Uncategorized

Summary

This panel discussion focused on online safety for children and youth in the digital age. Panelists and audience members from various countries shared insights on the challenges and potential solutions for protecting young people online.

Key issues raised included the need for age-appropriate design in digital platforms, the importance of digital literacy education for both children and parents, and the challenges of implementing effective age verification systems. Participants highlighted the global nature of online risks, with similar issues affecting youth across different regions.

There was consensus that online safety requires collaboration between multiple stakeholders, including tech companies, policymakers, educators, and parents. Panelists emphasized the importance of involving children themselves in discussions about online safety policies and practices.

The discussion touched on the tension between implementing universal standards for online safety and adapting approaches to diverse cultural and legal contexts. Some argued for principle-based rather than prescriptive regulations to allow for flexibility across regions.

Participants debated the effectiveness of outright bans on youth access to certain platforms versus implementing robust safety-by-design principles. The role of tech companies in proactively ensuring child safety was a recurring theme, with some calling for greater corporate responsibility.

The need for improved digital literacy programs, both in schools and for parents, was widely agreed upon. Participants also stressed the importance of building children’s confidence and awareness to navigate online risks, rather than relying solely on external protections.

Overall, the discussion highlighted the complex, multifaceted nature of ensuring online safety for youth and the ongoing need for innovative, collaborative approaches to address emerging challenges in the digital landscape.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– The need for collaboration between stakeholders (tech companies, parents, educators, policymakers) to ensure online safety for children and youth

– The importance of designing safety features by default into online platforms, rather than relying solely on parental controls

– Challenges in implementing global standards for online safety given different cultural and legal contexts across countries

– The role of digital literacy education for children, parents and educators

– Balancing protection with allowing children to benefit from online opportunities

The overall purpose of the discussion was to explore strategies and challenges related to ensuring online safety for children and youth in an increasingly digital world.

The tone of the discussion was thoughtful and constructive, with panelists and audience members offering different perspectives but generally agreeing on the importance of the issue. There was a sense of urgency about addressing online risks for young people, balanced with recognition of the complexities involved. The tone became slightly more critical when discussing the responsibilities of tech companies, but remained largely collaborative in seeking solutions.

Speakers

– Millenium Anthony: Moderator

– Keith Andere: MAG member for Kenya IGF, former coordinator for African Youth IGF, part of coordination team for Global Youth IGF

– Nikki Colaco: VP of Public Policy at Roblox

– Nirvana Lima: Brazilian researcher on digital cultures, especially kids and teens and youth

– Ponsleit (name might have been misspelled): From the Gambia NRI

– Saba Tiku Beyene: Online moderator

Additional speakers:

– Joshua: From Uganda, Internet Society chapter Uganda, developer

– William: From South Africa, works with children on online safety

– Leander: Executive director of the Five Rights Foundation

Online Safety for Children and Youth: A Global Perspective

This panel discussion, moderated by Millennium Anthony, brought together experts from various countries to explore the challenges and potential solutions for protecting young people in the digital age. The panellists included Keith Andere, coordinator for the African Youth IGF from Kenya, Nikki Colasso, VP of Public Policy at Roblox, and Nirvana Lima, a Brazilian researcher on digital cultures focusing on kids, teens, and youth. Additional contributions came from online participants and audience members.

Key Challenges in Ensuring Online Safety

The discussion highlighted several significant challenges in protecting children and youth online:

1. Digital Literacy Gap: There is a widespread lack of awareness and digital literacy among both children and parents, exacerbated by a generational digital divide.

2. Resource Disparities: Low-income families often face issues of shared devices and inappropriate content exposure, while rural areas struggle with implementing effective online safety measures. An audience member highlighted specific challenges faced in rural India, emphasizing the global nature of these issues.

3. Cultural Differences: The need for region-specific policies due to cultural variations was emphasised, complicating efforts to establish universal standards.

4. Technological Hurdles: Implementing effective age verification systems while protecting user privacy remains a significant challenge.

5. Content Moderation: Nikki Colasso noted the challenges in addressing differences in content moderation across cultures.

Strategies for Promoting Online Safety

The panellists and contributors proposed several strategies to address these challenges:

1. Safety by Design: Nikki Colasso advocated for implementing safety principles in product development from the outset, rather than relying solely on parental controls.

2. Principle-Based Policies: There was a call for developing flexible, principle-based policies rather than prescriptive regulations to allow for adaptation across different regions.

3. Education Integration: Nirvana Lima stressed the importance of integrating media education into school curricula to build digital literacy from an early age. She also shared insights from her research on kidfluencers and the concept of prosumers, highlighting the changing landscape of children’s online engagement.

4. National Legislation: Ponsleit, an online contributor, suggested implementing Online Safety Acts at the national level, citing the UK’s Online Safety Act as an example of providing a legal framework for protection.

5. Confidence Building: Keith Andere emphasised the need to focus on building children’s confidence and digital literacy skills to navigate online risks.

6. Developer Involvement: Joshua, a contributor from Uganda, highlighted the crucial role of developers in creating safe online environments, suggesting the involvement of open source communities in developing safety features.

Stakeholder Collaboration and Responsibilities

A recurring theme throughout the discussion was the necessity of collaboration between multiple stakeholders:

1. Tech Companies: The role of corporations in proactively ensuring child safety was debated, with some calling for greater corporate responsibility. William from South Africa critiqued Roblox’s safety measures, to which Nikki Colasso responded by outlining the company’s efforts.

2. Policymakers: The need for cross-border collaboration and harmonised legal frameworks was highlighted by Keith Andere.

3. Educators: The importance of digital literacy programs in schools was widely agreed upon.

4. Parents: While parental awareness is crucial, Nikki Colasso argued that relying solely on parental controls is unrealistic.

5. Children: The importance of involving children themselves in discussions about online safety policies was emphasised.

Cultural and Legal Considerations

The discussion touched on the complexities of implementing online safety measures across diverse cultural and legal contexts:

1. Global Standards vs Local Adaptation: Keith Andere highlighted the need to adapt global standards to local contexts and legal frameworks. Leander from the Five Rights Foundation provided important context about global standards and corporate responsibility.

2. Online-Offline Continuity: Keith Andere suggested applying offline regulations to online spaces where appropriate.

3. Principle-Based Approach: To address cultural variations, there was support for adopting principle-based policies rather than prescriptive ones.

Unresolved Issues and Future Directions

Despite the productive discussion, several issues remained unresolved:

1. Age Verification: Balancing effective age verification with privacy concerns continues to be a significant challenge.

2. Global vs Local Approaches: Finding the right balance between global standards and local cultural contexts requires further exploration.

3. Resource Disparities: Addressing the gap in resources between countries for implementing online safety measures remains a concern.

4. Rural and Low-Income Access: Making online safety education accessible in rural and low-income areas needs further attention.

Conclusion

The discussion highlighted the complex, multifaceted nature of ensuring online safety for youth in the digital age. While there was general consensus on the importance of the issue and the need for collaborative approaches, differences emerged in the specific strategies proposed. The panellists and contributors emphasised the need for innovative solutions that balance protection with allowing children to benefit from online opportunities.

Moving forward, the key takeaways include the need for multi-stakeholder collaboration, the importance of both technical solutions and education initiatives, and the necessity of adaptable approaches that consider diverse cultural contexts. As online safety for children and youth continues to evolve, ongoing dialogue and cooperation between tech companies, policymakers, educators, parents, developers, and young people themselves will be crucial in developing effective and comprehensive solutions.

Millenium Anthony: And here with me today, I’m joined with my panelists. So I’ll also give them an opportunity to introduce themselves. And we actually have one more speaker who is just joining us right now. Yes, I’ll start with you, Keith. Please introduce yourself, and then we’ll go around.

Keith Andere: Thank you so much, Millennium, and friends and colleagues. Good afternoon. I’m hearing myself, so I’ll just remove the mic and hope that I’m also audible. My name is Keith Andere. I am from Kenya, and I am an IGFer in the sense that I’m a MAG member for Kenya IGF, but also I’ve served previously as the coordinator for the African Youth IGF. And I’m pleased to also be part of the coordination team for the Global Youth IGF that has put together this year’s summit. So happy to be here, and looking forward to a great session.

Millenium Anthony: Thank you so much, Keith.

Nikki Colasso: I hope you can hear me. And I can also hear myself, so I’m going to take my headphones off. I’m Nikki Colasso, and I’m VP of Public Policy at Roblox, which is a gaming company that some of you may know as a children’s gaming company. But actually, we have many different ages of people that play Roblox. I am based in the US in the San Francisco Bay Area, but I’m pleased to be joined by colleagues here from the UK and also the EU. And I had the pleasure of being at IGF in Ethiopia two years ago, and I remember the youth council there. So I guess I’m also an IGFer. This is my third consecutive, and I’m thrilled to be here. So thank you.

Nirvana Lima: Thank you. Yes. Hi, everyone. Sorry I’m kind of late. I lost my badge and I need to get another. So my name is Nirvana Lima. I’m a Brazilian researcher on digital cultures, especially in kids and teens and youth. And I’m here to speak with you about my research and my work in Brazil. I have a master’s degree in communication and a solid experience in this topic. So thank you so much, Milenium, for the invitation. It’s a pleasure being with you here today.

Millenium Anthony: Thank you so much, my dear panelists. Today, we also joined with our online moderator. We have Sabah here, so she’s going to be helping out with moderating online participants. So this session, mainly, we’re going to be discussing about online safety for children and youth. So we have seen children and youth are now getting more exposed to online spaces. And online spaces are no longer safe for them. So we have seen, let’s say, we have seen, I think, like in the couple of previous months, we have seen parents shooing the big tech companies because their children are no longer safe and all that. So this is really an important discussion that we have to discuss and see the challenges that are there and strategies on how we can help now these young people to stay safe online. So we have different questions that are going to be guiding, the policy questions that are going to be guiding our discussion today. And I’ll just mention them quickly. But as I go through my panelists, I’ll ask them individual questions. And the policy questions that are going to be guiding us, one says, how can stakeholders collaborate effectively to empower parents and children in ensuring online safety? What strategies are most effective in promoting active participation in securing the digital space? And the second one says, in the dynamic digital environment, What key indicators should be considered when designing online safety programs to ensure their relevance and effectiveness in addressing emerging risks faced by children and youth? And the last policy question says, considering the diverse cultural context and legal frameworks globally, what innovative approaches can be adapted to reconcile differences and establish universal standards for online safety interventions, particularly in regions with varying levels of internet access and digital literacy? So I’ll now go to my speakers and I’ll start with you, Nikki. From your experience at platforms like Instagram and Roblox, what innovative safety tools and policies have proven effective in empowering parents and children to ensure online safety? And also, how can these approaches be adapted to different cultural contexts?

Nikki Colasso: Yeah, I wish I had a perfect answer, but I’ll tell you what I think. And I’ll speak mostly from the tech perspective since I work for a private company. I think that we are in a moment, I think it’s longer than a moment, but we’re in a place where there is acknowledgement that tech companies need to do more. And a lot of the practices that used to kind of feel good or, can you hear me? I just lost sound, okay. Have to be updated for where we are in 2024 going into 2025. And so I remember a time when we talked a lot about parental controls and empowering parents to make decisions. And there is no doubt in my mind that that is critical and that all companies, Roblox included. need to give parents these tools and they need to put them in a place where they are empowered. At the same time, I am also a parent and I look at my phone. My kids don’t have smartphones, but parents have tens and tens and tens of different apps on their phone. Even the most curious and technologically savvy parents cannot possibly navigate to each individual app, set parental controls, learn that app. I think it’s not realistic. And so, of course, those controls need to be there and we need to be providing these tools so that parents have them and they need to be dynamic and they need to work. But I think that where we are now is really looking at defaults and looking at what are the initial settings on these platforms, including Roblox, and acknowledging that we need to provide that safety net in addition to the parental controls. And that is a responsibility that tech companies have. And defaults will look different from platform to platform, but acknowledging that it can’t just be about parental controls because parents are overwhelmed. We actually have to establish these tools on the tech side. So I think to me, in terms of dynamic approach, I do think that combination of defaults and parental controls is important.

Millenium Anthony: Okay, thank you very much, Nikki. So I wanna come to you, Keith, following from whatever that Nikki has said. Do you think it’s right? Now, we have seen the safety of children and youth online is now endangered. Do you think, from your perspective, do you think it’s right to just stop these kids from accessing online platforms, I mean, the internet, or just putting some measures to control their use? What is your thought on that?

Keith Andere: Thank you so much for the question. I think I’ll speak in two fronts. One, as a general internet user, and secondly, as somebody who is coming from a global south. I think right now we are moving everything online, be it government services, be it education. Life post-pandemic has shifted and has necessitated technological use to the extent that hadn’t been there before. So for us as adults wanting to engage in sessions such as IGF, for example, here, and we have colleagues and friends who are connected online, it eases a lot of pressure on how we can engage here. If for one reason or another somebody is not here, they are still able to connect and follow this session. Rightfully, like you said, we now have an online moderator, something that perhaps before COVID, it was not anything that we would think of. Like can we even put online engagement, for example. So post-pandemic, we can’t go back to pre-pandemic era, in the sense that it’s an oxymoron for us to want to have government services online, all the kind of engagements that we have. We now have working from home kind of concepts, which before pandemic, the freelancers were being seen as somebody who’s not serious. So for children, I see that it’s zero-sum math if we want to deter them from utilizing online applications and all of these things for whatever thing that they do. How then do we make it safe? I think the principle of security is a very fundamental aspect, not just on apps, but even on internet. When you’re talking about internet, there are certain parameters that come to our mind. You know, open, free, accessible, secure, and all manner of things. So, these kids are already growing. How do we deter them from going online? Yet, we are all going online. And in the next two, three years, they’ll become adults. So, I see that we as stakeholders in whatever format that we are in, whether civil society, whether governments, whether youth, or all these people, we need to start thinking security by design. And one of the things is having the kids here, so that we are not speaking for them, but we are also listening what they are saying. So, we’ve seen women in IGF, children in, I mean, youth in IGF, but I long to see the children component within the IGF space, so that these young kids can come and speak what their challenges are, but not having me as somebody who’s on the larger bracket of youth speak about children and I can’t identify with them. So, I think, to sum up the question, we really need to protect them, but we also need to have them come and speak. So, that for me is something that I would like to see going forward, more children in IGF spaces. Thank you.

Millenium Anthony: Thank you so much, Keith. So, we have, I mean, the current discussion is basically on how now we can protect these kids and youth online. I want you, Nirvana, to please tell us what do you think, I think you did a research on digital cultures in childhood, right? And what are the most pressing challenges that kids and youth face online? So, maybe we don’t know, maybe what do you think are the most pressing challenges that kids and youth face?

Nirvana Lima: Okay, I’m going to bring a Brazilian perspective for the field. First of all, I’d like to thank Odisha. for the opportunity of being here speaking to all of you today. And I want to express one more time my gratitude to Mailenian and last but not least to my youth members from Youth Brazil. Please, please raise your hands. Okay, thank you, whom I have the pleasure of facilitating in the year of 2024. I’ll begin my answer saying that this question is quite complex. But it’s so as the phenomenon of kidfluencers that is the topic, the main topic of my research. The term digital influencer has undergone a discursive shift in Brazilian market, media and research, even academic research, especially since 2015. This shift is linked to the entry of new platforms into contact content production landscape because the concept is still evolving. Its definitions change fast. However, one thing is undeniable. Young creators are driving discussions around celebrity culture and consumerism while also remaining as vulnerable as the audiences consumer their content. Kids and teens today are prosumers just like me, just like you and all of you. But do you know the meaning of prosumer? Anyone here? Prosumer? So the term prosumer was created by Alvin Toffler in early 80s. And when he predicts that the roles of producer and consumer would increasingly blur. Nowadays, even children who are not yet literate can be the creator, creators or play a starring role on videos. photos, or vital content with either commercial or purely entertainment proposals. According to the last Tee Kids Online Brazil survey, 88% of children and adolescents aged 9 to 17 have social media profiles. On one hand, this is a milestone reflecting the growing digitalization of Brazilian society. On the other hand, we can’t ignore the risks that come with this online presence, which exposes young people to potential harm, such as personal safety, reputation, or security. The truth is that kids and teens are not digital natives, despite what some may claim. This generation learns how to navigate online through trial and error, just like everyone else. They are vulnerable to exploitation, not only of their personal data, but also within the influenced economy, which includes advertising agencies and talent agents for child celebrities. The data they generate can be used for commercial exploit and for target ads, or even to manipulate their emotions, beliefs, and opinions. For an entire generation, the internet is a double-edged sword, like we used to say in Brazil. While it offers incredible opportunities for learning and social interaction, it also exposes children and adolescents to significant risks. such as violence, pornography, cyberbullying, and misinformation. I firmly believe that initiatives aimed at educating children and teens, but educating parents as well, educating educators, actually, it’s very indispensable because it will help them become aware and responsible online users. This is an important path forward. It’s a responsibility that we as a larger community must share, ensuring their safety online.

Millenium Anthony: Thank you so much, Nirvana. I think from the discussion that we’ve just been having here, I’m getting it that online safety, like how, I mean, the ways that we can use to protect these children and youth, for them to be safe online is not a one-man work, right? It’s a stakeholder thing, right? Now, Nikki, please help us understand how do you think, what key indicators can the stakeholders prioritize when designing online safety programs to address emerging risks? For example, Nirvana has said different risks that children and youth face online. And yeah, like what key indicators should be considered by these stakeholders?

Nikki Colasso: Yes. Okay. So I think first is a question of, are there technical limitations? You asked, like, do bans work? Like if we were just to ban whatever set of technology, whether it’s social media or gaming, does that help children? And I think there are lots of different opinions on that. In Australia right now, we’re seeing that there is a social media ban for under 16s. and there’s a lot of discourse about what that means and whether that’s the right course for children. I think one question is, do technical implementations actually work? So do we actually have the ability to ban children? And very often, I think what we find is no. And for that reason, we’re seeing nine-year-olds on social media when the minimum age for a lot of these sites is 13. And so I think there is a valid argument that outright bans don’t work. And in terms of indicators, I think that what you were saying before, Keith, about safety by design in terms of working with multi-stakeholders to bake safety in at the product conception phase so that we’re not retrofitting to keep kids safe, but actually designing things with them in mind is the right path forward. And I think that much of what we build, instead of being super prescriptive, which says children can or can’t do this, or 14-year-olds can and can’t see this, or girls should or should not see that, I think it’s so dependent on the child and it’s so dependent on where they live, what access they have to technology, that it’s much better instead of being prescriptive to be principle-based and say that the policies that we write should be created in the best interest of the child and that there is a responsibility. I think the best practices would say, let’s be principle-based rather than super prescriptive because I don’t think that that works as technology changes and as innovation occurs.

Millenium Anthony: Can you hear me? Okay, I can hear myself. Okay, so I think I really liked that point. in the view, I’m keeping you have mentioned about, you know, there’s this, they call the design thinking approach that you bring the stakeholders on the tables and then you use them to understand the needs that they have, but also to innovate creative ways of solving problems. So I think that could be really a nice approach to have the kids in this space, understand their needs and the challenges that they face rather than just sitting and coming with solutions that we think maybe we just need to ban the internet from them while we, maybe there could be another way or another solution that we could use. So now I want to turn back, we have talked about, we just had this discussion here about the importance of collaboration and stuff. So what do you think are the biggest challenges in ensuring online safety for youth from your experiences in your specific regions or countries? What do you think are the biggest challenges in ensuring online safety for children and youth? Anyone, if you’re ready, you can just raise your hand and then we’ll pass the mic. Okay. Ah, we have a mic over there. So I think I saw three hands. Oh yeah, you can start. Hmm. No, please turn it on.

AUDIENCE: Is this one working? Yeah.

Millenium Anthony: Pass the mic. Hello. Hello. Am I audible now? Yes. Now we can hear. Okay. Thank you. Yeah, OK, yeah.

AUDIENCE: Sorry, I came late. But this subject is like, I work in a rural. I came from India. I work in rural communities. And we have a lot of first time internet users. And especially the targets are the youths who are not aware of how to use the internet, first of all. So when they get internet, they are so much attracted to everything that is there. So they don’t understand what’s there. And we had an incident with a girl who got abused online. And she didn’t know what to do about it. And she couldn’t tell her family, nor to any friends, but some very close person who she thought could help. And when they approached the cybercrime, they said, you need to bring proof. So the girl, she still doesn’t know what to do with the content that is available when she fell for the other person who faked her, to be her friend or something. So this is still a challenge. We still don’t know in India, especially in rural sectors, how to address these problems. And when we asked about, how safe have you kept your accounts? And when we checked with just not the girls in the community, not just the youths, but the boys also, they said, we don’t care. So somebody could actually hack your account and use your name to target somebody. So these things, these standards, like how do you talk about it? Like awareness, how do you talk about these problems? Like why? why not the girl didn’t go to her family and tell first like I have I’ve been subjected to some this this problem like how do we address so these are many challenges in India like in especially in rural areas like where still nobody wants to talk about it it’s only to the peers like okay I told my friend that’s all it’s done so even the boys needs to understand like how how to like keep their accounts safe and and teach talk about it to your friends and families it’s okay like to tell is this is happening so this is one of the incidents in and still we don’t have like proper support proper standards proper awareness system how do we do so we still don’t have a model for this.

Millenium Anthony: Wow thank you so much for your contribution I think there’s really a big work that we have to do especially in investing in training these young people like building capacities when it comes to online safety how do you use um the internet safely how do you put your social media how do you put yourself out there so that you don’t attract um maybe people that abuse people online like bad comments and all that I think it’s really something that we must invest to train our youth and children and I yes please after her I’ll take one more contribution and then we’ll see if we have a contribution from online.

AUDIENCE: Thank you I’m also from India so I’ll continue speaking um from where she left so basically um to answer the point that you know we need to sensitize more boys as well because there is a fun element that is attached to sharing any content that is uh online sharing resharing um of the content um also there is a huge generational digital divide so like uh we talk about parents we talk about educators we also talk about children educating them because with diversity uh there is the challenge of parents still catching up with technology, while children have fast-paced. That is the reason that we are unable to bridge that gap, and that can only happen once we do a lot of awareness programs. So we do one awareness program about use of gadgets, but then what happens technology advances, we need to go back and talk about something new that has come up. So it’s a vicious circle that needs to be adopted, but yes, the lack of support is of course there, which puts things on a standstill as well, or low-paced, I would say. Other point is of the shared devices. Like children probably are having their own devices, but in many parts of India, children don’t have their own devices, so they share devices of their parents. So when they start exploring devices on their parents, they also come across content which is not appropriate for them. That is one of the challenges that we face, and also in low-income groups especially, or in marginalized communities, one phone in a family is a big deal, right? And then having internet on their phones, because probably parents are watching some content which is appropriate for them, but not for the kids, but then through advertisements, through other channels, they come across content which questions them in their mind, but they’re unable to ask because of the sensitivity that we have in the cultures. To the point, I’m sorry, we’re taking too long, but yeah, to the point on having multi-stakeholder interactions, I think it is more about knowledge and experience. The ones who have expertise has knowledge, but the ones to the point you made involving children is because of the experience. So we need to have a knowledge and experience both in the same room to talk about the fact that how the policies needs to be shaped and adopted. Thank you.

Millenium Anthony: Thank you very much. I’ll take one more from here, and then I’ll move online and get back to my panelists, and then we can get back to the floor again.

AUDIENCE: I can talk?

Millenium Anthony: Yeah. I’ll come back to you.

AUDIENCE: Yeah, thank you. My name is Joshua from Uganda, from the Internet Society chapter Uganda. And I’m also a developer as in building systems. And that’s actually my point. I think one of the stakeholders we often forget is the person who actually builds the system. Lucky for today at least we have somebody from Roblox. My kids are fans. I don’t build that system though. Yeah, I know. You don’t want me building that system. Yeah, that’s a good point too. Well, guys who build the systems often get forgotten in these discussions. And the time you’re building such a system, you’re just looking at the target. I need to get this software out by this and this day. So most of the times we are saying, hey, the system should do this, should have this two-factor authentication and all these other things. But if I’m working on a deadline, trust me, I’m going to leave all that stuff out. And I think one solution to help is to involve the open source community in these discussions. Because that is one of the ways you can shorten that development time such that all these measures we are talking about, these things that should be by default, are somewhere as a repository that any developer can just pick up and use. And now we have applications across the board that are safe for all our users. So those are the guys I think we need to involve in this IGF, the open source communities.

Millenium Anthony: Thank you. Wow, thank you so much, Joshua. Back to my panelists now, coming to you, Keith. We have the global standards of online safety, the global regulations that are set. But then considering that we have different legal and culture frameworks in our specific regions and countries. countries, how can we balance now between the global standards of online safety and considering our own culture, our own legal frameworks in our specific countries? Is there like a way that we can balance this?

Keith Andere: That’s, okay, I felt like I’ve shouted at myself, huh? But that’s a very interesting question in the sense that even when we have global standards, I think for children’s safety, we might not have a universally accepted global standard. Why do I say this? Kids from my village in Kakamega, somewhere deep in the interstites of Kenya, are not as privileged as maybe kids from India. I use India in the sense that the parents are already technologically aware. And I use the word aware very deliberately because not to say that all parents in India, for example, have access to the technology. But the parents of India, for example, are more aware that this is the context through which they can adopt in technology. And we’ve seen India as a success story on how they deploy technology in all spheres of their life. And this is true also if you want to look at the global North versus the global South. And Africa is also very unique, if I was going to speak about Africa, for example, is very unique because there are other things like you’ve mentioned, legal frameworks that we do have. So you find different African countries struggling with even basic frameworks such as data protection, computer, or cybercrime, cybersecurity kind of laws. So I think we cannot adopt a very universally accepted kind of policy, but I can share a few pointers that perhaps. can guide and arrive to the same response that you’re looking for. Maybe one is, are we able to develop region specific policies? So that if we are looking at Africa, for example, then we are looking at Africa as a region and the context of Africa. And even when we do that from an Africa Union point of view, then we can scale it down. You know, that just becomes a global framework through which some cross-border kind of crimes and issues can be addressed in the context of that framework. But we really need again to break it down. So West Africa and East Africa and Southern Africa, because the needs and the cultures of West Africans and Southern Africans are different. Perhaps we also need to look at cross-border collaboration. How do we go outside of legal framework, for example, that Kenya has and look at other country and pick and harmonize this framework so that whatever is illegal in Kenya is also illegal in India, for example. So that if somebody is trying to perpetuate some crime from India, then it’s not very different from Kenya. Then we can use those kind of harmonized framework to support this cross-border collaboration and enforcement as well. Again, the issue of legal frameworks. How do we build capacity to strengthen these legal frameworks, you know, and ensure that we have a comprehensive cyber security, data protection laws that also consider local contexts? You know, if you look at META, I think one of the key things that they grapple with is local and cultural contexts of issues. What is head speech in Kenya is not head speech in. in another country. And so even the people who are now doing content moderation, when you flag something as hate speech, they might not see it as hate speech because the context is different. I think we also need to perhaps education, digital education and digital literacy. Because then what that means is that we are going to promote accessible digital education in schools. But not just for kids. How do we look at parents as well, as people who we can target for digital literacy? Because then through that awareness issues are addressed. I think resource disparities is also a big issue. There are some countries that are rich. There’s some countries that are not rich. You find different countries grappling and struggling with catastrophes such as flooding, drought, climate issues. So how then do you ask them to put X amount of money in digital literacy when they’re just trying to keep these people safe, or at least out of the calamities that they already are having? So I think one of the ways also is look at addressing the resource issues to the extent that we can support countries with limited financing and also technical resources. Because you’ve come to Kenya, everybody’s almost a geek. But then you find a country like maybe Madagascar or Mozambique, the resource that they have, cybersecurity professionals are such a small number. If you look at different reports, they say Africa has a shortage of cybersecurity professionals to the extent that they are needed up to 20,000 professionals a year. Now what does that mean if you’re now contextualizing? that in terms of resource that can, you know, develop and support this kind of issues to ensure that, you know, we are building a standard that is also localized. So these expertise are things that we should export. You know, Joshua here with all his technical expertise, that expertise that he has can be exported to Sao Tome, for example, or Cape Verde, and support the people of Cape Verde. Because if it’s just in Uganda or in Tanzania, I don’t know, how then do we take advantage of such expertise? I’ll stop at that. Thank you.

Millenium Anthony: Wow. Thank you so much. Daba, do we have any contributions from online? We have a question? Okay. So I’ll get to Nirvana and then we can move back to the question. Now to you Nirvana. What strategy, you have worked with kids, right? You have worked with on different projects on how to protect children and youth online. But so can you share with us if there are any strategies that you find effective in promoting active participation of children and parents in securing a safe digital environment?

Nirvana Lima: So over the past years, I’ve been conducting research and working on issues related to internet governance with young people, but age 80 to 25, who are the target audience of Youth Brazil program. But I had the opportunity to teach workshops on responsible internet use to young people aged 16 to 18. However, I must admit that unfortunately I haven’t. yet worked directly with children. Though, I believe in the importance of doing so as soon as possible. This is not just because of my responsibility as a researcher and a popular educator, but also for the civil society and government organizations. Children and teenagers are facing serious challenges. And as adults, us, we need to study, we need to address them. Since 2018, the World Health Organization has officially recognized digital addiction as a disorder, sounding the alarm for parents and educators about the excessive time children spend in front of screens. It’s more than clear that we need to develop and implement effective methodologies focused on media literacy for children, for adolescents, parents, and educators. In Brazil, along with other countries in the South Global, we must begin integrating media education into school curriculum. I think this is a great start. From primary to high school, being connected to internet is a reality. All of us know. But as for this and forward generations, we must ensure that they are equipped to use internet in ways that serve their best interest. So we all are responsible for them.

Millenium Anthony: All right. Thank you so much, Nympharna. I now welcome questions from the floor. If you have any questions to any of our panelists, yes, I’ll take you and… he was the first and then you and then we’ll do one from online so one two three four five five one minute each what it’s a contribution okay so please allow me to take the contribution from online first

AUDIENCE: it’s good you guys congratulations from the discussion and as you are talking i guess you have a main challenge in brazil because you’re a huge country so i guess one of the main challenges is the difference between the law enforcement between the different regions in brazil like i’m the north and the law digital enforcement for child for child and for i mean everything it’s very different from the enforcement for the south and i guess we as a federative state we don’t think in laos considering this difference you know as i said our law is federal but with this um state laws uh focusing on each difference between our regions amazon and south and i guess this is a huge problem for brazil and it must be on the discussion in every government and it’s missing but my question is for any of you any of you guys can respond me it’s what is the main challenge for the stakeholders when you are designing not to a tool for children, considering different legal frameworks around the world. There are some convergence, some main convergence, between the different law enforcements between the countries. Do you think there is something that is common between India, Brazil, United States? There is something that is common in the law? Or do you think we don’t have this? We don’t have a point in common between all the laws focused for children and youth? Is this a question?

Millenium Anthony: Yeah. Any of my panelists who is ready to respond on that in one minute, if you can take a second. Oh, we don’t have a mic.

Nikki Colasso: So I’m not a lawyer. So I thought Mike was going to run. I’m not a lawyer, so I can’t speak to commonalities in the actual law. But I think often what companies try to do is synthesize much of what is illegal in many places into what is often called their community standards or community guidelines. And that’s kind of the governing document for a service. And in that document, you’ll usually find you can’t perpetrate illegal acts. It’s kind of broadly defined to cover different geographies. You can’t use hate speech. You can’t commit fraud. These kinds of things, which tend to be common across geographies. What I think is much harder, which Keith touched on, is the speech issue. So what may be illegal to say, in France, by law, you cannot deny that the Holocaust happened. In the US, in theory, you can. We would all agree it’s hateful, but you actually can do. that. And I think it’s much harder to moderate around the speech issues, which doesn’t mean that the legal stuff isn’t difficult, but I think the moderation piece is very, very difficult. I think a lot of times the governing documents, like the community standards, community guidelines, try to find those places in common in the law.

Millenium Anthony: Thank you so much, Nikki.

Keith Andere: Just managing this tech thing. Okay. In addition to what the colleague here says, I think it’s also important to note or to remember that we cannot regulate online what we are unable to regulate offline. So what applies offline is basically what will apply online. So if, for example, we have quote unquote freedom of speech here, to the extent that we can say, generally to many things which can pass, how then do I curtail you from typing this? If I can speak to you and say certain words, then it becomes difficult just because it’s written to say that we can curtail or we can put a standard to it. So in my submission, I think it then starts to applying these from offline so that then it’s applicable online. Otherwise, if we look at it from just an online lens, it will be difficult to enforce because that is not what happens offline.

Millenium Anthony: Perfect. Thank you. Please, can we take our contribution from online and then come back on site? Yeah, thank you. Can you use less than a minute if you can? Yeah, yeah. Thank you very much.

Ponsleit Szilagyi: Thank you very much. Ponsleit Szilagyi speaking from the Gambia NRI. One of the main things I want to contribute in this session is having countries implementing an Online Safety Act as the United Kingdom has done in 2023. And that Online Safety Act also protects not only children, but adults. When you have an Online Safety Act, most of all these problems we have in navigating online safety for children and young people happens in most social media companies. And now the social media companies are now more held responsible. And yes, it might be difficult. It might take time because everybody’s doing different things in putting an act, but I believe that advocating for an Online Safety Act within the context of each countries is the way to go about it. In most of the global South, what happens where most of the children don’t really have internet access is in their schools, whether it’s in public schools or private schools. And you can also introduce forms of educational online safety, but it starts with an act. And if you look at the UK example in the uk.gov.uk, you discover that it’s very strong in protecting children. And I think that’s the way we should go forward. Thank you.

Millenium Anthony: Wow, thank you so much for the contribution. Please allow me to take the second question back there. I’m sorry, the second and then the third. Please let’s try to use less than a minute to summarize our questions. What?

AUDIENCE: Hi, can you hear me? Yes. My name is William. I’m from South Africa, and we do a lot of work with children. And in fact, what we’ve been doing, coordinated by UNICEF is a group of all entities that work on online safety to try and come together and try and build common approaches. And we’ve just last week, in fact, presented South African online guidelines for dealing with online safety. There’s an absence from that group and it’s Roblox. And Roblox internationally has come under fire quite a lot because children find it very easy to get around the measures that you’ve got in place currently to protect them. And so that comes to a point of political will. And of course, the other big one around age verification, which as I understand it is what the Australian government is saying, until and unless you can demonstrate comprehensive age verification systems, we’re gonna say no under 16. So I’d love to get your feedback on that. Thanks very much. Fascinating panel.

Millenium Anthony: You wanna respond to that Miki?

Nikki Colasso: Sure. So, I mean, I guess, do you want me to respond to your question about Roblox or in terms of Australia? Yeah, so let me start by saying that like, we are not perfect. Like Roblox is not perfect. And I don’t think any tech company is. But I do believe that we are very safety first in terms of trying to get the right outcomes and putting children at the center of what we do. And not just because it’s the right thing to do, although it’s the right thing to do. It doesn’t even make sense from a technological or business perspective to not protect children. Like our service would cease to exist if we didn’t do that. With that said, I think that there is a lot of fair or just fair, I don’t know if it’s criticism or sensitivity about the role of. of tech companies in society and what they need to come to the table to do. And I think that’s probably been building up for quite a long time. But, and I also think that, you know, companies very often will be covered in the press. But the reality is, is that, you know, we develop, we’ve actually just announced a whole set of parental tools so that children can’t talk one-on-one outside of games, right, to prevent grooming. And that’s a default, like what I talked about before. And I think we’re constantly trying to update that, but we’re also a company of 2000 people. So if you compare us to like a huge social media company, we still need to grow in scale. So I think the answer is we are not perfect, but I do think that we are consistently focused on the right outcomes. I think the question about age verification is an important one. I do think if there was a technology that could perfectly verify age, it would make sense for countries and companies to use that to the extent that they could. The problem is that those technologies are often very circumventable. So they are easily gotten around, particularly for children who are very tech savvy, or they might work very well, but they’re gonna collect a ton of biometric data about the child or the person in question. Then it’s a little bit of a, how do you rate that? Is it more important to keep them off a service and prevent access totally, but collect a lot of their private biometric information in the process? And I think that is the central question that policymakers and tech companies are struggling with. My hope is that over time, these tech solutions get better, and, but I don’t think we have a great answer to that right now. I think age verification continues to be the question that really troubles people across tech and policy circles and in the public sector.

Millenium Anthony: Well, thank you so much, Nikki. Please, let’s get.

AUDIENCE: Right, hello, can you hear me? Yes. Okay, hi, my name is Leander, I’m the executive director of the Five Rights Foundation, and we are a global NGO working on children’s rights in the digital environment with the mission to build the digital world that children and young people deserve. And we represent and work with and for children from around the world. And I have a couple of points to make. First of all, building on what people have said in the room, I think it really has to be extremely clear that this is a global problem, and that the issues cited in India could just as well be in Uganda or in the US and they certainly are. And the reason that children are having very, very similar experiences online around the world and facing the same risks and the same harms is because they are misusing exactly the same products. This gets us to the point, is there a global solution and do we need global standards? The answer is very, very clearly, yes. There are, you know, companies which are representing 25% of global GDP, who have a massive power differential between those companies and the children that we are talking about. And indeed, Nikki, I actually agree with so much of what you have said about the fact that this is not for parents to deal with, this is not about digital literacy, this is not about children, educating children to navigate an environment which is controlled by a number of companies. And it really, yes, is about safety by design, and it is about corporate responsibility. And this is exactly where we can have global standards. And to Joshua’s point, you know, this is where designing with certain basic principles and standards in mind is very, very possible. And we shouldn’t overcomplicate things. Indeed, the same applies online, as offline, as was said before. And they are products, and we do have product safety regimes, we do have privacy regimes, and these things should apply online. And so, you know, much of that is already there. There is the Convention on the Rights of the Child, there is the General Comment 25, which sets out exactly how children’s rights apply in the digital environment. We now have the Global Digital Compact. regulations, so our colleague online mentioned the Online Safety Act, there’s also the age-appropriate design code which exists in many countries and which Roblox has endorsed and was one of the first endorsers of this code and they set out indeed not prescriptive and tech neutral systems for companies to follow. So that is there, we must apply it, the big problem that remains is that I think you know colleagues who work on policy and who say the right things are very distinct from business interests and the people at the top who are making the business decisions and maybe not feeding back to the designers who are getting very specific metrics that they need to implement which are not focused around child rights and safety. Thank you.

Millenium Anthony: Thank you, Sabah please can you read for us the question online? We have less than one minute so if you have any question from the audience you can ask in the end.

Saba Tiku Beyene: So Omar Shuran is asking what do you think are the most important steps we can take to ensure that kids feel safe and supported when exploring the digital world and what are the measures?

Millenium Anthony: Anyone who can summarize in less than a minute?

Keith Andere: For us to make kids feel safe online there must be an element of trust and trust here comes from a point of confidence. Feeling is is not something that you can point at so I see that if they are confident then the aspect of feeling safe comes in and confident is not just in using. If I give my phone to a three-year-old today even though they might not have used an iPhone within no time you’ll find that they’ve figured out what is a you know App Store and they’ve gone and downloaded a game taught themselves to play a game, and they’ll return to me telling me, I can’t go past this level. And I’m like, okay, so what even is this? And that comes with literacy. Literacy not just in using, literacy in security, literacy in knowing that this is a potential threat. I think I’ve seen kids playing a lot of online games, and sometimes the people on the other side, for them, they just see as a game player or a mate. But this person you find is an adult trying to push these kids towards certain direction. Come and do this, or if you don’t do this, I’ll give you this. So how do we make them feel safe if they are not aware from a point of literacy is something that might not be achieved if we don’t look at literacy and security literacy, cybersecurity, cyber hygiene, do the do’s and don’ts, how to navigate threats. For me, it’s very easy when I see somebody trying to spam me what to do, but will my 12-year-old daughter probably do the same? Maybe not, unless, of course, I’ve shown and told them that, look, watch out for this, and when this happens, this is what you do. That’s what I think.

Millenium Anthony: Wow, thank you so much, Keith. Thank you so much to my panelists. Thank you for your contributions. Thank you to the audience. Thank you for being very interactive. We’re out of time, so thank you very much. Please connect to our panelists. They’re going to be here. So if you had a question, you can connect with them after. Thank you.

Agreement Points

Need for stakeholder collaboration in ensuring online safety

Keith Andere

Nikki Colasso

AUDIENCE

Promoting cross-border collaboration and harmonized legal frameworks

Balancing corporate responsibility with user empowerment

Involving open source communities in developing safety features

Speakers agree on the importance of collaboration between different stakeholders, including governments, tech companies, and open source communities, to effectively address online safety issues.

Importance of digital literacy and education

Keith Andere

Nirvana Lima

AUDIENCE

Focusing on building children’s confidence and digital literacy

Integrating media education into school curricula

Lack of awareness and digital literacy among children and parents

Speakers emphasize the need for digital literacy and education programs to empower children, parents, and educators in navigating online spaces safely.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers highlight the importance of considering cultural differences when developing online safety policies and content moderation practices.

