makes the policy while the industry income. Now the industry employs, so if the government, the synergy between the government and the industry is solid, you will find out that the government will probably provide incentives to companies like maybe tax incentives for employing females in tech, maybe. And then we in the, like for me in the industry, currently we have some ongoing researches that I encourage, you know, women in tech to come on board and be the lead researchers while I put the male, you know, under them so that it makes it look very interesting. And it’s something that we try to compare notes, those of us in the industry to be able to work together so that we can continue to build this career path for women. Thank you.

Sonal Zaveri: Thank you for that, Arinola. Very, very practical. We need to incentivize and that’s a partnership between government policy as well as industry. Absolutely critical to do so. So thank you for that. May I move to Lima?

Lima Madon: Yes, thank you. I think one of the most important things will be that there are multiple programs for women, but the success metrics of these programs are not as much evaluated. And some of these programs are having certain problems in terms of developing them and in terms of accessibility and other areas. So it’s very important to evaluate these programs and understand some of the problems that these programs might have and how to address those problems. So that will be one of the very important things. And I think the other important thing will be the flexible work policy. So, opportunities for women in terms of working from home, or parental leave, or some of these opportunities for women so that they could work, but also have the possibility of taking care of their families and staying with their children if needed. So, that could be also very important and it could encourage women in terms of working more and having more possibilities to be in STEM and these areas. Also one of the other important things, since being from this technology background and working in this industry, I think sometimes it’s very important to give some of the opportunity, to give some specific opportunities for women, because currently where I work, the number of women in comparison to men, it’s much lesser. Even though I work at Geneva University and it’s in Switzerland, it’s one of the universities that are promoting this thing to have more women, but the reason that we are not having a lot of women in STEM or in technology in general, especially even where I work, is because there isn’t a lot of flexibility offered for women and they are not well supported in a way. So, they work, but when we actually give opinions, they are not taken very seriously. So, to have a possibility to be considered equal or to have some sort of policies to give those opinions and be considered, I think that would be very important. Thank you.

Sonal Zaveri: Thank you so much, Lima. You mentioned something very, very important. and that is that there has to be a system change. You can’t just expect women to, you know, I mean, yes, of course, you have to empower women, but you need a system change and consider all of this. And thank you so much for bringing up the evaluation point of view. I am an evaluator, so it was music to my ears to hear you say that we need to know what works, what doesn’t work, and that’s the only way we can improve and go forward. I’m going to come now to Amrita.

Amrita Choudhury: Thank you. So there could be many things at a macro level where we do not have so much of a hold, like for example, trying to ensure our regulators’ governments have women on board when they are discussing policies related to women or even commenting on it, but those are high-level things. Some actionable things, and APNIC Foundation may kill me for this, let me put it in their head, one is there are opportunities available. For example, Joyce was talking about the APNIC Foundation, APNIC’s scholarship, you know, fellowship opportunities, et cetera, or others also give opportunities. Why not create a repository where all these opportunities are listed, and we can all guide them to that, and possibly APNIC Foundation could lead on it. They may kill me now for this. Similarly, there are initiatives which are done. You were mentioning the switch initiative. Could the results or the impact those made on getting more women in tech, and how it helped the economies be published, which can be taken as case studies shared elsewhere, so that that can be an encouragement for governments, because you know, when they are evaluating things, results help. The other thing is, you know, perhaps we are discussing a lot of things. There could be a call for action which comes where we can draft something, you know, even a five points, we draft simple points. And APNIC Foundation could help it, they are in various countries and from that we take it to our respective countries and circulate it as a call for action. It doesn’t have to be very heavy-handed, it could be just five simple points that this is what we demand. I don’t know. Neeti, may kill me now.

Sonal Zaveri: Thank you very much for that. I think very, very practical. Action points, a call for action. In fact, even IGFs could do that, right? Have a gender stream which says this is what we must do. I think it has to be at that high-level advocacy as well as at the local level, whatever we can do.

Audience: And Sonal, there is a comment that probably we can ask the panelists on how to bring women into this technical community. For example, you talked about IGF and the ITU ones, so any suggestions on how they can be a part of it?

Sonal Zaveri: Who would like to take that? Amrita?

Amrita Choudhury: I think the question was not that, it was a statement on how to bring women in tech communities by panelists and what are the key steps. I think that’s what we’ve discussed. ITU has various initiatives for women in tech. You can look at it and that is why I said if there could be a repository where things could be linked, for example, ITU is doing something but it is linked in one site, it may help newcomers. It’s very difficult for people to navigate and that’s why I said make it simpler. And then once someone finds a path, they can do whatever they want. And about IGF, yes, IGF had a gender session earlier, gender and access. I was one of the co-moderators. Unfortunately, it was doing very well but then from the community, we needed volunteers for one year and there were no volunteers available. So that’s the hard reality. We talk about gender, we talk about many things but when it comes to rolling up the sleeves and working, it didn’t work. That time to bring mainstream gender into all the discussions.

Sonal Zaveri: Okay. All right. Some practical issues over there. Do we have any further comments online, Kulala? Okay. Anybody from the audience? I’m sorry, I’m just turning behind, but if there’s some comment, something that you want to question, anything from them? Okay. And maybe we can close the session. I think one of the very important points to take away is that there is a common thread in the stories that we’ve heard and in the experiences that we’ve learned from different continents. And they’ve come from Europe, come from Africa, they’ve come from Australia, they’ve come from Asia. And a number of them was talking about the personal, the mentorship, the power to empower, the role models, but also talked about, we need policies that address the challenges that women face. And so the concept that, Arunola, thank you so much for bringing that up, was about equality or equity. So when we talk about equality, gender equality, what does that mean? It’s formal equality. We assume that men and women are equal, but they’re not. And we know it. We have to speak about equity as the roadmap in order to achieve that equality. And that roadmap means we have to break the barriers. We have to look at the challenges. And we have to incentivize, whether we talk in the industry, whether we talk at the policy level, whether we talk at international spaces, local spaces and forums, we need to have those platforms where we continually advocate the personal as well as the systemic changes that have to come. We cannot be the only ones. shouting aloud for this change. We need everybody in the room to do so. And so we need men as allies, as believing that having women on board is good for them and for us and for society as a whole. And I really loved that, you know, thought that the internet opens up a whole new world for women. And when you think about the restricted lives that women lead, you know, the problems of mobility, you know, the restrictions and so many cultural norms that they have to face, the internet is really a wonderful world to experience, to learn and to grow and to be something more than where you are located anywhere in the world. In an urban area, in a rural area, in the remotest place of all, no matter who you are, there’s such a great promise that is there in the internet world. So with that, I’d like to thank all my speakers, the most wonderful role models. Every one of you have broken the glass ceiling. Thank you so much. Thank you so much to Gulalai. Thank you so much to Harisa of being present here today and helping us along. Thank you very much. Please don’t go away. We are going to take a photograph, so stay online. Keep the videos on.

Agreement Points

Importance of role models and mentorship

Joyce Chen

Ekaterine Imedadze

Arinola Akinyemi

Lima Madomi

Lack of role models and mentorship

Promoting role models and mentorship programs

Offering targeted training and skill development

Supporting women-led communities and networks

Multiple speakers emphasized the crucial role of female role models and mentorship programs in inspiring and supporting women to pursue and advance in tech careers.

Need for flexible work policies

Noha Ashraf Abdel Baky

Lima Madomi

Providing flexible work policies

Evaluating and improving existing programs

Speakers agreed on the importance of implementing flexible work policies, including remote work options and parental leave, to attract and retain women in tech fields.

Addressing discrimination and creating inclusive environments

Arinola Akinyemi

Joyce Chen

Addressing discrimination and creating inclusive environments

Implementing diversity by design in programs and recruitment

Speakers concurred on the need to address discrimination and create inclusive work environments through policies, training programs, and diversity-focused recruitment processes.

Similar Viewpoints

These speakers shared the view that promoting multidisciplinary skills and digital literacy is crucial for empowering women in tech and creating more inclusive environments.

Joyce Chen

Ekaterine Imedadze

Noha Ashraf Abdel Baky

Promoting multidisciplinary expertise and skills

Offering targeted training and skill development

Promoting digital literacy and skills development

Both speakers emphasized the importance of involving women in decision-making processes and creating incentives to promote gender diversity in tech industries.

Amrita Choudhury

Arinola Akinyemi

Ensuring women’s participation in policy-making

Providing incentives for companies employing women in tech

Unexpected Consensus

Leveraging internet for education and opportunities

Joyce Chen

Sonal Zaveri

Lima Madomi

Leveraging internet for education and opportunities

Using technology to overcome mobility restrictions

Supporting women-led communities and networks

There was an unexpected consensus on the transformative power of the internet in providing education and opportunities for women, particularly in overcoming physical and cultural barriers. This agreement spans across speakers from different regions and backgrounds.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement included the importance of role models and mentorship, the need for flexible work policies, addressing discrimination, promoting multidisciplinary skills, and leveraging technology for women’s empowerment.