Keith Andere

Nikki Colasso

Need for region-specific policies due to cultural differences

Addressing differences in content moderation across cultures

Both speakers advocate for proactive approaches to online safety, emphasizing the need for built-in safety features and global standards to protect children’s rights.

Nikki Colasso

Unknown speaker

Implementing safety by design principles in product development

Developing global standards based on children’s rights

Unexpected Consensus

Limitations of parental controls and user empowerment

Nikki Colasso

Unknown speaker

Balancing corporate responsibility with user empowerment

Developing global standards based on children’s rights

Despite representing different perspectives (tech industry and children’s rights advocacy), both speakers agree that relying solely on parental controls and user empowerment is insufficient, emphasizing the need for corporate responsibility and global standards.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement include the need for stakeholder collaboration, the importance of digital literacy and education, consideration of cultural differences in policy-making, and the implementation of proactive safety measures.

Consensus level

There is a moderate level of consensus among the speakers on the key challenges and potential solutions for ensuring online safety for children and youth. This consensus suggests a growing recognition of the complexity of the issue and the need for multi-faceted approaches involving various stakeholders. However, there are still differences in emphasis and specific strategies proposed by different speakers, indicating that further dialogue and collaboration may be necessary to develop comprehensive and effective solutions.

Different Viewpoints

Approach to online safety regulations

Keith Andere

Nikki Colasso

Ponsleit

Need for region-specific policies due to cultural differences

Developing principle-based rather than prescriptive policies

Implementing Online Safety Acts at the national level

Keith argues for region-specific policies, Nikki advocates for principle-based policies, while Ponsleit suggests implementing national Online Safety Acts.

Focus of online safety efforts

Nirvana Lima

Keith Andere

Integrating media education into school curricula

Focusing on building children’s confidence and digital literacy

Nirvana emphasizes integrating media education into school curricula, while Keith focuses on building children’s confidence and digital literacy.

Unexpected Differences

Role of parents in ensuring online safety

AUDIENCE

Nikki Colasso

Lack of awareness and digital literacy among children and parents

Balancing corporate responsibility with user empowerment

While the audience member emphasizes parental awareness, Nikki unexpectedly argues that relying solely on parental controls is unrealistic, shifting more responsibility to tech companies.

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement revolve around the approach to online safety regulations, the focus of online safety efforts, and the role of different stakeholders in ensuring online safety.

difference_level

The level of disagreement is moderate. While there are differing views on specific approaches, there is a general consensus on the importance of online safety for children and youth. These differences highlight the complexity of the issue and the need for a multi-faceted approach involving various stakeholders.

Partial Agreements

Both agree on the need for tailored approaches to online safety, but Nikki focuses on product development while Keith emphasizes regional policy differences.

Nikki Colasso

Keith Andere

Implementing safety by design principles in product development

Need for region-specific policies due to cultural differences

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers highlight the importance of considering cultural differences when developing online safety policies and content moderation practices.

Keith Andere

Nikki Colasso

Need for region-specific policies due to cultural differences

Addressing differences in content moderation across cultures

Both speakers advocate for proactive approaches to online safety, emphasizing the need for built-in safety features and global standards to protect children’s rights.

Nikki Colasso

Unknown speaker

Implementing safety by design principles in product development

Developing global standards based on children’s rights

Key Takeaways

Online safety for children and youth is a complex global issue requiring multi-stakeholder collaboration

There is a need for both technical solutions (safety by design) and education/awareness initiatives

Cultural contexts and legal frameworks vary, necessitating adaptable approaches

Corporate responsibility of tech companies is crucial, but user empowerment is also important

Age verification remains a significant challenge, balancing effectiveness with privacy concerns

Resolutions and Action Items

Integrate media education and digital literacy into school curricula

Develop and implement national Online Safety Acts

Improve collaboration between tech companies, policymakers, and child rights organizations

Focus on designing products with safety principles from the start

Unresolved Issues

How to effectively implement age verification without compromising privacy

Balancing global standards with local cultural and legal contexts

Addressing resource disparities between countries in implementing online safety measures

How to make online safety education accessible in rural and low-income areas

Suggested Compromises

Adopting principle-based policies rather than prescriptive ones to allow for cultural adaptations

Balancing parental controls with default safety settings on platforms

Finding a middle ground between outright bans and unrestricted access for children

I think that where we are now is really looking at defaults and looking at what are the initial settings on these platforms, including Roblox, and acknowledging that we need to provide that safety net in addition to the parental controls.

speaker

Nikki Colasso

reason

This comment shifts the focus from relying solely on parental controls to emphasizing the responsibility of tech companies in providing safe default settings.

impact

It led to further discussion about the role of tech companies in ensuring online safety and the limitations of relying only on parental controls.

So, I see that we as stakeholders in whatever format that we are in, whether civil society, whether governments, whether youth, or all these people, we need to start thinking security by design. And one of the things is having the kids here, so that we are not speaking for them, but we are also listening what they are saying.

speaker

Keith Andere

reason

This comment introduces the important concept of ‘security by design’ and emphasizes the need to include children’s voices in discussions about online safety.

impact

It broadened the conversation to consider a more holistic approach to online safety, including the direct involvement of children in policy-making.

The truth is that kids and teens are not digital natives, despite what some may claim. This generation learns how to navigate online through trial and error, just like everyone else. They are vulnerable to exploitation, not only of their personal data, but also within the influenced economy, which includes advertising agencies and talent agents for child celebrities.

speaker

Nirvana Lima

reason

This comment challenges the common assumption that children are inherently tech-savvy and highlights their vulnerabilities in the digital space.

impact

It shifted the discussion towards recognizing the need for comprehensive digital education and protection for children, rather than assuming they can navigate online spaces safely on their own.

Well, guys who build the systems often get forgotten in these discussions. And the time you’re building such a system, you’re just looking at the target. I need to get this software out by this and this day. So most of the times we are saying, hey, the system should do this, should have this two-factor authentication and all these other things. But if I’m working on a deadline, trust me, I’m going to leave all that stuff out.

speaker

Joshua (audience member)

reason

This comment brings attention to an often overlooked stakeholder – the developers – and highlights the practical challenges in implementing safety features.

impact

It introduced a new perspective on the challenges of implementing online safety measures and led to discussion about involving open source communities in developing safety solutions.

I think age verification continues to be the question that really troubles people across tech and policy circles and in the public sector.

speaker

Nikki Colasso

reason

This comment highlights a critical challenge in implementing online safety measures for children – the difficulty of effective age verification.

impact

It sparked further discussion about the complexities of balancing privacy concerns with safety measures, and the limitations of current technological solutions.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by broadening the scope of stakeholders involved in online safety (from parents to tech companies, policymakers, developers, and children themselves), highlighting the complexities and challenges in implementing effective safety measures, and emphasizing the need for a more holistic, collaborative approach to online safety. The discussion evolved from focusing on parental controls to considering systemic changes in how online platforms are designed and regulated, while also recognizing the importance of digital literacy and education.

How can we develop region-specific policies for online safety that consider local contexts?

speaker

Keith Andere

explanation

This is important to address the unique challenges and cultural differences in various regions, especially in Africa.

How can we address resource disparities between countries in implementing online safety measures?

speaker

Keith Andere

explanation

This is crucial to ensure that countries with limited financial and technical resources can still protect their children online.

How can we integrate media education into school curricula from primary to high school?

speaker

Nirvana Lima

explanation

This is important to equip children with the skills to use the internet safely from an early age.

What are the commonalities in laws focused on children and youth across different countries?

speaker

Audience member

explanation

Understanding these commonalities could help in developing more universal approaches to online safety.

How can we improve age verification technologies without compromising user privacy?

speaker

Nikki Colasso

explanation

This is important to effectively implement age restrictions while protecting users’ personal data.

How can we better align corporate policies with child rights and safety principles?

speaker

Leander (audience member)

explanation

This is crucial to ensure that business interests do not override child safety concerns in tech companies.

What are the most effective ways to build digital literacy and cybersecurity awareness among children?

speaker

Keith Andere

explanation

This is important to empower children to navigate online threats and use the internet safely.

Summary

This discussion focused on how social media platforms can engage with external stakeholders, particularly academics and human rights experts, to improve content moderation policies. The panel featured representatives from Meta, academia, and human rights organizations.

Jeffrey Howard argued that academics should take an “educative” rather than “activist” approach when advising platforms, providing frameworks and insights rather than pushing specific policy positions. Conor Sanchez from Meta described their process for consulting experts on policy development, giving examples of how external input shaped policies on crisis situations, functional identification, and human smuggling content.

Tomiwa Ilori emphasized the importance of meaningful collaboration with local experts and institutions, centering victims’ experiences, and adopting a bottom-up governance approach. He also stressed the need for platforms to be transparent about how they apply expert input and to proactively address human rights concerns.

Participants discussed challenges around language capacity and cultural competence in content moderation. Meta representatives highlighted their investments in multilingual moderation and partnerships with local NGOs, while acknowledging ongoing difficulties.

The discussion underscored the complexity of content moderation decisions, with stakeholders often disagreeing on optimal policies. Speakers emphasized the importance of sustained engagement with diverse experts, iterative policy development, and balancing different perspectives. Overall, the panel illustrated the intricate process of incorporating external expertise into platform governance while retaining ultimate decision-making responsibility.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– The role of academics in engaging with social media platforms on content moderation policies

– How Meta conducts consultations with external stakeholders and experts to inform policy decisions

– Ways platforms can learn from human rights experts to ensure rights-centered content moderation

– Challenges around language, cultural context, and capacity in global content moderation efforts

– The process of making difficult policy decisions based on stakeholder input

Overall purpose:

The goal of this discussion was to explore how social media platforms like Meta engage with external experts, particularly academics and human rights specialists, to develop content moderation policies that are effective, ethical, and rights-respecting on a global scale.

Tone:

The tone was largely informative and collaborative, with speakers sharing insights from their experiences working on these issues. There was an emphasis on the complexity of the challenges and the need for ongoing dialogue and iterative processes. The tone remained consistent throughout, maintaining a constructive and solution-oriented approach to discussing difficult policy questions.

Speakers

– Tomiwa Ilori: Advisor for BD Tech Africa Project by the UN Human Rights

– Conor Sanchez: Content policy team and stakeholder engagement team at Meta

– Jeffrey Howard: Academic researcher, ethicist

– Ghandi Emilar: Moderator

Additional speakers:

– Naomi Schiffman: From the Oversight Board (mentioned but not present)

–  Mike Walton: UNHCR

– Adnan: Participant from Iraq

Expanded Summary of Discussion on Social Media Platform Engagement with External Stakeholders

This discussion explored how social media platforms, particularly Meta, engage with external stakeholders such as academics and human rights experts to improve content moderation policies. The panel featured representatives from Meta, academia, and human rights organisations, focusing on the complexities of developing effective, ethical, and rights-respecting content moderation policies on a global scale.

Role of Academics in Platform Policy Development

Jeffrey Howard, an academic researcher and ethicist, argued for an “educative” rather than “activist” approach for academics engaging with social media platforms. He posited that academics should provide frameworks and insights rather than pushing specific policy positions, preserving their distinctive role and differentiating their input from that of other stakeholders.

Howard contended that academics should not view themselves as voting stakeholders in platform decisions, as they are not directly affected by policies in the same way as other constituents. Instead, he suggested that academic engagement with platforms can be intellectually generative, offering unique perspectives and analytical frameworks to inform policy development.

Meta’s Stakeholder Engagement Process and Content Moderation Efforts

Conor Sanchez, representing Meta’s content policy and stakeholder engagement teams, detailed the company’s process for consulting experts on policy development. Meta’s approach is based on principles of inclusivity, expertise, and transparency. Sanchez provided examples of how external input has shaped policies on crisis situations, functional identification, and human smuggling content.

Sanchez highlighted Meta’s significant investment in safety and security, with over 40,000 people working on these issues. The company’s content moderation efforts cover more than 70 languages, demonstrating the scale and complexity of their operations. Sanchez also mentioned Meta’s Trusted Partner Program, which facilitates collaboration with local NGOs and experts.

The human smuggling content policy was discussed as a prime example of the complexity in policy-making. Sanchez explained how Meta had to balance humanitarian concerns with the need to prevent exploitation, resulting in a nuanced policy that allows certain types of content while prohibiting others.

Human Rights-Centred Approach to Content Moderation

Tomiwa Ilori, an advisor for the BD Tech Africa Project by the UN Human Rights, emphasised the importance of a human rights-centred approach to content moderation. He advocated for meaningful collaboration with credible human rights institutions, particularly those with local expertise and “boots on the ground” in specific contexts. Ilori also highlighted the relevance of the UN guiding principles on business and human rights in this context.

Ilori stressed the need to centre victims’ experiences and adopt a bottom-up governance approach. He argued for increased access to platform data for independent research, especially in underserved contexts such as the majority world. This approach, Ilori contended, would provide more contextual nuances and understanding of issues on the ground, informing how platforms can learn from their impact in diverse settings.

Challenges in Content Moderation

The discussion highlighted several significant challenges in global content moderation efforts

1. Language and Cultural Differences: Sanchez acknowledged the difficulties in moderating content across diverse linguistic and cultural contexts. Despite Meta’s investment in multilingual moderation, challenges persist, as evidenced by an audience question from Iraq about the lack of Arabic-speaking content moderators.

2. Capacity and Resource Constraints: Mike Walton from the UN Refugee Agency raised concerns about the capacity to support content moderation across a wide breadth of languages.

3. Accessibility for Local Stakeholders: An audience member from Iraq, Adnan, pointed out the difficulty some local researchers and NGOs face in reaching Meta experts to engage on issues or ask questions.

4. Sustaining Engagement: Gandhi Emilar, the moderator, highlighted the challenge of sustaining ongoing engagement with academics and experts over time. The importance of relationship-building and long-term collaboration was emphasised as crucial for effective policy development.

Areas of Agreement and Disagreement

The speakers largely agreed on the importance of diverse stakeholder engagement and the need for sustained, ongoing collaboration between platforms and experts. There was also consensus on the significant challenges faced in content moderation across different languages and cultures.

However, some differences emerged in approaches to stakeholder engagement. While Jeffrey Howard advocated for an educative role for academics, Tomiwa Ilori emphasised the importance of including victims’ voices and lived experiences in policy development. Similarly, while Conor Sanchez focused on Meta’s existing process of consulting various experts, Ilori advocated for a more bottom-up approach emphasising local context and actors.

Conclusion and Future Directions

The discussion underscored the complexity of incorporating external expertise into platform governance while retaining ultimate decision-making responsibility. It highlighted the need for ongoing dialogue and iterative processes in developing content moderation policies. Sanchez emphasised that policy-making is an ongoing process, with continuous refinement based on new information and stakeholder input.

Several unresolved issues and potential areas for further exploration emerged, including:

1. Effectively scaling bottom-up content governance approaches

2. Balancing conflicting stakeholder perspectives in policy decisions

3. Improving accessibility for local stakeholders to engage with platforms

4. Sustaining long-term engagement with academics and experts

5. Increasing platform capacity to support content moderation across diverse languages

6. Exploring the potential role of AI in multilingual content moderation

7. Establishing best practices for imported content moderation labels

8. Finding ways for platforms to support objective institutional research without compromising independence or credibility

These points suggest a rich agenda for future discussions and research on the intersection of social media governance, content moderation, and human rights.

Ghandi Emilar: panelists online, three speakers online, if you can just quickly introduce yourselves.

Tomiwa Ilori: Okay. Hi, my name is Tomiwa Ilari. I’m currently an advisor for BD Tech Africa Project by the UN Human Rights. Thank you for having me.

Ghandi Emilar: Tomiwa, when you speak next, please increase your volume. Can we go to Kana, please?

Connor Sanchez: Yes, thank you. Hi, everybody. My name is Connor Sanchez. And I am with Metta. I’m on the content policy team and specifically on the stakeholder engagement team. Pleased to be with you all today. I’m sitting in California.

Ghandi Emilar: Thank you so much, Kana. And we have our third speaker online. Maybe when she joins us, we can ask her to introduce herself. So quickly just going through some of the challenges that we face as we do external stakeholder engagement at Metta. The first one, which I think most of you as well in your work first is really identifying the experts. Who are these experts? How do we even define what expertise is? Can we look at lived experiences? Can we look at the impacted ones? Who are the potentially impacted? Who are the vulnerable? Who are the underrepresented groups? So identifying experts in itself is a challenge. The second one is really when we identify the experts, what are some of the, you know, how do we manage conflicting interests? And how do we manage the conflict in the work that we’re doing? And what are some of the, you know, how do we manage conflicting interests within the stakeholder maps that we have? What are the agendas that they have that can influence input and objectivity on our policies, on our product policies, on our content policies? But beyond that, beyond just identifying the experts, really as I think, acknowledging that with experts, there’s a spectrum of experts, it’s not just one type of experts, it’s not just academics, or civil society groups that I’m seeing in the room, and also, also online. The third one is the different or, you know, the power dynamics, not all NGOs are the same, not all stakeholders are the same. You know, different stakeholders have different, you know, levels of influence within the stakeholder groups themselves and between the different stakeholder groups. How do we also, how do we also communicate complex information? I’m happy to see, you know, Yopun from Diplo, as a former Diplo ambassador, I know you don’t have your headphones. It’s important, I think we have benefited, personally I’ve benefited from the capacity building programs that the organization has run. And for us as META, it’s important, I think, to acknowledge that the stakeholders that we are engaging, not all of them, they might have lived experiences, they might be experts in their fields, but not everyone understand our policies. So we have to really work hard and ensure that before we communicate that complex information or before we communicate any of the policy changes, we engage in capacity building. Opportunities, I think there are many, and this panel will look at some of those opportunities. You know, access to specialized knowledge, we don’t want this to just be an extractive process, we want it to be mutually beneficial, not only to us, but also to the experts that we are speaking to. It improves our policies, that goes without saying. It improves our policies, not only the substance, but the process itself and the credibility of the work that we are doing. Transparency, I think is also another opportunity. It sounds like a very easy concept, but obviously not, because with transparency comes accountability, and that’s something I think that we need to talk about. And also building trust. We know that there’s a trust deficit between us and stakeholders. Do we need intermediaries to help us build that trust, or is this something that we can work on? And we know that building trust is not a sprint, but a marathon that we need to ensure that we are in for the long haul. I will just end here, but I think opportunities, we can also talk a lot more about what we can gain or what we can get from the process itself. I think moving over, should I start with you? What are some of the issues? Your experiences, I think, working with META in terms of stakeholder engagement, and then we can go into specific questions.

Jeffrey Howard: That sounds great. So I’ve been given a brief to speak for about eight to 10 minutes about my experience. And I’m going to be thinking in particular about the role of academics in this process. So consider just some of the questions that bedevil policymakers at platforms like META. Should platforms restrict veiled threats of violence or only explicit threats of violence? Should rules against inciting or praising violence be modified to include a carve-out for speech that advocates or praises justified self-defense? When should graphic violence depicting real-world, graphic content rather, depicting real-world violence be permitted for awareness-raising purposes? When should otherwise violating content be permitted on grounds of newsworthiness? For example, because the speaker is an important politician. What kinds of violations should result in permanent bans from a platform? And what kind should result in temporary suspensions? How can platforms better monitor and mitigate suspicious conduct by users in order to prevent abusive behavior before it happens? So these are just some of the topics about which I’ve engaged with social media platforms over the years in my work as an academic researcher. I’ve engaged principally with various teams within META, also teams within the Oversight Board, and policymakers throughout the UK and EU. And the thing about the questions I just listed that I want to call your attention to is that they’re not empirical questions that can be answered with social science. They’re normative questions about how to strike the balance between different ethical values when they come into conflict. Now, the academic discipline of ethics is entirely dedicated to exactly that issue. And so my role as an ethicist is to bring the tools of ethics conceived widely to bear on the proper governance of online speech and behavior. And what I want to do in the next couple minutes is to sketch two alternative theories of the proper role of academics in undertaking this kind of work, tracing some of their implications for how we should engage with platforms. So the first conception I’ll discuss is what I’ll call the activist conception, and I think this is really common. Now, on this view, the academic has already made up his or her mind about what the right answer is on a particular issue and sees her role as that of pressuring or persuading or lobbying the platform to adopt her view. So consider that question I mentioned about whether there should be a self-defense carve-out to the policy prohibiting advocacy of violence. So on this approach, the academics already made up their mind about whether it’s yes or no, and the goal is simply to persuade platforms to go their way. Usually, academics who follow this approach have already written an academic paper publishing exactly the view that they hope to defend, and then they want to be able to show that that paper has had impact for professional incentive reasons. So they’re really activists for their own research. Now, I think this is a really common way of academics to engage, and I think it’s completely misguided. I think it’s the wrong way for academics to engage. I think we should reject the activist conception of the role of academics and stakeholder engagement, and I think we should reject it because it diminishes the distinctive role that I think academics can play in this process because it eliminates the distinction between the role academics can play and the role that other stakeholders can play. Now, if you work for an NGO dedicated to fighting violence against women and girls or an organization dedicated to children’s mental health, I think the activist conception makes complete sense. You’ve figured out what policy best serves the needs of those you represent, and you’re going to the wall for those people to advocate for that policy. And so the activist view flows from these organizations’ purpose. But I’d argue that the distinctive role of an academic isn’t to be an activist. It’s something else, and that leads me to the second view, which is the one I’ll defend, and for lack of a better term, I’ll call it the educative view. And the idea here is that the role of the academic is to just educate the audience about the relevant cutting-edge academic research that bears on whatever the topic is under discussion. And in this way, it draws on the way academics ideally already teach their classes, which is to inform students about the range of research pertinent to a particular topic. So when I teach a class in London on the ethics of counter-terrorism policy or the ethics of crime and punishment, I’m not just teaching my own preferred views in those various controversies, I teach the most reasonable arguments on each side of an issue so that students are empowered to make up their own minds. Likewise, for my colleagues in empirical political science, when they’re teaching, for example, the causes of political polarization, the professor doesn’t just teach students his own favorite explanation that he’s published on in a recent article in the American Political Science Review. The right way to teach a class on that topic would be to identify the range of potential causes in the academic literature, pointing out the evidence for and against. Now, he might also flag that he favors a particular view, but his goal isn’t to ram his preferred theory into students’ brains, it’s to empower them with frameworks and insights so that they can make up their own minds. And my thought for you today is that that educative conception should guide academics in how they engage with platforms and other decision makers. Our role isn’t just to tell platforms what we think the right answer is as we see it, as if platforms were counting votes among stakeholders. And by the way, even if platforms were counting votes among stakeholders, it’s not clear academics should get a vote since we’re not really stakeholders, we’re not particularly affected by policies in the way particular constituents are. Our input is solicited because we have knowledge that’s relevant to their decision. Our role is to give platforms insights and frameworks so that they can make up their own minds. So let me make that just a little more concrete for you before I finish. So when I first engaged with Meta on the topic of violent threats and whether veiled threats should be restricted, I saw my role as getting them up to date with philosophical theories about what threats are, about how they function, about what harm they can cause, why speakers might have a moral duty to refrain from threatening language. What legitimate role sarcastic or hyperbolic threats might play in valuable self-expression. I also saw my role as informing them about theories from legal philosophy about what to do in tricky cases where all the candidate rules in a given policy area are either under-inclusive or over-inclusive, which I think happens quite a lot in the content moderation space. Likewise, when my team presents public comments to the oversight board, we of course indicate what result we think the oversight board should reach, but that’s much less important than the framework of arguments we offer to reach that conclusion. So for example, one central critique of deploying international human rights norms for content moderation is that these norms fail to offer adequate guidance, they’re just too indeterminate. But those who make this critique in the literature almost always overlook the fact that there’s a huge amount of cutting edge philosophical work on principles like necessity and proportionality, which I think can be really, really helpful in giving guidance to content moderation decision makers. And so part of my role is to help decision makers within platforms learn about that work. Now, wrapping up now, I’d like to emphasize that the case for the educative model is bolstered by the obvious fact that experts disagree about what to do. And so academics simply cheerleading for one side of the argument is not particularly helpful. The role of academics is to supply platforms with the insights they need to exercise platform’s own judgment about what to do. And I think judgment on ethical questions is essential. If I were to tell you that I was opposed to the death penalty and you asked me why, and I said, well, I asked some ethics professors and they told me they were opposed for it and I believed them, that would be an intellectually and morally unserious set of reasons for having that view. We all are responsible for making our own judgment about what’s right and wrong. And while ethicists can help us think through the arguments, the judgment about which argument is most convincing must ultimately be ours. And that goes for a platform too. Platforms like Meta can consult experts, but ultimately it’s their responsibility. to make a judgment about what to do. Last comment I’ll make is just many academics are reluctant to engage with decision makers in this space. And I think that’s a huge mistake because engaging with platforms and other decision makers like Oversight Board is hugely intellectually generative. It can help us identify new topics to write and think about. And it can also give us an opportunity to make a positive practical difference through our work. So that’s how I see the role of academics in engaging with platforms. Thanks.

Ghandi Emilar: Thank you so much, Jeff. This is really, really useful. I think one of your posts that I took here is intellectually and morally unserious views. I think I’ll use it moving forward. But you really put forward, I think, a compelling argument on why academics should engage in these spaces. And I’m sure there’s a lot of people have questions for you. But if we can just move on to other speakers and we get back to you. Yeah. Now I want to move on to Connor who leads our external engagement and who is the brains behind, with Jeff as well, behind this workshop. For him to take us through some of the case studies that show how our engagements have impacted policy decisions, our engagements with academics. So Connor, over to you. Could we put Connor’s screen? Oh, there it is. Great, everyone can see it now. Super.

Connor Sanchez: Wonderful. Yes, thank you so much. Can you hear me okay?

Ghandi Emilar: Yes, we can hear you.

Connor Sanchez: Great. Thank you so much, Amalar. And thanks, Jeff, for those first set of comments and provocation for this discussion. For everybody joining again, my name is Connor Sanchez. I’m on the stakeholder engagement team here at Meta. And I’m going to build off of Jeff’s remarks just to briefly share a bit about how we carry out consultations with external stakeholders, including academia, as well as independent researchers. We engage these experts for a variety of reasons and on a wide variety of topics. So I think this will give you a taste for how that process runs and how we take those consultations and the insights they share into account as we work through a particular policy. So just backing up for a second, just for those who may be unaware, our content policy team is the team that’s in charge of our community standards. The community standards, at the simplest level, are rules to make our platforms a space where people feel empowered, where they feel safe to communicate. And importantly, these standards are based on feedback, feedback we’ve received from a wide variety of individuals who use our platform, but also the advice of experts. And I have a few case studies that I think kind of exhibit exactly how these consultations have had an impact on our policy. An important detail about our community standards, these are global, they apply to everyone around the world, and we’ve become increasingly transparent about where we draw the line on particular issues. And laying out these policies in detail allows us to have a more productive dialogue with stakeholders on how and where our policies can improve. As MLR mentioned, we do a lot of capacity building. We realize that not everybody is extremely savvy about exactly how our rules work or how our enforcement works, so we also do a lot of… education to make sure that people understand kind of where the status quo is and why we’ve drawn the line in certain areas, even as we seek their feedback on improving and evolving our community standards. So as you can see, this is a long list of what can be found in our Transparency Center. It covers quite a bit. This contains everything from hate speech to violent and graphic content to adult nudity and bullying on our platforms. The consequences for violating our community standards vary depending on the severity of the violation and the person’s history on the platform. So if you violate any one of these rules, that receives different enforcement mechanisms, and that in and of itself is something that we seek feedback on. What is the proportional response to somebody who violates our rule? What happens if it’s violated twice, three times, or seven times? At what point does that person—we want people to learn about our rules. We want them to get better and come back and be a responsible community member. And so at what stage is that appropriate for our enforcement mechanisms? And just to give you a sense of how we involve our experts into our policy development process, we really bring them into a very robust process of how we’re developing a policy. We create an outreach strategy to make sure that we are including a wide range of stakeholders, and then we carry out that outreach. Ultimately, as Jeff said, the decision sits with us. We take all of that, everything that we’ve heard from our consultations, and we provide that to our internal teams, to leadership, and we make a policy recommendation at what’s called our policy forum. This is sort of the preeminent space within the company where we consider some of the biggest questions that are plaguing our community standards and make a decision on the direction that we wanna go in. In terms of who we engage, this is the question I think I get the most, is how do you decide who to engage with? How do you find relevant experts? How do we make sure that some vulnerable groups or groups that haven’t been heard are being heard in the process? There’s no simple formula for doing this or how we would respond to this, but we have developed a structure and a methodology that helps guide us as we reach out externally. So in terms of who we engage with, first, we can’t meaningfully engage with billions of people, though that is certainly our stakeholder base. It includes billions of people. So we seek out organizations that represent the interests of others. We also really look for expertise in particular fields, and these don’t have to be experts in content moderation or content enforcement or even internet governance or platform governance, but really they could be experts in irregular migration, in psychology. All of those things can really be informative for our policy. And then in terms of the categories of stakeholders, we’re looking at NGOs, we’re looking at academic researchers, human rights experts. They can also be people with lived experiences who are on our platforms, using our tools in certain ways. And in terms of guiding who we engage, we really have sort of. of three principles or values that we look for, inclusivity, expertise, and transparency, and making sure that we know that we’re building that trust with the stakeholder base as we speak with them. So jumping into a few examples of how this has actually played a part in our policy development process. In 2022, we published our, what’s called our crisis policy protocol. And what this did was codify our content policy responses to crisis situations. The framework we aim to build would assess crisis situations that may require a specific policy response. And so we explored how to strengthen our existing procedures and include new components such as a certain criteria for entry and exit into a crisis designation. So as we developed this, we sought consultations with global experts who had backgrounds in things like national security and international relations, in humanitarian response, conflict and atrocity prevention, human rights experts. And in these consultations, stakeholders and the experts that we spoke to really helped surface key factors that should determine, that would be used to determine whether a crisis threshold has been met. And so this included, if there were certain political events or there were large demonstrations in the street, certain states of exception or policies that were put into place. All of these things were based on the experience and the expertise from the experts that we consulted and really informed the criteria that we continue to use. this day. Another example is our functional identification process. So this policy focused on how we treat content that could identify individuals beyond explicit factors such as a person’s name or an image, which obviously we already have, we already had policies for if somebody’s name was shared in a certain context or the image and that posed a risk to them, then we would remove that content. But functional identification were more subtle factors that were information that was being shared about an individual without naming them, but that could still result in their being identified and they could put at risk as a result of that identification. So the expertise that we sought with this policy development included privacy and data security experts, journalists who are often publishing the names of individuals in their stories, who sometimes may need to remain anonymous. And so from there, we’re really drawing on decades, if not centuries of experience of individuals who have grappled with this question before of what details to provide in a publication that will be read by many, many people and therefore the types of guidelines that they need to be putting in place to protect those identities. We also spoke with a global women’s safety expert advisor group that we manage. This includes various non-profit leaders, activists, and academic experts who could focus on the safety of women on and offline. And so this stakeholder input Really, the engagements helped our team develop a policy that upon escalation allows us to consider additional factors beyond just name and image, including if somebody’s age and their ethnicity or their distinctive clothing, if all three of those in combination are published online, and we have signal from a local NGO that says that this could put somebody at risk, then that would allow us to remove that content based on our new policy. And a last example of how expert input played a role in our policies. So in 2022, we developed a policy on how to treat content soliciting human smuggling services. So our policies at that time, this was under our human exploitation policies, distinguished human smuggling from human trafficking, recognizing that human smuggling was a crime against the state and human trafficking as a crime against a person. What we wanted to tease out with experts was really figuring out what are the risks posed to people who solicit this type of content online? What are the risks associated of leaving this content up? And what are the risks associated with removing this content? And so we heard a wide variety of different insights from the stakeholders that we spoke with. The experts that we spoke with included experts who work at international organizations that are focused on migration, refugee protection, and organized crime. It also included academics who focus on irregular migration, human smuggling, refugee and asylee rights. criminologists. We also spoke with former border enforcement officials, people who have worked at borders around the world, and we really drew on this expertise to figure out where we should draw the line on this policy. They highlighted the risks posed to individuals, especially vulnerable individuals who solicit this content. They also highlighted the risk that if we were to remove this, what this would mean for somebody who may be in a very vulnerable position where they are escaping conflict, oppression, or otherwise unsafe conditions in their countries of origin. And ultimately, this led us to adopt a policy that minimized the risk of removing these types of posts by providing a safety page with information on immigration. So we would remove the solicitation of human smuggling services, but we would also provide a safety page for that individual who may be requesting that. And in developing that safety page, we also consulted experts to determine what information would be most impactful for this vulnerable population. Great, thank you so much, and that concludes my remarks. I’ll pass it back to Anilaj.

AUDIENCE: Thank you very much, Emila. Can you hear me clearly? Can everyone hear me? Before I go on? Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Before I go on? Yes. Okay. Okay. I can hear you. Thank you again. Quickly to my question. My understanding of the question is it can be subdivided into two broad areas. The first one is how can. The second one is how should platforms learn from human rights experts to ensure a rights-centered model for content moderation? Like the speakers before me have said, there is usually really no one-size-fits-all because, for example, in the context of Meta and other major platforms, they operate in very, very many contexts, including very complex contexts. Saying this has to be the solution is going to be very problematic. So my understanding that some of the things that I think platforms can learn, of course, also based on my interaction with platforms like Meta in the past, is number one, for example, is ensuring meaningful collaboration. And what do I mean by meaningful collaboration? This involves, for example, increasing collaboration with established and credible human rights institutions and organizations to identify human rights. This also involves, for example, the devolution of focus on Western institutions who, you know, in quote, pretend to work on content moderation issues, especially in contexts that they do not have expertise in. For example, it involves identifying and working directly with these institutions that have boots on the ground regarding content moderation in this context. This could help identify specific pinpoints for platforms and these actors, and collaborating with these institutions and organizations to think through possible solutions. And I think this also has been mentioned earlier by both Connor and Jeff. Number two is centering victims. What I mean by that is it should involve broadening the scope of human rights expertise to include victim-centered feedback on the impact platforms have, especially on vulnerable persons. When we think of experts, I think we often miss out on centering victims whose experience are usually the focus of most engagements. One key way of learning from these experts is also to focus on including the voices of these victims that are impacted by these activities, who may or may not be experts in content moderation and governance but have lived experiences. And a third one is adopting a bottom-up content governance approach. What I mean by this is working with key actors and experts in specific domestic contexts, such as national human rights institutions, civil society, and academics. This provides more contextual nuances and understanding of the issues on the ground, how these actors are currently thinking about them, and how exactly platforms can learn from their impact on the ground. A similar example was given earlier by Connor regarding the crisis policy protocol that sort of revealed certain factors to consider in determining what qualifies as crisis. A fourth way that platform can learn from MRIs experts is increasing more access to platform data for independent research, especially in underserved contexts such as the majority world. There’s an increasing need to understand how platforms shape critical aspects of human rights challenges today. But the tools in reaching such understanding, such as the raw platform data that could point to possible solutions to these challenges, are unavailable for analysis by most majority world researchers. Lastly, another way that platforms can learn is identifying with the trolls of existing resources and platforms out there. And this includes both technical and non-technical outputs developed by international organizations such as the UN, academic institutions, and civil society organizations. Not only this, all these resources are adapted for platform use should also be made transparent. For example, where certain resources are applied by platforms, it should be clear what was applied and why. And in cases where feedback is sought but not utilized, it should also be clear as to why. Now, the second part of the question, which I’m going to rush through quickly because of time, is what platforms should learn from human rights experts. Number one is practical application of human rights standards. And I know this is a very, very tiny and difficult area, especially for companies. But since human rights experts draw from human rights standards in the analysis of platform activities, it will be useful to look at the most proximate standard. And for example, in this context, the UN guiding principles on business and human rights would easily apply. And You know, the UNGPs, especially as related to its application to technology companies, provide useful ways for companies to ensure that their activities are rights-centered. For example, one of such ways that the UN Human Rights has done this is through the BTEC project, which focuses on the application of the UNGPs to digital technologies, and they have quite a lot of resources in this area. And the BTEC’s focus, you know, is, they have four strategic focus. Number one is addressing human rights risk in business models, human rights due diligence and end-use, accountability and remedy, and a smart mix of measures, which involves exploring regulatory and policy responses to human rights challenges linked to digital technologies. Another way platforms should learn from human rights experts include ensuring participatory development of content moderation rules and processes, and I was happy to listen to Connor earlier, because this is a very practical demonstration of what this participatory development refers to. Thirdly, is also proactive accountability. This helps to engender trust, and it involves operationalizing measures that make platforms accountable regarding human rights harms, even before victims or general public are aware of such harms. This includes, but is not limited to proactive human rights impact assessment of products and services to identify harms, communication of the access to which such harms impact human rights, and the steps taken to remedy such harms. Lastly, is platforms should learn from human rights experts how to agile and dynamic adaptivity, or what do I mean by that? What I mean is, platforms can also learn to be agile and adaptive when it comes to applying international human rights standards to emerging and cutting-edge content moderation challenges. For example, what should be the best standard practice that already been highlighted by human rights experts regarding imported content moderation label? Another example is in what ways can platforms fund objective institutional or support objective institutional research without impeding their independence of credibility? So, in my view, I think these are quite, of course, a brushed presentation, but this is more or less some of the ways that I think platforms can and should learn from human rights experts to ensure a rights-centered model for content moderation. Thank you very much, Amela.

Tomiwa Ilori: Thank you so much, Tomiwa, for that. And I think you raise an important point regarding, I think, platforms being very transparent about the input that they take into consideration and why, and not just communicate the outcome. I’m not sure if Naomi is online. I can’t see from here. Naomi, if you’re online, would you like to jump in? Naomi Schiffman is from the Oversight Board and if she’s online, she will discuss how the Oversight Board contributes to policy development and she will also highlight how she built the Academic and Research Partnerships Program at Found Temple. Is she online? No. Okay. I think if she’s not online, I think we can move into the discussion phase for this. We have a few more minutes. But before I ask questions, we’ve been talking for the last… you know, a few minutes. Are there any questions for our experts? Yeah. Please introduce yourself and, yeah.

Mike Alton: Hi everyone, it’s Mike Alton from the UN Refugee Agency and we’ve worked with a number of people on the call, so good to see you. It’s about capacity and I love the kind of approach from ground up, but I just wonder how much capacity there is both on MetaSite and any other content platforms in really putting that resource where it’s needed and the issue of language comes up again and again in terms of capacity to support maybe a wide breadth of languages unsupported now. So how can we take that bottom up approach, not just for policy development, but also for content moderation and make sure that we have a really strong infrastructure there? I know lots of people are putting AI at the heart of, maybe this can help us moderate content going forward and that might be one possibility, but the doubts are there. So yes, what can we do and is there enough capacity and if not, how can we increase that capacity?

Tomiwa Ilori: Thank you so much, Mike. That’s a great question. I think before we get back, any other question? Yes, please introduce yourself and thank you.

AUDIENCE: Thank you so much. This is Adnan from Iraq. Thank you so much for this interesting discussion and I actually learned from all of you. On last year, I participated in one of the Meta’s event on community standards in Amman. It was actually helpful. I had the same similar question actually because I’m from Iraq and I know that Iraq is a very diverse country and my question would be for Connor regarding other languages, how you guys are, because I know that those kind, the policies you mentioned, maybe most of them are. are in English. I don’t know whether they are available in different languages, so people can read about it. And also, the next question will be about the engagement of stakeholders at the local level. I know that, for example, Iraq, I feel like there is a lot of difficulty to reach to META when someone, a researcher or an NGO, wants to engage, to ask question or raise a question, raise an issue. It’s really difficult to get to the experts. Thank you so much.

Ghandi Emilar: Thank you so much. And so good to see someone who attended our community summit in here. Connor, I will, can you take on some of the, you know, parts of the question and I’m happy to jump in.

Connor Sanchez: Yeah, yeah, just really quick. Thanks for the questions. I think language is a huge, huge part of content moderation and our enforcement. It’s obviously something that we have, we’ve invested quite a bit over the last eight years or so. I think just overall, just zooming out, we’ve invested $20 billion in safety and security. And so our trust and safety team at the company is made up of about 40,000 different people who bring language expertise, but also bring, you know, expertise in certain policy violation areas, in certain areas such as safety and cybersecurity. Content moderation includes thousands of reviewers that moderate our content across our platform. So Facebook, Instagram threads in about 70 different languages. We also do fact checking. with our third party fact checkers for misinformation in about 60 different languages. And so, and then for our coordinated inauthentic behavior, which focuses on what many would consider foreign influence operations, these are looking at taking down networks of operations. And those have been done in about 42 different languages. So it’s something that we are continually wanting to get better at. And I think in addition to just the language differences, there are the cultural differences and the colloquial nuances that come with every language. And so something even like Spanish, you have certain terms and ways of speaking that differ from one part from Central America to South America. And for that, another part of our content moderation apparatus that’s helpful is our Trusted Partner Program. Our Trusted Partner Program is a network of hundreds of NGOs around the world that we manage that really provide that local context, that local insight when there is maybe a particular trend or a term that we may not be, that may be only used in that jurisdiction or in that region, then they can be informative for our policies as we’re developing something or taking action on particular pieces of content. But MLR, anything else that I may have missed on that?

Ghandi Emilar: I think you have spoken about a lot of things there which are really, really relevant. Just to add, I think on some of the questions that you, you know, Mike, right? You asked around, you know, capacity on both sides. I think Connor has mentioned that we have 40,000, over 40,000 people in trust and safety. But I think you can never be at a point where you’re like, we have full capacity, like we know everything. Cultural competence is very important for us to understand, but also I wanted to mention one other thing, where for us, when we engage externally, it’s also important to note that, you know, we have some external stakeholders or experts or people with lived experience, one who are willing and able to engage with us, some who are willing and unable to engage with us. And they’re unable because maybe connecting to date, you know, like internet connection is expensive or language capacity. While we have some local, you know, team members, some people who can speak the languages, but sometimes we also ensure that we either meet people where they are at, where we can, but also support, you know, connectivity, like support to engage as well. But, you know, we know sometimes when it’s once off, it doesn’t, we need to sustain it and make sure that it’s something that we are continuously be, you know, able to do. So we also look at the format of the engagement itself. In capacity for us, we need to continuously, I think, look at the context and know, you know, where we have gaps and also rely on our external experts to say, ah, that was it, you know, you could have done better in this. And we also learn a lot, not only from academics like Jeff or NGOs, but also from humanitarian organizations, because you are on the ground, you know what’s happening and you deal with people every day. And talking of sustaining these engagements, I just want to come back to you, Jeff. How can we sustain engagements with academics? Because once off really doesn’t, it’s not as meaningful as we want it to be. How can we ensure that?

Jeffrey Howard: it’s continuous. Well, I think relationships are key to the story here and making sure that there’s ongoing dialogue with the stakeholders over time. My experience participating in groups within Meta who have periodic meetings where they revisit policy areas over time is extremely useful. And of course, as those relationships develop, they are reciprocated. So I’ve been delighted to have lots of people from Meta and Oversight Board participating in events at my university. And so I think investing in those relationships are absolutely crucial here. I do have a question for Connor if I can throw it in. Connor, can I take you back to your point about content soliciting smuggling? And you talked about the fact that a lot of on-the-ground stakeholders with expertise of this issue counseled against banning that content. But in the end, you took the judgment that you should remove content soliciting smuggling.

AUDIENCE: How do I get out of Libya? How do I get to Italy, for example?

Jeffrey Howard: But you have that information page of trusted third party information. Can you talk us through how you made the decision not to defer to those on the ground who were saying, leave this content up? What was that experience like? Because it does seem to me like the right judgment, but of course, it went against what some people thought you should do. So I wondered how you made that decision.

Connor Sanchez: Yeah, that’s a great question. I mean, this was an area where I can’t say that it was neatly divided in terms of where people felt that we should go with this policy. I think everybody, first and foremost, that we spoke with recognized that this is a very, very difficult call and that there are. But I think that the picture that they painted for us was that. People who are on the move are receiving information from a wide variety of sources, and they’re making decisions on a thousand different factors. So, yes, they’re online, but they’re also in person, and they’re also in migrant shelters. They’re also speaking with relatives in their hometown before they maybe start on their journey. And they’re making these decisions on a wide variety of different information points that they receive. So I think that the thing that they wanted us to really hone in on was to think about some universal human rights standards as we approach this in terms of proportionality. We aren’t the first entity to sort of think about these challenges. There have been consultative processes in the past that we could take advantage of. And I think this comes back to Tomiwa’s point, which is the way in which we can kind of learn from international human rights legal frameworks. The protocol on human smuggling was something that we were urged to take a look at, and sort of that documents differentiation between human trafficking and human smuggling, making sure that we understood those two definitions. And then I think from our standpoint, we began to think, okay, this doesn’t necessarily need to be, we don’t need to make those distinctions necessarily on a binary decision of remove or keep up. We could still remove those and still allow for, some understanding of those who may be posting this and providing, you know, information through a safety page. So I think it’s once we kind of, that idea of providing a safety page, that meant something that we could introduce that would reduce the risk of removing. And once we went to stakeholders with that, that as an option, that was something that many of them, even the ones who were originally saying, leave up, leave up, they were at least very, very warm to the idea of at least you can provide this safety page that would serve to reduce the risk of just removing it.

Ghandi Emilar: So much, Connor. I think we only have like a minute or so. Do you want to give like closing remarks, just a minute?

AUDIENCE: Well, I think Connor, just in his wonderfully detailed answer, which gave us a real sense of how the process works, illuminated a really crucial feature of it, which is that it’s often in these policy areas, an iterative process where you go back to stakeholders with updates and they might themselves change their minds because people’s views on the topics under discussion are often not fixed and that they are the result of ongoing deliberation. And so I think one of the things that we’re taking out of this panel is the importance of having ongoing conversations like these to improve our discussions about these topics. And I’m ever so grateful to everyone for coming and for being involved in this discussion.

Ghandi Emilar: Thank you so much. I’m not sure if Tomiwa is still there. Do you want to give your closing remarks as well? Just a minute.

Tomiwa Ilori: Yes. Thank you very much, Emila. Yes. It’s a pleasure to have been here and also listening to others and the questions being asked. And I think that such conversations like this will continue to happen and that we continue to put in the work, because like you also said, Emila, I don’t think there will ever be a time where we would come to the point to say, okay, we’ve done everything that could be done regarding content moderation because, you know, issues will always crop up that needs, you know, diversified and, you know, multi-stakeholder contributions. So it’s a pleasure to be here and thank you very much. Yeah, till some other time.

Ghandi Emilar: Yeah, thank you so much to everyone who’s in the room and everyone else who joined us online as well. I know Professor Howard is still around. So for those who still want to engage with him on site, please do. And Connor, Tomiwa, thank you so much for participating in this. Bye for now. Thanks, everybody.

Agreement Points

Importance of diverse stakeholder engagement

Jeffrey Howard

Conor Sanchez

Tomiwa Ilori

Consulting wide range of experts on policy development

Meaningful collaboration with credible human rights institutions

Bottom-up content governance approach

All speakers emphasized the importance of engaging with a diverse range of stakeholders, including academics, NGOs, human rights experts, and individuals with lived experiences, to inform platform policy development.

Ongoing and sustained engagement

Jeffrey Howard

Conor Sanchez

Ghandi Emilar

Engaging with platforms is intellectually generative for academics

Case studies of expert input impacting policies

Sustaining ongoing engagement with academics and experts

Speakers agreed on the need for continuous, sustained engagement between platforms and external experts to ensure meaningful policy development and improvement.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the importance of considering multiple perspectives and frameworks in policy development, rather than pushing for a single preferred view.

Jeffrey Howard

Conor Sanchez

Providing frameworks and insights rather than pushing preferred views

Balancing different stakeholder perspectives in decision-making

Both speakers highlighted the importance of inclusivity and considering the perspectives of those directly affected by platform policies.

Conor Sanchez

Tomiwa Ilori

Inclusive, expertise-based, and transparent engagement principles

Centering victims and lived experiences

Unexpected Consensus

Challenges in content moderation across languages and cultures

Conor Sanchez

Mike Alton

Unknown speaker

Language and cultural differences in moderation

Capacity and resource constraints

Difficulty accessing platforms for local stakeholders

There was an unexpected consensus on the significant challenges faced in content moderation across different languages and cultures, including resource constraints and difficulties in local engagement. This highlights a shared recognition of the complexity of global content moderation.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement centered around the importance of diverse stakeholder engagement, the need for sustained and ongoing collaboration between platforms and experts, and the recognition of challenges in global content moderation.

Consensus level

There was a moderate to high level of consensus among the speakers on the fundamental principles of stakeholder engagement and policy development. This consensus suggests a shared understanding of the complexities involved in platform governance and the importance of collaborative approaches. However, the discussion also revealed ongoing challenges, particularly in implementing these principles across diverse global contexts, which may require further exploration and innovative solutions.

Different Viewpoints

Role of academics in platform policy development

Jeffrey Howard

Tomiwa Ilori

Educative role rather than activist role

Centering victims and lived experiences

Jeffrey Howard argues for an educative approach where academics provide frameworks and insights, while Tomiwa Ilori emphasizes the importance of including victims’ voices and lived experiences in policy development.

Unexpected Differences

Transparency in stakeholder engagement

Conor Sanchez

Tomiwa Ilori

Inclusive, expertise-based, and transparent engagement principles

Increasing access to platform data for independent research

While both speakers discuss transparency, there’s an unexpected difference in their approach. Connor emphasizes Meta’s existing transparency in engagement, while Tomiwa calls for increased access to platform data for independent researchers, suggesting a gap in current transparency practices.

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement revolve around the role of academics in policy development, the extent of stakeholder engagement, and the level of transparency in platform operations.

difference_level

The level of disagreement is moderate. While there are some fundamental differences in approach, particularly between academic and platform perspectives, there is also significant common ground in recognizing the importance of expert input and stakeholder engagement. These differences highlight the complexity of developing content moderation policies that balance various stakeholder interests and human rights principles.

Partial Agreements

Both speakers agree on the importance of engaging diverse stakeholders, but Conor focuses on Meta’s existing process of consulting various experts, while Tomiwa advocates for a more bottom-up approach that emphasizes local context and actors.

Conor Sanchez

Tomiwa Ilori

Consulting wide range of experts on policy development

Bottom-up content governance approach

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the importance of considering multiple perspectives and frameworks in policy development, rather than pushing for a single preferred view.

Jeffrey Howard

Conor Sanchez

Providing frameworks and insights rather than pushing preferred views

Balancing different stakeholder perspectives in decision-making

Both speakers highlighted the importance of inclusivity and considering the perspectives of those directly affected by platform policies.

Conor Sanchez

Tomiwa Ilori

Inclusive, expertise-based, and transparent engagement principles

Centering victims and lived experiences

Key Takeaways

Academics should play an educative rather than activist role in platform policy development, providing frameworks and insights rather than pushing preferred views

Meta engages a wide range of stakeholders and experts in its policy development process, aiming for inclusivity, expertise, and transparency

A human rights-centered approach to content moderation should involve meaningful collaboration with credible institutions, centering victims’ experiences, and adopting bottom-up governance

Content moderation faces significant challenges related to language, cultural differences, capacity constraints, and sustaining ongoing engagement with experts

Resolutions and Action Items

Meta to continue engaging diverse stakeholders and experts in policy development

Platforms to increase access to data for independent researchers, especially in underserved contexts

Meta to expand language capabilities for content moderation and fact-checking

Unresolved Issues

How to effectively scale bottom-up content governance approaches

How to balance conflicting stakeholder perspectives in policy decisions

How to improve accessibility for local stakeholders to engage with platforms

How to sustain long-term engagement with academics and experts

Suggested Compromises

Removing content soliciting human smuggling services while providing a safety page with immigration information

Balancing removal of potentially harmful content with providing alternative resources or information

I think we should reject the activist conception of the role of academics and stakeholder engagement, and I think we should reject it because it diminishes the distinctive role that I think academics can play in this process because it eliminates the distinction between the role academics can play and the role that other stakeholders can play.

speaker

Jeffrey Howard

reason

This comment challenges the common view of how academics should engage with platforms and proposes a different model focused on education rather than advocacy.

impact

It shifted the discussion to focus on the unique role academics can play in providing frameworks and insights rather than just pushing for specific policies. This led to further exploration of how platforms can best utilize academic expertise.

Our role isn’t just to tell platforms what we think the right answer is as we see it, as if platforms were counting votes among stakeholders. And by the way, even if platforms were counting votes among stakeholders, it’s not clear academics should get a vote since we’re not really stakeholders, we’re not particularly affected by policies in the way particular constituents are.

speaker

Jeffrey Howard

reason

This insight reframes the role of academics from advocates to educators, highlighting that their value comes from knowledge rather than representing a constituency.

impact

It prompted reflection on how platforms should weigh different types of input and expertise in their decision-making processes. It also set up the later discussion of how Meta actually incorporates academic and expert input.

What I mean by that is working with key actors and experts in specific domestic contexts, such as national human rights institutions, civil society, and academics. This provides more contextual nuances and understanding of the issues on the ground, how these actors are currently thinking about them, and how exactly platforms can learn from their impact on the ground.

speaker

Tomiwa Ilori

reason

This comment emphasizes the importance of local context and on-the-ground expertise, which adds nuance to the earlier discussion of academic input.

impact

It broadened the conversation beyond just academic input to consider a wider range of stakeholders and expertise. This led to further discussion of how Meta engages with diverse stakeholders globally.

Can you talk us through how you made the decision not to defer to those on the ground who were saying, leave this content up? What was that experience like? Because it does seem to me like the right judgment, but of course, it went against what some people thought you should do.

speaker

Jeffrey Howard

reason

This question probes into the actual decision-making process at Meta, moving the discussion from theoretical to practical considerations.

impact

It prompted a detailed explanation from Connor about how Meta balances different expert opinions and stakeholder input in making policy decisions. This provided concrete insight into Meta’s policy development process.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by moving it from theoretical considerations of academic engagement to practical exploration of how platforms like Meta actually incorporate diverse expert and stakeholder input. The conversation evolved from defining ideal roles for academics to examining the complexities of balancing different perspectives and local contexts in global policy decisions. This progression provided a more nuanced and realistic picture of the challenges and processes involved in platform governance and content moderation policy development.

How can platforms increase capacity to support content moderation in a wide breadth of languages?

speaker

Mike Walton

explanation

This is important to ensure effective content moderation across diverse linguistic contexts and to implement a bottom-up approach to policy development and enforcement.

How can AI be effectively used to help moderate content across languages?

speaker

Mike Walton

explanation

This explores potential technological solutions to the language capacity issue in content moderation, while acknowledging existing doubts about AI’s effectiveness.

How can Meta improve engagement with stakeholders at the local level, particularly in countries like Iraq?

speaker

Adnan

explanation

This addresses the difficulty some local researchers and NGOs face in reaching Meta experts to engage on issues or ask questions, which is crucial for effective local stakeholder engagement.

How can platforms sustain meaningful engagements with academics over time?

speaker

Ghandi Emilar

explanation

This is important to ensure that academic input into platform policies is continuous and not just a one-off engagement, leading to more robust and informed policy development.

How can platforms better identify and work directly with institutions that have ‘boots on the ground’ regarding content moderation in specific contexts?

speaker

Tomiwa Ilori

explanation

This is crucial for ensuring that content moderation policies are informed by local expertise and context-specific knowledge.

How can platforms increase access to platform data for independent research, especially in underserved contexts such as the majority world?

speaker

Tomiwa Ilori

explanation

This is important for enabling more comprehensive research on how platforms shape critical aspects of human rights challenges in diverse global contexts.

What should be the best standard practice regarding imported content moderation labels?

speaker

Tomiwa Ilori

explanation

This area requires further research to establish effective practices for content moderation across different cultural and linguistic contexts.

In what ways can platforms fund or support objective institutional research without impeding their independence or credibility?

speaker

Tomiwa Ilori

explanation

This is important for ensuring that research on platform policies and impacts remains independent and credible while still benefiting from platform support and data access.

Summary

This panel discussion focused on protecting children in digital spaces, addressing the challenges and potential solutions for ensuring online safety. The conversation brought together experts from various sectors, including technology companies, international organizations, and cybersecurity firms.

The discussion highlighted that children are digital natives, often more adept at navigating online spaces than adults. Panelists emphasized the need for evolving protection measures that consider children’s changing needs as they grow and as digital experiences evolve. Key challenges identified included cyberbullying, inappropriate content, privacy concerns, and addiction to social media and games.

Experts stressed the importance of a multi-stakeholder approach involving parents, educators, governments, and technology companies. They discussed the role of AI and human moderation in content filtering, the implementation of parental controls, and the need for age-appropriate default settings on platforms. The importance of empowering children to self-govern their safety was also highlighted, with suggestions for creating digital advocates in schools.

The panel addressed the need for updated laws and policies to keep pace with rapidly evolving technologies. They also discussed the importance of equipping law enforcement and social services with the necessary resources and expertise to address online threats to children. The role of education in fostering digital literacy and challenging harmful social norms was emphasized.

Panelists agreed that while progress has been made, protecting children online remains an ongoing challenge that requires continuous adaptation and collaboration across sectors. The discussion concluded with a call for a holistic approach that balances children’s rights to privacy and protection while empowering them to navigate the digital world safely.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– The need for a holistic approach to protecting children online, involving governments, tech companies, parents, educators, and children themselves

– The importance of designing digital products and services with child safety in mind from the start

– The challenges of keeping laws and policies up to date with rapidly evolving technology

– The role of education in empowering children to navigate online spaces safely

– The balance between protecting children and respecting their privacy/autonomy online

Overall purpose:

The goal of this discussion was to explore various approaches and perspectives on protecting children’s safety and wellbeing in online environments, with input from policymakers, tech companies, international organizations, and youth.

Tone:

The tone was largely collaborative and solution-oriented, with panelists acknowledging the complexity of the issue and the need for multi-stakeholder cooperation. There was a sense of urgency but also optimism about finding ways to better protect children online. The tone became more interactive towards the end with audience questions, bringing in additional perspectives.

Speakers

– Ahmad Bhinder: Policy Innovation Director at the Digital Cooperation Organization

– Philippe Nahhas: Partner at a technology policy firm, Moderator

– Haitham Al Jowhari: Partner of Cybersecurity at PwC

– Mo Isap: Founder and CEO of iN4 Group

– Shivnath Thukral: Director and Head of Public Policy of Meta in India

– Afrooz Johnson: Global Lead for preventing and responding to online child abuse and exploitation at UNICEF

Additional speakers:

– Jutta Croll: German Digital Opportunities Foundation, Children’s rights advocate

– Unnamed high school student from Massachusetts

Protecting Children in Digital Spaces: A Comprehensive Approach

This panel discussion brought together experts from various sectors to address the critical issue of protecting children in digital spaces. The conversation highlighted the complexities of ensuring online safety for young users and explored potential solutions involving multiple stakeholders.

Key Challenges and Context

Ahmad Bhinder, Policy Innovation Director at the Digital Cooperation Organization (DCO), an intergovernmental organization focused on digital economy advancement, emphasized that today’s youth are “digital natives” who face numerous risks in the digital world. These risks include cyberbullying, addiction, inappropriate content, and privacy concerns. Shivnath Thukral, Director and Head of Public Policy of Meta in India, noted that bad actors are present in both real and virtual worlds, underscoring the need for vigilance.

Afrooz Johnson, Global Lead for preventing and responding to online child abuse and exploitation at UNICEF, highlighted that laws have not kept pace with rapidly evolving digital technologies. This lag in legislation creates gaps in protection and enforcement. Johnson also pointed out that social services and law enforcement often lack the resources and expertise to address online challenges effectively.

Multi-stakeholder Approach

There was a strong consensus among the speakers on the need for a holistic, multi-stakeholder approach to protecting children online. This approach involves governments, tech companies, parents, educators, and children themselves.

Ahmad Bhinder advocated for the development of national children’s online protection strategies and mentioned the Digital Space Accelerators program as an initiative to support this goal. Haitham Al Jowhari, Partner of Cybersecurity at PwC, stressed that the private sector should invest in research and development, work closely with law enforcement and regulators, and collaborate with academia to develop innovative solutions.

Empowerment, Education, and Involvement

A recurring theme in the discussion was the importance of empowering and educating children about online safety, as well as involving them in the design of safety measures. Mo Isap, Founder and CEO of iN4 Group, suggested creating safe spaces for children to be empowered and experiment online. He also proposed identifying digital advocates among students to support their peers.

Ahmad Bhinder shared insights from his daughter’s perspective on online safety, highlighting the importance of considering children’s views when developing protective measures. The panel agreed that involving children in the design of safety features and policies is crucial for creating effective and relevant solutions.

Balancing Protection and Privacy

Shivnath Thukral highlighted Meta’s approach of implementing a framework of preventing, controlling, and responding to online threats. He emphasized the importance of implementing safety features by default on social media platforms while also respecting children’s privacy. Thukral also mentioned Meta’s collaboration with NECMEC on sharing CSAM (Child Sexual Abuse Material) data to combat online exploitation.

An interesting point of consensus emerged between Thukral and an audience member regarding the need to balance child protection measures with respecting children’s privacy rights. This highlights the complexity of implementing safety measures without infringing on children’s rights and autonomy.

Evolving Education and Technology

An audience member, a high school student from Massachusetts, raised the important point that digital safety education needs to continuously evolve to keep pace with rapidly changing technologies. This observation underscores the ongoing challenge of ensuring that protective measures and educational approaches remain relevant and effective in a fast-changing digital landscape.

Socio-economic Considerations

Mo Isap emphasized the importance of considering socio-economic contexts when developing online safety policies. This nuanced approach recognizes that children from different backgrounds may face varying levels of vulnerability to online risks and may require tailored support and protection measures.

Unresolved Issues and Future Directions

Despite the productive discussion, several issues remained unresolved. These include finding effective ways to balance children’s right to protection with their right to privacy online, addressing online safety challenges for children from different socio-economic backgrounds, and combating the problem of children becoming online attackers themselves despite safety education.

The panel suggested several action items, including:

1. Implementing safety features by default in products used by children

2. Updating laws to adequately criminalize online violence against children

3. Requiring child rights impact assessments for tech companies

4. Developing national children’s online protection strategies

5. Strengthening social services to support at-risk children

Conclusion

The discussion highlighted that protecting children online remains an ongoing challenge that requires continuous adaptation and collaboration across sectors. While progress has been made, the rapidly evolving nature of digital technologies necessitates a flexible and proactive approach. By involving children in the design of safety measures, empowering them to navigate online spaces safely, and fostering cooperation between various stakeholders, we can work towards creating a safer digital environment for young users.

As Philippe Nahhas, the moderator, aptly summarized, “We overprotect children in the world, and we underprotect them in the virtual world.” This paradox serves as a call to action for all stakeholders to redouble their efforts in ensuring children’s safety in digital spaces while respecting their rights and autonomy.

Ahmad Bhinder: system. Can you hear me through your headphones well? Perfect. Sorry, we’ll start in a minute. We’re just sorting out some technicalities. It’s channel 3. It’s channel 3 to hear the audio for the speakers. All right. So the tech is all sorted, hopefully. My name is Ahmed Binder. I am a policy innovation director at the Digital Cooperation Organization. And we are gathered here to discuss the very critical topic of protecting children online or in the digital spaces. I see some problems with people not being able to hear me. My audio is on channel 3. May I confirm if people can hear me? OK, excellent. So we are here to discuss a very, very critical topic that is very relevant to the digital economy and the evolving digital landscape. And for us, today we have a very senior, diverse, and expert panel of speakers. Unfortunately, our moderator is on his way. He’s stuck somewhere, but I will try to fill in for him. His name is Philip Nahas, and he’s a partner at a technology policy firm. So we have with us today Mr. Haitham Aljohri. He is a partner of cybersecurity at PwC. May I ask Mr. Aljohri to introduce himself, and then we move on with the other panelists? Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

Haitham Aljabry: I’m Haitham Aljohri. I’m a partner in PwC Middle East based out of Dubai. I do cybersecurity for a living. I’ve been with the firm for 20 years. I help government entities. My focus on government entities, critical national infrastructure, working on their cyber agenda. And we’re glad to be here. Thank you.

Ahmad Bhinder: Thank you, Mr. Aljohri. Now we have, next we have with us Mr. Mohamed Issaab. And he’s a founder and CEO of iN4 Group that is headquartered in the media city in Salford.

Mohamed Isap: So Mohamed, if you could please introduce yourself. Hi. Good afternoon, everyone. Can you hear me? Sorry. That’s better. Good afternoon. I’m Mohamed Issaab. I’m the CEO for iN4 Group. We’re one of the leading advanced tech training providers in the UK, working extensively across data, cyber, cloud, and software. As part of our business group, we also deliver the government’s Cyber First Program, developed by TCHQ, into schools and colleges. And I’m also a founder of Star Academies,

Ahmad Bhinder: where we have 35 schools and 25,000 young people in education across the United Kingdom as well. Thank you, Mohamed. Next we have with us is Mr. Shivanath Tukral. And he’s director and head of public policy of Meta in India. Mr. Shivanath, could you please introduce yourself? My name is Shivanath. I lead public in India. Can you hear me? Hi. Yeah, better.

Shivnath Thukral: Yeah, my name is Shivanath. I head public policy in India. I’ve been in Meta for seven years in India. I was before that. And my responsibility would be interaction with all government regulatory agencies and make sure that it continues to take the right measures in a country like India, which tends to be one of the largest user base for Meta across the world, across Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp. Thank you, Mr. Shivanath. And we have an online speaker with us all the way from the US.

Ahmad Bhinder: Her name is Afrooz Johnson, and working in the UNICEF. So Afrooz, can you hear us? And could you please introduce yourself?

Afrooz Johnson: Yes, I can hear you loud and clear. Good morning from a very cold New York City. I’m sorry I’m not there, but glad to be joining online. So I’m Afrooz Kavyani Johnson. I work at UNICEF, which I’m sure most of you are aware is the United Nations Specialized Agency for Children. I’m a global lead in our work to prevent and respond to online child abuse and exploitation. UNICEF works in over 190 countries and territories. And I support our teams around the world on tackling this issue. So this includes research, work on legislative and policy reform, training for frontline law enforcement, and social services, educative efforts with children and their families, and various collaborations and engagement with industry. Thank you.

Ahmad Bhinder: Thank you, Afrooz, so much. And OK, so let me start by saying a few words. I will not take much of your time. And then we would really go ahead and listen from all the experts panelists from here. So as I said, my name is Ahmed Binder. I am a policy innovation director at the Digital Cooperation Organization. You can see on your screens, we are an intergovernmental organization that covers the digital economy. And we instill cooperation amongst our 16 member states that span from the Middle East, Africa, subcontinent, to Europe. And we do a lot of initiatives around, for example, around the sustainable growth of digital economy, governance in the digital space, AI, digital rights, et cetera. We have a growing list of observers. And the observers are from the academia, from civil society, from private companies as well. So as you could see on the screen, we are 40 plus, and we are rapidly growing. We play four roles for, as I said, we are an intergovernmental organization. So we are represented by the ministers of digital economy and ICT of our member states. And we play four roles for our member states. We advise them on the best practice policies. We facilitate the cooperation on digital economy. We advocate for the best practice policies, and we provide information. So we have published a few indices to measure the digital economy. But the details could be found on the website. So today, I am here to talk about the safe space for children. Children are digital natives. And actually, I was having a chat with my kids, who are 13 and 10, last night. And I was talking to them. I was telling them that I’m going at a session for online safety for children. So could you tell me what are the issues that you face online? And they said, what do you mean? What do you mean online? Or what do you mean issues that we face? And it took me a while to bring it to them or to discuss with them that there is a world around the digital world for them. So for them, it’s all about digital. And that is why, when we think about them being digital natives, they live in the digital world. So the first question, when we are addressing the issues around the children’s online protection, are then is, how do we define a child? Who qualifies to be a child? Generally, a child becomes an adult when the child turns 18. But there’s no magic switch that flips, and you qualify from being a child to an adult. So when we are thinking of online safety, and we are thinking of creating the safe digital experiences, we need to remember that the child needs the change as they grow. And as they grow does not really only include as they grow from, for example, from toddler to a preteen, et cetera. But as the digital experiences evolve as well. And therefore, the discussion is ongoing, and the discussion has to evolve. And the measures to protect child online safety, they have to evolve keeping this into consideration. The second thing is then, how do we define a safe digital space? So the term refers to an online environment where individuals, especially children and vulnerable groups, can interact, communicate, and engage in various digital activities without having the risk, without experience the risk of harm, exploitation, or abuse. Five years ago, approximately, there there was a study that I was just looking up for, and almost a third of digital interactions or a third of internet users were children, and this was five years ago. I’m not sure, I did not come across, maybe the panelists have a latest number, but I’m sure it’s half of the population or half of the internet users are. So keeping this into consideration, last year we did some work on digital rights, and one of the streams of our work focused on online safe space, especially for children. We developed through consultation, and I will come back to it, how did we do it, but we developed a paper that is available on the DCO website. I welcome you all to have a look at that paper, and in that paper, we explored different dimensions of what are the threats and challenges, as you could see on your screen, that the children are subjected to, and what are the different categories, who are the stakeholders who can play a part in protecting the safe space for children, and then we furnished some policy recommendations based on that. So OECD categorizes the risks into three categories, the risks that are associated with technology, the ones that are associated related to the customer experiences, and the risks related to privacy and security. We all know, and I think we will get, so we have social media representation here, so we’ll explore what is being done to counter the effects of addictive behaviors of social media, especially with the endless scrolling feature, then we have the immersive technologies, for example, metaverse, and a lot of virtual technologies that are coming, so what could be the impact, for example, if the amount of data that is being collected, or that could be collected on a child, or anybody who is using those technologies, and how it could be used, and how it could be protected, we will explore how that risk can be effectively addressed, and then we, cyber bullying and social media, et cetera, bullying, et cetera, they’re all the risks that the children face in today’s world, and hopefully with our discussion, we will address some of those, and we’ll see what is being done to address them. So then, normally, and you could see on this slide, this is, it could be educational institutions, or it could be any organizations that are dealing with the children’s data, or who are dealing with the children, so the data leaks, for example, from the education system is a growing concern, which can then, if it lands in the wrong hands, could be used for harmful manipulation of kids, for example, or the ineffective crisis management by the institutions, or by the organization, can lead to reputational damages, lack of efficient incident management could cause disruption from the education system for the kids that is highly dependent on the online interfaces now. So the paper then comes to present some policy recommendations for four kind of stakeholders. So, for example, schools and educators should support the programs and helplines for children to create awareness campaigns, on cyberbullying especially. The role of parents is moving beyond just implementing the parental control, and it’s about parents’ involvement, and I’ll give you a small example towards the end of my conversation here on that, but it’s not just that you yell at them and say, your screen time is over, and then disconnect yourself, that’s not working anymore. Government, for example, so there is a concern about the targeted ads, about the endless scrolling, about the transparency of what the kids say, so governments have a lot to do there. And private sector, the most important thing is, and this is for all, is to involve children, or involve the young people into whatever is being designed at them. Okay, now the boring stuff aside, so last night I went home, as I said, that I just got my 10 years old, and I said, look, I’m preparing something for tomorrow, so could you give me a few points that I can bring up? So she went back, and she wrote this piece of paper for me, and I think this is the, and it was not meant to be shown, she just wrote this piece of paper for me, and this was for me to copy the points here, and I just looked at it, I just pulled it out from my notebook, and I think to conclude my intervention here, I would just read what she said. Just read in whatever grammatic mistakes or whatever you find it. So, number one, she says games. So she categorized her online interaction after we had this conversation that, you know, how do you look at the online space for games? She says problem is cyberbullying. Now she, a 10 years old, is aware of cyberbullying before looking it up, and I had no idea about it. And she says the solution is to report the person, then talk to an adult, and who you feel comfortable with. So this is her recommendation, right? Then she writes apps. Calling apps is a subcategory that she produced, and the problem, she says, is random people calling or texting you. She does not have a cell phone. So I was quite surprised to see this, that the ways of interaction that is subject to, of course she has a tab, she interacts with people, so this is a problem that she identified, and the solution is ignore and block. So we need the kids, they are smart, but we really need to reinforce this. Then she says watching apps. Of course, this is the content that is available online, and the problem is inappropriate content. So we try to protect them from any inappropriate content, but they are very well aware. And the solution, she says, is report the, okay, report the channel, and dislike the video. And then she says, if you are a minor, turn kids mode on. By the way, I’m, okay. So then comes the final thing is social media, and the problem, she said, is addiction. And the solution is put a screen time limit, which I normally do, and go outside regularly. So the importance of the physical activities is really important. The final one is, again, on the social media, she says hacking. Make the system stronger so the hackers cannot break into people’s accounts. So I would really finish my speech with this, because last night at around 12.30, when she gave me this paper, she has school holidays, so she’s allowed to keep awake until late, I said, okay, you know, I’m done. I just put this paper, I’ll just read it out in front of the panel today. So with now, with this, thank you very much. I pass it on to our able moderator, Mr. Philip Nahas now. We went through the moderation sessions, and the floor is all yours now. Thank you. Thank you very much, Ahmed, and.

Philippe Nahas: Thank you. Testing, testing. Oh, hi, now. Ahmed, and special thanks to little Miss Binder for insights straight. Good, again, everyone, my apologies for joining this session late today. And I’ll start by saying that I got from my child’s nursery, which is that we overprotect children in the world, and we underprotect them in the virtual world. And today, we’re here to discuss that, to understand how can we provide the right protection for children across the virtual world. And for that, I have a very distinguished panel joining me today. I’m gonna take back my seat because I feel I’m disconnecting here. Excuse me while I do this sitting down. And again, let’s see. Hello, testing. Very well. Okay. Opening my laptop and my notes for today. Moments to introduce everyone. So maybe it’s starting on, excellent, excellent. So maybe we can take some time to go over a few questions. The last, Miss Binder gave was, secure your system to that, I mean. And I think this is, you know, Haitham, this is your area of predilection. So my question to you is, maybe if I put it in my, what are the do’s and don’ts for institutions when it comes to cybersecurity and environments? Thank you.

Ahmad Bhinder: Let me start by saying, yeah. Mine is not working? Okay. So let me start by saying, it’s very personal to everyone who has like children because like, it impacts everyone. society on the planet and when it becomes personal we have to put the right measure. It becomes even more an obligation for all of us to stand and to protect the most vulnerable part of our society which is children. Now to do that there is an obligation on multiple stakeholders the way we look at this in PwC. So there’s a role for international communities and we have seen for example Saudi taking a big step last year in arranging what we call a child protection conference or summit which took place in Riyadh where they looked into international collaboration to look into this international challenge. Now if you go down the role of government I’m not going to talk about that then also schools, parents, etc. Now if we zoom into the private sector where I belong so we categorize the private sector into three categories the way we look into that framework. So the first category is social media, gaming platform and those platforms or like mobile operator or technology manufacturers who interact directly with children. This is the first let’s say layer of technology or private sector that interact with with children and there is a big role that these players should play in terms of many factors let’s say different risks cyber bullying so how do you how do you minimize that by having the right functions from from social media platforms and we’ll talk about that from meta we’ll hear about that from meta so how do you control comments how do you control the ability to block certain user not all platforms they have this so this is a journey that all platforms should adopt that kind of behavior it’s it’s it’s like we take it by default by leading players like meta or or Instagram and stuff like that but others should also follow. There’s inappropriate content for example inappropriate content then here comes the role of AI where not just AI but even a human moderation is needed to control that and to filter content for children similarly when you talk about privacy privacy is very important that we have the right privacy configuration for that these platforms adopt in order to make sure that they have this by default it’s no longer like a feature it should come by default in these platforms two-factor authentication for for users for children even it’s it become it should become easier and easier it should become again a default setup that kind of obligation on those players is very important activating features like parental control screen time like what your daughter suggested and also we recommend that parents and children they use the same platforms because that makes it easier for parents to control what their what what their children watch or limit screen time or ability to download apps and stuff like that then the second category of private sector would be companies service providers technology vendors these guys they work in the back let’s say to serve the the entities that they they deal with children directly these companies they need to invest more in R&D they need to work with law enforcement’s they need to work with regulators to help them drafting these kind of policies this is the kind of consulting work that companies like PwC do vendors they have like big obligation to invest more in ethical AI and stuff

Philippe Nahas: like that and finally we look into corporates or organizations in the private sector they also have a role to play adopting compliance and privacy laws protecting young generations and let’s not one of the challenges we talk about it’s an interesting one is the new generation is very like let’s say they have this mentality of hacking and not adhering to like corporate kind of policies that’s new generations like this how do you deal with that kind of behavior how do you make sure you give them the best experience but at the same time it’s safe and it does not compromise the the corporate policies as well you very much thank you for that you you spoke about corporate policies and I think that’s a very important point to touch on and maybe I’ll turn it to Mo to give us his view about whether these corporate policies should be more about adults setting the path to safety for children or are these also about empowering children themselves to self-govern their safety what’s your

Mohamed Isap: view on that Mo? Can you hear me okay? I think the technology is struggling at the moment. I can give you a perspective just from my let’s swap. So I’ll give you a perspective from what we do in in the UK so we we have a cyber eSports Academy seven and a half thousand young people transition through those academies across the country and one of the things I will say starting point is that we cannot just use a single definition of children and think that that is be all and end all in terms of policy thinking you’ve got a spectrum of children those from disadvantaged backgrounds to those from more affluent backgrounds there is a very different exposure to risk in those socio-economic contexts there’s also the way young people are from neurodiversity to learning and learning styles and how they interact into that world and and unless we understand the nuance no policy can ever work and it’s got to be at that sort of level of hyper local to hyper child in the context of how that child is engaging with the wider world and the digital world is just part of the oxygen that they breathe so what we found in our cyber eSports academies is that you’ve got young people who are feeling empowered and belonged and and I think that one thing that heartens me that all the surveys that I’ve seen and and I’ve experienced from those young people that go through my academies is that they do know right from wrong in fact to be honest with you I think they’re probably better than our generation was in terms of understanding right from wrong it’s just the world is more gray than it was black and white in our day and and let’s be honest in in our ability to try you know and you’ve heard already that we all have limitations of our knowledge about this world and you know any one of us of a certain generation that had sex education at school I don’t think anybody really learned about sex at school they just experienced it themselves and learn for themselves I think this is the same issue young people are not listening in the classroom they’re just experiencing it for themselves the difference is if you give them a place where they can be empowered in a safe place and what we do with our cyber eSports academies is that we give them the belonging of the positive elements of this world and how they can be empowered both in terms of understanding their their futures but also understanding that there’s a physicality with that digital world and making friends and connecting with peers kind of you know is augmented with the digital world not just exclusively in the digital world and those two things are are critically important so I think you know from a from an understanding of young people point of view and and and what we do to empower them to to you know we have cyber teams in each school and and and I believe that you know we need to get to a point where young people will govern this space themselves if you give them the tools and the ability to do so and and like we have you know in every school in every country young people will be selected as head boy and head girl and prefects and monitors I think there’s a space now for schools to really identify digital advocates to be able to govern across their peer group and and give support to the educators because the educators are really struggling to keep up with the nuance and the complexities even primaries I mean I’ve got you know 16 primary schools in my trust and if I speak to the educators in the primary schools they’re at a loss because the sophistication of a year five or year six child is way beyond the capacity of a key stage to teacher who really does not understand truly the complexity so they might deliver a curriculum but that is nowhere near where it needs to be and that confidence needs to emanate from both educators and empowerment for young people so from my point of view what we found successful across our cyber and esports academies we deliver cyber first for GCHQ is when we create a safe space for them to be empowered I think you get some really brilliant outcomes but I just say that the more deprived the more disadvantaged the young person the more vulnerable they are so that’s the point at which we have to do more because a parent can have all of the sort of tools if they’re educated if they’re from a decent socio-economic background but I think one thing I would say as a parent and my children have grown up now but I would just say that parents need to empathize more I don’t think that there is this preaching mentality that’s going to ever work I think there’s a confidence and a openness to understanding and also for parents to want to learn rather than try and educate all the time as well thank you very much Mo and I think you’ve you’ve touched on a good point it’s how do we provide a safe space for children to experiment and how do we give them the tools to do so across the board I feel that the first online space that children tend to experiment with is social media today and maybe that’s the perfect segue for question to Shivnath here and it’s you know in terms In terms of that space, in terms of the environment, what’s META’s approach to ensure the safety and the well-being of children online, especially with respect to the products that you provide? I’m going to share my mic with you.