Consensus level

There was a high level of consensus among the speakers on the key challenges faced by women in tech and the strategies needed to address them. This strong agreement implies a shared understanding of the issues and potential solutions, which could facilitate more coordinated and effective efforts to increase gender diversity in tech fields.

Different Viewpoints

Approach to addressing gender inequality

Joyce Chen

Lima Madomi

Promoting role models and mentorship programs

Limited access to education and opportunities

Joyce Chen emphasizes the importance of promoting role models and mentorship programs, while Lima Madon focuses on the more fundamental issue of limited access to education and opportunities in some countries.

Unexpected Differences

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement revolve around the prioritization of different strategies to address gender inequality in tech, ranging from fundamental access issues to workplace policies and mentorship programs.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among the speakers is relatively low. Most speakers agree on the overall goal of increasing gender diversity in tech but propose different strategies based on their experiences and regional contexts. This diversity of perspectives enriches the discussion and highlights the need for multifaceted approaches to address the complex issue of gender inequality in the tech industry.

Partial Agreements

All speakers agree on the need for supportive policies to increase women’s participation in tech, but they propose different approaches: flexible work policies, company incentives, and targeted training programs.

Noha Ashraf Abdel Baky

Arinola Akinyemi

Ekaterine Imedadze

Providing flexible work policies

Providing incentives for companies employing women in tech

Offering targeted training and skill development

Similar Viewpoints

These speakers shared the view that promoting multidisciplinary skills and digital literacy is crucial for empowering women in tech and creating more inclusive environments.

Joyce Chen

Ekaterine Imedadze

Noha Ashraf Abdel Baky

Promoting multidisciplinary expertise and skills

Offering targeted training and skill development

Promoting digital literacy and skills development

Both speakers emphasized the importance of involving women in decision-making processes and creating incentives to promote gender diversity in tech industries.

Amrita Choudhury

Arinola Akinyemi

Ensuring women’s participation in policy-making

Providing incentives for companies employing women in tech

Key Takeaways

There are persistent cultural, social, and systemic barriers preventing women from entering and advancing in tech and STEM fields

Mentorship, role models, and women-led networks are crucial for supporting women in tech

Policies and initiatives need to address work-life balance issues and create more inclusive environments

Partnerships between government, industry, and international organizations are important for driving change

The internet and technology can be powerful tools for empowering women and providing new opportunities

Diversity and inclusion efforts need to go beyond tokenism to create meaningful change

Resolutions and Action Items

Create a repository of opportunities and initiatives for women in tech

Publish case studies and impact assessments of successful programs supporting women in tech

Draft a call to action with key demands to support women in tech

Promote ‘diversity by design’ in recruitment and programs

Evaluate existing programs supporting women in tech to identify areas for improvement

Unresolved Issues

How to effectively change deep-rooted cultural norms that discourage women from pursuing tech careers

How to increase women’s participation in high-level tech policy discussions

How to address the digital divide and ensure equal access to technology for women in developing countries

How to retain women in tech careers long-term and increase representation in leadership roles

Suggested Compromises

Focus on equity rather than strict equality to account for different challenges faced by women

Implement flexible work policies to help balance career and family responsibilities

Provide incentives for companies that employ and promote women in tech roles

Being inclusive does not necessarily predicate being included. They’re quite different, being inclusive versus actually being included.

speaker

Joyce Chen

reason

This comment highlights a crucial distinction between formal inclusion and meaningful participation, challenging surface-level approaches to diversity.

impact

It shifted the conversation to focus more on the quality of inclusion rather than just numerical representation, leading to discussion of workplace culture and barriers women face even when formally included.

We need to move from tokenistic participation to more meaningful ones. And let’s never ever forget that gender rights are human rights and the internet empowers human rights.

speaker

Sonal Zaveri

reason

This comment frames gender equality in tech as a human rights issue and emphasizes the internet’s role in empowerment, elevating the stakes of the discussion.

impact

It broadened the scope of the conversation from industry-specific concerns to wider societal implications, encouraging participants to consider the broader context of their work.

Empowerment of women starts within women especially in societies like ours. I have experienced living in Pakistan as a refugee back in 90s and also living in Afghanistan, which is my own country and seeing the culture of in India by visiting and as well as by watching their Bollywood movies so that women Most of the women they don’t believe in themselves that they are similar to women I mean as strong as women as capable as women

speaker

Audience member

reason

This comment brings in a perspective from a highly conservative society, highlighting internalized biases and the complexity of empowerment in different cultural contexts.

impact

It prompted a deeper discussion about the role of societal norms and self-belief in women’s empowerment, leading to reflections on how to address deeply ingrained cultural barriers.

I think in here, it’s the societal norms that making the woman sort of forced to want that. Because even coming from Afghanistan myself, in our society, it is a very big thing if a woman gives birth to a son because she is then valued much more and much larger compared to if she gives birth to a daughter, for example.

speaker

Lima Madomi

reason

This comment provides crucial context to the previous point, explaining how societal pressures shape women’s preferences and choices, even in deeply personal matters.

impact

It deepened the analysis of cultural barriers, leading to a more nuanced discussion of how to address gender inequality in highly traditional societies.

I think diversity by design. So we often hear the phrase security by design and etc and you know spinoffs of this race so why why not have diversity by design

speaker

Joyce Chen

reason

This comment introduces a novel approach to ensuring diversity, suggesting it should be built into systems and processes from the start rather than added as an afterthought.

impact

It shifted the discussion towards more proactive and systemic approaches to achieving gender diversity, inspiring ideas for concrete policy measures and organizational practices.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by moving it from surface-level observations about gender inequality in tech to a deeper, more nuanced exploration of cultural, societal, and systemic barriers. They challenged participants to think beyond simple numerical representation and consider the quality of inclusion, the role of internalized biases, and the need for proactive, systemic approaches to diversity. The discussion evolved from industry-specific concerns to broader considerations of human rights and societal change, emphasizing the complexity of the issue and the need for multifaceted solutions that address both personal empowerment and systemic barriers.

How can we create more welcoming and safe social environments for women in networking events and professional settings?

speaker

Joyce Chen

explanation

Joyce highlighted that even when women are included, they may not feel truly welcomed or safe in social settings dominated by men. This is important to address to improve women’s participation and advancement in tech fields.

What are effective ways to support women returning to tech careers after taking time off for family responsibilities?

speaker

Amrita Choudhury

explanation

Amrita noted that women often face challenges re-entering the workforce after taking career breaks. Finding solutions is crucial for retaining women in tech long-term.

How can we better evaluate and improve the effectiveness of existing programs aimed at supporting women in tech?

speaker

Lima Madomi

explanation

Lima emphasized the need to assess current initiatives and address their shortcomings. This is important for ensuring resources are used effectively to support women.

What incentives (e.g. tax breaks) could governments offer companies to encourage hiring and promoting women in tech roles?

speaker

Arinola Akinyemi

explanation

Arinola suggested government incentives could motivate companies to improve gender diversity. Exploring specific policy options is important for driving change.

How can we create a comprehensive repository of opportunities (scholarships, fellowships, etc.) for women in tech across different organizations?

speaker

Amrita Choudhury

explanation

Amrita proposed centralizing information on opportunities to make them more accessible. This could help more women find and take advantage of existing support programs.

What strategies can be used to encourage more women to apply for leadership and board positions in tech organizations?

speaker

Joyce Chen

explanation

Joyce noted that often few or no women apply for top positions. Understanding how to motivate more women to pursue these roles is crucial for improving representation at decision-making levels.

How can we better support and empower women in highly conservative societies to pursue education and careers in tech?

speaker

Lima Madomi

explanation

Lima highlighted the extreme challenges faced by women in some cultures. Finding ways to reach and support these women is essential for global gender equity in tech.

What are best practices for implementing ‘diversity by design’ in tech industry recruitment, events, and programs?

speaker

Joyce Chen

explanation

Joyce suggested intentionally designing for diversity from the start. Exploring how to effectively implement this approach across the industry could lead to systemic improvements.

Summary

This panel discussion focused on defining and addressing domain name system (DNS) abuse, exploring its impacts on consumers and brands. The panelists discussed the need for a broader definition of DNS abuse that goes beyond technical issues to include deceptive, malicious, or illegal activities. They shared examples of DNS abuse, including phishing scams, counterfeit product sales, and impersonation of legitimate businesses or individuals. The discussion highlighted how bad actors exploit domain names to create convincing fake websites that trick consumers into sharing personal information or making fraudulent transactions.

Panelists emphasized the challenges in quickly taking down abusive websites, noting that current processes can be slow and ineffective. They stressed the importance of having accurate “WHOIS” data to identify those behind abusive domains. The discussion touched on the role of registrars, registries, and ICANN in mitigating DNS abuse, with some panelists calling for stronger accountability measures. Participants also highlighted the need for consumer education and awareness to help people recognize potential scams.

The conversation explored how DNS abuse affects various sectors, including finance, pharmaceuticals, and e-commerce. Panelists shared experiences from different regions, including Egypt and Cameroon, demonstrating the global nature of the problem. The discussion also touched on emerging challenges, such as the use of AI and deepfakes in creating more sophisticated scams. Overall, the panel emphasized the need for collaboration between brands, governments, and internet governance bodies to combat DNS abuse effectively and protect consumers in the digital space.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– Defining DNS abuse more broadly to include deceptive, malicious, and illegal activities beyond just technical abuse

– Challenges in quickly taking down harmful websites and domain names due to limited enforcement mechanisms

– Sophisticated scams and fraud targeting consumers, including phishing, counterfeit goods, and impersonation

– Need for better tools and policies to identify bad actors and remove harmful content

– Balancing enforcement against abuse with protecting legitimate speech and websites

The overall purpose of the discussion was to highlight the growing problem of DNS abuse and harmful online activities, and to advocate for broader definitions and more effective enforcement mechanisms to protect consumers and brands.

The tone was generally serious and concerned about the issues being discussed, but also constructive in proposing solutions. There was a collaborative spirit among the panelists and audience in sharing experiences and ideas. The tone became slightly more urgent when discussing specific harmful examples, but remained professional throughout.

Speakers

– Alexis Crawford Douglas: Partner at K&L Gates law firm, intellectual property practice focused on combating cybersquatting, online infringement, and domain name system abuse

– Tara Harris: Group IP lead at Prosus, manages IP risk and protects/enforces IP assets globally, including online brand protection

– Daniel Zani: Global head of online brand protection at Avion, intellectual property lawyer, former FIFA IP team leader

– Sameh Salem: Executive director of emerging technology and security at Egyptian Computer Emergency Response Team, professor of cybersecurity at Helwan University

– Audience: Various audience members who asked questions or provided comments

Additional speakers:

– Keith Drazek: Representative from Verisign, registry operator for .com and .net

– Nick Wendman-Smith: General counsel for Nominet, the .UK CCTLD registry

– Andrew Campling: From 419 Consulting, DNS enthusiast

– Charles: Representative from .cm (Cameroon) ccTLD

– Thuy: Representative from .vn (Vietnam) domain

DNS Abuse: Evolving Threats and Challenges in the Digital Landscape

This panel discussion brought together experts to explore the complex issue of Domain Name System (DNS) abuse and its impact on consumers and brands in the digital space. The conversation highlighted the evolving nature of DNS abuse, challenges in combating it, and potential strategies for addressing these issues.

Defining and Understanding DNS Abuse

A central theme was the need to broaden the definition of DNS abuse beyond traditional technical issues. Alexis Crawford Douglas argued that ICANN’s narrow definition limits the ability to address a wider range of harmful activities. However, an audience member raised concerns about potential censorship, highlighting the delicate balance between consumer protection and freedom of expression online.

Types and Impact of DNS Abuse

The panelists shared various examples demonstrating the wide-ranging impact of DNS abuse:

1. Sophisticated Scams: Daniel Zani noted that scammers now use AI to create convincing fake websites within minutes, making detection challenging. He provided an example of a FIFA.gg domain used for fraudulent activities.

2. Counterfeit Products: Tara Harris highlighted the sale of counterfeit products online, including dangerous items like fake anti-choking devices.

3. Impersonation: Scams involving the impersonation of company executives for fraudulent investment schemes were discussed.

4. Fake Pharmacies: Dr. Sameh Salem pointed out the dangers of fake online pharmacies selling harmful counterfeit medicines.

5. Financial Fraud: Dr. Salem provided examples from Egypt, including a major online fraud operation linked to a mobile application and fake Apple stores.

Challenges in Combating DNS Abuse

Key challenges in effectively addressing DNS abuse include:

1. Speed of Response: Complex processes can delay takedowns of fraudulent websites.

2. Lack of Accurate Data: Tara Harris emphasized that insufficient WHOIS data hinders quick identification of bad actors.

3. Technological Sophistication: The use of AI and deepfakes in creating scams complicates detection.

4. Resource Disparities: Smaller companies often lack resources to combat DNS abuse effectively.

5. Mixed Alphabet Domains: Andrew Campling raised the issue of mixed alphabet domain names being used to create deceptive websites.

6. Privacy Concerns: Alexis Crawford Douglas noted the difficulty in proving phishing without compromising consumer privacy.

Strategies and Solutions

Proposed strategies for addressing DNS abuse include:

1. Proactive Monitoring: Tara Harris advocated for proactive domain monitoring and quicker takedown procedures, mentioning the concept of “fish kits” for detecting patterns of abuse.

2. Consumer Education: Dr. Salem stressed the importance of awareness campaigns.

3. Leveraging Technology: Using AI and emerging technologies to detect malicious activity more effectively.

4. Policy Changes: Keith Drazek highlighted recent ICANN policy changes giving registries and registrars an affirmative obligation to mitigate online harms.

5. Targeted Approaches: Nick Wendman-Smith cautioned against overly broad rules to avoid unintended consequences for legitimate websites.

6. Cross-Sector Collaboration: Dr. Salem suggested increased collaboration between brands, governments, and platforms.

7. Increased Friction: Andrew Campling proposed building more friction into the system for domains not linked to real persons or legal entities.

Regional Approaches

The discussion included insights on regional efforts to combat DNS abuse:

1. Egypt: Dr. Salem described efforts to combat online fraud, including arrests related to a mobile app scam and addressing fake Apple stores.

2. Cameroon: An audience member shared how the .cm ccTLD mitigates domain name misuse through strict registration policies and monitoring.

Unresolved Issues and Future Directions

Several issues remained unresolved:

1. Balancing broad definitions of abuse with protecting legitimate speech and content.

2. Establishing best practices for quickly identifying and taking down abusive sites across different TLDs and jurisdictions.

3. Effectively combating sophisticated scams using AI and deepfakes.

4. Addressing the lack of accurate WHOIS data while maintaining privacy protections.

5. Supporting smaller companies without trademark protection in combating abuse.

The panel concluded with a call for continued dialogue and collaboration among stakeholders to develop more effective strategies for combating DNS abuse. The complexity of the issue demands a nuanced approach that balances consumer protection, technological innovation, and the preservation of legitimate online activities.

Alexis Crawford Douglas: testing. Okay. Cool. Can we get started? All right. Hi, everyone, and welcome to domain name system abuse, defined and experienced. Today we’re going to be discussing the definition of domain name system abuse, and our panelists will share their experiences with these issues. Our discussion is going to be guided by hypothetical situations, loosely based on experiences we’ve faced in our daily work, but firmly grounded in the reality of the exploitation of consumers and brands that’s happening online. To give you an introduction to our panelists, we have to my right, Tara Harris, the group IP lead at process, where Tara spearheads the group’s IP strategy, manages IP risk, and in terms of IP, too many acronyms here, intellectual property risks and protects and enforces intellectual property assets across the globe, including managing the group’s online brand protection program. And process is part of NASPERS, a South African multinational global consumer internet group, and one of the largest technology investors in the world. Next to Tara, we have Daniel Zani, who is I’m skipping ahead, the global head of online brand protection at Avion. He’s a highly experienced intellectual property lawyer with bar qualifications in Germany and the United States, who spent over ten years at FIFA, where he led the intellectual property team and the online brand protection for the World Cup tournaments. Right now, Daniel is a partner at Avion, and he leads the Switzerland office, serving as global head of online brand protection there. And online, I think we have Dr. Sama Salem, somewhere maybe, hopefully, the executive director of emerging technology and security at the Egyptian computer emergency response team. and a professor of cybersecurity at the Faculty of Engineering at Helwan University in Egypt. And Dr. Sameh is passionate about fostering innovation while ensuring digital safety. I’m Alexis Crawford Douglas, a partner at the global law firm of K&L Gates, where my intellectual property practice includes helping clients combat cyber squatting, online infringement, and the domain name system abuse that we’re going to be talking about today. So I have firsthand experience with these issues, as do all of our panelists. But the reason that we’re here outside of our daily jobs is that three of us on this panel, myself, Tara, and Daniel are all members of the International Trademark Association, which is an association of brand owners and professionals dedicated to supporting trademarks at complementary intellectual property. And one of our missions as part of that organization is to identify trends and practices online that impact intellectual property holders and ultimately, really, everyday consumers. It’s not just about brands and making money. It’s about the people at the end of those experiences. And that’s a lot of what we’re going to talk about today. And to this end, Intel put together a definition of domain name system abuse that seeks to hold registrars, registry operators, and registrants all accountable for a wider range of harmful activity that’s making it, and also to make it easier for companies, governments, and consumers to stop this activity online. So we have, you know, some of the objectives here for this program, and we’ll go through the definitions very quickly, not to bore you, not to put you to sleep, but I think it’s important to talk through these definitions and show why it’s not enough and how the examples that we’re going to speak about really touch on why there needs to be more protection and policies in place. The slide clicker is not working. Can you just go to the next slide for me? The next one. Two more after that, I just kept talking through the slides. So keep going. Go ahead. This one right here. You can stop. Go back one more. Thanks. All right. So some of the common definitions of DNS abuse are, one of them is the EU Commission study that DNS abuse, domain name system abuse, is any activity that makes use of domain names or DNS protocol to carry out harmful or illegal activity, which can be a wide scope of activities, right? In contrast, ICANN and the new registry agreement that was amended this past summer narrowly defines DNS abuse as malware, botnets, phishing, farming, and spam, but when spam serves as a delivery mechanism for other forms of DNS abuse, these are very highly technical definitions and narrow definitions of what constitutes DNS abuse, and we’ll talk today about a broader definition. The other two, ICANN’s business constituency gave a somewhat broader definition that also included trademark or copyright infringement, fraudulent or deceptive practices, counterfeiting or otherwise engaging in activity contrary to applicable law. We’re going to take that and narrow it a little bit more because that’s broad, but I think if you can flip to the next slide, please. INTA adopted a resolution, a board resolution in 2023 to give a definition of domain name system abuse that is simpler and I think easier to understand, but also broad. It’s any activity that makes or intends to make use of domain names for the domain name system protocol or any digital identifiers that are in similar or informer function to domain names because now, you know, you know, everything is included, to carry out deceptive, malicious, or illegal activity. And these three types of activity is what we’re gonna talk about today in our examples. Bad behavior online, to put it simply. So why do we care about these definitions? There’s a lot of harmful behavior that’s happening online right now affecting the general public, and there are not mechanisms for stopping it, easy mechanisms for stopping it. I’m gonna kick it over to Daniel to talk about where we started with domain name systems abuse and kind of where we are now.