Shivnath Thukral: Thanks so much. And firstly, I want to thank all my panelists and you for framing this issue in a very forward-looking manner. I can assure this room that usually when I’m in panels, it starts with a very attack mode. What I’m glad to hear is that at least you all are thinking of solutions and how to make it better rather than looking at blaming anyone. And everybody talked about their parental experience. I have a 10-year-old son and a 7-year-old daughter. And trust me, I think despite me working for META, they know much more than I do when it comes to the world of technology. Sometimes I have to look at them to get some tricks caught. And yet, what they don’t realize is there is something called the cloud. So when they’re sitting back in India and working on their iPad, I can see them clicking pictures on the iPad on the photo booth and uploading, thinking that I’ll not get to see. It’s just that the iCloud account is linked to my phone. And I see these photo booth pictures appearing on my phone. Having said that, that brings me to the moot point. What as companies are we doing, or what is our approach? I can confidently state that as a company, which is one of the leading companies in the world of social communication, the approach we have taken is very pragmatic, forward-looking, and builds solutions, some of which we have heard already and some of which are already existing through the product. You cannot bring in a sheet of paper and tell people to say, these are the features that can happen. These features are already there, whether it’s about nonstop addiction, nudging on alternate content, sleep time, parental controls, which brings me to a more fundamental issue. You can do parental controls. The question we have to ask is, do our children want us to be allowed to implement those parental controls? Will they like it if you tell them, give me the phone, let me put it on, and now I have some control? They don’t even want to share their account. That’s the reality. You can have parental control, but kids don’t like to share their account details, right? So then what do you do? So I think the more fundamental approach is think it through the design level. So someone rightly said, we’ve launched something called teen accounts, where the default feature of a teenager will be on a parental control site. It is not like they have to give it. So the default feature, if you are below 16, will be on a parental control site. I think as a tech company, if I don’t use the tech to install these solutions, we have a problem, and that’s why I think we have taken the right measures. But I want to share one thing with this room. This will never be a 100% job done. It cannot be. Reason, just like in the real world, bad actors are everywhere. In the virtual world, bad actors are everywhere. But we need to think through what you read from your piece of paper, unwanted contact. On Instagram, for example, we do not allow anybody who you don’t know to contact you, to message you or whatever, and yet, we see instances of cyber bullying or unwanted contact happening through different forums, because the bad actors are on the prowl. So the question is, as parents, how vigilant are we? Like Mo said, the tools or the thinking of yesterday cannot confront the issues of today. So are we upping our game as parents? I find it a challenge, despite being in a tech company. Sometimes we are not able to gauge what the bad actors are going to do. Hacking impersonation, it is not just a child or a youth issue. How many people in this room have not been hacked? We are all adults. Please tell me the truth that you’ve never been hacked. Do you have your two-factor verification on on your Instagram or WhatsApp? I’m sure many of you don’t. Why? This is despite us being adults, we don’t try to go and do it. So you imagine your child should be doing that. So the awareness and the knowledge level, how we are doing. One fundamental approach from the safety of the youth, which we feel we very strongly believe in, is the framework of preventing, controlling, and responding. We take several measures, including deploying a lot of AI tools, looking at keywords to make sure anything bad, before it happens, we can prevent it. Once a bad incident has already happened, it’s too late. We have lost that game then. So prevention is the most critical thing of taking down accounts, which are usually on the prowl, et cetera. Then is giving user control, which is related to all the features, et cetera, that we have. The third one is as critical, which is responding. How fast are we able to give you ability to report to us? And how fast are we responding to it? Are we working with enough civil society organizations? Like we have a program ongoing with NECMEC where we share CSAM data to make sure that law enforcement agencies across the world are able to work with each other. So I think the prevent, control, and respond mechanism is super critical. And the last piece I will say is, on more egregious issues like CSAM, et cetera, we take it very seriously. We are invested heavily on that. And I think we work across multiple agencies across the world inside our company. We have many former law enforcement officials who work with us, officers who work with us, and we deploy a range of technology to make sure that we are able to prevent bad actors from being on the platform. It is not in our interest. I mean, I cannot ask you to be user of my platform if I can’t keep our children safe. I’m a parent. As a parent, it is my responsibility. And in India, trust me, I show up in front of every regulator to be asked very, very tough questions. But I can also say very proudly that we play on the front foot by stating what we do, running public affair campaigns for awareness, et cetera. But at the end of the day, my product has to do the talking, and that’s what we are focused on.

Philippe Nahas: Thank you very much. Thank you. I think you’ve made a very good point on the engagement with the regulators, and you’re constantly on that. Would you care to elaborate a bit more about… We have Afroz online from UNICEF. We do, I suppose. Yes, we do. So should we invite her? Yeah, I think she would be absolutely next. At this point, I think if we’re talking about policy stakeholders, I think it’s a good idea to talk to Afroz. And I think to hear from you as well, Ahmed, from the NGOs perspective, from the policymakers perspective. And to begin with, if Afroz is with us, and she can hear us, right?

Ahmad Bhinder: Okay, very good.

Afrooz Johnson: So maybe Afroz, the question to you here, which is, what are the most critical interventions that governments in various countries can make to protect the children online? And this is from your experience as UNICEF. What can you tell us? Yeah, thank you so much. And sorry I didn’t meet you at the outset, Philippe, but it’s great to be part of this conversation. So I think I would just highlight four key challenges, and then the responses that we’re advocating for and supporting government with around the world. So a lot of them have already been touched on, so forgive me for repetition. But the first, I think, when we look at this issue, is the design and the operation of digital services and platforms. We’ve heard how there are bad actors on these platforms, but also there are design features that make more risks for children, and not just children, as we’ve heard. So we see that there are user engagement prioritized over child safeguarding, for example. The ways in which platforms are designed facilitate this rapid and wide-ranging spread of hateful and abusive content, as another example. So the ask there for government and for regulators is requiring the tech sector to undertake assessments, and I think this came out in the DCO report as well. And what UNICEF advocates for is for child rights due diligence, and particularly child rights impact assessments, so that companies can, rather than being reactive and trying to retrofit after the fact, can be more proactive and embed this concept of child rights by design, which is inclusive of safety by design and privacy by design. So all of these are prioritized in the development of digital products and services. So this is the first ask. For governments and policy makers is really prioritizing children’s rights in the design and governance of technology products, and this could be through regulation or other means. The second main challenge is, of course, that we know that laws have not kept pace with the rapid development of digital technologies. And then when we’re talking about criminal activity, there are also challenges in investigating and prosecuting cross-border cases. So the ask then, again, for government and what we’ve done around the world is really support a government to update laws and policies so that online violence is adequately criminalized and that they’re also future-proofed against rapidly evolving technologies. The third challenge that we see around the world is that social services and law enforcement often lack the resources and the… expertise to to address these these new challenges through digital technologies. So this makes it hard to support you know at-risk children and also it makes it hard to identify perpetrators and I really I really appreciated the intervention earlier just you know talking about you know particular groups of children that are at risk and the solutions for supporting them you know need to happen kind of in real life if I can put it like that so we need strong social services in order to identify and support children. In many countries mental health services are often insufficient so this can leave children without support which again you know it makes them vulnerable but it also means that they they don’t get adequate support after if and when something you know happens online so I think the ask there the government is really equipping law enforcement, educators, social services and others to really identify respond to and prevent forms of online harm. And then finally I would say there are challenges with respect to some harmful kind of social norms and limited public discussion that we have in many communities around the world you know there are taboos around talking about certain topics like sexual abuse and these things can make it difficult for victims you know to speak out and we know that you know there are forms of sexual abuse that are facilitated by technologies and when we have these you know limited public discussion and we have these harmful norms it can really constrain kind of the efforts to prevent and respond. So as well as you know the efforts that we’ve spoken about for governments supporting children’s digital literacy and online safety we also need those broader educative initiatives that are designed to foster healthy relationships in early adolescence those that are designed to challenge kind of harmful gender norms to motivate help-seeking and really support children you know if if their peers disclose to them how can they react to that. And of course all these other educational initiatives with parents and caregivers and educators. So I’ll stop there for now. Thank you.

Philippe Nahas: Thank you very much Afroz. I think it’s it’s very interesting that you spoke about you know the your collaboration with the various governments and maybe we can hear it from another perspective. The DCO is all about collaboration between various governments specifically the the digital arms of these governments. Maybe you can tell us in your experience Ahmad how does that collaboration contribute to the safety of children online? Thank you

Ahmad Bhinder: Philip. I think I will start with this. So there’s one of one topic across the policy domains we are public policy practitioners where there is a consensus that things need to be done. So children need to be protected. So we have we have come to a level of consensus where you know a lot of other policy debates are towards you know taking an approach or another. There is a global consensus that there needs to be something needs to be done to protect the children and especially while they are vulnerable online. Now then the question is how do you how do we activate the different stakeholders? So the role of the intergovernmental organization like UNICEF is broadly policy guidance or proposing initiatives or proposing different measures. The role of the technology companies is to use technology to to enhance or advance that agenda. So the companies the organizations are actually involved in these discussions and this dialogue. So I’ll give you an example last year and this is where this this session and this policy paper came from. We have a program called digital space accelerators program where we where we pick up the pressing issues in the digital economy and then we have global roundtables and discussions across all the regions and we bring in experts to to really talk about and discuss the issues and how to collaboratively solve those issues. So so so in so this is one role of the intergovernmental organizations but I think there’s a there’s a need for a more concerted effort on the national levels as well. So right now of course the policy landscape and the legal landscape and the regulatory landscape are different across different across different countries and the level of maturity is quite different across different countries. So one of the recommendations that we or one of the things that we picked up from last year’s collaborative discussion was that on a national level considering the or identifying different stakeholders that could include educators of course there are there common stakeholders like government policymakers and like technology companies that are beyond borders but to get them together come up with with children online protection strategy. So that would include what are the rules that need to be made, what are the rules that need to be tweaked, what are the initiatives. So it has to be a concerted effort on national levels while learning from the best practices of course we have a whole bunch of them and then having a national championship in across those nation nations and then those that that could then be expanded on a regional or international level. Thank you very very much. I think we’re all out of questions for today. I’ll open it up to the audience if there are a few questions that you have for any of our panelists today. Please raise your hand and we’ll give you the microphone.

Philippe Nahas: We’ve got time literally for a couple of questions so I think I’ll start with the lady and then pass it on to you. Yes thank you so much. My name is Jutta Kroll

Audience: from the German Digital Opportunities Foundation. I’m a children’s rights advocate and first let me congratulate that you have today a manual with only male speakers because several years ago we would have been talking about safety for children only among women. So it’s kind of an achievement that no woman is on your stage. I would like to refer you to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child because you have somehow picked upon that issue. I saw the eSports most speaking about the eSports and that is related to the children’s rights to leisure time to play in article 31 but also I thought that some of the measures you’ve been talking about would touch upon children’s privacy when and that is article 16 of the UN Convention. So when we put up parental controls when you have a look at the photos your children upload to the cloud without them knowing that would touch upon their privacy. So we need to take care that we balance privacy of children as well as their right to be protected. Thank you for listening. Thank you. Thank you very much for sharing. Thank you so much for your presentation. I’m actually currently a high school student in Massachusetts so as like as a literal child perspective I want to elaborate a little bit on what you said about how children indeed know the difference between right and wrong. I completely agree with that after being exposed to all kinds of like education about digital safety and stuff but one thing I observed in my school is that despite the fact that we we all have been educated about digital safety we we still become we still become vulnerable to it and some people even go on to become the attacker. So I think the reason for that is that children are evolving and technologies are evolving but the education on digital safety has to keep pace with those evolution so I think it’s also time for us to like revolutionize our education for our children. Thank you. Thank you very much for sharing. Maybe I’ll conclude in a minute

Philippe Nahas: just to say that we’ve we’ve seen in short that the digital world is actually a an image of the real world whereby you know we we determine there are bad actors in both and we need protection in both. Certainly the policies out there we’re not up to speed we have been playing catch-up for the past few years and we are still catching up with a very fast paced evolution of the the digital realm. One thing that I think becomes apparent from our panelists here is the importance of looking at it holistically from international organizations to governments to parents to law enforcement as well as policymakers all the way to empowering children themselves and I think as you well said the the difference between right and wrong is something that should be infused at a very early age and it should be holistically part of what we do as we conceive new policies to go ahead. Thank you very much everyone for listening. I appreciate your time and hope to see you again soon.

Agreement Points

Children face multiple risks online

Ahmad Bhinder

Shivnath Thukral

Afrooz Johnson

Risks include cyberbullying, addiction, inappropriate content, and privacy concerns

Bad actors are present in both the real and virtual worlds

Laws have not kept pace with rapidly evolving digital technologies

The speakers agree that children face various risks online, including cyberbullying, addiction, exposure to inappropriate content, and privacy issues. They acknowledge the presence of bad actors in digital spaces and the challenge of outdated laws in addressing these risks.

Need for multi-stakeholder approach

Ahmad Bhinder

Haitham Al Jowhari

Afrooz Johnson

Develop national children’s online protection strategies

Private sector should invest in R&D and work with law enforcement and regulators

Governments should update laws and equip law enforcement and social services

The speakers emphasize the importance of collaboration between various stakeholders, including governments, private sector, law enforcement, and social services, to effectively protect children online.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers advocate for empowering children and parents to take an active role in managing online safety, rather than relying solely on external controls.

Mo Isap

Shivnath Thukral

Empower children to self-govern their online safety

Parents need to be more vigilant and empathetic towards children’s online experiences

Unexpected Consensus

Balancing protection and privacy

Shivnath Thukral

Audience

Implement parental controls while respecting children’s privacy

Balance children’s right to protection with their right to privacy

There was an unexpected consensus between a tech company representative and an audience member on the need to balance child protection measures with respecting children’s privacy rights. This highlights a shared recognition of the complexity in implementing safety measures without infringing on children’s rights.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement include recognizing the multiple risks children face online, the need for a multi-stakeholder approach to online child protection, and the importance of empowering children and parents in managing online safety.

Consensus level

There was a moderate level of consensus among the speakers on the key challenges and general approaches to protecting children online. This consensus suggests a shared understanding of the complexities involved and the need for collaborative efforts. However, there were also nuanced differences in proposed solutions and emphases, indicating that while there is agreement on the broad issues, there is still room for debate on specific strategies and implementations.

Different Viewpoints

Approach to parental controls

Shivnath Thukral

Mo Isap

Implement parental controls while respecting children’s privacy

Empower children to self-govern their online safety

Thukral advocates for implementing parental controls by default, while Isap emphasizes empowering children to self-govern their online safety.

Unexpected Differences

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement revolve around the balance between protection and empowerment of children online, and the specific approaches to implementing online safety measures.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among the speakers is relatively low. Most speakers agree on the importance of protecting children online but have slightly different approaches or emphasize different aspects. This suggests a general consensus on the need for action, which could facilitate collaborative efforts to address the issue of children’s online safety.

Partial Agreements

All speakers agree on the need for safe online spaces for children, but differ in their approaches. Thukral emphasizes default safety features, Isap focuses on creating empowering environments, and Bhinder advocates for involving children in designing solutions.

Shivnath Thukral

Mo Isap

Ahmad Bhinder

Social media platforms should implement safety features by default

Create safe spaces for children to be empowered and experiment online

Involve children in designing solutions for their online safety

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers advocate for empowering children and parents to take an active role in managing online safety, rather than relying solely on external controls.

Mo Isap

Shivnath Thukral

Empower children to self-govern their online safety

Parents need to be more vigilant and empathetic towards children’s online experiences

Key Takeaways

Protecting children online requires a holistic approach involving multiple stakeholders including governments, tech companies, parents, educators, and children themselves

There is a global consensus that action needs to be taken to protect children online, but policies and regulations are still catching up to rapidly evolving technologies

Empowering and educating children about online safety is crucial, while also implementing technological safeguards

Balancing protection with children’s rights to privacy and autonomy online is an important consideration

Online safety measures need to account for different socioeconomic contexts and evolve along with technology

Resolutions and Action Items

Tech companies should implement safety features by default in products used by children

Governments should update laws to adequately criminalize online violence against children

Child rights impact assessments should be required for tech companies developing products used by children

Schools should identify digital advocates among students to support peers on online safety

Develop national children’s online protection strategies in different countries

Unresolved Issues

How to effectively balance children’s right to protection with their right to privacy online

How to keep digital safety education evolving at the pace of technological change

How to address online safety challenges for children from different socioeconomic backgrounds

How to combat the problem of children becoming online attackers themselves despite safety education

Suggested Compromises

Implement parental controls while still respecting children’s privacy to some degree

Create safe online spaces for children to experiment and learn while still providing some oversight

Balance top-down safety measures with empowering children to self-govern their online experiences

Children are digital natives… So for them, it’s all about digital. And that is why, when we think about them being digital natives, they live in the digital world.

speaker

Ahmad Bhinder

reason

This comment frames the fundamental challenge of protecting children online by highlighting how deeply integrated the digital world is for today’s youth.

impact

It set the tone for the discussion by emphasizing the need to understand children’s perspective and experiences in the digital realm.

We overprotect children in the world, and we underprotect them in the virtual world.

speaker

Philippe Nahas

reason

This succinct statement captures a key paradox in how society approaches child safety online versus offline.

impact

It prompted the panelists to consider the imbalance in protection measures and discuss ways to better safeguard children in digital spaces.

We cannot just use a single definition of children and think that that is be all and end all in terms of policy thinking… Unless we understand the nuance no policy can ever work

speaker

Mo Isap

reason

This insight highlights the complexity of creating effective policies for child online safety, emphasizing the need for nuanced approaches.

impact

It shifted the conversation towards considering more tailored and flexible policy solutions that account for diverse children’s experiences and backgrounds.

The approach we have taken is very pragmatic, forward-looking, and builds solutions… You cannot bring in a sheet of paper and tell people to say, these are the features that can happen. These features are already there

speaker

Shivnath Thukral

reason

This comment provides insight into how tech companies are proactively addressing online safety issues through product design.

impact

It brought a practical perspective to the discussion, highlighting existing solutions and the ongoing efforts of tech companies to improve safety features.

We need strong social services in order to identify and support children. In many countries mental health services are often insufficient so this can leave children without support

speaker

Afrooz Johnson

reason

This comment broadens the scope of the discussion by emphasizing the importance of real-world support systems in conjunction with online safety measures.

impact

It led to a more holistic consideration of child protection, linking online safety to broader social services and mental health support.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by broadening its scope from purely technical solutions to a more comprehensive approach. They highlighted the complexity of the issue, emphasizing the need for nuanced policies, proactive design by tech companies, and strong real-world support systems. The discussion evolved from defining the problem to exploring multifaceted solutions involving various stakeholders, including governments, tech companies, educators, and parents. This resulted in a rich, nuanced conversation that acknowledged both the challenges and potential pathways for improving children’s online safety.

What are the latest statistics on the proportion of internet users who are children?

speaker

Ahmad Bhinder

explanation

Updated data is needed to understand the current scale of children’s internet usage and inform policy decisions.

How can we effectively address the risks associated with immersive technologies like the metaverse for children?

speaker

Ahmad Bhinder

explanation

As new technologies emerge, it’s important to proactively consider their potential impacts on children’s safety and privacy.

How can we better involve children in the design of online safety measures and policies?

speaker

Ahmad Bhinder

explanation

Incorporating children’s perspectives is crucial for developing effective and relevant safety measures.

How can we address the different levels of vulnerability to online risks among children from various socio-economic backgrounds?

speaker

Mo Isap

explanation

Understanding and addressing these disparities is crucial for ensuring equitable protection for all children online.

How can we better equip educators to understand and address the complexities of children’s online experiences?

speaker

Mo Isap

explanation

Many educators struggle to keep up with rapidly evolving digital landscapes, impacting their ability to support children effectively.

How can we develop more effective ways to implement parental controls that children will accept?

speaker

Shivnath Thukral

explanation

Current parental control methods often face resistance from children, limiting their effectiveness.

How can we improve the speed and effectiveness of responding to reports of online harm to children?

speaker

Shivnath Thukral

explanation

Rapid response to reports is crucial for minimizing harm and maintaining user trust in online platforms.

How can we better support law enforcement and social services in addressing online child protection issues?

speaker

Afrooz Johnson

explanation

Many agencies lack the resources and expertise to effectively tackle digital child protection challenges.

How can we develop more effective educational initiatives to challenge harmful social norms and encourage help-seeking behaviors related to online safety?

speaker

Afrooz Johnson

explanation

Addressing underlying social norms is crucial for creating a safer online environment for children.

How can we ensure that child protection measures respect children’s right to privacy?

speaker

Audience member (Jutta Kroll)

explanation

There is a need to balance protection efforts with children’s rights to privacy as outlined in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

How can we evolve digital safety education to keep pace with rapidly changing technologies and children’s behaviors?

speaker

Audience member (high school student)

explanation

Current educational approaches may not be sufficiently addressing the evolving nature of online risks and children’s interactions with technology.

Summary

This open forum session focused on governing the future internet, particularly Web 4.0 and virtual worlds. The discussion explored why governance of these emerging technologies is important, what principles should guide it, and how a multi-stakeholder approach can address governance needs.

Participants emphasized the need to anticipate challenges posed by increasingly immersive and data-intensive virtual environments. Key concerns included data privacy, user rights, cybersecurity, and protecting vulnerable groups like minors. The importance of transparency, inclusiveness, and accountability in governance frameworks was stressed.

Several speakers highlighted the need for a human-centric approach that gives users more control over their data and experiences in virtual spaces. The potential for new business models centered around data agency for individuals was discussed as a way to create a fairer data economy.

There was agreement on the importance of multi-stakeholder collaboration, including governments, industry, civil society, and academia. Participants noted the need to involve youth and consider perspectives from different global regions. The value of building on existing internet governance structures rather than creating entirely new frameworks was emphasized.

The discussion touched on the role of emerging technologies like AI, blockchain, and quantum computing in shaping Web 4.0. Speakers stressed the importance of assessing how these developments impact core internet properties and existing governance mechanisms.

Overall, the session highlighted the complex challenges of governing rapidly evolving virtual world technologies while preserving an open, secure, and inclusive internet. Participants agreed on the need for continued dialogue and research to develop appropriate governance approaches for Web 4.0 and virtual worlds.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– The importance of a multi-stakeholder, inclusive approach to governing Web 4.0 and virtual worlds

– The need to protect user rights, privacy, and data in increasingly immersive digital environments

– Balancing innovation with ethical considerations and societal impacts as technologies advance

– Ensuring the existing internet architecture can evolve to accommodate Web 4.0 without disruption

– Involving youth and diverse global perspectives in shaping the future of the internet

The overall purpose of the discussion was to explore governance approaches and key considerations for the evolution towards Web 4.0 and more immersive virtual environments. The panel aimed to kickstart a broader conversation on how to ensure this development happens in an inclusive, ethical way while preserving the open nature of the internet.

The tone of the discussion was largely collaborative and forward-looking. Panelists emphasized the importance of working together across sectors and regions to address emerging challenges. There was a sense of cautious optimism about the potential of new technologies balanced with concerns about protecting users and society. The tone became slightly more urgent towards the end as speakers highlighted the need for continued dialogue and concrete action on these issues.

Speakers

– Pearse O’Donohue: Director for Future Networks at DG Connect, European Commission

– Barbora Kudzmanaitė: Research manager at BPMI, supporting European Commission’s work on Web 4.0 and virtual worlds governance initiative

– Rafał Kownacki: Director of the International Cooperation Department at the Ministry of Digital Affairs of Poland

– Israel Rosas: Director of Partnerships and Internet Development at the Internet Society

– Sarah Nicole: Senior Policy and Research Associate at Project Liberty

– Toshio Obi: Professor Emeritus and Advisor for CEDAW University, Advisor of IT Secretary General for Academia, Chair for CEDAW Project on Silver Innovation

Additional speakers:

– Sandra Hoferichter: Representative from EuroDIG

– Abdulla Al Hamed: Representative from Intermid

– Audience member (unnamed): Member of the technical community

Expanded Summary of Discussion on Governing Web 4.0 and Virtual Worlds

Introduction

This open forum session focused on the governance of future internet technologies, particularly Web 4.0 and virtual worlds. The discussion explored the importance of governing these emerging technologies, the principles that should guide such governance, and how a multi-stakeholder approach can address the complex needs arising from these advancements.

Key Themes and Discussion Points

1. The Need for Governance in Web 4.0 and Virtual Worlds

Speakers agreed on the necessity of governance for Web 4.0 and virtual worlds, citing several reasons:

a) New Challenges to Privacy and User Rights: Rafał Kownacki highlighted that immersive technologies present unprecedented challenges for privacy and user rights. The invasive nature of these technologies, as noted by Pearse O’Donohue, requires stronger user protections.

b) Potential Threats and Opportunities: Kownacki emphasized that Web 4.0 technologies bring both potential threats and opportunities that need to be addressed through governance.

c) User-Centric Approach: Sarah Nicole stressed the importance of a user-centric approach and data agency for individuals in these new digital environments.

2. Principles and Approaches for Web 4.0 Governance

The discussion highlighted several key principles and approaches for effective governance:

a) Multi-stakeholder Model: Rafał Kownacki advocated for a multi-stakeholder, transparent, and participatory model. This sentiment was echoed by Israel Rosas, who emphasized bottom-up processes with collaboration from all stakeholders.

b) Transparency and Accountability: Kownacki underscored the importance of transparency, inclusiveness, and accountability in governance frameworks.

c) Open Source and Alternatives to Self-Regulation: Sarah Nicole emphasized the need for open source protocols and alternatives to self-regulation by large tech companies.

d) Data Security and Privacy: Kownacki stressed the critical importance of ensuring data security and privacy in Web 4.0 environments.

3. Global Cooperation and Inclusivity

Speakers stressed the importance of global cooperation and inclusivity in governance efforts:

a) Global Solution: Pearse O’Donohue emphasized the need for a global solution to address the challenges of Web 4.0 and virtual worlds.

b) Addressing Digital Divides: Toshio Obi emphasized the importance of capacity building and addressing digital divides globally.

c) Youth Involvement: Sandra Hoferichter stressed the crucial role of youth involvement for fresh perspectives in the governance process.

d) Private Sector Innovation: Abdulla Al Hamed suggested that private sector innovation should inform governance approaches.

4. Balancing Innovation and Protection

A recurring theme was the need to balance technological innovation with societal impacts:

a) Assessing Impacts: Israel Rosas emphasized the importance of assessing how new developments impact core internet properties and existing governance mechanisms.

b) User Rights and Data Protection: Multiple speakers, including Sarah Nicole and Pearse O’Donohue, stressed the need to protect user rights, privacy, and data in increasingly immersive digital environments.

c) Cybersecurity: Rafał Kownacki highlighted the importance of robust cybersecurity measures in Web 4.0 and virtual world environments.

d) Protecting Minors: Kownacki also emphasized the need for special protections for minors in virtual environments.

5. Evolution of Internet Architecture

Speakers discussed how the existing internet architecture might need to evolve to accommodate Web 4.0:

a) Assessing Impacts on Critical Properties: Israel Rosas stressed the importance of assessing how new developments impact critical properties of the internet.

b) Avoiding Disruption: An audience member raised concerns about clarifying the scope of Web 4.0 governance and avoiding disruption to existing internet architecture.

c) Building on Existing Structures: Pearse O’Donohue noted that the aim is not to create entirely new structures but to build on existing internet governance frameworks.

Additional Points of Discussion

1. Citizen Panel: Sarah Nicole mentioned the importance of a citizen panel on virtual worlds to gather diverse perspectives.

2. Societal Impacts: Kownacki discussed potential societal impacts of virtual worlds, including addiction and social exclusion.

3. Risk Assessment: Israel Rosas emphasized the need to assess whether new technologies present risks or threats before addressing them.

4. New Business Model: Sarah Nicole proposed a new business model centered around data agency for individuals.

5. Capacity Building: Toshio Obi stressed the importance of capacity building and human resource development in the context of Web 4.0 governance.

Conclusion and Next Steps

The discussion highlighted the complex challenges of governing rapidly evolving virtual world technologies while preserving an open, secure, and inclusive internet. Participants agreed on the need for continued dialogue and research to develop appropriate governance approaches for Web 4.0 and virtual worlds.

Pearse O’Donohue mentioned the European Commission’s upcoming communication on virtual worlds, which will address governance issues. The Commission also announced plans to host a conference on March 31-April 1 in Brussels to further discuss Web 4.0 governance issues. Additionally, outcomes from this discussion will be fed into the next IGF meeting in Norway.

The session concluded with a call for ongoing collaboration and research to address the unresolved issues and develop effective governance frameworks for the future internet.

Pearse O’Donohue: Okay, good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you very much for being here. Thank you to those who are online. This is an open forum session number 40 on governing the future internet focusing on web 4.0 and virtual worlds. Even though anyone in the room may also need to wear headsets, in order to hear us over the background noise. And if any of you wonder what’s going on online, it’s just that it’s a relatively open room. My name is Pierce O’Donoghue. I work for the European Commission and DG Connect. And we’re very happy to sponsor this open forum on issues which I will just speak about briefly. And then we have a great panel, which our moderator will see us through. Over a year and a half ago, at the beginning of last year, the European Commission adopted a communication on virtual worlds. Some of you know that as the metaverse. We didn’t want to get into branding issues early on. So for us, it’s virtual worlds. But it’s very much some of the components which will make up web 4.0, moving from the on-screen or on-headphone immersion to full immersion, to virtual presence, to extended and virtual reality, and to 3D surround sensory experiences. And which are not just for entertainment purposes. It’s not just people playing video games with 3D masks on. It’s, of course, a massive number of applications in the industrial, social, health, and other areas. The Commission is very interested in the challenges which these technologies will have, of course, on society, on the services delivered over the internet. But we also have to look at the impact on the internet technology. into a functioning self. And that’s really why we wanted today to focus on one thing which we in the European Commission said we must look at. It is the governance of Web 4.0, the impact particularly of virtual worlds. And what I want to stress from the start is that we want to do so in a multi-stakeholder process. We are not in the business of building new fora. We are not in the business of creating new structures. Rather, we could have picked other technologies to have the same discussion, whether it’s blockchain, obviously artificial intelligence, while we’ll all be talking about quantum. How does that impact on the current multi-stakeholder process? And what lessons can we draw from the multi-stakeholder community as to how we need to adapt the current process, including particularly the IGF itself? What will be the impact on ICANN? Although they will of course be leading as well in those technical discussions. And what else, particularly what new stakeholders do we need to bring into the discussion? And that’s very much why we are here launching this discussion here at the IGF. We hope to have good input into the next IGF in Norway, and not as a sidebar, but as part of this consideration and why we really appreciate everybody’s input to this discussion. That’s… Noah’s back. As you all know, we have the WSIS plus 20 process at the end of next year. And we believe that that process should be looking not necessarily at architectures, because we believe that the current architecture is the right one, but actually looking forward. What are the new challenges that the multi-stakeholder process needs to address? What does that mean in terms of stakeholders? What configurations do we need? How does the IGF and others, other for that need to adapt? Starting from the technical layer, we have representative from the IETF in the room, all the way up to the service layer, the applications layer, and then the governance principles as such with regard to protection of the individual and society and other securities. So these are issues which we wish to hear from you. This will help us in our thinking, but also we feel should help to give a good input collectively to the WSIS process and build then the basis for work beyond next year in these fora for actually working it out. And here we rely on your input. We, of course, maintain the same values that have driven collectively our work in the past on internet governance. Maybe I could say digital governance, but that in itself is a political discussion which we won’t get into today. But it is really to ensure that as these new technologies come on, that those principles of open, secure, inclusive, and accessible… internet technologies remains the basis for all the work that we do and that we actually are able to anticipate challenges there will be, not least the fact that new technologies are moving so fast and we have to keep up with that. Others may otherwise step in. In the past we’ve had various bogeymen in the internet governance world. At first it was the bogeymen of the huge global company controlling everything and everybody. More recently it’s been the bogeymen of governments and states who want to control the internet and control their citizens on the internet. Whatever about those rather stereotypical extreme cases, what we do know is that the technology is itself presenting us with challenges and we need to talk about it. We need not be afraid of discussing it so that we are actually ahead of the curve. With that therefore I am very happy to to hand over to our moderator for this session. Thank you for being with us. That’s Barbara Kudzmanaiti who will now present herself and the panel. Thank you so much.

Barbora Kudzmanaitė: Thank you so much Piers for the opening remarks and thank you for initiating the session. Hello everyone, thank you for everyone joining us in the room and those connecting online. I hope you can hear us and be with us throughout the discussion. With the increasing maturity of technologies enabling virtual worlds and the evolution of the internet towards web 4.0, it is important to kick-start this conversation about how we can ensure that this development takes place in an inclusive ethical way while also preserving very much the global and open nature of the internet as Piers just reiterated. I cannot wait to deep dive with my panel members to discuss these questions around approaching web 4.0, what challenges that raises and what opportunities that raises and what also this means for how we approach the governance of the next generation. of the internet and virtual worlds. So to kickstart, maybe a bit of who’s who in the room here today and with us online. I am Barbara Kuzmanita, I’m a research manager at BPMI and we are supporting European Commission’s work on this Web 4.0 and virtual worlds governance initiative. And if you wanna chat more about what we’re doing to support the European Commission, I will be very happy to talk to you also after the session and happy to answer any questions in that regard. And today I’m joined by a fantastic panel of panelists from across the world. So to start with us here in the room, we have Professor Toshio Obi, who is Professor Emeritus and Advisor for CEDAW University, also Advisor of IT Secretary General for Academia and Chair for CEDAW Project on Silver Innovation. So several titles and thank you so much for being us here today. Online joining us, we have Ms. Sarah Nicole, who is a Senior Policy and Research Associate at Project Liberty, where she focuses on technical and academic governance frameworks. And next to me, I have sitting Mr. Israel Rosas, who’s a Director of Partnerships and Internet Development at the Internet Society. Across myself, I have Mr. Rafal Kornacki, who’s a Director of the International Cooperation Department of the Minister of Digital Affairs of Poland. So thank you for being with us here today. And online, let me check if we have joining us, we should have Mr. Raymond Selormamata, who is a Founder and President of e-Governance and Internet Governance Foundation for Africa. So I will just look a little bit at the screen to cross-check that Mr. Mamata managed to connect and is able to be with us here today. I see some shaking, so in case Mr. Mamata manages to come back, we will welcome him into the panel as well. And finally, we have Mr. Pierce O’Donohue, Director for the Future Networks, Director of DigiConnect European. and commission. So as a researcher, I have a lot of questions that I cannot wait to unpack together with you going forward. Maybe just a quick format on format, we’ll have roughly three, four minutes per remarks, and we have some time at the end for questions for anyone in the room to have a chance to speak up. So please reflect as we discussed on any questions you might have. So to start, I would like to explore a little bit the why of the governance equation, why in the first place, it’s important to talk about the governance of Thought4.0 and virtual worlds, and how will emerging technologies that are also already quite maturing, like AI blockchain, virtual and extended reality, but also quantum computing, as Piers was mentioning, might reshape or influence the evolution of Thought4.0 governance. So to start, Rafał Kownacki, please, the floor is yours.

Rafał Kownacki: Thank you very much. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, and thank you, the host, for having me in here. It’s such a pleasure and honour to be the part of the panel with so many people all around the globe who are really experts in the field. So very concrete to the point. From the point of view of the government, I believe any democratic government, internet governance nowadays is a kind of a stable, but still evolving environment with already well-established global institutions, and which is quite important, multi-stakeholder model, kind of strong one. That’s why we are all here. And this is IGF is just the proof that we are already in the very democratic environment. So of course, it’s nothing new, like to try for the very new occasion to manage or plan to manage the requirements for the new era of internet. However, of course, the advent of 4.0 internet, web 4.0, it presents both and of course, the threats, the opportunities. And of course, we have a long list of questions, whether the current system of existing Internet governance is ready for this new, maybe not revolution, but evolution to the next generation of Internet. When we consider the previous Internet revolutions we already observed, Web 4.0 can significantly impact I would believe that most of the aspects of our lives, lives in terms of daily routine lives, domestic lives, but also in international sphere. So discussing and the urgence to discuss the governance is crucial. It’s quite crucial just to steer technological development towards transparency, which is the first, inclusiveness, which is the second, and accountability. I believe those three are the pillars. So by anticipating technological changes, we should ensure that this evolution of the Internet is guided in a way that it prevents Internet, but of course most of all the users of Internet from being divided into different categories of virtual users, of different words managed by rules, imposed by some entities, not guaranteeing the equity and not guaranteeing the equality of all the users and all the governments, all the stakeholders from all around the globe. So of course when we think about opportunities, what Web 4.0 can bring to the world, of course first of all I think about education. So remote learning, even more developed one, training, medicine, entertainment. infrastructure development and of course which is quite important nowadays so natural resource management, it should bring the positive. Of course one of the very most positive opportunities is the creation of virtual twins of real world objects and it can of course improve operational efficiency, safety and skill and development across various sectors with medicine as the priority I would say but also there are many factors which are quite maybe not pessimistic but they’re post threats. So first of all we should try to make an efficient way to exclude the chance or the risk for any social exclusion and of course any disparity in access to information and education. It should be the priority for all the governments. We should try to establish new set of rules fighting against crime in virtual spaces with regards to all the new aspects of web 4.0. Also the use of or misuse rather of biometric data, mental health issues also should be kind of important for all the governments and all the stakeholders. When we think about addressing those issues, those threats, we need to have in mind, bear in mind that it requires a multi-sided approach. So it should include ensuring data security and privacy, it should enhance cyber security, it should be based on a deep analysis of societal impacts and of course which we can’t forget. are quite important to protect miners, so underage users. The evolution of Web 4.0, it will be likely influenced by emerging technologies. It’s quite obvious, such as AI, blockchain, virtual and extended reality, quantum computing, which was already mentioned. So the governance of Web 4.0, it will need to evolve into even more transparent and participatory model than nowadays we do have. The example I can give is the integration of AI and quantum computing, which will raise ethical questions about surveillance, data use and privacy. So governance framework, it will need to establish clear policies for protecting user rights, to ensure transparency, especially of AI systems and to handle ethical dilemmas around automation. The governance of this new kind of internet will need to ensure that these technologies can interoperate seamlessly while maintaining user control over the data. Summarizing, because I wouldn’t just to use over my time of three minutes. So Web 4.0 governance will need to be flexible, adaptive and transparent. It should incorporate input from a wide range of stakeholders and for sure it must balance the potential benefits, benefits of emerging technologies. The one I mentioned, AI, blockchain, XR, quantum computing, we’ve the need, which is the most important, we’ve the need to protect individual rights. privacy, security in this very complex new digital ecosystem. So I would say that’s all for now. Thank you.

Barbora Kudzmanaitė: Thank you very much for sharing your views. And indeed, we see with Web 4.0, it is indeed all about creating this really immersive real time through the environments. And already these days, we’re talking a lot about in the forum as well about children’s safety online. So of course, all of these issues extend to these very much immersive environments. You already alluded to some of the things of the what and the how. We will be coming back to those as well as we proceed with our panel. I will just do a last check whether Mr. Ramon Mamatai is with us, just to cross check if we have him online. In that case, I will turn to my colleague next to me, Israel Rosas, from the Internet Society to still take a look at the why question a little bit further, maybe from also this technical perspective, why we need to talk about governance of Web 4.0. So looking at the evolution towards Web 4.0. Hi. Hello? Unfortunately, it seems it’s difficult to have Mr. Mamatai with us. So then back to Israel Rosas. Looking at the evolution towards Web 4.0, does the existing core internet architecture provide a sufficient foundation to accommodate the needs and complexities of Web 4.0?

Israel Rosas: Well, thank you very much. First of all, I want to thank for the invitation. I think this is the right way of discussing new topics in which we have the opportunity to have a voice in the conversation. At the Internet Society, we are following up with a lot of attention these developments. We understand the general idea behind what it is mentioned as Web 4.0, but we would like to know more details. details on the specific, like what kind of applications would be deployed. We’ve seen that in general, the internet has been developed since the early beginning as a technology neutral, a general purpose network is this collection of networks, more than 70,000 networks interconnected, exchanging information. That core infrastructure has been flexible enough to accommodate needs all over the decades. We’ve seen the different applications, different services being deployed. And that’s why we are interested in these debates because as of now, it is really difficult to understand, for instance, what are going to be the border cases in which some of these developments, we will need to be tackled from a different point of view in technical debates. In general, what we are seeing is that the internet has a group of critical properties that permit that the internet exists and thrives. And that’s the key issue at play. Any new development, either technological, political, social, business should be assessed to identify whether it impacts these critical properties of the internet, because in some cases, we’ve seen that there are some unintended consequences when some new proposals are being put out there. So I think this is the right configuration to have opportunity for all stakeholders to participate. We’ve seen that there are diverse mechanisms within the technical community to address new challenges. For instance, the ITF has open bottom-up processes where all people can participate, can propose new solutions, can test new solutions, receive feedback on the feasibility of these developments. So in general terms, we are interested in how these conversations are progressing. and just to keep understanding better what are going to be the concrete implications for the internet. So it’s difficult to have like a concrete answer right now, but we are willing to keep engaged in the conversation, keep informed other stakeholders, but also hearing from other stakeholders.

Barbora Kudzmanaitė: Thank you very much. So just to summarize in short, it’s important to assess any new developments and their impacts on the internet going forward. I will turn now to what I understand, and we have Mr. Mamata with us online. So I will also ask again this why question, but maybe more from the global community as well. Looking globally, why is it important to talk about the governance of the evolution towards Web 4.0? Mamata, looking forward to hear your perspectives. Unfortunately, it still seems there is an internet connection issue. So I will then move on to the what, so talk a little bit about the foundational principles that we can have in mind as we look to the future of the increasing immersion and real-life experiences. And we heard a little bit on why we need to talk about this. So I would like to turn to Sarah Nicole. So what we just heard of some of these challenges and opportunities you must keep in mind, and also the importance of doing this impact as assessing the impacts on the internet. What do you see as some of the foundational values and principles that should underpin the governance of Web 4.0 and this evolution towards increasingly immersive virtual environments?

Sarah Nicole: Thank you for the invitation. I hope you can hear me well. There’s never a discussion over the internet. that do not encounter technical problems. So this is just the normal state of things. I generally agree with everything that’s been said. So let me give you my two cents and push this a little bit further. So while we have hundreds of national, regional, international frameworks, foundational value that are fit for the digital age, or that are even prior to the digital age, like the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, we have always struggled to apply them effectively. And I believe we will certainly do so when we’re 4.0 and virtual worlds. Every time there’s a new technology breakthrough, we always ask the same question, how we should preserve privacy, transparency, accessibility, and so on. And this might be because the main issue lies primarily in the business model of the digital platform, allowing us to interact online and the lack of alternative business model as well. So I think that adding more values and more principle is not the exact solution and would not be constructive to this discussion. I’d rather think that there needs to be a shift and rethink of how we’re conceiving the place of individuals in the digital world by giving them rights and control over their data. And at Project Liberty, we believe in three things mostly. We believe that we should give people voice in the governance of the spaces they log into every day, over their individual experience online, expended opportunity to manage also their data. And the third is a stake in the value created by their own data. And this might be the first step towards a fair data economy that is characterized by competition, innovation, instead of a few monopolies that are capturing people’s data. In virtual world, in a web 4.0, the data generation will be even more important than in our current two-dimensional digital services as interaction will need to be seamless, we’ve said it, and there needs to be actual immersiveness. So this is therefore crucial to have this rethinking before we get into this very moment of even more extensive data collection. And for effective governance, we will need to have a new business model centered around data agency for individual. We need to think of governance and business model as going hand in hand. And this is the effort that we are leading at Project Liberty Institute by focusing both on governance and especially the governance of a protocol that we steward, an open source and decentralized protocol that is called the DSNP, the Decentralized Social Networking Protocol. It’s a protocol that allows users to have more control over their data. We have over a million users on it now. And by focusing also on building a fair data economy, and we did that through a research effort with key leaders, including the latest economy Nobel Prize, Darren Oshimoglu, where we focused on four main areas of action, digital infrastructure solution, new business model, strategy, capital allocation, and policy framework. So for Web 4.0 and virtual world to truly thrive, they must embrace the shift towards user centricity, supported by innovative business model that enabled multi-stakeholder, bottom-up and transparent governance framework. But one last thing about this bottom-up and multi-stakeholder approach, I wanted to always highlight the European citizen panel on virtual world that took place, I think two years ago. I was invited as an expert for a full day and talking to over 150 randomly selected EU citizen that were asked to design the approach to virtual world. It led to recommendation among which I believe there was eight fundamental principle for ethical development of virtual world. And I believe these principles should be kept as they were brought by. all of us, they were brought by citizens that represent us. And I believe also that this concept of the citizen panel is key in the process of making policy and bringing ethics to digital innovation. Thank you.

Barbora Kudzmanaitė: Thank you, Sarah, for these very timely remarks. Indeed, one note is on the competition in virtual worlds. And maybe if I can summarize a bit that we should also really focus on end users as users rather than consumers in these environments. And also mention of the citizen panel. Indeed, we have end users, users. And they should also drive the principles that shape these environments going forward. I would also now turn to Professor Toshio Obi to further maybe elaborate a little bit on these principles that can guide this user human-centric virtual environment. In these environments, we heard a lot of mentions of data, the importance of privacy. Could you share also a little bit more from your perspective and research how might privacy involve in these more immersive environments? And how can we further protect the rights of the users of these spaces?

Toshio Obi: Hello? Who’s speaking on? Thank you very much for a very interesting talk. And frankly speaking, I’m not European. I’m Japanese. And I thank you for attending KOTO Japan IGF last year. Whatever we are talking about the next generation of the internet, I think we are really concerned with the multistakeholders. My issue is very, very clear. Multistakeholder has two different aspects. One is the more so-called the… government, business, civil society, academia issues, and another one is the more global issues like Europe and Asia and Africa and some other continent and I’m talking about the later one because Asia is a very very vast territories starting from South Pacific to Saudi Arabia is Asia so what we should do is Asia we call the in terms of the GDP it’s almost a half of the world GDP belong to Asia also population is all China, India, Indonesia, Japan, we have Pakistan they have a huge populations so what we should cooperate with European Unions I think the Asia group need a platform to work with European Unions and you did in the Kyoto meetings last year and this year we have a very interesting talk so-called wave 4.0 it’s quite an important transition to so-called the metaverse in the future so in other sessions so just I listen to AI issues and some other sessions talking about children’s human rights on so one stakeholder is really a big one. So this issue might be so-called European Union, EU-oriented programs. And I think Japan can, or Asia as a whole, might be very interested in working with you, the European Union. That’s one thing which I should say. And the second one is I’m the policy professor of the Japanese universities and policy advisor to NTT, which somebody told about. So between academia and business, we need more collaborations. Somebody said PPP. That’s very good. And the third one is the sustainabilities. And this project or program called Wave 4.0 might continue as sustainabilities for another five, six years to complete our missions. So please consider the Asia is a part of these programs and how we can work together. No, that is my comment first. Okay.

Barbora Kudzmanaitė: Thank you very much, Professor Obi. I think this is actually a very timely transition, more to the question of how, how we can work together on approaching this next evolution of the web and how we can work together to guide and govern these, approach the governance of these immersive environments. So I would turn back to maybe Piers O’Donohue to reflect a little bit on how can we work together in this multi-stakeholder approach to best address the governance needs of that 4.0. Thank you very much.

Pearse O’Donohue: Well, first of all, it’s by listening to informed speakers, such as we have today. No, genuinely, this is the process that we have to go through. So I was actually very attracted to the brief model that Israel said that, first of all, we have to, with those who are informed, but with different perspectives, analyze whether a given technology or a given advance is a risk or presents a threat, in other words, it’s a challenge to then best assess how we go about addressing it. And in that context, then listening very carefully to what Sarah had to say, taking the user very much into account and introducing, I know that these terms have been fought over, but what we would consider to be a human centric approach. It seems a given that when we are talking about technologies, which will be to the point of being invasive, they will surround the individual or have the potential to do so and will not be a two dimensional interface, but a 3D, 360 degree interface, where because of the nature of some of the technologies, it might not be possible to put on mute. If you wish to have a private conversation and where the sensors are not tracking you, there will be devices which look at biorhythms and other bodily measurements, as well as being able to hear your environment. So the nature of that technological advance, while we’ve talked about protection of data, personal data for a long time, it’s a whole new thing. And therefore, the human centricity, the focus on the user, giving control to the user, which I also heard from Sarah, is very important. And then it’s a question, as I’ve said, of saying, right, these are the challenges. these are the strong, the principles which we have to either introduce or in this case with the human centricity strengthen and as I’ve said not then design something totally new but with those challenges look at how we need to develop and advance with regard to the internet governance processes that we have. Are they appropriate? Are they fit for purpose? Do they bring the right people to the table? Do they put the right focus? And also are we not talking about theoretical problems if for example it turns out that the technology is not a problem or let’s not forget maybe we already have the solution. Maybe the technical community has provided a solution and we just need to know about it and it needs to be properly implemented or properly mandated. It might be voluntary codes which with the evolution of technology have to become something that are more mandatory in order to protect the individual or protect society and so on. So it’s that ability to look around what we have and what we need and I just go back my conclusion to that point is again once more to stress that this involves talking with one another. Professor Obi this is not a European centric analysis. We are doing a work because we feel it’s very important in Europe but we feel that every region is challenged. We will need to work together to address it. If we believe in a global internet we have to have a global solution and we hope to learn from what others have done. But I was nevertheless flattered that Sarah referred to the citizen dialogue that we have. That is again how we felt from the outset before we even issued a policy statement as to how we were to address virtual worlds going forward. We entered into negotiation with stakeholders and citizens and we will continue to do so and we hope that everyone will engage in that process as well. Thank you.

Barbora Kudzmanaitė: Thank you very much for these remarks. I will start now a little bit jumping around to kind of explore further this question of how we can work together and how we can harness of us all being here today to reflect on this multi-stakeholder approach and how we can position this discussion within that. Sorry, Nicole, I saw you nodding quite actively. So I will, I will jump on that if maybe you have something further to reflect on and add to what Pierce, I don’t know who was saying.

Sarah Nicole: Yeah, I fully agree with one part of your comment, which is about sometimes the technology already exists. It’s already available. The problem, and especially when we talk about virtual world and social media spaces, basically is the problem of network effect. The big players will keep on having the users because they just have everything already in place. And so whatever is the new digital innovation, and we’ve seen this with AI, these big players will keep on, on, on gathering the users, despite having some technology that is more privacy enhancing, and that could be better for users. And I think this is where policy gets into place. This is where framework gets into place of recommending, for instance, that future digital infrastructure should be based on open source protocols, that it cannot be proprietary. And I feel like, as a general community, we’ve given too much importance to self-regulation by those big tech. And there was, I think, in 2023, the White House voluntary AI commitment. And this is essentially letting this company write the exam by which it will be evaluated. And the result is that today, most of AI system and large language model are still very opaque. There’s still black boxes, and there’s no transparency in the audit is very complicated. And so it’s the same for virtual world, right? There was back in 2021, this video by Meta to advertise for their for their metaverse where it was the vice president of the division that was featured in this video and he said if you were to be harassed in the metaverse, well we could give you superpower, like you could create a bubble so you cannot be harassed anymore. And I think this is the kind of comment that we precisely need to focus on and find alternative trust and safety framework for effective regulation because we cannot let those private company with mostly for-profit motives be in power for what they define as a public square.

Barbora Kudzmanaitė: Thank you for sharing. I think indeed the list of things we need to explore, we need to research is growing increasingly long as well. I will turn to also Mr. Rafal Kovnatsky to maybe also reflect a little bit on this. How can we work together? How can we learn from each other? Also not just in Europe but also globally. How can we harness this multicultural approach to discuss virtual

Rafał Kownacki: worlds and 4.0? Thank you once again for the question. So I would like to thank Professor Obi just mentioning that we are not only EU oriented in here in this room. So what I say, it goes beyond the European Union. I’m proud to represent one of the member states of the EU but what I really believe can answer your question should be also covering all the possibilities all around the globe from the governmental point of view. So I believe that this governance framework we need to establish, it should be based on clear rules. So I would once again emphasize how important is transparency? How important is protection of user rights? How important are both of them with regard to artificial intelligence? So we would like to by law but also by practice and by collaborative cooperation between all the stakeholders answered to the need to face some moral ethical dilemmas. Of course, at the moment we have been already facing those issues not only in the EU but in many states all around the globe. Luckily, in European Union we already established some legislation, just say a few like to some extent DMA, of course DSA, AI Act, so we already have got some regulation of online platforms, how to moderate their practices and of course with regard to moderation it is really important to emphasize how crucial it is to ensure the user that with regard to artificial intelligence they are not based, their situation is not based on the decision of AI itself but they have got the rights to appeal to the human being. So of course this is quite important, I believe we should have the same protocol all around the globe that AI is never the last resort, so there is always this right to appeal to the human being. I wouldn’t mention because we have no time but only say a word that already we have trialed in many countries not only in EU but also in states of the of the United States some procedures within judicial system, so we have the countries where you can just sue anybody and go to the court and the court wouldn’t hear you but AI would hear you on behalf of the court but still in all those soils you you have the right to appeal to the human being. So I believe that this protocol is quite crucial. The other issue quite important is the integration of artificial intelligence and quantum computing. And in case of governance frameworks, of course, it will raise several issues like devices which enable access to visual words, they possess a huge threat as a new attack, potential attack vector. So we need to bear in mind that with virtual twins, digital replicas of real world objects, they are quite obviously new potential targets. So high level of cybersecurity based on private public cooperation, private public sectors cooperation is quite important. It’s really essential, especially for the meta versus viability. There is a lack of comprehensive analysis, I would say, unfortunately, on the societal impact of virtual words, I would say real life societal impact, but it’s really important to continue the works and research to investigate the addictive potential, which is the first. Threats and specifically among vulnerable groups. Minors are, I would say the target group number one, which is also important to virtual words must be supervised from the outset to protect all the minors for all the kinds of usage. Some studies we’ve already faced with the results of them indicate that existing, already existing platforms contain numerous inappropriate contents for users under 18. with inadequate access restrictions and moderation. Of course, in EU, we have more strict rules, but in many, many places all around the globe, it wasn’t still applies. In case of data, okay, so summing up, summing up of web 4.0 governance, we will need to have, we will need to evolve towards a more transparent and participatory model because of the technologies and the nature of them itself, and building on principles that address this risk and challenges of virtual worlds in web 4.0 requires a multi-faceted approach. So let me summarize with once again, prioritizing data security, privacy, enhancing cybersecurity, analyzing societal impacts, protecting underage users as crucial steps we need to go and establish all around the globe. Thank you.

Barbora Kudzmanaitė: Thank you very much. I will also turn back again to Mr. Israel Rosas. You mentioned this important point about internet impact assessments. Hearing what we just, discussing what we just heard on the importance of this transparent and participatory approach, how can then the multi-stakeholder internet governance approach best address the governance of web 4.0?

Israel Rosas: Well, thank you. I, and I was pleased in hearing that this openness to go and discuss these topics with different parts of the community, because in some cases, I believe that when we see some tensions and some opportunities, the trend is to jump directly into the solution mindset and come and try to gather all the stakeholders to discuss how to solve a problem and going ahead. But the multi-stakeholder approach. also includes gathering the stakeholders to determine if effectively there’s a problem or not, if effectively there’s something broken or not, because in many cases, as you mentioned, there are already working solutions. And then it’s easier to go, for instance, to the ATF and to see what are those building blocks that are working, why those voluntarily adopted protocols and technologies are voluntarily adopted, and to have that conversation. That’s important, because at the end of the day, we are defending these technical, critical properties of the Internet, because they are the ones that are enabling that the Internet is a force for good, that is available to adapt, to evolve, to accommodate new applications, technologies, services, no matter the name, they are grouped. So in general terms, we are advocating for bottom-up processes with collaboration, with transparency, with accountability, with full inclusion of all stakeholders, because all of the stakeholders have a specific set of knowledge and expertise that is needed to inform these decisions. The technical community has a concrete set of expertise, but it’s the same with the other stakeholders. And that’s why it’s important that these kind of collaborative, open conversations are still happening to assess the best way forward.

Barbora Kudzmanaitė: Thank you. Maybe to borrow from what Rafal was saying, let’s not jump to a revolution when maybe it’s an evolution of things, and we can work with the stakeholders to discuss and identify approaches together. I will call back to Professor Obie as well, maybe to share a little bit, lessons if any, on existing approaches and how we can work again to better govern emerging technologies in Web 4.0 and virtual worlds.

Toshio Obi: Yes, thank you very much. And since we have very limited time, seven minutes, I can say as a professor of the universities, we need more attention to so-called the capacity building, human resource development for this issue. Because Japan, China, India, Indonesia, ASEAN and the Middle East, we call the Asia. Quite number of the population is behind, left behind already. So European Union group, is your so-called the, what do you call, the horizontal societies, very close to a level of the humanities. And we, Asia, from Japan, Singapore, Korea, you see a quite high level of the well-beings, but we have more than 10, so-called the less developed countries. I should not mention the name, but, so how we can, so-called the, what do you call, transformation to a metaverse, or on the way, the Wave 4.0. But we are confusing the concept of Wave 4.0, simply because you had Wave 3.0, and you have Industrial 4.0, and how they can link to each others for the future internet societies. That’s Asian people is wonderings, and… I think Pierre might answer very quickly about it. And also, I really enjoy listening to, how do you pronounce, Rafa, Rafa, okay, yeah, about the future of the European Union itself, because Poland is the next presidency of the EU, and Norway will be next IGF. So it’s really good time for European Union to consolidate or more attention to wave 4.0. So just I can say from a Japanese perspective, this is the best stage right now, the Saudi to Norway of the IGF. That’s my final comment.

Barbora Kudzmanaitė: Thank you very much. We are running shortly out of time, so I would also like to turn to the audience if there are any questions in the room, looking at WAP 4.0. All right, we have two questions.

Sandra Hoferichter: Hello, my name is Sandra Hoferichter from Eurodig, which is the European IGF. Not a question, but a comment. When you talk about stakeholder inclusion, although I’m not anymore, I strongly suggest to involve youth in a meaningful manner. We just had today a very good session about youth participation where it was mentioned that you really involve them by involving also drafting policy. And I know that it’s sometimes hard because they are changing so quickly from one place to another, but I think it’s worth the effort. because not because only if it’s that it’s their future they might have a totally fresh look on all this and give a really good input on on all these things and might even come up with creative

Abdulla Al Hamed: solutions that others might not think of. Hi good afternoon this is Abdulla Al Hamed from Intermid. I believe while we are discussing so many areas in web 4.0 in terms of regulations or policies or strategies I believe the private sector have already moved super forward in so many areas including academia and research. So what we need to do is to pay more attention towards what’s going on in the industry capture those things and then see how can we treat them similar to some other industries like the fintech and others. So web 4.0 should be driven by innovation and youth and we should capture those things and then see how can we really enhance the experience for every user. Thank you. So the importance of innovation and youth involvement

Barbora Kudzmanaitė: maybe any reactions and we have a final question as well. All right go ahead and then we can maybe respond together. Yeah so I just had a couple of comments. First I’m very heartened by what I heard

Audience: in the panel which is this human-centered focus on internet connectivity but I’ll say as a member of the technical community I have a number of questions and I think that I really very much appreciate the multi-stakeholder consultation that’s that’s happening here. Do we really need to unpack some of the scopes here about what is the focus of what we’re talking about? I’ll just observe from the technical community the word web and the internet are not interchangeable and they mean very different things and it’s you know it leaves me wondering are other internet applications in scope here or are they not and then because we’re borrowing words from the technical community about versioning the web which is which is a little bit challenges that typically involves breaking changes and I hope what we’re not talking about is we have an internet today and tomorrow we have a different internet because typically when we involve the internet architecture it’s an evolution because we certainly wouldn’t want to risk disconnecting the five billion users already on the internet. We want to incrementally give them more capability and kind of more

Pearse O’Donohue: protections. Thank you very much. Pearse perhaps you can start. Yeah those are very good very good points. First of all, yes, when I talked about multi-stakeholder consultation we wanted to be inclusive, so including groups. The weakness that we’ve identified is particularly the barriers to representation of stakeholder groups from the Global South and from developing countries, which we really must work on. But also then the point was made about industry innovation. It’s the same thing as if there’s a solution there already, maybe a solution which can be quickly adapted to a new challenge, then we should look at that and not reinvent the wheel. And finally, I will apologise. As I said at the start, we started talking about virtual worlds because it was a very large company which had part of the word metaverse in its name and we didn’t want to confuse people too much. We have played very fast and loose with Web 4.0, partly because we wanted to differentiate from Web 3.0 the things that are going to happen, which maybe you, the technicians, will help us to understand will be absorbed into that architecture. There shouldn’t be a break, and certainly we’re not trying to break. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. It’s one of the new challenges. So it’s just to get understanding, maybe to grab attention as well, that we have spoken in these terms. But we have had serious discussions already over a number of years about, even though we thought it was part of 3.0, what hasn’t been delivered under Web 3.0? But that’s another conversation. So I’m very happy that we’ve got your attention, because we really need your participation. Thank you.

Barbora Kudzmanaitė: The organizers of the panel will not send very angry stares at me. I have a final question I’d like to ask from the chat. That was raised by Mokabedi from Iranian academic community, and it’s a bit long so I will try to read it in full. The existing internet governance system is not sufficient to respond to the policy issues related to data, domain name, safety, health, common infrastructure content, and requires the adoption of a comprehensive approach and a new architecture. So can the smart combination of a multilateral governance model plus multi-stakeholder consultation model be appropriate here? Can the model of the International Aviation Organization, for example, be a good example to ensure this legality, health and safety of cyberspace in the new generation of the web? Any takers on this reflection? Maybe Israel, I’m looking at you.

Israel Rosas: Yeah. Just quickly. I don’t know the framework that this person is referring to, but I think that we will need like an additional session to discuss whether the framework is working or not. Because in general, governments are part of the multi-stakeholder approach. So I think it’s like a longer conversation.

Barbora Kudzmanaitė: It’s a longer conversation. I think a lot of which we’re hearing around this week at IGF as well. So thank you very much for your responses. I see we have out of time. So maybe I’ll just hand over to Piers and on a final future looking remark on the road ahead.

Pearse O’Donohue: Well, thank you, Barbara. And thank you to all the speakers. Part of a process of consultation and one which we hope to continue. So we look to your forward participation. And on that piece of unabashed publicity, but taking this part, do you see as, no, you’re not hearing me. Okay. How’s that now? Is that working? I’ll. National food. Conference. Time. It’s the conference on the 31st of March and the 1st of April in Brussels, which is on this exact theme. And we would really like to have as much participation as possible. We’ll be examining the possibility for offsite participation as well, but it is really to continue and dig deeper on some of these issues. One hour is not enough time. Some big questions have been asked. So we really need to have a full discussion, which we then hope to feed back into the IGF in Norway. This is part of the multi-stakeholder process. This is not building new paths. This is to feed back in, as I said, intersessional work. So with that, just to say that we’ve put the issues on the table, but we need to listen to what others think as to whether they are the right issues and what are the possible solutions to them as this technology rolls out. Thank you to everyone. Thank you to the speakers. And thank you, Barbara, for your time. And I hope that everyone has a great IGF. Thank you. Thank you, everyone.

Agreement Points

Need for multi-stakeholder, transparent and participatory governance model

Rafal Kownacki

Israel Rosas

Pearse O’Donohue

Multi-stakeholder, transparent and participatory model needed

Bottom-up processes with collaboration of all stakeholders

We are not in the business of building new fora. We are not in the business of creating new structures.

Speakers agree on the importance of a multi-stakeholder approach that is transparent, participatory, and involves bottom-up processes for Web 4.0 governance.

Importance of user-centric approach and data protection

Sarah Nicole

Pearse O’Donohue

Rafal Kownacki

Importance of user-centric approach and data agency for individuals

Invasive nature of immersive technologies requires stronger user protections

Focus on transparency, inclusiveness and accountability

Speakers emphasize the need for a user-centric approach in Web 4.0 governance, focusing on data protection, user rights, and privacy in immersive environments.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize the importance of assessing the impact of new technologies on the existing internet infrastructure and the need for global cooperation in addressing these challenges.

Israel Rosas

Pearse O’Donohue

Need to assess impacts of new developments on core internet properties

We are doing a work because we feel it’s very important in Europe but we feel that every region is challenged. We will need to work together to address it.

Unexpected Consensus

Importance of youth involvement in governance

Sandra Hoferichter

Abdulla Al Hamed

Youth involvement crucial for fresh perspectives

Private sector innovation should inform governance

While coming from different perspectives (civil society and private sector), both speakers unexpectedly agree on the importance of involving youth and fresh perspectives in Web 4.0 governance.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement include the need for a multi-stakeholder, transparent, and participatory governance model, the importance of a user-centric approach with strong data protection, and the necessity of assessing the impact of new technologies on existing internet infrastructure.

Consensus level

There is a moderate level of consensus among the speakers on the fundamental principles of Web 4.0 governance. This consensus suggests a shared understanding of the challenges and potential approaches, which could facilitate the development of coherent governance frameworks. However, there are still varying perspectives on specific implementation details and regional considerations, indicating the need for further dialogue and collaboration.

Different Viewpoints

Approach to governance of Web 4.0

Rafal Kownacki

Israel Rosas

Multi-stakeholder, transparent and participatory model needed

Existing internet governance may not be sufficient for Web 4.0 complexities

While Kownacki advocates for a multi-stakeholder, transparent and participatory model for Web 4.0 governance, Rosas suggests that the existing internet governance system may not be sufficient to address the complexities of Web 4.0, implying a need for a potentially different approach.

Unexpected Differences

Scope of Web 4.0 governance discussions

Pearse O’Donohue

Audience

Invasive nature of immersive technologies requires stronger user protections

Clarify scope and avoid disrupting existing internet architecture

While O’Donohue focuses on the need for stronger protections due to the invasive nature of Web 4.0 technologies, an audience member unexpectedly raises concerns about the scope of the discussion and the potential disruption to existing internet architecture. This highlights a tension between addressing new challenges and maintaining the stability of current systems.

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement revolve around the approach to Web 4.0 governance, the balance between user protection and innovation, and the scope of governance discussions.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among speakers is moderate. While there is general consensus on the need for governance of Web 4.0 and virtual worlds, speakers differ on the specific approaches and priorities. These differences highlight the complexity of the issue and the need for further dialogue to develop a comprehensive governance framework that addresses various stakeholder concerns.

Partial Agreements

Both speakers agree on the need for stronger user protections in Web 4.0 environments, but they differ in their proposed solutions. Nicole emphasizes giving users control over their data and a stake in its value, while O’Donohue focuses on the need for stronger protections due to the invasive nature of the technologies.

Sarah Nicole

Pearse O’Donohue

Importance of user-centric approach and data agency for individuals

Invasive nature of immersive technologies requires stronger user protections

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize the importance of assessing the impact of new technologies on the existing internet infrastructure and the need for global cooperation in addressing these challenges.

Israel Rosas

Pearse O’Donohue

Need to assess impacts of new developments on core internet properties

We are doing a work because we feel it’s very important in Europe but we feel that every region is challenged. We will need to work together to address it.

Key Takeaways

There is a need for governance of Web 4.0 and virtual worlds due to new challenges around privacy, user rights, and data protection in immersive environments

A multi-stakeholder, transparent and participatory approach is crucial for developing Web 4.0 governance

Governance should focus on user-centric principles, data agency for individuals, and open protocols rather than self-regulation by big tech companies

Global cooperation, especially between regions like EU and Asia, is important for addressing Web 4.0 governance challenges

Existing internet architecture and governance models may need to evolve to accommodate Web 4.0, but should build on current foundations rather than creating entirely new systems

Resolutions and Action Items

European Commission to host a conference on March 31-April 1 in Brussels to further discuss Web 4.0 governance issues

Outcomes from this discussion to be fed into the next IGF meeting in Norway

Unresolved Issues

Specific technical details of how Web 4.0 will impact internet architecture

How to effectively include stakeholders from the Global South in governance discussions

Balancing innovation from private sector with need for regulation

Clarifying the scope of ‘Web 4.0’ vs internet more broadly in governance discussions

Suggested Compromises

Using existing technical solutions and protocols where possible rather than creating entirely new systems

Combining multilateral governance models with multi-stakeholder consultation approaches

Web 4.0 governance will need to be flexible, adaptive and transparent. It should incorporate input from a wide range of stakeholders and for sure it must balance the potential benefits of emerging technologies with the need to protect individual rights, privacy, security in this very complex new digital ecosystem.

speaker

Rafal Kownacki

reason

This comment succinctly captures the key challenges and requirements for governing Web 4.0, emphasizing the need for balance between innovation and protection.

impact

It set the tone for much of the subsequent discussion around multi-stakeholder approaches and the need to protect individual rights in virtual environments.

Any new development, either technological, political, social, business should be assessed to identify whether it impacts these critical properties of the internet, because in some cases, we’ve seen that there are some unintended consequences when some new proposals are being put out there.

speaker

Israel Rosas

reason

This comment highlights the importance of carefully evaluating new developments in terms of their impact on the internet’s core properties, introducing a cautious and analytical approach.

impact

It shifted the conversation towards a more measured approach to innovation, emphasizing the need to preserve the internet’s fundamental characteristics.

I’d rather think that there needs to be a shift and rethink of how we’re conceiving the place of individuals in the digital world by giving them rights and control over their data.

speaker

Sarah Nicole

reason

This comment introduces a paradigm shift in thinking about user rights and data control in the digital world, moving beyond just adding more principles.

impact

It sparked discussion about user-centric approaches and the need for new business models centered around data agency for individuals.

If we believe in a global internet we have to have a global solution and we hope to learn from what others have done.

speaker

Pearse O’Donohue

reason

This comment emphasizes the need for global collaboration in addressing internet governance challenges, moving beyond regional perspectives.

impact

It broadened the scope of the discussion to include global perspectives and collaboration, particularly in response to Professor Obi’s comments about including Asian perspectives.

The multi-stakeholder approach also includes gathering the stakeholders to determine if effectively there’s a problem or not, if effectively there’s something broken or not, because in many cases, as you mentioned, there are already working solutions.

speaker

Israel Rosas

reason

This comment provides a nuanced view of the multi-stakeholder approach, emphasizing the importance of problem identification before solution-seeking.

impact

It led to a more critical examination of whether new governance structures are needed or if existing solutions can be adapted.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by emphasizing the need for a flexible, transparent, and globally inclusive approach to Web 4.0 governance. They highlighted the importance of balancing innovation with user rights protection, careful assessment of new developments, and the need for a paradigm shift in how we conceive individual rights in the digital world. The discussion evolved from initial broad concepts to more nuanced considerations of existing solutions, global collaboration, and the critical role of multi-stakeholder approaches in both problem identification and solution development.

How can we ensure that the evolution towards Web 4.0 takes place in an inclusive and ethical way while preserving the global and open nature of the internet?

speaker

Barbora Kudzmanaite

explanation

This is a fundamental question that underpins the entire discussion on Web 4.0 governance and requires further exploration to ensure responsible development.

What new stakeholders do we need to bring into the discussion on Web 4.0 governance?

speaker

Pearse O’Donohue

explanation

Identifying and including new relevant stakeholders is crucial for comprehensive and effective governance of emerging technologies.

How does the current multi-stakeholder process need to adapt to address the challenges of Web 4.0?

speaker

Pearse O’Donohue

explanation

Understanding necessary adaptations to existing governance structures is important for effectively managing new technological developments.

What will be the impact of Web 4.0 on ICANN and other internet governance bodies?

speaker

Pearse O’Donohue

explanation

Assessing the potential effects on existing governance bodies is crucial for maintaining effective oversight of the evolving internet.

How can we prevent social exclusion and disparity in access to information and education in Web 4.0?

speaker

Rafal Kownacki

explanation

Addressing potential inequalities is essential for ensuring that Web 4.0 benefits all members of society.

How can we establish new rules to fight against crime in virtual spaces?

speaker

Rafał Kownacki

explanation

Developing effective measures to combat criminal activities in new virtual environments is crucial for user safety and trust.

How can we address the potential misuse of biometric data in Web 4.0 environments?

speaker

Rafal Kownacki

explanation

Protecting sensitive personal data is increasingly important as technologies become more immersive and data-intensive.

What are the specific applications that will be deployed in Web 4.0?

speaker

Israel Rosas

explanation

Understanding the concrete applications will help in assessing their potential impacts and governance needs.

How can we shift towards user-centricity in Web 4.0, supported by innovative business models?

speaker

Sarah Nicole

explanation

Developing user-centric approaches is crucial for ensuring that Web 4.0 serves the interests of individuals rather than just commercial entities.

How can we implement more effective trust and safety frameworks for Web 4.0 environments?

speaker

Sarah Nicole

explanation

Developing robust safety measures is essential for protecting users in increasingly immersive digital spaces.

How can we address the potential addictive nature of virtual worlds, especially among vulnerable groups like minors?

speaker

Rafal Kownacki

explanation

Understanding and mitigating potential negative psychological impacts is crucial for responsible development of immersive technologies.

How can we better involve youth in the governance and policy-making processes for Web 4.0?

speaker

Sandra Hoferichter (audience member)

explanation

Incorporating perspectives from younger generations is important for developing forward-looking policies.

How can we better capture and incorporate innovations from the private sector and academia in Web 4.0 governance?

speaker

Abdulla Al Hamed (audience member)

explanation

Ensuring governance keeps pace with rapid technological developments in industry and research is crucial for effective oversight.

Summary

This discussion focused on cybersecurity challenges and solutions for community networks and data-driven health technologies. Speakers highlighted the importance of community-driven connectivity initiatives in connecting underserved areas, while emphasizing the need for cybersecurity awareness and practices. Osama Manzar stressed the importance of local, contextual cybersecurity education for new internet users in rural communities. Renata Santoyo discussed Brazil’s regulatory approach to community networks, including asymmetric regulation and cybersecurity guidelines. Leandro Navarro presented a decentralized digital identity system for community network members, addressing security and privacy concerns. Talant Sultanov shared Kyrgyzstan’s experiences in implementing community networks and cybersecurity education initiatives, emphasizing rural-first and local language approaches. The discussion also covered the challenges of implementing cybersecurity measures in resource-constrained environments and the importance of making providers accountable for security practices. In the health technology segment, speakers addressed the paradox of digitalization in healthcare, highlighting improved services alongside increased cybersecurity risks. Dr. Houda Chihi presented various cybersecurity threats in the healthcare sector and provided recommendations for securing health data and infrastructure. The importance of artificial intelligence in enhancing cybersecurity for healthcare was also discussed. Overall, the session emphasized the need for collaborative efforts in implementing cybersecurity measures, raising awareness, and building capacity in both community networks and digital health technologies.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– Cybersecurity challenges and solutions for community networks and rural connectivity initiatives

– The importance of education, capacity building, and cyber hygiene for users of community networks

– Regulatory approaches to facilitate community networks while ensuring security

– Decentralized digital identity systems for community network members

– Cybersecurity considerations for digital health technologies and telemedicine

The overall purpose of the discussion was to explore cybersecurity issues and best practices for community-driven connectivity initiatives and digital health technologies, with a focus on serving rural and underserved communities.

The tone of the discussion was informative and collaborative, with speakers sharing experiences and recommendations from different perspectives (regulators, community network operators, researchers, etc.). There was an emphasis on practical solutions and the need to balance security with accessibility. The tone remained consistent throughout, maintaining a constructive approach to addressing challenges.

Speakers

– Luca Belli: Professor at FGV Law School, co-founder of DC3 (Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity)

– Renata Santoyo: Telecommunications expert, International Affairs Department of ANATEL (Brazilian telecoms regulator)

– Talant Sultanov: Policy Advocacy Advisor for Global Digital Inclusion Partnership, member of IGF Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Committee

– Osama Manzar: Founder and director of Digital Empowerment Foundation, connected over 35 million people in India

– Leandro Navarro: Co-founder of Pangea.org, academic in connectivity studies and community networks

– Dr. Houda Chihi: Expert on cybersecurity in healthcare

Additional speakers:

– Amali De Silva Mitchell: Coordinator of Dynamic Coalition on Data-Driven Health Technologies

– Wout de Natris: Consultant, runs dynamic coalition on internet standards, security and safety

– Momodu Sombai: Works with telecom regulator in Liberia

– Jörn Erbguth: Member of Dynamic Coalition on Data-Driven Health Technologies

Cybersecurity Challenges and Solutions for Community Networks and Data-Driven Health Technologies

This discussion brought together experts from various fields to explore cybersecurity issues and best practices for community-driven connectivity initiatives and digital health technologies, with a focus on serving rural and underserved communities. The speakers shared experiences and recommendations from different perspectives, including regulators, community network operators, and researchers.

Community Networks and Cybersecurity

A central theme of the discussion was the unique cybersecurity challenges faced by community networks. Osama Manzar, founder of the Digital Empowerment Foundation, emphasised the hyper-local nature of community networks, stating, “Internet is global, but users are local. Again, internet is global, but community networks are local. Not only local, it’s hyper-local. And not only hyper-local, but it is used by those who are otherwise unserved by the telcos.”

Renata Santoyo from ANATEL, Brazil’s telecoms regulator, highlighted the importance of asymmetric regulatory approaches to facilitate community networks. She noted, “We have a very asymmetric relationship with this comparing community networks to big providers or small providers because we are not treating them as an equal. And so it’s a possibility to develop more and more the community networks.” Santoyo also mentioned that Anatel has developed a cybersecurity manual to support community networks.

Leandro Navarro presented a decentralized digital identity system for community network members, addressing security and privacy concerns. He realistically assessed the progress and challenges, stating, “We have seen that it’s possible to make it work, although complex, of course. And then, well, I mean, just that many things about the challenges, of course, we are not finished with this. We have just started one year ago.”

Luca Belli discussed the impact of data protection laws on community networks and emphasized the importance of changing default passwords on routers as a basic security measure. He also mentioned the website “comconnectivity.org” where reports on community networks can be downloaded.

Community-Driven Approaches to Cybersecurity

The discussion emphasized the importance of community-driven approaches in cybersecurity. Manzar stressed the need for critical digital literacy for users of community networks, arguing that “The cyber safety, cyber security, and cyber data protection is not only a subject of top-down model, it is a subject of bottom-up social and behavioural norms based cyber capacity building, and somehow, that is not taken into consideration in most of the planning.”

Talant Sultanov highlighted the effectiveness of storytelling and local trainers in delivering cybersecurity messages. He also mentioned initiatives such as the Global Digital Inclusion Partnership and the Women in Digital Economy Fund, which aim to support digital inclusion and security in underserved communities.

Cybersecurity for Digital Health

Dr. Houda Chihi presented various cybersecurity threats in the healthcare sector, including ransomware attacks, data breaches, and insider threats. She provided recommendations for securing health data and infrastructure, emphasizing the need for cybersecurity skills training for healthcare staff. The importance of artificial intelligence in enhancing cybersecurity for healthcare was discussed, along with the need to modernise IT infrastructure security in healthcare organisations.

Jörn Erbguth raised concerns about patient data privacy and consent in digital health applications. The speakers agreed that while telemedicine and e-health services offer significant benefits, they also face substantial cybersecurity risks that must be addressed.

Amali De Silva Mitchell introduced the Dynamic Coalition on Data-Driven Health Technologies, which focuses on addressing cybersecurity challenges in digital health.

Regulatory and Policy Approaches

The discussion highlighted various regulatory and policy approaches to address cybersecurity challenges. Renata Santoyo discussed Brazil’s implementation of asymmetric regulation for community networks. Wout de Natris suggested that exposing weaknesses can make organisations more accountable for their cybersecurity practices and mentioned the internet.nl tool for checking website security.

Luca Belli proposed fiscal incentives to encourage cybersecurity investments, while Momodu Sombai emphasised the importance of collaboration between regulators to share best practices.

Talant Sultanov shared an example from Kyrgyzstan that illustrated the unintended consequences of security measures: “So in Kyrgyzstan they decided to block TikTok. And because it’s such a popular application, people still want to access it and they’ve been downloading VPN to be able to. And, of course, they are not downloading the paid quality VPNs, they are downloading the free ones which come with all kinds of viruses and junk and they are actually becoming more exposed to dangers than before it was blocked.”

In conclusion, the discussion emphasised the need for collaborative efforts in implementing cybersecurity measures, raising awareness, and building capacity in both community networks and digital health technologies. The speakers highlighted the importance of considering local contexts, user behaviour, and resource constraints when developing cybersecurity strategies for community-driven initiatives and digital health technologies.

Luca Belli: So good afternoon to everyone, my name is Luca Belli, I’m a professor at FGV Law School, we’re at the Center for Technology and Society. I have, I’m one of the co-founders of the DC3, the Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity, which is one of the organizers of this event. We have organized this together with another coalition called the Dynamic Coalition on Digital and Data-Driven Health Technologies, led by our friend Amali Mitchen and our co-panelist Amado Spinoza, that should be online. So if we could have actually online, our online speakers on the screen as well, so that we can have a nice family picture, they should be Amado Spinoza, Oda Shoshi and Leandro Navarro. If we can have them, if we can have them on screen, that would be useful. So I’m going to quickly present the speakers and then quickly introduce the team of our session, so that then we can start our conversation. We have here, starting from the left, Renata Santoyo, who is a telecommunications expert and working with the International Affairs Department of ANATEL, the Brazilian telecoms regulator. Welcome, Renata. Then we have Talant Sultanov, who is Policy Advocacy Advisor for the Global Digital Inclusion Partnership, an institution I have the great pleasure of sitting on the board of. Welcome, Talant Sultanov. He is also a member of the MAG, the Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Committee of the IGF. Then we have here Osama Manzar, that doesn’t need introductions for those who are in the connectivity field, so he is the one of the funder and director of the Digital Empowerment Foundation and he also, he is a senior fellow at the, he’s a British Chimney Scholar, International Visitor of the Leadership Program of the U.S. State Department. He is also Advisor of the Women in Digital Economy Fund and many other very interesting hats that he wears, having connected more than 35 million people in India. Then we have our online speakers. I hope they are already here with us. I see On top of my head on the screen, our friend Leandro Navarro. It’s a great pleasure to have you with us, even if only in online. So he’s co-founder of Pangea.org. He’s one of the most well-known academics in connectivity studies and community networks. He also is a member of the Giphynet and Aishokat community networks and has done a lot of very interesting work and studies, also co-chairs the Internet Research Task Force Working Group, GAIA, Global Access to Internet for All. Then we have our friends from the Data-Driven Health Technology Coalition that will be part of the second segment of our session. We will have Amadeus Pinoza, who represents the private sector. He has a strong medical informatics background and he founded the Institute for Medical Informatics at the Autonomous University of Guadalajara in Mexico. And then we will have Oda Choshi. Not seeing them on the screen, but I hope they will arrive. So Oda is from Tunisia Telecom. She is a senior engineer and she is expert also in telecommunications, of course, and cybersecurity. All right. So now that we have introduced all the speakers, let me provide a little bit of introduction as regards to the theme of today’s session in two parts, more or less. The first one, we will present some of the findings of this booklet that you can find here and also available online on the IGF website, which is a pretty Byzantine website. So if you want to have a direct link to all the reports that we have been doing over the past years, there is a website called comconnectivity.org where you can freely download all the reports. This year report. is dedicated to cyber security and community networks. So over the past almost 10 years, nine years actually, we have been working on a lot of different issues exploring community connectivity. So for those who are new in this field, let me just remind that community networks are community-driven, bottom-up, crowdsourced connectivity initiatives that are usually built in the remote area, rural area or peripheral areas or low income area as an alternative option to connect the unconnected or to provide better connectivity to the poorly connected, right? So they could be developed by local communities, a group of individuals that have no technical expertise at all. They could be also driven by local administrations, local entrepreneurs. So it’s really the beauty of the community network is it is an effort driven by the local community for the local community. We have explored over the past years which are how to build community networks, how to regulate them, which funding models are more appropriate for making them sustainable. What is their impact with regard to the promotion of human rights? What is their impact with regard to the promotion of digital sovereignty? They are very good example of community-driven digital sovereignty, meaning the local communities understanding how the technology works, developing it and regulating, self-regulating it. Now, something that we have not analyzed yet until this year where there are the cybersecurity implication of this because there is a double-edged sword to some extent. The fact that the infrastructure is created by people that do not necessarily have a strong technological background means that a lot of open source infrastructure and equipment is used. Maybe not a lot of knowledge as regards. existing legislation that can impinge upon infrastructure like not only telecom regulation, but also we will see data protection regulation that must be complied to and create some cybersecurity issues. So as the beauty of the community network, the fact that they are community driven can become a vulnerability. The fact that the infrastructure is built without thinking to bad faith actors that can hack the infrastructure, that can transform the infrastructure into a botnet or into a easily targeted with distributed denial of service attacks. The fact that even very basic controls of information, security, such as knowing which kind of software you are utilizing, knowing which kind of data you are collecting, having a resiliency plan, having a plan to recovery when you will be attacked because we know very well that pretty much any kind of digital system at some point will be attacked. So if you don’t have a recovery plan, a resilient strategy, you are very likely to be highly disappointed. And so these are very similar challenges what community network face to what also we will see in the second segment, digital data driven technology in health. Ways and very different types of resources as well. Because again, let’s remind that these are community networks are community driven, local community driven. They are not necessarily driven by people with a lot of resources and with a lot of training on cybersecurity or even in with legal training. Some of the points that we raise in the book is that there are almost 160 countries in the world have data protection laws. And if you don’t comply with it, you may be not only a threat to your privacy, liable according to civil law, but in some cases, even responsible according to criminal law. So when you create a network and you don’t consider applicable legislation, basic data information security policies, resilient strategies, plans for recovering in case of cyber attack, mapping the kind of software and data you have at your disposal under your responsibility, well, those are all potential systemic vulnerabilities. Now, after this very long introduction, let me give the floor directly to our speakers. We had planned to start with Renata, but as Osama, who is a very busy man, has to leave us in 15 minutes to go to another session, I would like to redefine slightly our agenda starting with Osama and then going to Renata, hoping that she agrees with this. So Osama, it’s a great pleasure to having you with us again. The floor is yours.