Speaker 1: Hey, thank you. So kind of old school domain name system abuse, probably a lot of you have heard the term of cybersquatting, in essence, registering a domain name that is linked to a brand where you’re the first one to do it, right? So you’re earlier than the brand could register it. Let’s say it’s a .com. And as an example, you have the .com, but then for a different TLD, the brand is registered by somebody else, normally with the goal to sell it back to the brand. Now, one could easily argue and say, well, what’s wrong about that, right? I’m just using the system. That’s what the system is. I am leveraging that fact, supply and demand. Of course, brands, on the other hand, that have trademarks, invested a lot of their brands in the good faith, might disagree. And if that was done for that specific purpose, so in bad faith, registering a domain, there are mechanisms like the UDRP to get the domain back by the brand owner. An example of what this is, for example, out of my practice. when I was at FIFA. FIFA started to do a lot in the gaming world, in the eSports world, and in the eSports world, a typical TLD that is used is .gg, which is the channel islands Guernsey and Jersey. Now .gg also stands for good game. It’s a term that’s used by gamers as, you know, wrapping each other up. So somebody had registered FIFA.gg. Now the FIFA eSports team wanted to use that domain. Don’t you want to buy this, etc. Then there was an exchange and the person that owned the domain, which was also not clear who it was, of course, because due to privacy it was not obvious, then said, well, we did some valuations and for 17 million dollars you can have this. That was not really what the company thought the value was and clearly higher than any out-of-pocket expense that the person ever ever paid. So, you know, an administrative procedure was started, an arbitration before the GG arbitrary commission, it’s actually one person in Guernsey that administers it, and in the end after the decision that was rendered the domain was signed over to FIFA. Now that is really not what we’re typically talking about today anymore when it’s about domain name abuse. These are things sometimes I think some brand owners may even say of the past because some brands don’t even really care about domain names that much anymore. A lot of people just go and search, right, like who plucks in a domain name. Often that doesn’t happen that much anymore. So brands are now more faced with situations where domain names that contain their brands are used for fraudulent activity, for scamming. scams, et cetera, that, in essence, don’t only affect them, but much more affect the consumers. But for consumers, it’s often very hard to go after something like that. If you’ve been scammed online and you go to your local police station, well, mostly good luck with that. Either they throw up their hands, they’re like, I don’t know what to do with this, or you file the report and it goes nowhere. But brand owners are in a position often to leverage their brand, their trademarks, and to file for, or to use the mechanisms available with the players in the field to get content taken down and whatnot, and thereby also help consumers being protected. And that was just, I mean, the start into it to say that I think the issues nowadays are much, much broader than what initially DNS abuse was conceived to be.

Alexis Crawford Douglas: Thanks Daniel. And so now we’re going to go into some of those examples. It’s really hard to hear yourself while you’re talking. Some of these concrete examples that show what’s happening, the issues, and that there’s not simple ways to combat any of this. So one of the hypotheticals that we have come across in this last year based, and several of us on the team, I think, have dealt with this in different capacities. Let’s say there’s a domain name that was registered with a typo of a bank or other financial institution’s name. Too many letters, missing a letter, something a little bit off from the brand owner’s name. The bad actor sets up a website with the financial institution’s name and logo at the top. They show a login portal where you can put your account number and password. And the bad actor contacts people, acting as though they’re from the financial institution, points to that deceptive website that they were able to register, uses deep fakes to communicate with the target. And over months and weeks, a relationship of trust is formed and the consumer makes a money transfer to the wrong party without realizing it. If a follow-up call is requested to ensure the transfer is genuine, the call is accepted at a fraudulent call center, these are not made-up actions. These are things that we’ve all seen. And if cryptocurrency was used, trying to track that illegal transfer is completely impossible because someone’s own bank doesn’t know, you know, the money’s not traceable. The consumer tries to get their money back and then blames the trademark owner or the company, the brand owner for that loss and comes after them and is complaining about them. And so I think to ask our panelists to weigh in, how have you seen maybe examples similar to this and what have you done to stop it?

Tara Harris: Hi. Hi. Is this on? Oh. Hi. So one of the big issues we have is with one of our classified platforms. And so I’m sure many of you shop online and a lot of the platforms will offer delivery services. And so what we see sometimes is scammers going on and putting fake content on the platform and then using it to lure people in. And then they send them a branded page where they can insert their credit card information. And of course, there’s no product and the scammer now has the information. And this, of course, is very damaging. People don’t trust the platform, but also, more importantly, people are losing money. And as Alexis says, the police don’t always, there’s nothing really they can do. So as a brand owner, what do we try and do to try and help the consumers? We try our best to educate them. We warn them. We put various things on our website to say that you should only use our portals to speak to people. But of course, that doesn’t always work. We also spend a lot of money trying to. to conduct, you know, daily domain name monitoring to try and catch anybody that’s registering our brands in these websites, so in these domain names that we can try and forecast them as soon as content goes down. So that is some of the things that we see.

Speaker 1: Hello? Yes. So another example that we had quite a lot, especially in 2022 and in the buildup to the World Cup where there would be a lot of job postings online with the FIFA logo, with the logo of the World Cup offering positions, right? Often targeted at countries like Bangladesh, Nepal, where also a lot of the migrant workers that worked in Qatar came from, and soliciting applications for jobs that didn’t exist. These actors had nothing to do with the organization or with any recruitment agencies that were actually working for the company or for the World Cup. And that then not only solicited the information, but to progress the application to pay money. And, you know, one could say, and this goes back to, I think, something we heard during these days a lot, online literacy, right? You, especially if you’re kind of newer to the internet, you might think, oh, this is just the way it’s done, right? And you believe that, while others might say, well, who would really think it works that way? But a lot of people actually did send money. Often, these are not large amounts for somebody maybe in a Western country, but 100, $200 is a lot of money in Bangladesh, for example. Can be a year’s salary where people are desperate, like, oh. I’ll go work at the work and we dealt with this quite a lot and to I to take down the fraudulent sites as quickly as possible because the longer they’re online the more harmful they are and really the there that the main goal and driver was to make sure no people are harmed yes there’s a harm to the brand we get complaints about it but it doesn’t really affect the brand that much there’s no financial loss for the brand owner in a direct way but there’s definitely a financial loss to the consumer and that is also something that I think as a responsibility of especially big brands you have to take care of

Alexis Crawford Douglas: and I think one of the reasons that we need this broader definition to is to hold the registrars accountable so what do you do when there’s a website like that what what are the actions you said taking it down quickly how fast can it be taken down

Speaker 1: all that widely differs and we’re talking about domain name abuse right I mean a lot of this also happens on social media where typically it’s actually faster with a lot of platforms depends on the platform really but normally then you you have as a first option two options you go to the host that hosts the content on that website if it’s a compliant host and they know what they’re doing and they actually want to play by the rules you can be successful pretty quickly if you’re really lucky within hours such red card what content is taken down if you give it enough enough evidence etc or you go to the registrar which sometimes also compliant but then in some regions of this world they’re not really and you will fall on deaf ears and then it becomes really complicated

Tara Harris: yeah I agree I mean if it falls into a clear phishing attack if there’s a clear phish kit used if there’s a credit card and and you and you as an organizational brand owner have the mechanisms and the knowledge to understand that that is a phishing case you can go in and use sophisticated tools but these costs money and I think what is important is for smaller companies that do not have such a budget or do not necessarily even understand the need for these tools they will not know where to start so again I think trying to trying to explain often even when we get complaints the difference between a phishing attack person a simple infringement attack or for example the job scams which we see we get a lot of complaints where people have handed over very poor personal information, attended online CVs, sent money, sent credit card information. Again, it depends on where it is. Is it on a social media? Often they have three or four dimensional attacks. And so they get very sophisticated. And I think that’s the issue is trying to even, I mean, I’ve been doing this for so many years now and even still these cases that are coming. So is it worth spending the resources? Are they using our trademark? Is that something we can do? Is there a fish kit involved? But again, I think it comes down to having the expertise and skills in your team, the resources and the budgets to know which mechanisms to use.