Osama Manzar: Thank you very much. Everybody who knows our work will not expect anything technical that I’m going to talk because I don’t know the technology. We work with communities. I want to give you a little a heads up on this chart. This chart is basically the geomap of all the community networks that we have done in the last 15 years. In India, they are 280. That means, that doesn’t mean that they are the only community network, there are many more, but we have been able to do it and Luca has been able to look at many of those networks and document it also. There are three things that I want to say. Internet is global, but users are local. Again, internet is global. but community networks are local. Not only local, it’s hyper-local. And not only hyper-local, but it is used by those who are otherwise unserved by the telcos. Unserved by, or underserved by any of the normal telecom service providers, and therefore, these are the people who are non-technical, but still user, and the provider of the network of such people are somebody who also have to be appropriated locally, so that you can manage the network. So I just want to give you a scenario that we go to the village, we find that they’re not connected, then we build capacity, then we involve them, and then they build a network, or a Wi-Fi, and then towers, and then we also work with them how to take care of the network. Now, this cyber security is the latest, you know, elephant in the room of all those people, right? And I’m talking to you everything not from the technology service provider, or a server provider, but the people, you know, I am first time introduced to my network, I am getting a message, I am sitting on a computer and working, and my service provider is not AT&T or somebody else, but somebody very local, and then I get a message which says, please click here, and I click that, and I lose money from my bank, right? Then another friend of mine, who is actually had no jobs, is now working for similar kind of job who is actually making people fool locally, and actually doing cyber frauds, you know, by sending you information, and they are collecting the local numbers, local contacts, and giving it to somebody else, and they are getting messages. and since you are first time user, you are being very naive and very simple that, oh, some message has come, I must act.

Luca Belli: Just to stress, he’s a hypothetical friend, so he’s not describing a real friend.

Osama Manzar: No, no, it’s a real, in fact, if you come to the next session, I’m going to explain even in detail, but what I am saying is that cyber safety, cyber security, from technical perspective, but from the user perspective, what is the behavioral change being required? What kind of critical digital literacy we required from the user is the biggest issue of this area, but somehow, most of the work that is going on in the cyber security, cyber safety, is very technical, as if we think that only firewall will solve all the problems, or we think that just identification of something or surveillance or data protection will solve all the problems, but actually it will not, because I, as a user, even without violating, I am getting fleas, I am being compromised, I am being trolled. You know, my online data is being, you know, it’s something like I’m a member of a matrimonial site, I have given my face and everything, and then it is just taken from there, and you are sitting just in the corner of a village and you have no idea how to deal with this one. When you go to cyber crime office and do the complaint, they say that even we don’t know how to trace such people. You know, where are they? So I’m actually, I’m not trying to give any solution, but I want to tell that the cyber safety, cyber security, and cyber data protection is not only a subject of top-down model, it is a subject of bottom-up social and behavioral norms based cyber capacity building, and somehow, that is not taken into consideration in most of the planning. And when we are working in an alternative. community networks, or providing a last mile access, it is very important that we have our own capacity building framework. We have our own content. We have our own local, hyperlocal, contextual content to make people know what are the do’s and don’ts of being connected, to be cyber safe, to be cyber preventive, rather than curative. You must be knowing what are the things that we need to know. And that is what the experience that we are doing in many of our communities. There are three things that we are doing. Number one, we are trying to see if women could take the responsibility of the hyperlocal situation so that they do not indulge into unnecessary information flow than what is needed. Education, domestic issues, business, day-to-day lives, and all that. The second thing what we are doing is that we are creating hyperlocal information trustees, which you can say information trustee is a describing name, but we are trying to create a situation that they become local fact checkers. You know, they actually tell what are the do’s and don’ts of the people who are coming to the center or the place where they get connected. And the third thing is that we are doing a role play of cyber safety security by doing street plays, by doing local language oral content so that it can be disseminated with lots of people. These are the things that I wanted to share, but basically trying to highlight that the global technology, the global access issues, the problems are always local. And when we are talking about cyber capacity, we need to have a local solutions. Thank you.

Luca Belli: Thank you very much, Osama, for this very important words. And again, I think that this is a very key message. that comes in a very recurrent way in cybersecurity discussion about cyber hygiene, capacity building. At scale, we have reports by Microsoft saying that more than 90% of cyber incidents actually happen because of phishing. And for considering what usually it is considered the weak link, which is what stands between the screen and the chair, the human. But actually, I think that one can revert this logic through education and capacity building. The individual becomes the strong link. So when you are the ones understanding and even the basic things about cyber hygiene, like do not use one, two, three, four, five, six as a password, which is still the most used password. So again, if you understand this, you really go much farther than at the very early stage, especially in community network where those who are connected are frequently unconnected. So really is the first approach with technology they have. Now, I would like to give the floor to the regulator. So there is already a lot of norms and regulation people need to comply with. And it can also to some extent guide them into the definition of their policy, architecture and practices. So please, Renata, it’s a pleasure to have you with us. The floor is yours.

Renata Santoyo: Thank you. Thank you very much, Luca. Thank you very much for all for having us here and invite us as Anatel. So I’m speaking from the perspective from the telecom regulator. And first of all, I’d like to do a very brief historic and an update about our history community networks. It was something that we started being more involved from 2020 when we had a memorandum of understanding with UK. And we did a work, sorry, with a partnership with APC. And we have some very interesting outcomes as a policy briefing. with the framework from the regulatory status, and also a manual for lay people with a video that it was very interesting because we had the opportunity to teach and help community that don’t know anything about connectivities or how to deal with regulator to construct their own community network and how to deal with regulator. That’s something very complicated sometimes, which license they need to take, how to use the spectrum to not break any rules. So it was very interesting beginning. After that, we had the opportunity to internalize this work as a temporary committee in Anatel. We had under the presidency of one of our… Hello, hello, hello, one… And they did this work for two years. And it was very interesting because they had the goal to make some regulatory adjustments, hearing from network representatives, Ministry of Communication work together and also subsidy providers. So it was very interesting to map all the situation and the needs and what kind of regulatory measures we need. And it was necessary. And very recently, like two weeks ago, we had this temporary committee. It became a permanent committee and we have now public consultation. That’s also a space to hear from the whole society, all the actors in this environment. And considering the results of this committee, the intention about this is continuing this important work, improving and solving a lot of remains, difficult and challenges. And I can highlight some examples of the proposals that we are doing. First of all, it’s interesting to remind that we have a very asymmetric relationship with this comparing community networks to big providers or small providers because we are not treating them as an equal. And so it’s a possibility to develop more and more the community networks. And in this public consultation that it’s now for 45 days since December 5th, they have the proposal about anticipate some benefits of the new act of authorization of use of radio frequencies. Also evaluate adjustments in the regulation on the spectral use to address possible incompatibilities between the application that the community networks that wish to implement in Brazil and the allocation, the destination of the frequency band of interest. About foundings, we forward the management board

Luca Belli: of telecommunication services, universalization fund. That’s a very old fund that we have and it’s very difficult to use. And they had some change in the law. So we are trying to use it more and more each day for interesting and useful things like community network. Also prioritize the penalties, not with fines but with obligations to do. And prioritizing specific actions aimed at the population served by community networks. And so it’s possible to see that we have a lot of challenges. Lack of financial resources is one of them. Regulatory barriers to the establishment of networks. Difficult in mapping the benefit communities. Obstacles related to geographic isolation. And of course, cyber security. And about cyber security, we have a specific regulation for the whole ecosystem and cyber security. And security of course is a priority for us, especially for a successful model of community networks. And in August of this year, Anatel reviewed the cyber regulation. And a new article that we have in this review, it’s about the telecommunication service providers. They need to communicate any accidents, security incidents to the national data protection authority. This includes community network. That’s the way we think we can maintain all the principles and guidelines that apply to all the actors in those ecosystem. Large and small providers, also community networks. And we believe that this way the ecosystem can flourish. But they’re still being treated as an asymmetric approach. And then we cannot apply the same rules, of course, because they are like, for us, restricted interest. For example, they have a license that’s a private limited service. And big providers are collective interest. And so they don’t have the same obligations. So it’s something. to help and to foster the development of community networks. So the principles were maintained, but as well as this asymmetry in processing this new regulation of cybersecurity. And so we also, to materialize this resolution of cybersecurity, we developed some guidelines that’s very interesting of cybersecurity regulation

Renata Santoyo: applies to the telecommunication sector and approved by the cyber revolution, emphasizing the adoption of good practice and national and international standards related to cybersecurity. It’s all available on the internet, and it promotes the dissemination of a culture of cybersecurity and the safe and sustainable use of telecommunication network and services. This was a work that was developed for our cyber working group, and they prepared also another guide. This one is more basic guide, it’s more accessible for lay people. And we have also another one that incentivates the security by design and the development of the softwares. But in this basic guide, that’s the first one I was talking about, you can have instructions like data protection, access and account control, activating and monitoring your account, data backup, and all this lot of different instructions just to help. And also in the same way about literacy, we have a partnership with OAS and Cisco Academy to capacity building and to also help to teach how to be more safe when you are navigating and connected on the internet. So I think we believe that all these guides and this partnership with academia, with courses, we kind of lead us for the meaningful connectivity, helping and teaching people how to use internet, because I think that’s the third pillar. Because we kind of talk about infrastructure, then security, and now we need an effective way to use community networks. And have the best, they can give you the best performance. And as our friend Ozamat said, it’s not top down. We need to do all together just to see what’s the real needs we have. And we are also involved in the Partner to Connect and ITU. We did a pledge about community networks to being followed on Oasis this year. So it was very, very interesting. And it’s also on the internet. So I think for now, that’s it. Luca.

Luca Belli: Thank you very much, Renata. And very interesting to understand that there are very few regulators in the world that have had this proactive approach to engage with community networks, try to understand them, reduce also the regulatory burden to facilitate them. Because what we have been discussing over the past 10 years is that, of course, you could not have the same regulation for enormous tech giant, sorry, telecom giant, not telecom operators, and small ISPs, micro ISPs, or not-for-profit ISPs. So it’s very good that the Brazilian regulator, Anatel, together with a few others, has had this sensitivity. Now, a very frequent problem in cybersecurity debates is how to identify users, how to make sure that they are not bad faith users, where they are the real user they claim to be. And here, I wanted to bring to the fore the work that Leandro and his colleagues have conducted and is also described in this booklet about decentralized digital identity and verifiable credentials for members of community networks, which is extremely interesting because it gives us an approach and understanding of how technical solutions, even not particularly expensive technical solutions, can be used to enormously help people engaging with community networks. So please, Leandro, I hope you are still here. Yes, I see you now. Can we unmute Leandro so that he can present? Welcome, Leandro. We can see now your presentation, almost. Yes, we see it in full screen. Can you speak?

Leandro Navarro: Yes, can you hear me?

Luca Belli: Yes, we can hear you loud and clear.

Leandro Navarro: Wonderful. So this is the pattern of representation, but instead of decentralized, it could be self-sovereign. Digital identity and verifiable credentials for communities. So this is the work partly funded by the Philippine Commission, which involves, as you see in the heading, several communities, several organizations that were involved in the development. So just to give you a bit of definitions, we are talking about digital identity in ourselves. Ourselves, our themes, our content, our organizations that they want to be identified in the cyberspace, let’s say. And then there is a concept called decentralized identifiers, which allow you to have different identities, different tags, whatever. And once you have an identity, people, organizations can say something about you. Like, for instance, you as a member of a community, you live there, this is your education. You are a vulnerable person and this accreditation from an NGO that knows your situation, something like that. In the end, whatever plays. So this is a bit abstract. And then I’ll give you an example. For instance, this is one of my multiple identities, leandro.art. It is a community project where we collect and refurbish second-hand devices for community members to be connected because, well, I have to connect to the Internet, you need that device. This is my PGP, GPT key ID in case you want to check my names that come really from me or someone else. So my DID could be, it’s not exactly like that formally, but it could be the email leandro.art. And then from that, you could find out my public key, whatever, and then verify an email that I send it to you. So in the decentralized ID world, there are, they call it methods, the web methods for key. And here you have your public key embedded in this long name or identifier, but also there is the did web method that allows you to kind of encode a typical, let’s say, website, which identifies my personal identity in the GiphyNet network. And then you see, again, an ugly kind of JSON data structure that is structured like you imagine, like the source code of an email, where there is a part that says who is saying what. This is the GiphyNet community network that is saying me as a subject that I’m this person with this identifier as member of the GiphyNet community. And then there’s a signature which allows the third party to verify that whatever is said here, who issues the credential, who is the subject of the credential is valid because there’s a signature in it. Well, this is a very technical description of the data structure, but imagine that you have a batch like this, which says that I’m a community member of GiphyNet. You can scan it with a QR code. You can verify that this information hasn’t been tampered with. And this is my email address and public key, okay? So what we can do with this? Well, we can talk about the properties, the rights, the different aspects. What we try to do in this case is we try to develop open source software that works and allows community networks and all the type of communities. providing services on their own. And then, well, you can see that there are strange concepts like the issuer of an organization that says something about me, for instance, so I have a wallet where I can hold these data structures, these badges or credentials, and then different elements that I’m not going to enter into discussion. If you want to know more, we have a, let’s say, public repository on GitHub. You can leave us a star if you like it, and also this is our development repository. So I can tell you a bit more about the pilots, the communities we’ve been working or we are working with them. So for instance, the first three are three NGOs. Pangea is an NGO that I was co-founder for using that identity, which we provide ourselves. Or there is another NGO, also in my neighborhood, let’s say. They can use these credentials to access another online shops from other NGOs and a federation of NGOs that provides different credentials for, for instance, when they go and apply for funding, they can accredit that they are members of La FEDE and you can provide this credential to confirm that this is sure and verifiable. And one particular interesting example in this context is this collaboration between… is an NGO that works in neighborhoods, in vulnerable neighborhoods, and then they know the families, they create… issue credentials for them. They might not even have a legal ID at the time, but they can have an accreditation from this NGO and showing their level of learnability so they can use this credential and go, for instance, to the GIFINET community network or to a cooperative that provides telecom services and submit that credential. And this third party, they call it verifier, is gonna be able to see that this is a vulnerable person according to criteria without revealing details about them and with signature that allows us to see that it’s not themselves who claim being vulnerable, but there is a well-known NGO that accredits that. And the same, we do it for giving computers, laptops to families or children that need them. And then we manage this kind of multi-organization identity management system in the community. So with this, you can show that you are a member of a certain community, you have a credential from someone else and go to third parties and prove that this is true. And this model is based on the European blockchain service infrastructure or identity infrastructure that is a bit complex, but you see that there is a public registry of actors and well, I can have my own credentials issued by imagine like an NGO that has been accredited by the government or whatever. And then you can submit my credential to any organization in let’s say Europe or in the world and be able to prove that this information that I’m submitting is valid and correct. Even though I might not have a, let’s say a legal identification myself, so that’s a self-sovereign part of it. We have seen that it’s possible to make it work, although complex, of course. And then, well, I mean, just that many things about the challenges, of course, we are not finished with this. We have just started one year ago. And then, well, it’s difficult to do for adoption. It’s difficult to manage governance issues. It’s difficult to maintain the software and make it interoperable with third parties and especially with public services, if any. And then, well, there is a lot of things to do in the future and keep working with the communities to understand their needs and to address them and to be able, as with many community members, to solve the problems on your own on using free software that enables people not to just, let’s say, do advocacy, but also solve their problems with some technical means to include not only digitally, but also in the community, but providing whatever services to them. So that’s my presentation. Any comments, questions are welcome. Thank you.

Luca Belli: Thank you very much, Leandro. And to bring this very interesting initiative into the picture and also to highlight that there are challenges, right? It’s a work in progress. And one of the challenges also is to make this adopted by the local community members and to educate them in order to understand that there is this could be a solution for a problem. And as we were mentioning at the very beginning of this session, education, capacity building, and cyber hygiene, to some extent, is very important. So it’s very good that we have here Tant Svortunov speaking about the cyber education and cyber security capacity building. He has been leading in Kyrgyzstan. So please, Tant, the floor is yours. That’s OK.

Talant Sultanov: Thanks so much, Luka. It’s a pleasure to be here to present the case of the Kyrgyz Republic. I’m wearing the hat of a global digital inclusion partnership where I’m working as a policy advocacy advisor. And I’m happy that Luka is a board member. this organization is implementing an initiative called Women in Digital Economy Fund implemented by several organizations, CARE, GSMA, and GDIP. Osama is actually in the advisory board of Women in Digital Economy Fund, so two of my bosses are in this panel, so I better make a good presentation. And the GDIP and Women in Digital Economy Fund identified five core areas where there is a biggest issue with gender gap, and two are related to one is access and affordability, and the second is safety and security, and I’m glad that in this session we are talking about these two issues. And in Kyrgyzstan we have launched community networks, and actually we call Osama the godfather of Kyrgyzstan’s community networks, so he mentioned I think 380 CNs maybe, we can say plus two or three in Kyrgyzstan to this map. And what we felt is that once we are connecting the people to the internet for the first time, they are very trusting of the internet, they believe everything that they see there, they believe the people who are there, and we felt responsibility that if we are helping people to get online, we also should equip them with information and skills on being safe on the internet. And that’s why we in parallel launched a project called Tech for Society or Technology for Society, where we have initiated several activities. One is a help desk where citizens and civil society organizations can call and get advice if they are having any issues with cyber security, and the logic here was that for example private sector can hire cyber security experts, government agencies they have specialized agencies that protect them, but the civil society organizations and ordinary citizens often left vulnerable, and we thought that we should also help protect through the help desk. Second activity that we are doing is cyber hygiene trainings and training of trainers in local levels, so that then they can continue helping the local communities. And the way we are delivering these messages is oftentimes through traditional storytellers, because we are, as Osama mentioned earlier, working with rural communities, and for example these storytellers would explain in very basic terms what cyber hygiene means. So one storyteller said that when you leave your house, you lock your door not once, but twice. Your door and the gate. Same with the password. You should have at least two-factor authentication and a very strong key. Otherwise, your phone can be broken very quickly. And in addition to these activities, we are doing also research. One research we did is on cyber forensics. And we wanted to see if government is actually prepared to deal with cyber crimes. And we developed some recommendations for our policymakers and regulators in this area. And not to take too much time, I just wanted to conclude with several principles that we have been using in our work. One was rural first. So all our work is focused on rural communities. Second is a local language first. So there are lots of materials if you speak, for example, English or Russian is a lingua franca for us. But in Kyrgyz language, which is our local language, there is very little info. So we’ve been doing a lot of information in a Kyrgyz language. And another main principle that we’ve been employing is girls first. So all the activities that we are designing, they should be convenient, safe, and interesting to girls and women in rural communities so that they could be better protected. And with that, I’d like to conclude my part and be ready to respond to questions later on.

Luca Belli: Excellent. So as the next segment of the session will be primarily dedicated to data-driven health technology, I think it would be good now to open the floor for comments, reactions, questions from the floor. If you have any, feel free not to be shy and to raise your hand and ask if a microphone can be… Yes, we have a question here and three questions. Could we kindly ask to… Well, I will give you my mic because I am British. Can we bring a mic for the…

Audience: Am I audible? Yeah. Thank you. A nice presentation from everyone. I have a question for Sanathya if I’m pronouncing it right. I’m interested to know what kind of cybersecurity model have you implemented? The narration that you have, the experience and the narration that you have put the story from your ISPs was nice, but I’m curious more on what kind of models have you implemented in the regulatory processes?

Renata Santoyo: Thank you. Actually, as a regulator in Brazil, we have a working group in cyber because we are not really responsible for cybersecurity. For example, we are more focused on cyber safety and we have different institutions and each one of them has different responsibilities. So we have the army with their responsibilities. We have presidency with their responsibilities and in Anatel, we specifically, we feel focused more in safety. As I told before, you have this manual and with some guidelines that try to educate. It’s focused more in meaningful connectivity as trying to open mind to how to defend yourself when you are using the basic risks, the base cares you need to have. So as a regulator, our responsibility is more focused on this one, on this. Are this material openly accessible to complex? Yes, it is. I just, I’m not sure if it’s on a website. Our website, it’s Anatel, that’s the name of regulator. But yeah, and I’m sure it’s in Portuguese, but unfortunately, I’m not sure if it’s available in English. But yes, it’s all available. Yeah, I can, I don’t know how can I share. I can share like, I can share with you after the session. No problem.

Audience: Thank you.

Renata Santoyo: Thank you.

Luca Belli: Just to, can I just make a quick compliment also to mention that besides making sure that equipment that is used in Brazil is if role of Anatel, also there is a regulation on cybersecurity in the telecom sector that provide, that define specific obligations such as having a cybersecurity policy or having audits of your equipments or having the obligation for providers to change the default password because some of the largest cyber attacks that happened in the past, Mirai attack in Germany, it basically infected 1 million routers in one weekend simply because the seller of the routers had kept the default password. And this was very easy for attackers to identify and then to penetrate the network. So having an obligation, a regulatory obligation to change this is a very simple step that can make a huge difference. So that is, again, most of the steps that help increase cybersecurity are not rocket science and having a regulator that prescribes them, it’s an enormous step forward. I see there is another question there and then there’s a gentleman here. Yes, thank you.

Wout de Natris: My name is Wouter Natris and I’m a consultant in the Netherlands, but I run one of the dynamic coalitions here on internet standards, security and safety. And I think what you’ve just been saying is exactly what we’re trying to promote. As no matter how good the initiatives we’ve been hearing are, this one girl and the whole villages is still a botnet. So yes, we have to train at that level, but at the same time, they’re vulnerable because the service providers higher up do not have a routing security or do not have a DNSX security or they don’t have whatever. So people can be attacked where they don’t have any. influence at all. I can’t change my network to DNS security or put in a routing security or whatever. So I think that that is where other institutions have to become more proactive to not perhaps regulate in a traditional sense with fines or whatever, but in the way to expose weaknesses in networks. And I’ll make a little promotion here, but I’ve been asked to become the coordinator of a community that’s going to be started next year on internet.nl. And internet.nl is a tool, and look it up, internet.nl, and then put in your local bank, for example, and see how secure it is or it isn’t. If we bring organizations together that’s going to implement this tool, it’s going to expose the weaknesses of your institutions and of your internet service providers, etc. And that also means that they become accountable because it becomes visible. And we have to train people not to be gullible, but on the other hand, we have to make the tech organizations, whether they’re small or big or small, more accountable to the tasks that they have and that one of them should be protecting us as end users. So when you move forward with this initiative, I would suggest that you have these two components in it. You keep training, tremendously important, but also start exposing. And when you expose, people become accountable. Thank you.

Luca Belli: This is an excellent comment. And actually the fact, I mean, if we want to add an additional layer on top of your comments, besides training and also making accountable, it’s also, in my experience, also facilitate to some extent the creation, the integration of these practices, which have a cost. So let’s also be honest about it. The reason why most devices or most services may not be cyber secure is because cyber security has a cost and the consumer do not perceive this as a criterion of quality. When they buy something, they want the shiny features. They don’t necessarily want the most secure object or service. And if the most secure object and service costs more, they will go for the cheaper one. And if we want to apply this logic to community networks, they are usually created with very cheap Wi-Fi equipment and not necessarily the most secure, right? So something that actually is very interesting also in Brazil is that if you have costs for cyber security now in Brazil, you can declare them in your fiscal declaration as costs that are deduced from what you have to pay, which is an enormous incentive. Very few people know it actually in Brazil, but actually there is a very… If cyber security becomes a fiscal advantage, then a lot of more people will do it. Because people, I mean, from the individual to the large corporation, their rationale is driven by costs. If something is very costly, even if it is an excellent thing, most people maybe will not have the resource to do it. I think that adding this very interesting discourse, also the fact of help facilitating achieving the regulatory result with financial help or tax cuts could be a very interesting further element. Yes, sir.

Momodu Sombai: Thank you for the lecture. My name is Momodou Sombay. I’m from Liberia, West Africa. I work with a regulator in Liberia, the government. So I was kind of thinking with the community networks, how can we learn from experience, so are you willing to lend us some of the knowledges that you have given, if and when we ask you, or are you willing to help other, like in Africa or in other countries? Thank you.

Luca Belli: You know, there is a thriving community network community, like in South Africa, we can put you in contact with some of the members of this quality work there. I don’t know if talent, because talent has been focusing on Kyrgyzstan, but his work is global. So and then maybe Anatel wants to do a partnership with their Liberian counterpart. We have here two representatives, so we can discuss this. But I’m pretty sure that talent could be your man here.

Talant Sultanov: Yeah, thanks so much. It’s actually a very good question. I’m very glad that you asked. The Women in Digital Economy Fund, where I’m working, areas in addition to funding for women-led organizations is a policy advocate. focusing on governments in Africa and Asia. And we are publishing this document that’s a collection of case studies from around the world on best practices. And one, we would like to disseminate it more widely. I’ll share the link. And also we’d like to collect other promising practices from around the world to learn from. So, yes, we’d like to share the experiences that could be interesting and relevant to you and also learn from you as well. Maybe after the meeting we can exchange contacts. And also I wanted to add one interesting fact about the cost that you mentioned. So in Kyrgyzstan they decided to block TikTok. And because it’s such a popular application, people still want to access it and they’ve been downloading VPN to be able to. And, of course, they are not downloading the paid quality VPNs, they are downloading the free ones which come with all kinds of viruses and junk and they are actually becoming more exposed to dangers than before it was blocked. So that was an interesting lesson for us.

Luca Belli: Thank you for this talent. Now, I think I’m mindful of time and we still have 40 minutes and we have now the, or maybe less, 30 minutes and we have to get into, exactly 30 minutes, and we have to get into the second segment. Can we have again our online speakers on the screen? Can we have our online speakers on the screen? I saw that also Amali. Amali, do you want to provide some introductory remarks to the second segment? Yes. Can we have Amali?

Amali De Silva Mitchell: Yes, please. So I’m the coordinator of the Dynamic Coalition on Data-Driven Health Technologies. I’m located with the IGF as well. And we have a team here. We have Dr. Huda Chehi. We have Yon Abkut. He should be a co-moderator with me online. I think Dr. Amado may not be with us right now. So what we are is we are a group that looks from the patient or really grassroots level user of the internet services to gain health information. Either it’s getting the information or it’s connecting. We all know of the telemedicine that we had recently with COVID. It became very important to use the internet connections to get services maybe from a doctor, maybe from the pharmacy and so forth. Now, for us, when we see reaching the last mile, it means rural areas. It also means communities, vulnerable communities in urban areas who can’t afford to get the service from an expensive telecom. So they often will use a community internet service to get this information or have this access with the doctors and the pharmacy and so forth. We also have people like the local doctor and the local pharmacy. They may also be using just the community network. Now we’re dealing with health data. It’s highly confidential data. And so we are very concerned of the level of security. And it was wonderful to hear all about the initiatives that all of you spoke about. So that’s really something wonderful for us to hear. So that’s just a little spiel on who we are and we welcome everyone to join us. So we are very much grassroots. We’re very much the end user supporting healthcare services. I’m going to pass this on to Yon, actually.

Luca Belli: Just perhaps before Huda Chihi gives his presentation, if you can spend five minutes, I think there was a couple of questions from our own team as well and perhaps some other online questions. Over to you, Yon. Hello, Yon?

Jörn Erbguth: Yes, I’m switching on. Basically, you said it already, privacy is a major concern in health and when data is used for commercial purposes, of course, this is a concern that we should base this on informed consent and not have it done without the consent of the patients.

Amali De Silva Mitchell: Joao, while you were there, would you like to share a comment? Dr. Joao Gomes, are you there?

Luca Belli: Is Joao Gomes here? He must be here with us or online?

Amali De Silva Mitchell: Online, he’s online.

Luca Belli: Do we have Joao Gomes online? We do, we do. Can you allow Joao Gomes to speak? Can you allow Joao Gomes to speak, please? There is a speaker online called… The name is Joao…

Jörn Erbguth: I don’t see that speaker currently. Maybe his connection broke down.

Luca Belli: So, we don’t have Joao Gomes. Alright, okay. Do we have any other speaker from the Coalition on Data-Driven Health Technologies? Do we have any other speaker?

Amali De Silva Mitchell: Dr. Huda Chihi, please. Fantastic. Introduce herself.

Dr. Houda Chihi: Hello, could you hear me, please?

Luca Belli: Very well. Go ahead.

Dr. Houda Chihi: OK. Thank you so much. Hello, everyone. So thank you so much, Emily, for this great introduction. It’s a pleasure participating in such an amazing session. And thank you for joining us. So let me start by sharing my screen and see if it is visible. Could you see it? We are seeing it on the screen, yes. Fantastic. OK, that’s great. OK, that’s great. OK, so my today’s presentation is about cybersecurity tips and recommendations for digital health. First of all, let me start by presenting the roadmap or the content of today’s presentation. I will start by the context. Next, I will highlight the tech solution for health care. After that, I will present what are the different types of cyberattacks in health care sector. After that, I will come up to the importance of cybersecurity in health care. And I will sum up by the different tips and recommendation and best practices for cybersecurity in health care. And I will present the importance of artificial intelligence integration in health care. And by the end, I will conclude by the different key takeaways of my presentation. In fact, here we speak nowadays of a paradox of digitalization. In one side, health care services improvement with the digitalization, but we find also some threats coming up behind this digitalization. So another important thing is we find that there is a transition of health care services due to autonomous application, lots such as artificial intelligence and machine learning that we will see in further slides. And we speak especially due to COVID-19 in different kind of cyber crimes, which is the result of e-health or remote and virtual application of e-health care. So another important issue is there is a lack of awareness and lack of cybersecurity tools application in health care sectors. So, and we find that the majority of health care centers using the legacy tools, which is useless due to a rise of new and emergence of cyber attacks. Every day we find emerging of new threats, especially in health care sectors, because it’s the threat, the life of patients is very important. So nowadays we speak about ransomware as a service. So it’s a very dangerous. For health care sector. Another important center is that they don’t have enough budget to improve their health care infrastructure that we will highlight in next slides with more details. So what are the tech solution application in health care sector? So we speak about, so virtual reality, extended reality or the metaverse application in health care sector. We speak about the blockchain application, the artificial intelligence. intelligence, machine learning, telemedicine, which is based in the data storage of patients in the cloud. And we speak the different of e-health, which is enabled basically in the application of internet of medical things. So all of this technology, so improve the healthcare services due to and make the healthcare services for both the doctors and the patients who suffer from disability, or older people who came to move to hospitals. So in particular, and the application of internet of medical things enable the remote of medical operation and improves the experience of patients. So here we highlight the importance of digitalization, but in other side, it’s very important if we take care of the security threats that we will highlight in the next slide. So digital ecosystem is very important for both patients and both medical sector, but because it’s enabled like a landscape of exchange and opportunity of improving the quality of digital healthcare services. But to improve more the quality of healthcare services, we need to improve the collaboration between the virtual labs and the IT experts that we help healthcare staff to improve the infrastructure with the low costs. And another important thing is we need to improve the skills of healthcare staff to understand the importance of the application and of digital services in safe way without harming the patient life and without harming the infrastructure and leading to disruption of digital healthcare services. So here the digitalisation role here is very important in terms of customer optimisation, quality, service quality improvement and the patient experience improvement. Here another important thing that we need to highlight is the importance is of the adoption and collaboration with the operator or ISPs offering high quality of connectivity such as 5G and beyond to for example that help us to improve services if we are in, if we speak about healthcare in metaverse. So let’s speak now about the facing challenges is we speak about the digital device especially for hospital or rural areas they don’t have the enough connectivity to adopt and to exploit the different digitalisation services. We speak about bias and inequality. Here to overcome such kind of problem we have to convince decision makers, regulators and policies. policy makers to help these rural areas hospitals to have enough connectivity and to exploit and the benefit of digitalization. And another challenge is nowadays with the importance of digitalization, we can’t, we don’t know the different number of connected devices in healthcare sectors, which is a very critical issue. So another challenge is related to cyber security skills gap. So we have to teach all end users, whether it is patients or medical sectors or staff, the importance of exploiting the digital technologies in a safe way, especially when we hear, when we speak about healthcare sectors and as cyber security is very important and it can help us to create more values rather than be suffering from threats of cyber attacks. Another important issue is to take care of the trust of our patient if we overcome the problems of security and cyber attacks. And we can overcome also the problem of financial problems, especially if we open the door for around somewhere that we take, we demand a lot of money if they have access to our data. So here we have three pillars. So we have to teach staffs too about the importance of cyber security. By this way, they will have enough skills to secure the budget of the healthcare sectors. So let’s highlight in this slide or in this step the different cyber attacks that all hospitals or healthcare sectors, they can suffer from it. We speak about distribution, distributed denial of services attacks. It is about digital tasks disruption. I mentioned that we have healthcare staffs doing an operation online or conversation with a patient and we have cyber attacks. So we will have automatic disruption of the operation. And another kind of attacks is related to the overall supply chain. Another kind of cyber risk is related to authorization access to patient data. So some crimes, a kind of cyber crimes is to have access to patient data and they will demand a huge money because they have a different information of the healthcare sectors. So we speak about here of two kinds of threats. We find it’s about external threats. If we speak about the doors or authorization access to patients that data, or attacks related to supply chain. Another kind of cyber attacks is inside attacks is related to healthcare staff behavior, like phishing emails, they open different kinds of URLs without taking without any attention or verification. And they use simple and easy passwords that cybercrimes can find a way to open their emails and have all the data of the overall healthcare organization. Another important thing is the lack of security of healthcare clouds, because with digitalization, the data of different healthcare centers will be stored in the cloud. And if we don’t enable or we don’t do the healthcare cybersecurity tips and recommendations that I will share in further slides, we will lose all our data. Another important risk is the lack of configuration of the different softwares that we exploit in digital healthcare sectors. So here, nowadays, with digitalization, healthcare is about data. So we have to know how to secure this data to save all the healthcare sectors. So here, let’s start by understand step by step, what is the cybersecurity about? It’s about the confidentiality, availability, integrity of the information, we should take care of the information and it is about safety of both the hard and the soft to enable any resiliency of healthcare services and to overcome any problem of disruption. So it’s about redirection of cybersecurity for value creation to healthcare sector. So another important thing that we should understand is the use of telemedicine or e-health in a responsible way and it is about the use and the integration of any digitalization with responsibility. We should test any new technology and any with all the cybersecurity so recommendation before deploying and expose it to all the staff. We should also upgrade continuously regularly all our software and medical devices to support all advanced security tools because vendors always add new features so we should have the necessary infrastructure that supports these upgrades. And another important issue to not lose our data and to not open the door for a ransomware as a service we should always back up and do the necessary storage strategies in the way that we secure our data and we don’t enable others to theft it or to take it. and after that exchange with us and demand a huge amount of money to return our gift. Sorry, hold on. Can we ask you to wrap up? Okay, okay. I forget about the time, sorry. So let’s move to hospital. The importance of hospital IT infrastructure security is about modernization of the IT medical sector. Another important issue is about network segmentation. It is recommended to segment the network and to use virtual private networks and to enable smart spam filtering. Another important thing is to do continuous check of any new device is about adopting zero trust approach. And we should have visibility of all endpoints connected to the internet and used in healthcare sector, of course. We should have the leadership and the mindset shift toward the importance of cyber security and to adopt the necessary policies and decision making toward the cyber security strategy implementation in healthcare sector. And for staff, it’s important or patient or end user in general is important to adopt the strategy of multi-factor authentication and regular password updates. And it’s important to adopt accurate configuration of different softwares and firewall in continuous way. And another important thing. just to wrap up, is to use, to collaborate with operator and vendors of trusts and operator or ISPs that have shown mature security, cyber security solution, for example, who have provided or adopting DNSSEC implementation, which is a protocol of advanced protocol of cyber security. Another important thing is to benefit of artificial intelligence in healthcare. So it’s important to adopt the antiviruses that adopt or integrate artificial intelligence and machine learning because they enable autonomous and advanced monitoring or facing to any threats of cyber attacks. It helps also to improve the threat hunting and threat intelligence assessment. So another important thing we should…

Luca Belli: Hello, Huda. Online, we can’t hear you. Yeah, we cannot hear Huda anymore. But thanks to this very extensive presentation on cyber security tips, risks and tips, I think this is the best possible way to conclude our panel.

Dr. Houda Chihi: Okay. Could you hear me now? Yes.

Luca Belli: Yes, because I forget to… You demanded something to reactivate my micro and I missed it.

Audience: So I can continue with this?

Dr. Houda Chihi: Yes, yes, yes. No, no. I have just a few slides. Yeah, I think we really have to wrap up now. Okay. So just to wrap up, I… spoke about the importance of artificial intelligence integration in healthcare, but in a responsible way. It’s enabled advanced threats or attacks detection in a proactive way, but it should be implemented and integrated in a responsible way to overcome any problem of bias which is basic.

Luca Belli: All right, fantastic. So I think that we now it’s time to wrap up because we are we are almost being kicked out of this room. So we really have to conclude. And also as I have to go to another five minutes, I will have four minutes to go to the toilet between one session. So thank you very much. I would like to really to thank all the participants for their very insightful inputs and for their very good contribution for this session. I also want to remind those who are here with us that you have you can take your complimentary copy of this report that I edited with Dr. Senka Adzic and with the participation of many of the speakers of today on cybersecurity and community networks. The copies are here for you. If you want, you can download them from the website comconnectivity.org where you can find all the material that could be interesting for you and the Liberian regulator. So yes, we are fine with the workshop of today. Excellent discussion. Thank you very much to everyone and see you next year. Bye bye. Yeah. Okay? Thank thank you

Agreement Points

Importance of cybersecurity education and capacity building

Osama Manzar

Renata Santoyo

Talant Sultanov

Dr. Houda Chihi

Critical digital literacy is needed for users of community networks

Regulators provide guidelines and manuals on cybersecurity best practices

Storytelling and local trainers help deliver cybersecurity messages

Healthcare staff need cybersecurity skills training

Multiple speakers emphasized the need for cybersecurity education and capacity building, particularly for users of community networks and healthcare staff. They agreed on the importance of making cybersecurity concepts accessible through various means, including guidelines, storytelling, and local language approaches.

Community networks face unique cybersecurity challenges

Osama Manzar

Renata Santoyo

Leandro Navarro

Community networks connect underserved areas but face cybersecurity challenges

Regulatory approaches should be asymmetric to facilitate community networks

Decentralized digital identities can help secure community networks

Speakers agreed that community networks, while crucial for connecting underserved areas, face specific cybersecurity challenges. They discussed various approaches to address these challenges, including asymmetric regulation and innovative technical solutions like decentralized digital identities.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers highlighted the importance of regulatory and fiscal approaches to encourage cybersecurity improvements and support community networks. They emphasized the need for tailored policies that recognize the unique challenges faced by different types of network providers.

Renata Santoyo

Luca Belli

Brazil has implemented asymmetric regulation for community networks

Fiscal incentives can encourage cybersecurity investments

Unexpected Consensus

Importance of local context in cybersecurity approaches

Osama Manzar

Talant Sultanov

Dr. Houda Chihi

Critical digital literacy is needed for users of community networks

Rural-first and local language approaches are important for cybersecurity

Healthcare organizations need to modernize IT infrastructure security

Despite coming from different sectors (community networks, rural development, and healthcare), these speakers all emphasized the importance of considering local context and tailoring cybersecurity approaches accordingly. This unexpected consensus highlights the universal need for context-specific cybersecurity strategies across various domains.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement included the importance of cybersecurity education and capacity building, the need for tailored approaches to community networks, and the recognition of local context in cybersecurity strategies. Speakers from diverse backgrounds found common ground on these issues, suggesting a growing consensus on the importance of inclusive and context-specific cybersecurity approaches.

Consensus level

There was a moderate to high level of consensus among the speakers on key issues. This level of agreement implies a growing recognition of the importance of cybersecurity in various contexts, from community networks to healthcare. It also suggests that future policy and regulatory approaches may need to consider these shared perspectives, particularly in addressing the needs of underserved communities and sectors.

Different Viewpoints

Focus of cybersecurity efforts

Osama Manzar

Renata Santoyo

Dr. Houda Chihi

Critical digital literacy is needed for users of community networks

Regulators provide guidelines and manuals on cybersecurity best practices

Healthcare organizations need to modernize IT infrastructure security

Speakers emphasized different aspects of cybersecurity: Manzar focused on user education, Santoyo on regulatory guidelines, and Chihi on modernizing infrastructure.

Unexpected Differences

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement were in the approaches to cybersecurity education and the focus of cybersecurity efforts in community networks and healthcare.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among speakers was relatively low. Most speakers agreed on the importance of cybersecurity in community networks and healthcare, but had different emphases on how to address the challenges. This suggests a need for a multi-faceted approach to cybersecurity that incorporates user education, regulatory guidelines, and infrastructure modernization.

Partial Agreements

Both speakers agree on the importance of educating users about cybersecurity, but differ in their approaches. Santoyo advocates for regulatory guidelines, while Sultanov emphasizes storytelling and local trainers.

Renata Santoyo

Talant Sultanov

Regulators provide guidelines and manuals on cybersecurity best practices

Storytelling and local trainers help deliver cybersecurity messages

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers highlighted the importance of regulatory and fiscal approaches to encourage cybersecurity improvements and support community networks. They emphasized the need for tailored policies that recognize the unique challenges faced by different types of network providers.

Renata Santoyo

Luca Belli

Brazil has implemented asymmetric regulation for community networks

Fiscal incentives can encourage cybersecurity investments

Key Takeaways

Community networks face unique cybersecurity challenges due to limited resources and technical expertise

Regulatory approaches should be asymmetric to facilitate community networks while still ensuring basic security

Cybersecurity education and capacity building are critical, especially for rural and underserved communities

Digital health technologies bring benefits but also significant privacy and security risks that must be addressed

Collaboration between regulators, communities, and technology providers is important for improving cybersecurity

Resolutions and Action Items

Brazil’s regulator Anatel to make cybersecurity guidelines and manuals publicly available

Women in Digital Economy Fund to share case studies on best practices for community networks

Dynamic Coalition on Data-Driven Health Technologies to continue work on cybersecurity recommendations for digital health

Unresolved Issues

How to balance the need for cybersecurity with the resource constraints of community networks

Specific mechanisms for international knowledge sharing on community network cybersecurity

Funding models to support cybersecurity improvements in resource-limited settings

How to effectively implement AI-based cybersecurity in healthcare while addressing bias concerns

Suggested Compromises

Using asymmetric regulation to reduce compliance burden on community networks while maintaining basic security standards

Leveraging local storytellers and trainers to deliver cybersecurity education in culturally appropriate ways

Offering tax incentives to encourage cybersecurity investments by organizations and individuals

Internet is global, but users are local. Again, internet is global, but community networks are local. Not only local, it’s hyper-local. And not only hyper-local, but it is used by those who are otherwise unserved by the telcos.

speaker

Osama Manzar

reason

This comment insightfully frames community networks as a hyper-local solution to a global technology, highlighting their unique role in serving underserved populations.

impact

It set the tone for discussing community networks as grassroots initiatives tailored to local needs, leading to further exploration of their challenges and benefits.

The cyber safety, cyber security, and cyber data protection is not only a subject of top-down model, it is a subject of bottom-up social and behavioral norms based cyber capacity building, and somehow, that is not taken into consideration in most of the planning.

speaker

Osama Manzar

reason

This comment challenges the traditional top-down approach to cybersecurity, emphasizing the importance of local context and user behavior.

impact

It shifted the discussion towards the importance of education and capacity building at the local level, leading to examples of community-based cybersecurity initiatives.

We have a very asymmetric relationship with this comparing community networks to big providers or small providers because we are not treating them as an equal. And so it’s a possibility to develop more and more the community networks.

speaker

Renata Santoyo

reason

This comment highlights the regulatory challenges and opportunities in supporting community networks, recognizing their unique position compared to traditional providers.

impact

It led to a discussion of specific regulatory measures to support community networks, showing how policy can be adapted to encourage local initiatives.

We have seen that it’s possible to make it work, although complex, of course. And then, well, I mean, just that many things about the challenges, of course, we are not finished with this. We have just started one year ago.

speaker

Leandro Navarro

reason

This comment realistically assesses the progress and challenges in implementing decentralized digital identity for community networks, acknowledging both achievements and ongoing work.

impact

It prompted a more nuanced discussion of the technical and practical challenges in implementing advanced security measures in community networks.

So in Kyrgyzstan they decided to block TikTok. And because it’s such a popular application, people still want to access it and they’ve been downloading VPN to be able to. And, of course, they are not downloading the paid quality VPNs, they are downloading the free ones which come with all kinds of viruses and junk and they are actually becoming more exposed to dangers than before it was blocked.

speaker

Talant Sultanov

reason

This comment provides a concrete example of how well-intentioned security measures can have unintended consequences, exposing users to greater risks.

impact

It highlighted the complexity of cybersecurity policy decisions and their real-world impacts, leading to a discussion on the importance of considering user behavior in security planning.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by emphasizing the local and human aspects of cybersecurity in community networks. They shifted the conversation from purely technical solutions to a more holistic approach that considers regulatory frameworks, user education, and the unique challenges faced by community-driven initiatives. The discussion evolved to highlight the importance of bottom-up approaches, adaptive regulations, and the need to balance security measures with practical realities of user behavior and local contexts.

How can community networks implement cybersecurity measures with limited resources?

speaker

Luca Belli

explanation

Community networks often use cheap equipment and have limited funds, making it challenging to implement robust cybersecurity measures.

How can regulators facilitate the integration of cybersecurity practices in community networks?

speaker

Luca Belli

explanation

Regulators could potentially provide financial incentives or tax cuts to encourage the adoption of cybersecurity measures in community networks.

How can the experiences and knowledge from existing community network initiatives be shared with other countries?

speaker

Momodu Sombai

explanation

There is interest in learning from successful community network implementations to apply these lessons in other regions, particularly in Africa.

How can the cybersecurity skills gap in healthcare sectors be addressed?

speaker

Dr. Houda Chihi

explanation

There is a need to educate all end users, including patients and medical staff, on the importance of cybersecurity in healthcare.

How can artificial intelligence be responsibly integrated into healthcare cybersecurity?

speaker

Dr. Houda Chihi

explanation

AI can enable advanced threat detection, but it needs to be implemented carefully to avoid bias and other issues.

How can community networks ensure compliance with data protection laws?

speaker

Luca Belli

explanation

Many countries have data protection laws, and non-compliance can lead to legal issues for community networks.

How can the adoption of decentralized digital identity systems be encouraged in community networks?

speaker

Leandro Navarro

explanation

Decentralized identity systems could provide secure identification for community network members, but their adoption faces challenges.

Summary

This discussion focused on multilingual inclusion and universal acceptance in the digital space, exploring challenges and strategies for creating a more linguistically diverse internet. Participants highlighted the importance of enabling access to digital content and services in various languages, emphasizing that this is crucial for bridging the digital divide and empowering communities worldwide.

The conversation covered the evolution of technical standards, from ASCII to Unicode, which now supports over 150,000 characters across 168 scripts. Speakers discussed the implementation of Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) and the ongoing challenges of Universal Acceptance (UA), which ensures all valid domain names and email addresses can be used across all internet-enabled systems.

Regional perspectives were shared, including efforts in the Caribbean to raise awareness about UA and the challenges faced in implementing multilingual solutions. The importance of integrating UA into educational curricula, government procurement processes, and development initiatives was stressed as a way to make it a natural part of the digital ecosystem.

Participants emphasized the need for collaboration among various stakeholders, including tech companies, policymakers, and affected communities, to drive progress in multilingual inclusion. The discussion also touched on the importance of creating local content in diverse languages to truly achieve a multilingual internet, as technical solutions alone are not sufficient.

The session concluded with calls for a holistic approach to multilingual inclusion, integrating it into broader digital inclusion efforts and treating it as a language justice issue. Speakers emphasized the potential for a multilingual internet to create a safer online environment for new users and the importance of engaging communities in the development and implementation of UA initiatives.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– The importance of universal acceptance and multilingual inclusion for digital spaces

– Technical standards and protocols needed to support multilingual domain names and content

– Implementation strategies and challenges for multilingual digital services in different regions

– The need for multi-stakeholder collaboration to advance digital inclusion

– The importance of local content creation in diverse languages

The overall purpose of the discussion was to explore ways to promote linguistic diversity and universal acceptance in digital spaces, in order to make the internet more inclusive and accessible for users of all languages and scripts.

The tone of the discussion was generally informative and collaborative. Speakers shared insights from their regional experiences and expertise, while emphasizing the need for cooperation between different stakeholders. There was a sense of urgency about addressing these issues, but also optimism about the progress made so far and potential for further advancement through continued efforts.

Speakers

– Jasmine Ko: Moderator, Hong Kong IGF

– Krislin Goulbourne-Harry: Caribbean Digital Transformation Project

– Dana Cramer: PhD candidate at Toronto Metropolitan University, Center for International Governance Innovation Digital Policy Hub fellow

– Tijani Ben Jemaa: Director of Mediterranean Federation of Internet Association

– Fahd Batayneh: Director of Stakeholder Engagement for the Middle East of ICANN

– Edmon Chung: CEO of DotAsia Organization

– Duaa T. Albalawi: Co-moderator from KSA IGF

Additional speakers:

– Phyo Thiri Lwin: Online moderator from Myanmar Youth IGF

– Ram Mohan: Inventor of the universal acceptance concept (mentioned but did not speak)

Expanded Summary: Multilingual Inclusion and Universal Acceptance in Digital Spaces

Introduction

This discussion, moderated by Jasmine Ko from Hong Kong, with co-moderator Duaa T. Albalawi from KSA IGF, focused on the critical issue of multilingual inclusion and universal acceptance in digital spaces. The panel brought together experts from various regions to explore challenges and strategies for creating a more linguistically diverse internet, emphasising the importance of enabling access to digital content and services in multiple languages to bridge the digital divide and empower communities worldwide.

Technical Evolution and Current Landscape

The conversation began by tracing the evolution of technical standards, from ASCII to Unicode, which now supports over 150,000 characters across 168 scripts. Tijani Ben Jemaa, Director of Mediterranean Federation of Internet Association, highlighted this progression as a crucial enabler of multilingual content online. The implementation of Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) was discussed as a significant step towards a more inclusive internet, allowing for non-ASCII domain names. Ben Jemaa also credited Ram Mohan as the inventor of the universal acceptance concept.

Fahd Batayneh, Director of Stakeholder Engagement for the Middle East of ICANN, introduced the Universal Acceptance Steering Group (UASG), a collective effort involving major tech companies working towards universal acceptance implementation. He noted that despite the large Arabic-speaking population globally, “probably scientific decent good Arabic content is probably less than 1% of the content that is available online.” This stark disparity underscores the need for content creation in diverse languages, not just technical solutions for displaying different scripts.

Regional Perspectives and Challenges

The discussion highlighted varying regional priorities and approaches to implementing multilingual inclusion:

1. Caribbean: Krislin Goulbourne-Harry, UA Ambassador for the Caribbean Digital Transformation Project, explained that the region is still in the early stages, focusing on sensitisation and awareness of universal acceptance. She emphasised the need for multilingual interfaces to help users naturally switch between official and local languages like Creole and Patois, and stressed the importance of stakeholder engagement in the process.

2. North America: Dana Cramer, PhD candidate at Toronto Metropolitan University, stressed the importance of meaningful inclusion of Indigenous populations. She highlighted efforts to resurrect previous Indigenous languages, connecting universal acceptance to cultural preservation and reconciliation. Cramer also noted the significance of including accents in French language domain names for Canadian users.

3. Asia: Edmon Chung, CEO of DotAsia Organization, framed the issue as one of language justice, emphasising the need for both grassroots support and top-down recognition of the importance of multilingual internet access. He provided historical context about the implementation of DNS and its relation to the development of the web.

Implementation Strategies and Challenges

Speakers agreed on several key strategies for advancing universal acceptance:

1. Multi-stakeholder Collaboration: Edmon Chung emphasised that collaboration between technical experts, cybersecurity professionals, content creators, and service providers is essential for successful implementation.

2. Education and Awareness: Integrating universal acceptance and IDNs into networking and IT curricula was suggested as a way to make multilingual internet concepts native to the next generation of developers and engineers.

3. Policy Approaches: Dana Cramer advocated for promoting policy approaches to linguistic diversity on digital platforms, while Edmon Chung suggested integrating universal acceptance into government procurement processes.

4. Community Engagement: Speakers stressed the importance of engaging linguistic experts and affected communities to ensure accurate content representation and drive grassroots support for universal acceptance initiatives.

5. Roadmaps: Edmon Chung highlighted the need for organizations to develop roadmaps for implementing universal acceptance.

Challenges identified included increasing local content production in non-English languages, addressing infrastructure and device availability in developing regions, and balancing efficiency with language inclusivity in digital systems.

Universal Acceptance as a Social Movement

Edmon Chung framed universal acceptance as a social movement akin to language justice, stating, “I think as over the 20 years, what I have learned is that in order to get us over the hump, this needs to be thought of as really like a movement and I really believe that it’s kind of like a social movement.” This perspective elevated the discussion from purely technical considerations to broader social and political implications.

Inclusion of Sign Languages and New Technologies

Dana Cramer brought attention to the unique challenges of representing sign languages in digital spaces, expanding the conversation to consider accessibility for deaf communities. She provided examples of how American Sign Language differs from spoken language in its expression, highlighting the complexity of achieving true linguistic diversity online.

Edmon Chung emphasized the importance of “UA and IDN by design” in new technologies and platforms, ensuring that universal acceptance is built into emerging digital ecosystems from the ground up.

Conclusion and Future Directions

The discussion concluded with a call for a holistic approach to multilingual inclusion, integrating it into broader digital inclusion efforts and treating it as a language justice issue. Tijani Ben Jemaa emphasized that technical solutions alone are insufficient to address the current state of multilingual content on the internet. Fahd Batayneh highlighted the role of end users in promoting their own languages and content online.

Key takeaways included the critical nature of universal acceptance for digital inclusion (including new gTLDs), the need for local content production in native languages, and the importance of multi-stakeholder collaboration. Suggested action items ranged from developing roadmaps for implementing universal acceptance in different organisations to promoting policies requiring universal acceptance readiness in government procurement processes.

As the internet continues to evolve, addressing unresolved issues such as increasing local content production and ensuring universal acceptance on emerging technologies will be crucial for achieving a truly multilingual and inclusive digital world.

Jasmine Ko: you you You You Good afternoon It’s not working number two number two everyone if you’re joining us, please tune to channel number two Thank you very much am I audible Okay, great great great, okay, so Ready? Okay. So hello everyone. Good afternoon Morning or evening from the other, you know part of the world So this is Jasmine Cole from Asia and I saw Hong Kong and welcome to our NLI session on inclusion our topic It’s about we talked about the universal multilingual inclusions and universal acceptance for our communities this is a NL is collaborative sessions and I Will be starting with a little bit introduction of the topic and then Introducing our wonderful speakers here. And then there will be a guided discussion and and then our floor will be open for the audience. So, to begin with the sessions, the universal access and digital inclusions, there will be an open statement by each speaker, and there will be brief insights on ensuring that digital platform accessibility across linguistic backgrounds, and also some initial perspective on multilingual inclusion in the digital space. To divide into different part of discussion, we will be talking about the current landscape, the national and regional practices on multilingualism. Second, we talk about the technical standards and the protocols on examining the role of technology standards and to enable multilingual content. And third, we also talk about the implementation strategies on the practical approaches on how to promote and implement the universal acceptance of diverse language. Lastly, we talk about multi-stakeholder collaboration for sure, and explore the role of these collaborative efforts between different stakeholders. And may I now please introduce our speaker one by one? And I would love to introduce first, Ms. Chrislene Galbon-Harry here. She’s a UA Ambassador, Universal Acceptance Ambassador, and she’s from the Caribbean Digital Transformation Project. And then we have Ms. Dana, Ms. Dana Kramer. It’s a PhD candidate at Toronto Metropolitan University, and also with the Center for International Governance, Innovation, Digital Policy Hub fellow, so based in Canada. And then we have Mr. Tajani, Tajani China, sorry. My bad. From the Mediterranean Federation of Internet Association that director. And then also on site with us is Mr. Fahd, Director of Stakeholder Engagement for the Middle East of ICANN. And finally, our online speaker, Mr. Edmon Chung, the CEO of DotAsia Organization. Welcome. Okay, so also on the slide, actually we have our online moderator, Ms. Pio Tuleng, from Myanmar Youth IGF. Thank you very much for engaging our online speaker and participant as well. So let me just give the floor to the speaker on your open statement on this very important topic. So I would love to have Tejani, Mr. Tejani starting first, please.

Tijani Ben Jemaa: Thank you, it was difficult to pronounce my name. No problem. Okay, thank you very much, Jasmine. As you know, the cultural and linguistic diversity as well as the access to information and knowledge for all people were among the 11 fundamental principles to build the information society as defined by the World Summit on Information Society 2003-2005. Having a part of the internet community struggling with their original languages not understood by machines and then possibility for them to access any content on the internet in their mother tongue was a real concern for the WSIS. That’s why the output of its first phase included two action lines related to this issue among a total of 11. Action line number 3, access to information and knowledge, and action line number 8, cultural diversity and identity, linguistic diversity, and local content. Today, there are more than five billion people connected to the Internet, and at least one billion new users are expected to come online. Most of the new users of the Internet live in countries where people speak and write languages other than English. There is a need to design inclusive language resources and frameworks that would enable individuals of all ages, all cultures, all languages, to fully participate in the digital space. Jasmin, that’s why we are addressing today this topic of multilingual inclusion and universal acceptance for all countries, isn’t it?

Jasmine Ko: Yeah. Thank you very much. I don’t want to keep pronouncing your name wrong, but thank you very much. Can I also pass it to Mr. Atmans on your open statement for this topic, please?

Edmon Chung: Certainly. Thank you, Jasmin. Hopefully, my voice is coming through fine. I’ll just keep speaking until you tell me that you can’t hear me. But I think building on what Tijani was saying, I think this is a fundamental issue. Yes, for those of you who know me, this is a topic that I care about very much for the last 25 years. But obviously, the work is not done yet. The way I really see it is that digital inclusion needs to be the driver for universal acceptance and what we call a multilingual Internet, which includes domain names and e-mail address. in the different languages. And in order to get us there or really get over the hump, I think it is very clear that we have learned that just the technical community or just the registries or just the hosting platforms is not enough. This is what collaboration, this is what multi-stakeholder collaboration means and this is what we need for a truly multilingual and meaningful access and also universal acceptance because only together we can actually do this. The other thing about togetherness is I believe this cannot be a standalone thing and that’s why it’s connected to digital inclusion, it’s connecting to the next billion of people that are coming online and also in terms of implementation because of the long tail nature of universal acceptance, it needs to have a roadmap. It’s not a switch it on tomorrow and then we’re done technically kind of issue here. It’s a long tail. You need to update your system one after the other and all the systems, different parts of the systems have different places where email addresses and domain names are used and therefore it’s a long tail thing. So I think as over the 20 years, what I have learned is that in order to get us over the hump, this needs to be thought of as really like a movement and I really believe that it’s kind of like a social movement. We need the groundswell of grassroots support but we also need those in quote unquote power to realize that they also need to take a step and therein lies what I start to call the language justice issue. In order for a multilingual internet to really be realized, we need to think of it as a language justice issue because. Every time we talk about it, those who are already online, actually many of them are already familiar with English. Without the push for language justice in a movement kind of way, we can’t get it over the hump. People need to understand that, yes, we’re gonna have to give up a little bit, maybe even give up a little bit efficiency for the longer tail, for the next billion to feel comfortable to come online. So I think a part of the learning over the last 20 years is that this is not just a technical thing. This is something we need to do together in collaboration and needs to be a movement that is about language justice.

Jasmine Ko: Thank you very much, Edmund, for your open statement. To Fahd, please.

Fahd Batayneh: Thanks, Jasmine, and thank you for having me on this session. So since Edmund spoke about domain names, I mean, I’ll try to divert a little bit from what Edmund just shared. So actually I worked for ICANN. ICANN is the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers. The key thing that we work on at ICANN is really domain names. And of course, linguistic diversity is at the heart of today’s domain name landscape. Of course, when the World Summit on the Information Society 2005 outcome document was released, linguistic diversity on the internet was one of the key components there. And so within ICANN, we took upon our shoulders to at least, I mean, since we are not into content, we did work on ensuring linguistic diversity when it comes to domain names. And of course, there was a lot of work happening within the ICANN community and even within other organizations, such as the Internet Engineering Task Force on developing protocols and standards that could actually amend the domain name system so that it can understand… non-ASCII domain name. So the unfortunate reality about, well, okay, it’s not an unfortunate reality, but when computer systems were first developed in the 70s and in the 80s, they only understood ASCII. And when the domain name system was developed in the 80s, again, it only understood ASCII. Now, in terms to include non-ASCII characters, so anything other than the A to Z and zero to nine, things need to be amended. Standards, protocols need to be amended so that these systems can actually understand characters beyond ASCII. So yes, within ICANN and in close coordination and in close cooperation with the ICANN community and the wider internet community, IDNs are a reality today. You can actually register domain names in your native languages. But then of course, as we try to find the solution to something that was missing, we bumped into another issue, which is called universal acceptability or universal acceptance when it comes to domain names. So the problem that we faced is that we saw as an ICANN community is that not all software systems understand what is an Arabic domain name or what is a Chinese domain name. And this is where there’s a huge push at the moment within the ICANN ecosystem to make all systems understand what an Arabic domain name is or what a Chinese domain name is or what a Japanese domain name is. So what universal acceptance is trying to tackle is that all domain names and all email addresses must be acceptable in all systems or in the domain name system. Thank you.

Jasmine Ko: Thank you very much. Now to Kristalyn, please.

Krislin Goulbourne-Harry: Hello, everyone. Thank you for having me here. It’s a beautiful city. I’m all the way from the Caribbean, and it’s a pleasure to be here. Now, linguistic diversity in the digital realm is not just important to preserve our cultural heritage, but it’s also essential to empower communities to be able to freely express themselves fully in the digital realm. So, when digital platforms and technologies support multilingualism, it helps to bridge the communication gaps in academia, also fosters innovation, and enables economic growth. Now, in the Caribbean, by nature, we are a multilingual society, which means that, at some point, universal acceptance is critical for us. But where we are right now in the Caribbean, we haven’t actually reached the point where we are having the conversation seriously, which is why these type of forums are important for us. We do speak a lot of English, and we realize that English is the primary language of the internet as it relates to content. But if we look at the trends, we realize that this is actually going down. So, at some point, other languages, other characters, other scripts are becoming relevant, critical to be included and accepted in our software applications, which is why UA, universal acceptance, is such an important topic that is rising right now, especially within the Caribbean region. Thank you.

Dana Cramer: and that’s kind of where the problem is arising. My apologies. You know, it’s always tough to go last in these introductory remarks because everything that you plan to say has always been said. I really like the way, Edmond, that you had said language justice because I’m from Canada and we have it that reconciliation with our Indigenous communities is a very strong topic in my country as a form of development and decolonization efforts overall. And one element of universal acceptance in my country too is trying to resurrect previous Indigenous languages overall so that Indigenous populations can then grow with their linguistic capacity and reconnect with their past, their heritage, and understanding for the rest of Canadians and those who live in the colonial borders of Canada to be able to understand that there are multiple different words that we might have lost as describing our geography. We, however, as a country, can’t fully achieve that unless we have U.A., for example, in a Universal Canadian Aboriginal Syllabics or UCAS as the acronym for this. And it currently does not exist. It’s working through right now to try and have U.A. for Indigenous populations in Canada but not only in trying to get more people online and more languages represented online, it’s also imperative to be able to have U.A. so that we have the previous populations that have been disenfranchised and have nearly been wiped away for their cultural heritage. can resurrect that in a digital space because we are stronger when we’re all connected and all together, but we cannot achieve that unless we all have our capacity to speak online. Thank you.

Jasmine Ko: Thank you, Dana. So thank you all for your open statement. Now we’re moving to the guided discussion. The first part is about the current landscape. So I would love to turn to Fahd. From your experience at ICANN engaging with the Middle East region, what region, what are the unique challenges and successes that you have observed in implementing multilingual solution in the digital space to you?

Fahd Batayneh: Yeah, thanks Jasmine. So let me say this as a story and I usually like to share information really using stories. So ICANN was incorporated and established in 1998. Of course, right after ICANN’s establishment and the organization of the first public ICANN meetings, there was a lot of discussions within the community to expand the top level domain namespace. So back then we had, I mean, the world started with all the CCTLDs and a handful or two of maybe GTLDs. Now the discussion within the ICANN community was to expand top level domains. And this also included domain names or top level domains in local languages. Of course, it took the community a while to work on the policy part of things. And then of course, the technical side of things were mostly worked within the Internet Engineering Task Force. Now in 2011, the first number of applications, the first group of applications for IDN top level domains or internationalized domain names were submitted to ICANN from countries as part of a program called the IDN CCTLD Fast Track Program. 2012, we see the first four IDN TLDs delegated into the route. In fact, Saudi Arabia was one of the four countries that actually launched their IDN-CSTLD in Arabic. Now, there was a huge hype around IDNs, but then of course, when people started embracing it, we did bump into the situation where, while there was a lot of excitement before they were introduced, however, the excitement became much less. Of course, before the introduction of these top-level domains in local languages, registries actually did offer IDNs under ASCII top-level domains. So if you go, for example, to some of the TLDs, like .com or .net, you did have the option of actually registering a domain name in your native language. Of course, for some languages, that was okay, but for others, it wasn’t. One example could probably be Arabic language or even the Arabic script, because in Arabic, we actually write from right to left, whereas in English or in many of the Latin scripts, we actually write from left to right. So that was an issue. So if you want to type www, and then you switch your keyboard so that you can write something in Arabic, and then you have to switch back so that you can write the rest of the domain name, that was problematic. Now, as IDNs were launched, and as we saw that there wasn’t much adoption for IDN domain names, there were many issues that the community started looking into. Now, if you come to the Arab region, one of the things we lack is actually local content. So the unfortunate reality about the Arab region is that probably scientific decent good Arabic content is probably less than 1% of the content that is available online. Of course, if you look at the number of people who can speak the Arabic language, there are probably 800 million, 900 million. It’s a really large number. Content is not on the same percentage or on the same equivalence as the population. Now, if there’s no Arabic content, it’s because If I can consume content in English, then I can maybe type in a domain name in English. And then, of course, with the many universal acceptability issues. Fantastic. So we have two issues here with the mic. Of course, universal acceptability was another issue. I mean, even with these Arabic domain names, back in the early days, most of the web browsers, if not all, didn’t understand what an Arabic domain name is. Email systems didn’t understand what’s an Arabic ID. So if you try to create an Arabic ID, it just doesn’t go to the other end. And then, of course, even when Arabic email systems were built, exchange of email IDs happened within that system. So here, for example, in Saudi Arabia, they built the first Arabic ID and email system, Rasil, and actually there are people in the room who actually worked on that from Saudi. You could exchange emails within the system, but if you tried to send out emails to other systems, they will not understand what’s this ID. So as you can see, while IDNs empowered communities, they came with a couple of problems. And this is one of the universal acceptability of Arabic domain names or even internationalized domain names in general is one of the topics, is one of the key projects actually at ICANN. And there are people in the room, actually, here who can tell you a story of how they tried to tackle this concept of universal acceptance from a normal ASCII top-level domain name, leave alone from an internationalized domain name. Stop here, hand it back over to you.

Jasmine Ko: Thank you very much Socorron. And now across the Atlantic Ocean to the Caribbean region. So this is a question for Krislin. How is the Caribbean region adjusting digital language inclusion through the Caribbean Digital Transformation Project? And what lessons can be shared with the other regions? To you, please.

Krislin Goulbourne-Harry: Okay, thank you. So when I, when I started, I mentioned that the Caribbean is a multilingual region, right? And we are currently going through a digital transformation period. And that involves a lot of stakeholder collaboration. We’re working with academia. And there’s a lot of public private partnership, as well as a regional and international partnerships as well. We do work alongside with ICANA and the UASG group, as well as with ISOC. Now, in terms of where we are, we have to understand that UA universal acceptance has never really been a major priority in the Caribbean, because there are at some point, because we are most of what we consume is, is already in the languages that we use. So it never really became a priority concern. So we have to understand that where we are in the Caribbean is mainly sensitization and where we are trying to bring the issue alive in the Caribbean and to start that debate. What we have been doing is having what we called UADs, which is partnering with the UASG to have the annual UADs within the different Caribbean islands. That has been going well and so which means that a lot of sensitization has been happening and in addition to that some countries are looking into starting adoption of universal acceptance because while we we sorry right so we our languages we have the the the regular languages for example English, French, Dutch, etc but we also have native local languages for example Creole and Patois and those type of content are not available on the web in in or where persons in the Caribbean can consume them and appreciate them culturally. So that is also something that we have to work on as it when it comes to multilinguism and also UAM acceptance in the Caribbean. We haven’t reached the point where we have started a full implementation project but what we have been doing is looking at other regions. We’re doing a lot of sharing and collaboration to see where other persons are what we can learn from them and to see what type of strategies we can implement within our own systems to get our content you already are in terms of linguistics and etc. We are we there are certain strategies that we can look into for example the implementation of multi-language interfaces that will be able to help us to naturally switch between languages including our local languages. Right. And that and also, we are looking into the adoption of international standards to ensure that our applications can compete on that level globally, and not just on where we are right now. We are also encouraging our developers to use domain names in native languages, for example, Patois or Creole. And there’s a lot of education and awareness going on. But one thing that we’re, we’re also trying to champion is policy. So, we need to ensure that some of the policies mandate that UAE is important, and so that we can start to push it and drive it in the direction that so that we can communicate and participate globally on the rest of the world.

Jasmine Ko: Thank you, Christine. Now to Dana. So, based on your research and work with the IGF Canada, what are some notable products in North America for ensuring the multilingual digital inclusion?

Dana Cramer: Thank you very much. So, as I mentioned earlier, UAE isn’t just about trying to get certain populations online, it’s also reconciliation with populations who are also losing their own linguistic identities, for instance, and trying to make sure that we have languages kept and captured so that they can grow. One area with that, however, is the importance of meaningful inclusion of those population groups. And so, when we’re looking at UAE’s own, and the bottom up processes that I can, working groups of course will form and there’s one right now that includes having UCAS to be involved in domains. But one element for it is that Indigenous Peoples might not actually fully realize that this is happening. And so that kind of becomes a bit of a top-down approach for them. And so where you have this, for example, initiative that can be reconciling without including those groups specifically, you’re not meaningfully bringing them to the table and ensuring that they will then have the knowledge, the capabilities to be able to start including these. And so one area that we have to look at, for example, in Canada is engagement, making sure that there’s recognition amongst Indigenous communities about what ICANN is, for instance. And I also coordinate a youth NRI, and we’ve been doing this quite a bit to try to bring a bit more promotional elements about UCAS, hopefully going to be online soon, with Indigenous groups so that when this happens, we can hit the ground running in that. Another kind of mention I want to have is that in Canada, we speak English and French. And in French, sometimes for population groups, you will include accents on certain letters, whereas others you don’t. In all honesty, when I’m quickly typing something in French, I don’t always wait for the accent to come up. You just want to quickly get through your email and send it off. And that’s really normal in Canada. And so we don’t always include accents on letters. And so when you have an accent on a letter like an E, for instance, to spell Quebec, one of our provinces, we need that interchangeability for accents to be recognized, as well as our single letters, because they’re used interchangeably by the population on the ground. And finally, I kind of want to expand this about multilingual inclusion with emerging technology, specifically artificial intelligence, and talk about a community that I don’t think always gets gets the recognition in these conversations, which is accessibility-seeking communities or the disability community, specifically those who are deaf, for instance. And so when deaf communities speak, sign language is prominently used, and there’s actually a lot of shortening of a sentence in order to get the language expressed. This isn’t always the case. Like, for example, if I were to sign in American Sign Language, which we use in Canada, I’ll say, my name is Dana for it. So I spell out each letter. However, for different types of words, like one that’s topical for this conference, for instance, of saying, I really need to use the toilet, you just do this, just a quick T. That goes around and that expresses an entire sentence. And so when we have emerging technologies like artificial intelligence, though, in artificial intelligence program for generative AI, there’s not always a recognition that certain communities, when those standards and protocols and technologies are built will actually need words and letters skipped out. So I wanted to include that multilingual is not always about the spoken word or the written word. It’s also about the signed word and what is included in the sentence to ensure it’s accessible for everyone using it.

Jasmine Ko: Thank you very much, Dana. So from the current landscape we’ve been sharing in the Middle East, Caribbean and North America, and moving on to more technical discussion on the role of technical standards and protocols. The question I have for Edmund, it’s from your perspective in Asia Pacific, and what do you see as the critical technical standards needed to ensure the true multilingual inclusions in the domain names and digital service?

Edmon Chung: Thank you. So that’s, that’s an interesting question. But I think I just wanted to build off what Fahd said earlier, in terms of the basic technology for both, say, internationalized domain names, domain names and email addresses in different languages, that is ready. That is ready. But one of the things that then that relates to what Dana was saying is that there are policies that need to be in place for what we call variants. So, very early on when we looked at we start looking at different languages, we realized that for example in English, your domain name, whether you capitalize or you know use a small letter, it actually is the same thing. But if you play with words you would figure out that you know you can capitalize different ones and actually come up with different different words with the same set of letters. So, think about it that way and you realize that sometimes these same strings that people users might get confused with needs to be registered together. So, whereas in the technology itself. There are two different strings are two different domains. that map them back together. And that’s what we call IDN variants or variant domains. And that addresses some of the issues that that Dana was talking about. So I think this is one of the things and to make it native and to make it fully acceptable, including into universal acceptance that is good, you know, that is one of the challenges I think, but coming back to what I said earlier, this is going to be a long tail situation. And that’s why one of the main push from from both the ICANN community and of course what what.Asia we are trying to push for is for different companies to come up with a roadmap. Again, you know, none of us can solve it on our own. can solve this issue, you know, immediately tomorrow. So drawing out a roadmap is going to be actually one of the most important things. And I think when you think about a roadmap, it comes back to what I, you know, I touched on the language justice issue, but when you think about real adoption, one of the really important things I think we need to also remember is as I think it was Dana that mentioned this as well, we need to bring those who are affected into the solution. The problem is, you know, those who are already online are probably a little bit more familiar with English and can deal with this, but it is those that are not already online or those that are very new online. And one of the things about multilingual internet is that if you don’t realize it, multilingual internet actually makes for a safer internet for most people. One of the things that I like to, you know, use as an example is like my dad who, you know, is getting online now and, you know, asking me about phishing and all these issues. The first thing, whether I or any cybersecurity expert will tell you is that you need to look at the email address that sends you the email and look at the domain name or the URL that you’re trying to click into. This is the number one thing that any cybersecurity expert will talk about in terms of cybersecurity for those who are just coming online. And with, you know, domain names and email addresses in the language that they know, then their trusted services can actually send information to them in their language with the domain names and email addresses in the languages that they can be familiar with because a string of English characters mean nothing to them. And so a slight difference is very easy to miss, but if it is presented in the local language. That is why a multilingual Internet actually makes for a safer Internet for more people, especially that is coming online. So I think these are some of the things that needs to be in place when we think about it. And finally, before I close off, I think we also need to try to get them early. In order for the next generation of people to really think that, you know, I always think that, you know, universal acceptance is successful when one generation starts to think about why was multilingual domain names not available in the first place? That’s the right question. If we get to that world, we’re done. We’re not there yet. So we want to get them early. We need to have IDNs, we need to have multilingual domain names and email addresses. When people first learn about networking, when they first learn about DNS in high school or in first year of university, when they first learn about networking, they need to know this. So these are some of the technical challenges. How do we get it into the curriculum? How do we get, you know, make people understand that cybersecurity, multilingual Internet makes for a safer Internet? And also, how do we implement the variants into the hosting platforms, into the different technology platforms with a roadmap in place? I think these are the technical challenges that we’re still in front of us. But I think, you know, there are standards and universal acceptance work that is being done. But we need people to realize the roadmap and push forward with it.

Jasmine Ko: Thank you very much, Edmon. And now to Tijani, also on about the technical question about, because you have very extensive experience in ICANN, IGF, and regional Internet associations. How have the technical standards and protocols for multilingual… support evolved so far?

Tijani Ben Jemaa: Thank you, Jasmine. Before I answer your question, let’s draw your attention on the fact that we are speaking about universal acceptance. And we are lucky to have here in this room, sitting in the second row here, the man who invented this concept, Ram Mohan. Thank you, Ram. Coming back to the question, as everyone knows, informatics started with the American standard code for information interchange, the ASCII. The ASCII is a standard that is encoding 128 characters only. And it is only for one script, one language. The ASCII was extended to 256 to cover the letters with accents that are used in the European languages. In 1988, a draft of the text character encoding system called Unicode. The Unicode is a text encoding standard created and maintained by the Unicode Consortium, designed to support the world’s systems that can be digitized. The version of the Unicode was the version 16.0. Defines 154,998 characters, 168 scripts. So please, notice from where we came and where we are today, came from 128 characters for one single language, one single script, to today, almost 155,000 characters for 168 scripts. Each script may cover more than one language, as you know. It doesn’t work? So you hear me now? Okay, thank you. So, and please also know that the Unicode is ultimately able to encode more than 1.1 million characters. As you see, the multilingual content was made possible thanks to the Unicode standard, even before the internet was open for the public use. And here I wanted to make a difference between the multilingual content and the multilingual email addresses and domain names. The content was possible before it was used by people, before the internet was made possible for us to use. The issue of multilingual inclusion in the internet space doesn’t then concern the content, but how to reach this content in other scripts than the ASCII. The domain name system, the DNS, was originally designed to accept only ASCII characters. By the years, the necessity to have other scripts and domain names was also increasing. understood by the DNS became insistent. The internationalized domain names, everyone spoke about before me, was created to solve this issue, not by changing the DNS infrastructure to accept any script, but by creating an interface that translates the ASCII, that translates the original script to ASCII code to be understood by the DNS. And then the ASCII to be understood for the user, it’s also translated. So this is the way that the other scripts were accepted by the DNS. In October 2009, I can approve the creation of the internationalized domain name, the IDN, and began to implement it in 2018 through the ccTLD IDN fast track that he spoke about. The universal acceptance now is technical necessity to ensure that all valid domain names and email addresses, regardless of their script, their language, or their character length, can be equally accepted, validated, stored, processed, and displayed correctly and consistently by all internet-enabled applications, devices, and systems. The universal acceptance is considered as a fundamental requirement for the continued expansion of the internet. Thank you.

Jasmine Ko: First time, thank you very much to Tijani for sharing your experience. We have been talking about the technical protocols and standards, and moving on, we’ll be talking about implementation strategies. At the same time, I would love to hear from you about the future of the internet. Thank you. to introduce my co-moderator on site to the stage to continue the facilitation, Ms. Duar, from KSA IGF Place, Duaa T. Albalawi, to you.

Duaa T. Albalawi: Thank you so much, Jasmine, and I’m sorry, everyone, I was running a little bit late in one of the parliamentary track sessions, but better late than never. I would like to pose my next question to Mr. Fahad. How is ICANN supporting the implementation of multilingual solutions in emerging digital markets from your experience?