Speaker 1: And maybe just to add to that, because Tara just said it, the sophistication of these scams has exploded. I mean, as I said, back in the day when there were scams, it was pretty easy to detect. Often the English on those websites was terrible. You know, like, OK, who drafted this? The links were all broken. If you clicked on something, it didn’t work. It was often, at least to the sophisticated eye, pretty obvious. Nowadays with AI, people create websites in minutes, put them up, they look perfect. Go down, next one is put up. And I mean, you gave me an example of fish kits. You just said fish kit. Maybe speak to that a little bit, because that’s really interesting. That’s something that’s rather new, but where whole solutions are offered.

Alexis Crawford Douglas: Hang on. Before we do that, I do want to tie it back to the idea of how long it takes to get something taken down. So if you have the host who’s responsive and sees that there’s some infringement, but if there’s not copyright infringement, where there’s the US DMCA laws that require them to act quickly, if it’s just trademark infringement, just a brand name on there, the host might not act. And the registrar might not take it down, because they don’t know who’s behind it and the risk of taking it down. something down that’s actual real speech, they don’t want to have to make that decision. So then you go through the uniform domain name, the UDRP process, everybody knows, and that takes weeks, right? You finally get a complaint together. You have to hire a lawyer typically to put that together. It costs thousands of dollars. You have to file the fee, and then you have to wait, see if the other side responds, which they probably don’t because it’s bad behavior. They’re going to just put this up on another site. And then the website is still up there for weeks until you can get it taken down, and it’s continuing to harm people. People are continuing to put money in it or be deceived into thinking it’s a real site. And so I think that’s tying that back to why there needs to be that broader definition to put the onus on registrars and governments to make new policies to ensure that these kinds of activities can be stopped faster. And that’s what we’re talking about here with these examples. So I will let Dr. Salman, who’s I think online, chime in a little bit with his experience. And if we can take the PowerPoint slides down and then we can see him, that would be great. Hello. Hello. Good afternoon. We can hear you.

Sameh Salem: this panel, I would like to explore the Egypt efforts for especially financial proofs and the DNA’s abuse. Actually, we have several incidents happened in Egypt, especially related to the financial proofs. For example, in 2023, the authorities arrested 29 individuals, including 13 criminals involved in a major online fraud operation, linked to an app and a mobile application called HomePod. The group arrested and recruited over 20 victims, and getting around $180 million. The protesters were looking for a quick financial gain through the bank. Actually, they used some suspicious activities, including creation of fake wallets, illicit currency transfers. Unfortunately, they used mobile phones, computers, and group messaging tools to carry out their scams. Actually, the funds were funneled abroad and converted into unreasonable cryptocurrency. In this context, the victims cannot claim the financial institute. These are examples happening in Egypt. There is another example of incidents happening in Egypt. A number of patient scams were reported, where individuals sent fake bank messages through SMS messages. or emails that appear to be from a local bank asking the people to update their personal information and provide credit card details. This is another phishing scams already happening. Also, there is fake charity scams, especially in the month of Ramadan. So, in this context, there are, from my point of view, there are two roles. One for the consumer role, and the other for the government role. For the consumer roles, any consumer discovered or gets suspicious, we should report the incident to the responsible boss. This is for the consumer role. For the government role, actually, first, it comes to the government as a cyber incident or a complaint through the hotline or email for register on finance or financial. So, to address this, we did a response plan. First, we validate the complaint by confirming its domains and its relation to the financial institution. Actually, we use tools like QoS or RPRS to gather registrants or details. In some cases, if we could indicate the information, we submit a request to the uniform domain dispute resolution policy, UPRP, to reclaim the domain. host to shut down the received domain or blocking the domain IPs. Actually, we have a national project in Egypt. It’s called the IP Scanner. It scans the national IPs and any suspicious IPs already blocked. And also, if there is a social pages or accounts try to view the scans, it’s already blocked in coordination with the Facebook company. For the prevention plan, actually, we should have proactive monitoring. We scan the domain registration similar to a brand using online brand protection services. We are using anti-mutation tools like email filters, antivirus software, simplication tools, and simplication solutions for emails like DeMarco, STM, or BKM. This is really a simplication just to prevent spammers, phishers, and other unauthorized parts. Fourthly, we build consumer awareness through awareness campaigns, especially on social media, TV, and browser. So we educate the customers to recognize phishing and the virus and share the steps to verify phishing in financial institutions online. Also, we are trying to create a in-reach world. So we had the three roles, a plan for a sponsor plan, and provision plan, and the road to insurance. Thank you.

Alexis Crawford Douglas: Thanks. Thank you, Dr. Sami. That’s very helpful. And I think it also brings up one of the key pieces that government and businesses share the tools. They have the same tools, right? The brand owners, the RDRS. You have to see who’s behind it, right? Who’s behind this bad activity? For government to take action, it’s also impossible for them after the who is information, you know, was taken down to get accurate who is data. So governments rely on that. Intellectual property owners rely on that all to protect consumers. So without that accurate information, it really limits the ability of anyone to figure out who’s behind these websites and get it stopped. I don’t know if the two of you have any more insight on that piece. Yeah.

Tara Harris: I think in the previous session also on DNS abuse, I think it may have been a Brazilian regulator. I joined a bit late. But he was also saying that, you know, not everyone needs to have that information, but at least the platforms do. And I think that should extend to DNS providers and registrars and registries as well. They should also have the right information. I don’t believe that it should necessarily be published. Of course, that would not be GDPR compliant. But I think that if there was at least some mechanism to have that in place, it would assist, especially when a crime is being committed. Because at the moment, it could be that Mickey Mouse from California owns the domain name. And then when you try and uncover the who is, that’s, of course, hidden. And then when you try and even look for where it’s hosted, that’s usually hidden as well behind CloudFare. And so you’re just hit with constant walls when you’re trying to enforce harmful content. And that can be very frustrating when you have customers that are very upset, that are hurt, that have lost money. Similarly, we have HR personnel who are being cloned. And so even our staff are upset. because their privacy is being invaded, people are pretending to be them. So I think, certainly from my side, it’s just, it feels sometimes like multiple walls that block you. And then the normal enforcement mechanisms, if the criminals know what they’re doing, are not always effective.

Speaker 1: You’re very right. And normally in these situations, especially with scams, phishing attacks, time is of the essence, right? I mean, the longer they’re perpetrated, the more, the bigger the harm is. And often it takes quite significant amounts of time to deal with it, to find the information, to get behind it, if you can at all, and then hope that the hosts or the registrars you’re dealing with are actually compliant and see what you’re seeing, right? Or have, sometimes it’s also an issue of internal education of the people dealing with these complaints. Investment by the companies in their workforce to deal because it’s not always that easy. And I understand also from their perspective, sometimes it’s borderline. Are you gonna make that call and take a whole website down that then there might be backlash from the other end, right? That you’re inhibiting speech. It’s not easy, of course. These are not easy questions often to deal with. But that’s why regulation or clearer rules are important to give guidelines on how to deal with such situations.

Alexis Crawford Douglas: Is there anything? You know, open this up. We have one comment from the online participants. Keith Drasic from Verisign. He just added to the. So.

Audience: Thank you. Hi, everybody. My name is Keith Drazek. I’m with VeriSign, the registry operator for .com and .net. Thank you for having this session. It’s very important. I’ll just paraphrase in my comment is that under the ICANN’s new agreements with registries and registrars, a phish is a phish whether there’s IP infringement or not. And ICANN’s GTLD registries and registrars, and I’m drawing a distinction between GTLDs and CCTLDs that don’t have a contract with ICANN, but the GTLD registries and registrars do. And we, as contracted parties to ICANN, now have an affirmative obligation to mitigate these harms, these online harms, these DNS abuse definitions. Phishing is clearly one of them. And if there are registrars or registries in any region that are ignoring well-evidenced reports of phishing, they should be reported to ICANN because ICANN now has the tools to hold them to account. And they have said that if registrars continue to ignore well-evidenced reports of phishing, that they will take action and hold them to account, including deaccreditation. And that is an important tool now in ICANN’s toolbox that didn’t exist before Q1 of this year. So this is a really important conversation, but I wanted to note that ICANN now has the tools that they didn’t used to have. And we’re expecting ICANN to, you know, basically clean up the industry to the extent needed. Thank you.

Alexis Crawford Douglas: Thank you. That’s helpful. I do think that sometimes proving that the phishing – oh, sorry. I do think that sometimes proving the phishing, that connection, you know, having to give personal information about the consumer you know is harmed, what do you do? You know, do you give that email where they said they lost $15,000 with their personal information in it to, you know, prove that? So I think that’s where it gets a little bit fuzzier. It would be easier if you could just say my brand name is on that. That’s not my site. Take it down. But I totally – that’s definitely an excellent point, and we have a question in the front. Hi. put the count of you.

Audience: So my name is Nick Wendman-Smith. I’m the general counsel for Nominet, which is the .UK CCTLD registry. I oversee all of our dispute resolution. I think we have quite a good system. I think it has a good reputation in general terms. And in fact, we do have quite a wide definition under our terms and conditions, which would include any sort of unlawful content. But I just want to sort of just explain, and since we’ve got the FIFA here, I’ll use a football example. So we once had a situation where there was a football manager, quite a famous one called Alex Ferguson managed United. He published his autobiography. I guess it was a ghosted autobiography. Anyway, he had the copyright in it and it was extensively reported when it was published and including on the BBC’s website. And he was pretty cross and he claimed this was an infringement of his copyright on the BBC. So I just want to say that if you extend, if you need to be quite careful about creating firm rules, because operators like to follow firm rules, but if you’re not too careful about widening the scope to, yeah, obviously clear scams would be within scope, but a sort of an arguable copyright infringement, the logical consequence if that was determined, and maybe it was copyright infringement, right? But the DNS level action in that situation would be quite a severe one in the sense that the whole of the BBC’s website and all of their employees’ email addresses would stop working. So I’m just sort of testing the tires in the nicest possible way. The industry generally, certainly the people who participate in these sorts of practices are very responsible, very responsive, have a very strong self-interest, I guess, in terms of the reputation of their own infrastructure and resources. But you just need to be quite careful about over-broad definitions is the point I wanted to make. Thank you.

Alexis Crawford Douglas: And thank you for having the session. It’s very interesting. Thank you.

Speaker 1: Maybe, Tim. Maybe if I may, on that point, and I think you may. make a very good point because as now being on the side of a service provider, right, we sometimes see where we get from brands, you know, lists of websites that in their minds are infringing. And if you took it just for bare value and you go after them, we would have at one point taken out a major Australian retailer or at least tried to. So, yes, there needs to be scrutiny and there needs to be. And it’s often a fine line. And I totally understand from a registry perspective, you know, you are not you can’t take the point of a court. You know, I mean, that’s that’s not what you’re supposed to do. And I totally get that.

Alexis Crawford Douglas: Yeah, I think we have one question over here and then we’ll go back to the examples.

Audience: Hi, thank you, Andrew Campling, 419 Consulting and DNS enthusiast. Just a couple of quick points for the education absolutely helps pick up one of the points that was said by the panel. But when you’ve got mixed alphabets of say Latin and Cyrillic letters, even if you’re actively looking, it’s really difficult to spot it. So maybe we I can others need to think about whether we should not allow mixed alphabets in domain names. But then just two brief points. One is informational point, the speed of exploitation. And there’s research from early this year, which says that the sites are created and exploited within an hour. And if you don’t act within 24 hours, they’re no longer interested. They’ve stopped using them. They’re on to the next one. So it’s you have minutes before the exploits begin. It’s quite scary. And then the second one, which is building what’s been done already, let’s build some more friction into the system. So I know your customer is tremendously valuable here. If a domain isn’t linked to a real person or a legal entity. mark the reputation down on the threat feeds, then it’s hard to access the system for many internet users, then it becomes a lot less useful. So it raises good behavior. Those sites are more valuable and penalizes the registries, registrars that are allowing these bad practices. So, you know, build on the good practice of ICANN and Nominet and others, and make the bad actors less successful.

Alexis Crawford Douglas: You spoiled our punchline. I’m just kidding. The know your customer idea, I think we’ll get to that too, because I think that’s a good threshold.

Audience: Alexis, just if you allow me to answer one very important question he mentioned about the other languages, internationalized domain names, what we call sometimes. We were part from the beginning when they start, for example, some of this, and at the same time, I was part of the Arabic, for example, script, and we banned some characters, which sometimes looks a little bit different or similar to each other. I expect the other languages did something similar. For example, not allowed to say in French, the accent without something or something like this. So I think it’s, yes, it’s, but I agree with you. It needs more technical solutions. And to Nominet comment, if you allow me, I like that Tokyo cases runtime is one of the best, of course, in handling everything. So I know that many CCTLDs, INTA, for example, did something recently in the UAE, and the .ie now follows some kind of similar to UDRP to try to help these DNF abuses and so on. Just wanted to share this with you. Thank you.

Alexis Crawford Douglas: Discussing the other day, the short form that .uk has, it’s much simpler and easier to get things taken down. So definitely a leader. And I think we were also discussing recently that the NAS2 regulations coming into force in the EU or being adopted will also have an impact on understanding who’s behind domain names and having more veracity behind who’s registering these and getting them stopped. With other examples, I think we were talking yesterday to just get back into the examples a little bit to keep hitting at, it’s not just phishing or financial fraud. We were talking about the products last night. And if you could just mention that, the average consumer being online, how does that work? this affect them too?

Tara Harris: Okay, about counterfeits, I recently got asked by one of our platforms, we have multiple platforms, we have B2C but we also have you know classifieds where we’ve got consumers, but on one of our platforms we got some really bad press on one of the journalistic shows saying that we’re the place for counterfeits and of course the business was very upset, they sort of trademark program a bit like the Amazon program, it’s only relevant to African trademarks being that that’s their market and it turned out that there was a anti-choking device that was being sold and it was a counterfeit and of course we did not know that and the consumer when they bought the product realized, but the good thing in this situation was it was on our platform so we could immediately ban the seller, take appropriate legal action, but what we were talking about is the example of this, whilst it is a small device, it’s an anti-choking device, this is not something you want a counterfeit and if this was being sold on domain names for example, this could be very dangerous and given that this counterfeit product in circulation, it’s obviously being sold in many places, so in my view that’s an example of quite a dangerous product, I mean people talk about, we’ve spoken about baby car seats, we’ve heard of baby formula and all sorts of things that could really have sort of life or death, could be really dangerous.

Alexis Crawford Douglas: And I think the hook there too is that it’s so many, we talked about it before with AI and I’ve seen this explode in the last year, like my desk has gotten a lot busier with these kinds of issues because it’s gotten a lot easier to put up websites that look like a real website selling this anti-choking device and people think this must be authentic, this must be real, let me go in here and put an order in and nothing ever comes or they get something that doesn’t work, so it’s so much easier to pretend to be real and Daniel touched on that earlier also. Daniel, I don’t know if you have more examples of those kinds of issues with domain names. I mean, what do you also, Tom?

Speaker 1: sometimes see where it’s also smaller companies, right? Where then it gets more difficult because they might not even have trademark protection. You know, they’re up and coming startups, but that get, you know, quite prominent or successful in their small area, in their region only, but haven’t even gotten to that point yet. And then if you don’t have a trademark, then it gets more difficult to take action. And I mean, we had a case with an asset manager that just never thought about it really. They didn’t need it. They were like, well, I only work in a small area, but somehow their site got cloned. Wasn’t a one-to-one, but their address was on there, their information. And instead of being able to buy whatever financial products they were offering, it related to crypto. And it just had wallet addresses. They were like, oh, you want to now invest with us here? Just send it to us. I mean, if you do that, your money’s gone. As simple as that, right? And in that situation, we were just lucky that the host that was hosting the site was very compliant and understood very quickly. Yeah, we see it. This is a scam, took it down, was over. But, you know, maybe the infringer there wasn’t even that smart because they used a compliant host. Often the infringers know what they’re doing. The scammers know that they go to hosts where it will take a while for things to disappear online. So, you know, it happens every day. And I think it, and it can happen to anyone. I mean, often the scams are so sophisticated that we might be duped.

Alexis Crawford Douglas: Well, yeah, but I was also thinking about, some of the discussions we’ve had, and I’d welcome the audience’s participation in inclusion and digital literacy and more people getting online and having access to the internet and not understanding, you know, what’s real and what’s fake. You know, there’s these products. There’s also, you know, services, fake tech support, fake customer service attack. You know, attackers might impersonate the customer service portals of legitimate companies. You know, I’m not gonna name any because I don’t have any examples, but, you know, you think of the biggest tech companies you can think of and someone, you know, mistypes their name in and, you know, they have a fake chat service, fake phone numbers. Someone might contact these consumers thinking, you know, and they’re, you’re new to the internet. Think if you never, you know, saw this before and you’re like, oh, I know, I’ve heard of that big tech company. Maybe I’m online. This must be their tech support helping me with my new email account or something like that. And pretending to be these agents, the victims tricked into giving remote access on their device or paying for services that aren’t needed. You know, and malware, of course, is covered by the new definition. But, you know, there’s things that are not as bad as phishing or malware, still bad, and it’s still harming consumers. And so I guess, have you guys had, taking it from the counterfeit piece really to the services piece where it’s not as tangible, right, it’s not as here’s the evidence of this, you know, financial harm, but also hurts the brand owner who the customers now think, you know, this is a, what’s going on here, you know, they’ve taken my information. So Tara, can you weigh in?

Tara Harris: Yeah, I think one of the big ones, big problems we have at the moment, Daniel, Samantha, we’ve got two types of scams, investment scams and job scams. And job scams, I think really, you know, people talk about fundamental human rights and the right to work is one of them. And so people are desperate, right? And what happens is these scammers tend to advertise these remote jobs with our company, and they’re really, you know, targeting vulnerable people that are desperate, that are looking for money. And then they make them apply for the jobs, they get all their personal information. And, you know, I spoke to an external lawyer about this, and he said that some of his big clients, the person has been tricked and have actually gone on a plane. And so this almost becomes a sort of human trafficking issue. This has not happened to us. But you can see how easily this could happen. Someone who’s desperate, and so I’ve got this offer, and I’m getting some money, because they do start paying in the beginning, they only hook you in a little bit later. The other one is, of course, investment scams. And we’ve, we had, you know, whilst we were whilst we’re a public listed company, you know, you have to go to your broker and buy the stocks, we don’t sell them. And what we found were people were going offline, first of all, and going into retirement homes and other sort of places where very vulnerable people were, and then showing them all these ways that they can invest with us and then bringing them back to work. websites that either look like ours to try and get information to either get a hold of their own shares. So these are the kind of things we see where vulnerable people are targeted.

Alexis Crawford Douglas: That’s perfect. And I think developing those kinds of secure, standardized access mechanisms for entities like yours and others to get the information as to who’s behind this and how do we stop it, it needs to be more clear and it needs to be more accessible. Daniel, did you have more services? And I don’t wanna ignore people online if there’s anything going on.

Speaker 1: One final thing is that what we’ve seen quite a lot in the past is impersonation issues where CEOs of big companies, et cetera, their identities are stolen in that sense and used again for scams, mostly investment stuff. And it’s not about quenching criticism of a company often, they’re really used, the personas are used to drive certain behaviors from consumers that are harmful for them. And I think that’s quite a big topic at the moment with a lot of companies that impersonation has excelled but to be honest, mostly on social media, rather than from my experience, rather than websites, but it’s definitely a field that is being watched right now. And then you have the whole deepfake issue, that personas are created, interviews are being put out there on websites, et cetera, that are just made up.

Alexis Crawford Douglas: And the way that that ties back into, rather than moderating content, but tying back to that idea of being able to put up these websites at domain names that look legitimate, right? With the deepfakes or even, I’m thinking of websites that you can put up, technology that’s available now, you can put up websites that aren’t, that have photos on them or things like that that aren’t even copyright infringement, right? You can’t take it down through a host because the photo isn’t real, because AI made it and it was an amalgamation of numerous photos. And so, those kinds of issues that have just gotten more sophisticated and make it, really necessary for more policing and more effective, I think, abilities to take action online. I don’t know if Dr. Sameh, if you had any more examples or thoughts on what was being said here this afternoon. Is he unmuted? Oops, sorry. Technical issues. If anyone in the room has any examples of this or dealt with this in their own region, we’d really be interested in hearing about it because I think it’s not just a US or European issue. Hello?

Sameh Salem: Sorry, I’m just trying to say to stop what you are using me. We have similar issues. I agree with my colleagues about what was being said. The key concern, especially for fake stores, and showing scams, and impersonation, is, for example, for fake stores and counterfeit goods, actually, it damages the customer trust and compromises safety and undermines the business. So, actually, we should consider, again, as my colleague said, you have to enhance the consumer awareness. You have to increase the customer, the consumers, and the finders, and simply through official channels and avoiding unofficial marketplaces. Also, there is a need for cross-sector collaboration. We need to encourage that collaboration between brands and the governments and the platforms to lift and help against counterfeit activities. Actually, we… we need also to strengthen intellectual property laws. Actually, we have an issue in Egypt happened in July before. Actually, suddenly there are fake Apple stores in Egypt. So, the Apple Inc. filed a lawsuit against the stores in Egypt using its logo and selling counterfeit products. So, actually, in Egypt, they already have a legislation for that, for the intellectual property rights, law number 284 in 2002. So, actually, it is already protected. There are many stores already and we already did actions against the fake stores. Also, we have the same in Egypt for the pharma, for the medicines, especially for the fake medicines. Actually, there are some social media and Facebook accounts selling out-of-date medicines and fake medicines as well. But actually, we already, the government, again, the government did an announcement for establishing the Egypt-owned drug authority just to come at a good time to stop the cases of fake drugs in the country. So, the legal remorse already is necessary and the education and educate the consumers just to be clear about most of the scams. So, the ambition for the third one is the technology-driven solution. We have to leverage the blockchain and the R&D. especially as my colleagues said, the defect, we have to use new techniques and the AI just to discover any malicious activity. Thank you.

Alexis Crawford Douglas: Thank you. I think those are excellent points. And the idea of the fake drugs brought me to another example, medicine. And we talked about this a lot in our committee as we were preparing for this presentation. There are people that are part of pharmaceutical companies and I’ve had issues on behalf of pharmaceutical companies where the website, again, looks like a good website and it’s selling steroids or drugs that are very harmful. And do you wait and do a fake purchase to see if it’s an actual site or do you just get it taken down? And these are regulated companies, right? The medicine, the pharmaceutical companies are regulated companies. They are worried about these products. They do not want consumers to be harmed. They don’t want people taking these. They want these down quickly. And so doing a whole UDRP proceeding again, which turned out to be the only option in one of our examples, it just, it takes a long time and someone could be hurt in the process. So I think that’s what all of the people’s go to, but I think another comment from the audience. Yeah.

Audience: Thank you. So thanks again, Keith Drezik with VeriSign. Again, I typed into chat, but I’ll just paraphrase. As we refer to domain names throughout this conversation, I think it’s really important to recognize the distinction between domains that have been registered with the purpose of and the exclusive use to perpetrate or propagate harm, right? DNS abuse, phishing, farming, malware, botnet command and control, whatever it may be. you know, in the instance where there’s a domain that is being registered and used exclusively for that purpose, then absolutely the registrar registry is in the most appropriate position to deal with that because you take the domain name down, everything associated with that domain name is, you know, being used or intentionally used for harm, then that’s appropriate. However, if you’re talking about a compromised website where a perfectly legitimate website has been hacked and malware is being distributed or a portion of that website is being used for phishing or for illegal activity, then the most appropriate actor in that case is the web host because they’re able to, in a very targeted way, deal with that bit of harm on the website or, you know, in that hosting platform. Whereas if you were to take the domain name down in that case, everything associated with that domain name would be negatively and disproportionately impacted. Email was an example that was used, right? You know, and so I think as we in the registry and registrar in the DNS space think about it, the distinction between a maliciously registered name or a name that’s been registered for exclusive malicious use versus the compromised website is just an important distinction and that really points you to who the most appropriate actor is when it comes to the mitigation. Thanks. Thank you. That’s an excellent point. So we’re heading up on time. I think we have one more. We can, yeah, go ahead, Charles. Is it okay? Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you for giving me this opportunity to share the experience of the .cm ccTLD on those issues. We have included in our .cm charter some measures to mitigate the case of misuse of domain names. And when we are informed of an abusive use of domain name, and when we have enough evidence, we just suspend the name. And I think that it can be a very good way of dealing with this kind of problem. So thank you very much. DotCM is dotCameron. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Alexis Crawford Douglas: Thank you for that. Excellent. Well, now that we’re done on time, is there anybody else over here? Great. Oh, come on. Thank you. My name. Thank you. Can you hear me?

Audience: My name is Thuy. I’m from .vn. And I just thank you for giving the time. And I would like to have a question that for .vn, for example, for abuse domain name, we suspend and we can come to delete at the colleagues from Habitat there. But I would like to ask ICANN and Registry and Registrar like the very side. As you share, ICANN and Registry and Registrar apply the, how to say, many way to shut down the domain, but by our observation, there are still quite a lot website using in Vietnam that is a fake website. Even they fake even the governmental website. So can you have for us, in such situation, what the best method to shut them down? Thank you.

Alexis Crawford Douglas: I think you’re welcome. I don’t know if you guys wanna weigh in on that, but I think that’s the very issue here is what is the best way? Sorry, no, you’re just putting your headset on. What is the best way to shut down testing? a website that isn’t a .vm or a .country domain name. And that is what we were talking about here today is the .coms and the .sites, .everything else. I think it happens less on the country domain name issues. So the processes that we discussed is contacting the registrar, contacting the hosts or using a UDRP or other mechanism for transferring the domain names. I don’t know if you guys have more to add on that piece, but I know we’re coming up on time. So I think we’ll put our takeaways together, but thank you everyone for joining us and for this opportunity. Thank you.

Agreement Points

DNS abuse extends beyond traditional cybersquatting

Alexis Crawford Douglas

Tara Harris

Daniel Zani

DNS abuse extends beyond cybersquatting to fraudulent activities harming consumers

Job scams and investment scams target vulnerable populations

Sophisticated scams using AI and deepfakes are harder to detect

The speakers agree that DNS abuse has evolved to include a wide range of fraudulent activities that directly harm consumers, going beyond simple cybersquatting.

Current mechanisms for addressing DNS abuse are insufficient

Alexis Crawford Douglas

Tara Harris

Daniel Zani

ICANN’s narrow definition of DNS abuse limits ability to address broader harms

Difficulty in quickly taking down fraudulent websites due to complex processes

Need for clearer rules and guidelines on addressing DNS abuse

The speakers concur that existing mechanisms and definitions for addressing DNS abuse are inadequate to deal with the evolving nature and scope of the problem.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers highlight the dangers of counterfeit products sold online, emphasizing the safety risks these pose to consumers, particularly in critical areas like medicine and safety devices.

Tara Harris

Sameh Salem

Counterfeit products sold online pose safety risks to consumers

Fake online pharmacies selling harmful counterfeit medicines

These speakers agree on the need for advanced technological solutions and proactive measures to combat increasingly sophisticated forms of DNS abuse.

Tara Harris

Daniel Zani

Sameh Salem

Need for proactive domain monitoring and quick takedown procedures

Sophisticated scams using AI and deepfakes are harder to detect

Leveraging new technologies like AI to detect malicious activity

Unexpected Consensus

Importance of balancing abuse mitigation with legitimate use

Audience

Daniel Zani

Overly broad definitions of DNS abuse could lead to censorship of legitimate content

Need for clearer rules and guidelines on addressing DNS abuse

There was an unexpected consensus between an audience member and Speaker 1 on the need for careful consideration in defining and addressing DNS abuse to avoid unintended consequences for legitimate content and services.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement centered on the evolving nature of DNS abuse, the inadequacy of current mechanisms to address it, and the need for more sophisticated and proactive approaches to combat these issues.

Consensus level

There was a moderate to high level of consensus among the speakers on the core issues surrounding DNS abuse. This consensus suggests a growing recognition of the problem’s complexity and the need for collaborative, multi-stakeholder approaches to address it effectively. However, there were also nuanced differences in perspectives, particularly regarding the balance between combating abuse and protecting legitimate online activities.

Different Viewpoints

Definition and scope of DNS abuse

Alexis Crawford Douglas

Audience

ICANN’s narrow definition of DNS abuse limits ability to address broader harms

Overly broad definitions of DNS abuse could lead to censorship of legitimate content

While Alexis Crawford Douglas argues for a broader definition of DNS abuse to address a wider range of harmful activities, an audience member cautions that overly broad definitions could potentially lead to censorship of legitimate content.

Unexpected Differences

Balancing consumer protection and freedom of expression

Alexis Crawford Douglas

Audience

DNS abuse extends beyond cybersquatting to fraudulent activities harming consumers

Overly broad definitions of DNS abuse could lead to censorship of legitimate content

While the main focus of the discussion was on combating DNS abuse and protecting consumers, an unexpected point of contention arose regarding the potential impact on freedom of expression. This highlights the complex balance between consumer protection and preserving online freedoms.

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement centered around the definition and scope of DNS abuse, the speed and effectiveness of takedown procedures, and the balance between consumer protection and freedom of expression.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among the speakers was moderate. While there was general consensus on the need to address DNS abuse more effectively, there were significant differences in opinions on how to achieve this goal. These disagreements highlight the complexity of the issue and the need for careful consideration of various stakeholder perspectives in developing policies and strategies to combat DNS abuse.

Partial Agreements

All speakers agree on the need for faster and more effective mechanisms to address DNS abuse, but they differ on the specific approaches. While some advocate for broader definitions and quicker takedown procedures, others emphasize the need for clearer guidelines and distinctions between different types of abuse.

Alexis Crawford Douglas

Tara Harris

Daniel Zani

Audience

Difficulty in quickly taking down fraudulent websites due to complex processes

Need for proactive domain monitoring and quick takedown procedures

Need for clearer rules and guidelines on addressing DNS abuse

Time is critical – exploitation of fraudulent sites happens within hours

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers highlight the dangers of counterfeit products sold online, emphasizing the safety risks these pose to consumers, particularly in critical areas like medicine and safety devices.

Tara Harris

Sameh Salem

Counterfeit products sold online pose safety risks to consumers

Fake online pharmacies selling harmful counterfeit medicines

These speakers agree on the need for advanced technological solutions and proactive measures to combat increasingly sophisticated forms of DNS abuse.

Tara Harris

Daniel Zani

Sameh Salem

Need for proactive domain monitoring and quick takedown procedures

Sophisticated scams using AI and deepfakes are harder to detect

Leveraging new technologies like AI to detect malicious activity

Key Takeaways

DNS abuse has expanded beyond cybersquatting to include sophisticated fraudulent activities that harm consumers

Current definitions and mechanisms for addressing DNS abuse are often too narrow or slow to effectively combat evolving threats

Fraudulent websites, counterfeit products, and scams targeting vulnerable populations are major forms of DNS abuse

Quickly identifying and taking down abusive sites is critical, but challenging due to complex processes and lack of accurate registrant data

Consumer education and awareness are important components in combating DNS abuse

New technologies like AI are being leveraged both by scammers and those fighting abuse

Resolutions and Action Items

ICANN now has tools to hold registrars accountable for ignoring well-evidenced reports of phishing

Some ccTLDs like .cm have implemented measures to quickly suspend abusive domain names

There is a need to strengthen intellectual property laws and increase cross-sector collaboration to combat counterfeit activities

Unresolved Issues

How to balance broad definitions of abuse with protecting legitimate speech and content

Best practices for quickly identifying and taking down abusive sites across different TLDs and jurisdictions

How to effectively combat sophisticated scams using AI and deepfakes

Addressing the lack of accurate WHOIS data while maintaining privacy protections

Suggested Compromises

Registrars and registries should have access to accurate registrant data, even if it’s not publicly available

Distinguish between maliciously registered domains and compromised legitimate websites when taking action

Balance consumer protection with the need for due process in domain takedowns

Nowadays with AI, people create websites in minutes, put them up, they look perfect. Go down, next one is put up.

speaker

Daniel Zani

reason

This comment highlights how AI has dramatically increased the sophistication and speed of online scams, making them much harder to detect and combat.

impact

It shifted the discussion to focus more on the technological challenges of combating modern DNS abuse, rather than just legal or policy approaches.

We have several incidents happened in Egypt, especially related to the financial proofs. For example, in 2023, the authorities arrested 29 individuals, including 13 criminals involved in a major online fraud operation, linked to an app and a mobile application called HomePod.

speaker

Dr. Sameh Salem

reason

This comment provided a concrete, real-world example of DNS abuse and its consequences, grounding the theoretical discussion in practical reality.

impact

It broadened the conversation to include perspectives from different regions and highlighted the global nature of the problem.

Under the ICANN’s new agreements with registries and registrars, a phish is a phish whether there’s IP infringement or not. And ICANN’s GTLD registries and registrars… now have an affirmative obligation to mitigate these harms, these online harms, these DNS abuse definitions.

speaker

Keith Drasek

reason

This comment introduced important information about recent policy changes that give ICANN more tools to combat DNS abuse.

impact

It shifted the discussion towards the role of policy and regulation in addressing DNS abuse, and highlighted the progress being made in this area.

I think we need to be quite careful about creating firm rules, because operators like to follow firm rules, but if you’re not too careful about widening the scope… the logical consequence if that was determined… would be quite a severe one in the sense that the whole of the BBC’s website and all of their employees’ email addresses would stop working.

speaker

Nick Wendman-Smith

reason

This comment raised an important counterpoint about the potential unintended consequences of overly broad definitions or rules for combating DNS abuse.

impact

It added nuance to the discussion and highlighted the complexity of balancing effective action against abuse with protecting legitimate online activity.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by broadening its scope from a focus on defining DNS abuse to exploring its practical impacts, technological challenges, policy responses, and potential pitfalls. They helped to create a more comprehensive and nuanced understanding of the complexities involved in combating DNS abuse effectively while minimizing unintended consequences.

How can the process of taking down harmful websites be expedited?

speaker

Alexis Crawford Douglas

explanation

The current process of taking down harmful websites can take weeks, allowing continued harm to consumers. A faster process is needed to mitigate damage.

How can smaller companies without large budgets effectively combat DNS abuse?

speaker

Tara Harris

explanation

Smaller companies often lack the resources and knowledge to use sophisticated tools for combating DNS abuse, leaving them vulnerable.

What mechanisms can be implemented to ensure accurate WHOIS data while maintaining GDPR compliance?

speaker

Tara Harris

explanation

Accurate WHOIS data is crucial for identifying bad actors, but privacy concerns under GDPR make this challenging.

How can mixed alphabet domain names (e.g., Latin and Cyrillic) be regulated to prevent deception?

speaker

Andrew Campling

explanation

Mixed alphabet domain names can be used to create deceptive websites that are difficult for users to identify as fraudulent.

What technology-driven solutions, such as blockchain and AI, can be leveraged to combat DNS abuse?

speaker

Sameh Salem

explanation

Emerging technologies may offer new ways to detect and prevent malicious online activities.

How can cross-sector collaboration between brands, governments, and platforms be encouraged to fight against counterfeit activities?

speaker

Sameh Salem

explanation

Collaboration across different sectors could lead to more effective strategies for combating DNS abuse and counterfeit activities.

What are the most effective methods for shutting down fake websites, especially those impersonating government sites?

speaker

Thuy (audience member)

explanation

There is a need for clear, effective processes to shut down fraudulent websites, particularly those impersonating official government sites.