Fahd Batayneh: Any better? All right. Thanks, Duar. Thanks for your question. So, as I explained earlier at ICANN, our contribution to the digital ecosystem and all this digital transformation wave is really through domain names, whether in ASCII or even in local languages. Internationalized domain names is a really big part of our work. Much of the work has been done, probably little, I mean, there is still to be done. I mean, we never close the door on anything. And of course, when I say we, it’s really the ICANN community. So, ICANN, the organization, just facilitates these processes, but it’s really within the community where all the work happens, the registries, the registrars, even the registrants through the different constituencies at ICANN, and even the Internet Engineering Task Force, where the technical side of things, the protocols, the standards are developed. Now, again, as I mentioned in my previous intervention, and some of my colleagues on this panel mentioned universal acceptance of these of these. I mean, universal acceptance remains a key challenge. In order for us to be able to use all domain names and all email systems and all systems, we really need to push this whole concept of universal acceptance. We need these systems to actually understand whether this is a real domain name or not. So when I write a domain name in Arabic, is it real or is it just some kind of a fake ID? Just to maybe give you a little bit of maybe an imagination of what do we mean by universal acceptance? Let’s say you’re trying to open a bank account and maybe it asks you for a username and a password. Now, for some banks, for example, they would ask you for an email ID. So you just enter your email ID as the username, and then you can enter your password. Now, if I try to enter an Arabic email ID, would the system of the bank accept that? If I try to enter a password in Arabic, would the bank system understand that? In many cases, you can expect that the system won’t understand that. And this is where universal acceptance kicks in. And this is actually just one scenario. But I felt that maybe giving you an example of what we are talking about here is worth it. There is work underway at ICANN within a steering group called the universal acceptance steering group, the UASG. We do have members here in the room on the UASG. And the UASG is really more of a collective work. So it’s not ICANN working on it alone, or it’s not the registries working alone. It’s everybody who has something on the internet that universal acceptance can have some kind of effect or maybe impact on. So you would find companies like Microsoft, like Google, like Meta, like the registries, Verisign, Identity Digital. to registrars to cows go daddy actually contributing to the work of the USG it’s a collective collective effort. It’s not something that you find the solution to on the spot. There is a lot of effort going on, and I mean much has been covered more is yet to be covered.

Duaa T. Albalawi: Brilliant. Thank you so much, Mr Fahad, being mindful of the time here I’m going to direct the rest of the questions to the panelists if we can leave them the responses to one minute or a minute and a half, just so we can have the opportunity to take some interventions from from the floor. So Miss Krislin I’d like to pose this next question to you on some strategies that the Caribbean region and specific has employed to implement multilingual digital services and what were the key success strategies.

Krislin Goulbourne-Harry: Okay, thank you for that question. So in the Caribbean, we haven’t really dived into adoption as yet. Right, we are still in the learning process when it comes to universal acceptance, and particularly we are also embracing the fact that we are multilingual, to the point where some Caribbean islands have started to try to become islands that speak multiple languages. So we are still in the baby stages. So we are learning from others who have done it before and we’re also following the trends that are out there. So, for example, when we do, or UAD is what we would ask persons to do is to check if their websites are UA ready. So there is, there’s a there are tools available for example on the USG website that you can use to test whether or not your website is UA ready. that certain systems, maybe their email address is not, their email system, sorry, is not accepting EAI emails. Then we will try to look at ways that we can partner with maybe ISOC or other bodies to help us to guide our developers into making our systems, preparing them and making them UA ready. But one of the challenges that we’re having is while the technology is out there and it’s available, we have issues with marginalized regions, for example, and infrastructure, infrastructural divides. That is something we’re also tackling as we’re preparing for the global market. So with that, we also have another challenge, which is device being available to persons so that they can actually utilize the systems that are available. So in the Caribbean right now, while we are in the phase of stakeholder engagement, but we are driving public awareness as well, and we’re trying to basically move into adoption, but we have not reached the point where it is critical on our agenda, and which is why we are increasing the conversations, right? And maybe at some point we will be taking it to the policy level where maybe public websites will be mandated to be UA ready in order to facilitate certain types of trade. For example, as we open up to the, sorry, I’m taking a little long, I may finish up. open up to the global market, we do attract a lot of tourism. Oftentimes, persons will be required to register on a hotel’s website using their e-mail addresses. Very often, persons who are coming to the Caribbean are not necessarily ASCII character users, which means that they may have to create an e-mail address that is written in ASCII characters in order to register or book a hotel room in the Caribbean. That is one challenge. It does create a barrier and we are realizing that now, so which is why the talk has been increasing and we are getting there. Thank you.

Duaa T. Albalawi: Brilliant. Thank you so much, Chris. Lynn and I think you touched on quite a lot of important points and a lot of challenges that emerging communities and countries are currently facing, which really takes me to my next question, Ms. Dana. From your research perspective, what innovative policy approaches have you observed that effectively promote linguistic diversity in digital spaces? Again, I’m just going to ask you to keep it to a minute and a half, that would be great.

Dana Cramer: Just for the sake of time, I think that a lot of policies have already been spoken about through the panel. But one that I will note on is policies that can, when we want to have policy innovation, we need to, in addition to talking about domains and websites and e-mail, we need to talk about platforms. For example, how many of you online and in person sent a slew of e-mails today versus how many WhatsApp messages did you send? And trying to make sure we have multiple languages in WhatsApp, in different communications platforms and applications. And as new emerging technologies come through, how that can be utilized. That’s especially important as well for next generation, for youth, who might not be as prominent e-mail users because, of course, technologies are developed with new users in mind, so this tends to gear to more younger people. And so when we start to think about policy approaches and also engagement, for example, in having these discussions about UA, IDNs, et cetera, how we can also extend this to emerging technologies in different capacities. Thank you.

Duaa T. Albalawi: Thank you so much, Dana. I’m just going to move on very quickly to Mr. Edmund, who’s online today. If you could share some insights on .ages experience and implementing IDNs and making them a natural part of our Internet ecosystem. Thank you.

Edmon Chung: Thank you. Thank you for the question. I guess, in terms of trying to make it a natural part of the system, it really goes back to the word integrated, as I started with. Both the technology and how we think about it needs to be integrated rather than isolated, so it feels like it’s part of the ecosystem already. Building on what Dana just said, people say people don’t use email addresses or domain names anymore, but I still see lots of domain names being sent around in WhatsApp messages. Part of UA by design or an integrated design is that linkification, for example, making sure that in WhatsApp messages, the different domain names get linkified properly on WhatsApp or Signal or any other chat message platform. That’s part of integration. That’s the kind of integration that I’m talking about. It needs to be integrated and not an add-on. It should feel like it’s just native to that platform itself. That’s how we make the multilingual Internet into not anymore a second-class citizen. That’s, I think, an important part. Integration goes into a few other things as well. Integrating into what I mentioned earlier, networking 101 curriculum, high school, university education, integrating it into government procurement processes. of policy, for example, if government procurement processes requires IT systems to be universal acceptance ready, to be multilingual embracing, then we will see that happen. So again, integrating it into digital inclusion, integrating it into development initiatives, even Asian Development Bank work, the Belt and Road Initiative from China, all these infrastructure development work, it should integrate the multilingual internet into it natively. I think that’s gonna make a difference.

Duaa T. Albalawi: Brilliant, thank you so much, Mr. Edmon.. And I believe you ended on a brilliant note for us to transition to our open floor discussion. So we did want to discuss or touch on multi-stakeholder collaboration today. So if you have any questions that you would link to the, bring to the floor on the role of collaborative efforts between stakeholders and advancing digital inclusion, do feel free to bring those to the table. So if we can just hand the gentleman in the back a microphone.

Audience: even when you go and knock on people’s doors they might tell you well this is what’s in it for me and this was actually the issue in the early days. So in the early days, when you go and tell people there’s this thing called universal acceptance, they are like, well, who cares? Because back then, it was mostly English dominated. If you look at statistics, for example, when the WSIS 2005 outcomes came out, I think more than 90% of the content on the internet was actually in English. And more than 90% of internet users were English speakers or English native speakers. Today, the numbers are completely different. So even in terms of looking at the internet, things have changed. When we talk about bringing in the next billion internet users, it’s mostly from Asia and Africa, and these are non-English native countries on speakers. So, I mean, to summarize, the problem of universal acceptance is a very long journey. It has already started. The community has done a really good job in pushing things forward, but there’s much, much more to be done, really. So, I mean, to summarize, the problem of universal acceptance is a very long journey. It has already started. The community has done a really good job pushing things forward, and there’s much, much more to be done, really. host email addresses in Unicode. And I want to add something also as well, that universal acceptance is not only for IDNs or AIs, but also for the new generative level domain names. At the same time, the number of domain name registration for CCLDs may be two or three times the number of registration for GTLDs, whatever they are, legacy or new. So the origin of universal acceptance should start from organization as CCLD. Thank you.

Duaa T. Albalawi: Thank you so much. Tech team, can you just give me a thumbs up if our online participants can hear us? All right, great. So Mr. Edmund, I just want to give the floor back to you. I know the team on site here cannot see you, but I can assure you that they can hear you. So over to you, Edmund.

Edmon Chung: Yeah, sorry, I missed probably many of the questions and I caught part of it. Thank you. So I agree very much. And that’s why I think the new generation of developers need to know this natively. IDN email addresses in different languages should be part of the basic network 101 and not an add-on. And same with platforms. And as you mentioned, it’s not just about the different languages. It’s also about new GTLDs and how the internet itself expands. So multilingual is one aspect of it, but our internet needs to learn that domain names and email protocols could upgrade. And that requires network engineers and software developers to be aware of this quite natively and be aware of it and kind of implement it by design. Again, UA and IDN by design.

Duaa T. Albalawi: Brilliant. Thank you so much for your comments, Edmund. I would just like to call on on our online moderator to see if we have any questions in the chat that you would like to pose.

Audience: There is no question on the chat, but there are some comment. From the June, in the beginning, she mentioned about the Caribbean citizens may speak other languages, but the accepted language is English. Wherever I go in the Caribbean, English is spoken to me, despite Spanish being the country language. And also French, Spanish is the official language, but English is spoken and accepted. I speak from the experience having traveled to most of the Caribbean islands most of my life. There’s another comment from the June Paris as well. A language we always learn in the Caribbean at school and university. I study French and Spanish as a school in the 60s. Yeah, that’s all we are now receiving. And yeah, let me pass the floor back to the on-site moderator.

Duaa T. Albalawi: Brilliant, thank you so much. I think there was quite a couple of comments on the Caribbean summit. Ms. Chrislin, I just wanna see if maybe you have any comments or feedback on those statements.

Krislin Goulbourne-Harry: Okay, so in the Caribbean, it is correct. We are multilingual. We do, I agree with the commenter that says that we study multiple languages from even secondary, primary school levels, because that is just the nature of the Caribbean. We are a multilingual nation, right? But just to finalize, when we think of our content, And we’re trying to include different languages and also include our native languages, our Creole and our Patois. We have to consider that we would have to engage linguistic experts to ensure that the content is actually correct and also relevant. But not only that, we would also have to engage the community because our dialect is not necessarily something that can be interpreted by a regular linguistic expert. And it also comes with a lot of cultural aspects as well, which we have to make sure that the content that is out there is not only correct, but it is also relevant and it is a correct representation of who we are as a Caribbean nation. Thank you.

Duaa T. Albalawi: Thank you so much for that, Krislin. Audience, we are nearing the end of our session. We have six minutes left. So I would really like to call on our panelists here today to maybe give us in a few, you know, let’s say 35 seconds, your closing statements, and then we can depart. Thank you.

Krislin Goulbourne-Harry: Yes, it is critical that we embrace and accept the fact that universal acceptance is relevant to our community, whether or not we are aware of it, it is becoming a critical issue. And in the Caribbean, we are not going to sit and wait for it to come knocking on our doors. We are preparing ourselves. We are engaging. We are promoting, building awareness, and we are partnering with the different bodies around the world. the different international bodies, including other Caribbean islands as well, to ensure that we are, or we will be able to compete in the digital realm by embracing multilingualism and also accepting and adopting implementing universal acceptance. Thank you.

Dana Cramer: My closing remark has to do with the importance of engaging communities and bringing communities along to universal acceptance initiatives to ensure that communities who are affected need to be part of the conversation and part of the implementation as well. So that we can truly have a bottom-up approach instead of top-down in any of the components along that timeline of implementation. Thank you.

Tijani Ben Jemaa: Thank you. Now that we have solved the technical problems, now that the machines can support all scripts, now that the DNS can accept all the scripts also through the solutions that we found for them. Now that all these scripts can be accepted by all devices and applications on the Internet, do we have multilingual Internet? I know that the short answer is no, but even the longer answer is no. By 2024, we have almost 50 percent of the Internet content in English. I think this is a failure. We didn’t manage to make the Internet multilingual. despite the whole and the considerable effort, technical effort that was made to make all these technical issues solved. So I think that the problem is in the use of the internet. You may have an internet that accepts all scripts. But if you don’t produce content in those scripts, you will not make the internet multilingual. So I think that the main thing that we have to do, we have to make our communities to do is to produce local content in local languages. Thank you.

Fahd Batayneh: Thank you. So I’d really like to echo what Dina said about engagement. And I’d also like to add to the fact that universal acceptance is really a collective effort. Everybody has a say in it. Everybody has to be involved in it. Governments can play a really key role in actually developing policies and promoting policies that ensure that systems actually are multilingual, so they understand what characters are beyond the traditional ASCII. I also think end users have a very big role here. So rather than continuing to communicate and consume content maybe in English, try to start promoting your own language, your own content, because that’s really the way to make the internet. That’s one of the ways, at least, to make the internet really multilingual. Thank you.

Edmon Chung: Yeah. Should I go ahead? Over to you, Edmund. Oh, all right. So I guess I’ll just highlight, I think, that I do believe that the multilingual internet and meaningful connectivity, which means localized content as well as services, comes hand in hand. Some people say we don’t use the DNS. We don’t use domain names in email anymore. Maybe we use less of them. But I think it is the foundation for a multilingual internet. And I’ll give you this little piece of information or history trivia. The DNS itself, the English DNS, was put in place in 1983. Six years later, that was when the web was born, 1989. So all the infrastructure, email and DNS for English, was ready when the web came and created a lot of content that is English-driven. As Tijan, you mentioned, even today, we’re still almost 60% of the web’s language is in English. I think the foundation technologies, like domain names and email addresses, needs to be internationalized for meaningful access, meaningful local services, local brands and local language content to be expressed and developed. To close, I guess, as I repeat just two things, to make you remember, to address the issue, I think we need collaboration and integration. Collaboration among different stakeholders, technical, cybersecurity, content and services, including, as Dana mentioned, those who are most affected by the issue in the development of the solution. And then integration, not only technology, UA and IDN by design, but also policy integration, education, development initiatives. The collaboration and integration is going to be critical for us to really build a multilingual Internet. And finally, we have to make it a movement. In order for it to be a movement, we need to get the grassroots involved, as Dana mentioned and as I mentioned, to get the users involved, to get those who are most affected involved and understanding that this is going to make a difference for them as well.

Duaa T. Albalawi: Thank you so much, Edmon, and thank you so much to our two panelists. If I can just urge everyone up for a round of applause to our panelists here today. Thank you so much for your very insightful contributions and thank you so much to our online attendees. And of course, one final thank you to my co-moderators who helped put this together. Thank you guys so much, and I hope you enjoy the rest of your evening. you

Agreement Points

Importance of universal acceptance for multilingual internet

Fahd Batayneh

Krislin Goulbourne-Harry

Dana Cramer

Edmon Chung

Tijani Ben Jemaa

Challenges in implementing IDNs in the Middle East due to lack of local content

Caribbean region focusing on sensitization and awareness of universal acceptance

Need for meaningful inclusion of Indigenous populations in North America

Importance of language justice for true multilingual internet adoption

Need for universal acceptance of all valid domain names and email addresses

All speakers emphasized the critical importance of universal acceptance for achieving a truly multilingual internet, recognizing it as essential for digital inclusion and cultural representation.

Need for multi-stakeholder collaboration

Dana Cramer

Edmon Chung

Fahd Batayneh

Importance of engaging affected communities in developing solutions

Need for collaboration between technical, cybersecurity, content and service providers

Collective effort needed from all stakeholders to implement universal acceptance

Speakers agreed on the necessity of collaboration among various stakeholders, including affected communities, technical experts, and policymakers, to effectively implement universal acceptance and multilingual internet solutions.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the importance of involving affected communities, particularly marginalized groups, in the development and implementation of universal acceptance initiatives.

Dana Cramer

Edmon Chung

Need for meaningful inclusion of Indigenous populations in North America

Necessity of grassroots involvement to create a movement for multilingual internet

Both speakers stressed the importance of integrating multilingual support natively into internet systems and infrastructure, rather than treating it as an add-on feature.

Fahd Batayneh

Edmon Chung

Implementation of IDNs to allow non-ASCII domain names

Importance of integrating multilingual support natively into systems

Unexpected Consensus

Multilingual internet as a language justice issue

Edmon Chung

Dana Cramer

Importance of language justice for true multilingual internet adoption

Need for meaningful inclusion of Indigenous populations in North America

While the technical aspects of universal acceptance were expected to be the focus, there was an unexpected consensus on framing multilingual internet as a language justice issue, emphasizing the social and cultural implications beyond mere technical implementation.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The speakers generally agreed on the importance of universal acceptance, the need for multi-stakeholder collaboration, and the significance of integrating multilingual support natively into internet systems. There was also a shared emphasis on involving affected communities in the development and implementation of solutions.

Consensus level

High level of consensus among speakers, with agreement on core principles and approaches. This consensus suggests a strong foundation for advancing multilingual internet initiatives, but also highlights the complexity of implementation across different regions and contexts.

Different Viewpoints

Current state of multilingual inclusion in different regions

Fahd Batayneh

Krislin Goulbourne-Harry

Dana Cramer

Challenges in implementing IDNs in the Middle East due to lack of local content

Caribbean region focusing on sensitization and awareness of universal acceptance

Need for meaningful inclusion of Indigenous populations in North America

The speakers highlighted different challenges and priorities in their respective regions regarding multilingual inclusion, reflecting varying stages of progress and unique cultural contexts.

Unexpected Differences

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement centered around regional priorities and approaches to implementing multilingual inclusion, rather than fundamental disagreements about its importance.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among speakers was relatively low. Most differences stemmed from varying regional contexts and stages of implementation rather than conflicting views on the importance of multilingual inclusion. This suggests a general consensus on the goal of universal acceptance, with differences primarily in implementation strategies based on local needs and challenges.

Partial Agreements

Both speakers agree on the importance of implementing multilingual support in internet systems, but they differ in their focus. Edmon Chung emphasizes native integration across various platforms, while Fahd Batayneh focuses specifically on domain names.

Edmon Chung

Fahd Batayneh

Importance of integrating multilingual support natively into systems

Implementation of IDNs to allow non-ASCII domain names

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the importance of involving affected communities, particularly marginalized groups, in the development and implementation of universal acceptance initiatives.

Dana Cramer

Edmon Chung

Need for meaningful inclusion of Indigenous populations in North America

Necessity of grassroots involvement to create a movement for multilingual internet

Both speakers stressed the importance of integrating multilingual support natively into internet systems and infrastructure, rather than treating it as an add-on feature.

Fahd Batayneh

Edmon Chung

Implementation of IDNs to allow non-ASCII domain names

Importance of integrating multilingual support natively into systems

Key Takeaways

Universal acceptance and multilingual inclusion are critical for digital inclusion of diverse language communities

Technical standards like Unicode and IDNs have enabled multilingual content, but universal acceptance remains a challenge

Implementing multilingual solutions requires collaboration between multiple stakeholders and integration into existing systems

Local content production in native languages is essential for true multilingual internet

Engaging affected communities and raising awareness are important steps in promoting universal acceptance

Resolutions and Action Items

Develop roadmaps for implementing universal acceptance in different organizations and platforms

Integrate universal acceptance and IDNs into networking and IT curricula

Engage linguistic experts and local communities to ensure accurate content representation

Promote policies requiring universal acceptance readiness in government procurement processes

Unresolved Issues

How to increase local content production in non-English languages

Addressing infrastructure and device availability challenges in developing regions

Balancing efficiency with language inclusivity in digital systems

Ensuring universal acceptance on emerging technologies and platforms

Suggested Compromises

Implementing IDN variants to allow interchangeability of accented and non-accented characters

Focusing on sensitization and awareness in regions where universal acceptance is not yet a critical priority

I think it is very clear that we have learned that just the technical community or just the registries or just the hosting platforms is not enough. This is what collaboration, this is what multi-stakeholder collaboration means and this is what we need for a truly multilingual and meaningful access and also universal acceptance because only together we can actually do this.

speaker

Edmon Chung

reason

This comment highlights the critical importance of collaboration across different stakeholders to achieve true multilingual internet access, moving beyond just technical solutions.

impact

It shifted the discussion towards emphasizing multi-stakeholder approaches and collaboration throughout the rest of the session.

One element of universal acceptance in my country too is trying to resurrect previous Indigenous languages overall so that Indigenous populations can then grow with their linguistic capacity and reconnect with their past, their heritage, and understanding for the rest of Canadians and those who live in the colonial borders of Canada to be able to understand that there are multiple different words that we might have lost as describing our geography.

speaker

Dana Cramer

reason

This comment introduced the important perspective of using universal acceptance to preserve and revitalize endangered indigenous languages, connecting the technical discussion to cultural preservation.

impact

It broadened the conversation to include considerations of cultural heritage and reconciliation, not just technical implementation.

The unfortunate reality about the Arab region is that probably scientific decent good Arabic content is probably less than 1% of the content that is available online. Of course, if you look at the number of people who can speak the Arabic language, there are probably 800 million, 900 million. It’s a really large number. Content is not on the same percentage or on the same equivalence as the population.

speaker

Fahd Batayneh

reason

This comment highlighted the stark disparity between Arabic speakers globally and available Arabic content online, illustrating a key challenge in achieving true multilingual internet.

impact

It focused attention on the need for content creation in diverse languages, not just technical solutions for displaying different scripts.

I think as over the 20 years, what I have learned is that in order to get us over the hump, this needs to be thought of as really like a movement and I really believe that it’s kind of like a social movement. We need the groundswell of grassroots support but we also need those in quote unquote power to realize that they also need to take a step and therein lies what I start to call the language justice issue.

speaker

Edmon Chung

reason

This comment reframes the issue of universal acceptance as a social justice movement, emphasizing the need for both grassroots and top-down support.

impact

It elevated the discussion from purely technical considerations to framing it as a broader social and political issue requiring widespread engagement.

When deaf communities speak, sign language is prominently used, and there’s actually a lot of shortening of a sentence in order to get the language expressed. This isn’t always the case. Like, for example, if I were to sign in American Sign Language, which we use in Canada, I’ll say, my name is Dana for it. So I spell out each letter. However, for different types of words, like one that’s topical for this conference, for instance, of saying, I really need to use the toilet, you just do this, just a quick T.

speaker

Dana Cramer

reason

This comment brought attention to sign languages and how they differ from spoken languages, introducing a new dimension to the discussion of linguistic diversity and universal acceptance.

impact

It expanded the conversation to consider accessibility for deaf communities and the challenges of representing sign languages in digital spaces.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by broadening its scope from purely technical considerations to encompass cultural preservation, social justice, content creation, and accessibility for diverse linguistic communities including sign language users. They emphasized the need for multi-stakeholder collaboration and framed universal acceptance as a movement requiring both grassroots and institutional support. The discussion evolved from focusing on implementation challenges to considering the broader societal implications and potential of truly multilingual internet access.

How can we implement multilingual interfaces to help naturally switch between languages, including local languages?

speaker

Krislin Goulbourne-Harry

explanation

This is important for enabling Caribbean users to access content in both official and local languages like Creole and Patois.

How can we ensure meaningful inclusion of Indigenous populations in the development of Universal Acceptance initiatives?

speaker

Dana Cramer

explanation

This is crucial for ensuring bottom-up processes and avoiding top-down approaches that may not fully address Indigenous needs.

How can we integrate Universal Acceptance and Internationalized Domain Names into basic networking and computer science curricula?

speaker

Edmon Chung

explanation

This is important for making multilingual internet concepts native to the next generation of developers and engineers.

How can we integrate multilingual internet considerations into broader development initiatives and infrastructure projects?

speaker

Edmon Chung

explanation

This is important for ensuring multilingual internet is considered in large-scale development efforts.

How can we address the challenge of producing more local content in local languages?

speaker

Tijani Ben Jemaa

explanation

This is critical for truly making the internet multilingual, beyond just solving technical issues.

How can governments develop and promote policies to ensure systems are multilingual and understand characters beyond ASCII?

speaker

Fahd Batayneh

explanation

This is important for driving adoption of Universal Acceptance at a policy level.

How can we create a social movement around language justice in the digital space?

speaker

Edmon Chung

explanation

This is important for building grassroots support and involving those most affected by language barriers online.

Summary

This discussion focused on addressing the challenges of digital sovereignty in developing and least developed countries, particularly in Africa. Participants explored the complexities of data localization, cross-border data flows, and the balance between national security and economic growth.

Key challenges identified included high infrastructure costs, unreliable electricity supply, limited technical expertise, and cybersecurity risks. The importance of data classification was emphasized, distinguishing between sensitive data that should be localized and less sensitive data that could be stored internationally. Participants stressed the need for harmonized policies and regulations at regional and continental levels to facilitate cross-border data flows while protecting national interests.

The discussion highlighted the potential economic benefits of local data centers, including job creation, skills development, and fostering local innovation. However, concerns were raised about the high costs and technical requirements for establishing and maintaining such facilities. The role of public-private partnerships and collaboration with global tech companies was seen as crucial for addressing these challenges.

Participants emphasized the need for capacity building, particularly in developing local technical expertise and training policymakers. The importance of institutional memory and continuity in policy implementation was also discussed. The potential of renewable energy sources, such as solar power, for powering data centers was noted as a solution to energy challenges.

The discussion concluded with calls for action, including signing relevant international conventions, implementing smart regulations that balance localization with cross-border data flows, and utilizing new assessment metrics for cybersecurity readiness. Overall, the session underscored the complex interplay between digital sovereignty, economic development, and international collaboration in the rapidly evolving digital landscape.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– Challenges of implementing data localization and digital sovereignty in developing countries, including infrastructure costs, lack of technical expertise, and energy/resource constraints

– Balancing digital sovereignty with cross-border data flows to enable economic growth and innovation

– Need for harmonized policies and regulations around data governance at regional and continental levels

– Importance of building local capacity and skills to manage data centers and digital infrastructure

– Classifying different types of data to determine appropriate levels of localization vs. cross-border sharing

The overall purpose of the discussion was to explore the challenges and potential solutions for implementing digital sovereignty and data localization policies in developing countries, particularly in Africa, while still enabling economic growth and innovation.

The tone of the discussion was largely collaborative and solution-oriented. Speakers shared challenges from their countries and regions, but focused on proposing practical approaches and policy recommendations. There was a sense of urgency around the need to build local capacity and infrastructure, balanced with pragmatism about the current reliance on global tech companies and cross-border data flows. The tone became more optimistic towards the end as speakers discussed emerging opportunities and called for coordinated action.

Speakers

– Jimson Olufuye: Chair of the advisory council of Africa ICT Alliance (AFICTA), Principal consultant at Contemporary Consulting Limited

– Ulandi Exner: Chairperson of AFICTA, IT consultant

– Kossi Amessinou: Director of Economic Activities in the Republic of Benin

– Melissa Sassi: Works in financial services and tech innovation

– Toshikazu Sakano: From Advanced Telecommunication Research Institute (ATR) in Japan, works on ICT for disaster countermeasures

– Martin Koyabe: Regional manager for Africa for the Global Forum for Cyber Expertise (GFCE)

– Mary Uduma: Coordinator of West African IGF

– Rachael Shitanda: Deputy chair of AFICTA, CEO of Pamba Tech

– Kashifu Inuwa Abdullahi: Director General of National Information Technology Development Agency in Nigeria

Additional speakers:

– Berhard Fares: Student from Indonesia studying digital sovereignty at Tsinghua University

Digital Sovereignty in Developing Countries: Challenges and Opportunities

This discussion, organized by AFICTA (Africa ICT Alliance) in preparation for the Global IGF 2024 in Saudi Arabia, focused on addressing the challenges of digital sovereignty in developing and least developed countries, with a particular emphasis on Africa. Participants explored the complexities of data localization, cross-border data flows, and the delicate balance between national security and economic growth.

Key Challenges of Digital Sovereignty

Several significant challenges were identified in implementing digital sovereignty and data localization policies in developing countries:

1. Infrastructure and Resources:

– High infrastructure and capital costs for establishing local data centers (Ulandi Exner)

– Unreliable electricity supply and water resources for data center operations (Ulandi Exner)

– Limited local technical expertise to manage and maintain data centers (Ulandi Exner)

2. Data Management and Security:

– Lack of understanding about where data is actually stored and who has access (Ulandi Exner)

– Cybersecurity risks and the need for robust data protection measures (Ulandi Exner)

– Recent issues with Nigerian banks’ core banking applications highlighting the importance of digital sovereignty (Mary Uduma)

3. Policy and Regulation:

– Legal and regulatory challenges with cross-border data sharing (Mary Uduma)

– Need for harmonized policies and regulations at regional and continental levels (Martin Koyabe)

Balancing Digital Sovereignty and Economic Growth

A central theme of the discussion was the need to balance digital sovereignty with the benefits of cross-border data flows:

1. Data Classification:

– Kashifu Inuwa Abdullahi emphasized the importance of data classification to determine what information should be localized and what can be stored internationally.

– Jimson Olufuye advocated for smart regulation that distinguishes between classified government data and commercial data.

2. Economic Opportunities:

– Melissa Sassi highlighted that cross-border data flows enable innovation and economic opportunities.

– Dr. Toshikazu Sakano stressed the importance of local data centers for economic growth and job creation, noting the layered structure of internet and business.

3. Government Needs:

– Kossi Amessinou pointed out the government’s need for data to collect taxes and provide services effectively.

Proposed Solutions and Recommendations

Participants offered various solutions and recommendations to address the challenges of digital sovereignty:

1. Capacity Building and Skills Development:

– Multiple speakers emphasized the need for developing local technical expertise and building capacity across various stakeholders.

– Dr. Toshikazu Sakano highlighted the opportunity for data centers to help grow local engineering talent.

2. Policy Harmonization:

– Martin Koyabe and Mary Uduma stressed the importance of harmonized regional and continental data policies to facilitate cross-border data flows while protecting national interests.

3. Infrastructure Development:

– Jimson Olufuye shared a practical example of using solar power to run data centers continuously for ten years in Nigeria, addressing energy challenges in developing countries.

– Kashifu Inuwa Abdullahi mentioned working with hyperscalers to establish local zones or data centers in Nigeria.

4. Incentives for Innovation:

– Melissa Sassi suggested the need for incentives to encourage local tech innovation while engaging in global markets.

Importance of Multi-stakeholder Engagement

Several speakers emphasized the critical role of multi-stakeholder cooperation in addressing digital sovereignty challenges:

1. Mary Uduma highlighted the need for collaboration between government, private sector, and civil society in developing data governance frameworks.

2. Martin Koyabe stressed the importance of involving all stakeholders in policy development and implementation.

3. Jimson Olufuye emphasized the role of organizations like AFICTA in facilitating dialogue and cooperation among different sectors.

Thought-Provoking Insights

Several comments sparked deeper reflection on the complexities of digital sovereignty:

1. Ulandi Exner questioned whether we truly know where our data is stored, challenging fundamental assumptions about data control.

2. Kashifu Inuwa Abdullahi expanded the concept of digital sovereignty beyond data, including operations, infrastructure, and talent sovereignty.

3. A student participant raised the need for a clear, globally accepted definition of digital sovereignty.

Conclusion and Future Directions

The discussion concluded with calls for action, including implementing smart regulations that balance localization with cross-border data flows, and utilizing new assessment metrics for cybersecurity readiness, such as the tcmm.africa tool mentioned by Jimson Olufuye. The session underscored the complex interplay between digital sovereignty, economic development, and international collaboration in the rapidly evolving digital landscape.

Key areas for further exploration include:

1. Developing strategies to retain skilled professionals in developing countries

2. Leveraging renewable energy sources for local data centers

3. Implementing effective cross-border data flow agreements to address cybersecurity concerns

4. Creating globally accepted definitions and measurement tools for digital sovereignty

These questions reflect the ongoing challenges and opportunities in achieving digital sovereignty in developing countries, emphasizing the need for continued dialogue and collaborative solutions.

Jimson Olufuye: Apologies for the late start of this workshop. Bismillahir Rahmanir Rahim. Greetings and welcome to Afikta workshop on addressing the challenges of digital sovereignty in developing and least developed countries. Under the sub-theme, improving digital governance for the internet we want. Under the over-hacking theme, building a multi-stakeholder digital future. My name is Jimson Olufuye. I will be the online moderator for this session. And I happen to be the chair of the advisory council of Africa City Alliance, Afikta. Briefly about Afikta. Afikta is a consigned private sector led alliance of high city associations, companies and professional individuals in Africa. It was founded in 2012 with six country membership but now in more than 40 countries in Africa. Our vision is to fulfill the promise of the digital age for everyone in Africa. And to do that we collaborate with the African Union, United Nations Economic Commission for Africa, the African governments, especially the government of the Arab Republic of Egypt, and the federal government of Nigeria to the Federal Ministry of Communication and Information and Digital Economy, Innovation and Digital Economy. And with this agency, the Nigerian Communication Commission and the National Information Technology Development Agency. And we have the privilege to have with us the DG of the National Information Technology Development Agency. You are most welcome. And this is done in the spirit of multi-stakeholder. engagement, which is the bedrock of Internet governance, as outlined in the Tunis Agenda of the World Summit on Information Society, 2005, which I can say is an outcome of WSIS. For my day job, I’m the principal consultant at Contemporary Consulting Limited based in Abuja. We help organizations achieve their digitalization and cybersecurity goals. I would like to thank the host, our host, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, for hosting the Global IGF 2024. As someone who witnessed firsthand Saudi Arabia delegation’s opposition to multi-stakeholder engagement during the concluding stage of the CSTD Working Group in 2018, I’m really personally thrilled that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is indeed hosting all of us and welcoming all stakeholders, that is the government, private sector, civil society, the academic and technical communities, to Riyadh. So I say salaam alaikum. Thank you for hosting us. Shukran. My co-onsite moderator speaker is Dr. Martins Koyabi, the regional manager for Africa for the Global Forum for Cyber Expertise, and online moderator is Ms. Rachel Jitanda, the deputy chair of AFICTA. Our rapporteurs are Ms. Tanye Kemabunta, Coyote Uyemi, and Shegum Omolosho. In this important session, which is entitled Addressing the Challenges of Digital Sovereignty in Developing and Least Developed Countries, we’re going to I have three rounds, a round of 25 minutes each for this each section and in the first round I’ll be asking our speakers the first policy question and just before your answers please you quickly introduce yourself and your designation and affiliation and then you go to the subject matter. When it’s three minutes I’ll give a thumbs up and you begin to be able to conclude. Well the issue of digital sovereignty is a very very crucial one, very very important and it’s much more important because why Africa constitutes about 17% of global population. Our presence with regard to data center and digital space about 1% and so we need to address the issue of meeting up even with our own industries, localizing our data and ensuring that we participate in over 4.3 trillion digital economy of the world. So without much ado I would like to throw in the first policy question, first and foremost let me just mention that yes we also have this other speaker with us, Ms. Ulandi Esna that’s the chair of AFICTA, she’s online. Chair, are you online? Please say hello if you are online.

Ulandi Exner: Good morning or good afternoon, Dr. Jemson. Can you hear me? Excellent. I’ve also just switched my video on.

Jimson Olufuye: Yeah, we can hear you loud and clear. Please, if you are speaking, please turn on your video. And we also have Mr. Kosi Amesino, the Director of Economic Activities in the Republic of Benin. Dr. Kosi, you’re most welcome. Say hello. We also have with us Dr. Melissa Sassi. Dr. Melissa Sassi, are you online? And we also have Jane Covene. Is Jane around? Jane? Okay, maybe she will join us soon. And we also have with us my friend, Dr. Toshikazu Sakano, Director of ATR in Japan. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Thank you very much. And we also have with us Dr. Martins Koyabe, who I mentioned earlier. Dr. Koyabe. And Mrs. Mary Uduma. Where is she? She’s here. Yes, please. Mrs. Mary Uduma, coordinator of West African IGF. Please. And again, we have our DG there. She’s our special guest of honor. All right, so I’ve recognized Mr. Kerem Abuta on the line. Mr. Kerem Abuta, can you say hello if you are there? Or any of the secretarial people for the rapporteuring? Secretariat, can you say hello, if you can hear me? Okay, I can see them online, but I believe they can hear me. All right, so straight to the point, the first policy question. And our chair will be taking the first response to this. In the light of most developing and least developed countries lacking the capacity of hosting their huge data generated locally, and considering the importance of digital sovereignty to the development and security of an economy, please, I would like the key challenges encountered by stakeholders in developing and least developed countries in the implementation of local servers and the adoption of data localization policy using South African experience or case study, and also answer the second one, that what practical solution can you propose to address the challenges faced, say, in your country? Ms. Ulanda, the chair of AFICTA, you have the floor, please.

Ulandi Exner: Thank you so much, Dr. Jemson, and also just by way of introduction, as you’d already mentioned, I’m the chairperson of AFICTA. I’m not going to provide the background on AFICTA because, Dr. Jemson, you’ve done so already. Also, just in terms of my day job, the one that pays the bills, because, you know, we do a lot out of passion. I’m an IT consultant. I serve on various governance structures and boards within the public sector, so I also hope to be bringing some of my experiences and the challenges that I experience in terms of the questions that I’ve posed. in the context of, well, in the South African context. So, just in terms of some of the key challenges that I have, and Doc, I’ve also got my time going here so that I don’t go over time, and I respect the time for other members as well. Some of the key challenges that we specifically also find in South Africa, and I’m sure it is very relevant throughout Africa, is the high infrastructure and capital costs. It isn’t easy to build data centers. We have some amazing and incredible data centers in South Africa, but it requires huge amounts of investment. And obviously, as a country, you need to be attractive to investors so that they can, local investment or foreign investment, provide the capital for those infrastructure costs. We also are battling terribly in South Africa with electricity challenges. We’ve had some reprieve in the last several months in terms of electricity. So, electricity is a lot better, but with that specific challenge, that means we need backup power. Backup power is expensive because it’s the cost of diesel and fuel to maintain that power. So, and we’re also battling, at the moment in South Africa, we’re experiencing water shortages. We haven’t had, in Johannesburg, for example, we haven’t had our summer rainfall and our dams are running very low on water. So, there’s water restrictions and you also need water for cooling. So, it’s really the cost around the capital. There’s also something which we battle with in our context is the limited technical expertise. We don’t have the required expertise to run huge data centers, to manage the data centers, to secure the data centers. So, that is some of the challenges that we’re experiencing. We do have good regulatory and legal frameworks. in terms of data sovereignty within our country. So as far as information is concerned, we have what is, which is very similar to the GDPR in the European Union. We have what is called PAPIR, which is the Protection of Personal Information Act. And basically, if our data or personal data has to reside in other country other than South Africa, it has to comply with privacy standards, which is either equal to our own or better. So that is pretty much how we’ve addressed some of the regulatory and legal frameworks. Some of the other challenges include the cybersecurity risks and data protection. We also have limited access to global technology providers. So those are just some of the instances of some of the challenges that we experience in terms of the digital sovereignty in South Africa. Doctor, you’ve also indicated, see, I’ve got about 20 seconds left, just how we would deal with some of those challenges at a very high level. Very quickly, we would need hybrid and multi-cloud approaches just to ensure data residency. We need a stronger data sovereignty framework. And we also need local data centers and co-location in terms of data sovereignty. Chair, I will pause now to give the floor back to you. And I’m happy to take further questions at the next round. Thank you, Chair.

Jimson Olufuye: Thank you very much, our distinguished Chair. That was quite a lot packed in three and a half minutes. Thank you very much. Doctor Kosi, Benin, move up. total to write in the global Cybersecurity index. Oh, maybe you don’t have any other challenges anymore. Do you see our challenges like South Africa?

Kossi AMESSINOU: Thank you, we have more challenge the data center is also a challenge for us We know our country have many cultural Experience to check how many video we have today in Benin two days for voodoo days, for example Every year you have two day for voodoo days. We need to bring all the video Put it available for everyone and let people know our culture very well For that we need data center for this time you have just one data center We need to have another one another big data center, but we need data center We take a solar technology for example to let us Use energy very well because energy also is a challenge for us. We need energy because before use Internet if we don’t have energy we can’t have internet but Energy before water after and we can talk about internet In the third time now what our challenge Data produce it Get it available for everyone. They secure also the accessible Accessible to enter to that data. We have public information also for everyone All our public service public service today is online More of them is online. It’s only the data center People need to access on them. We have one ID for each people in Benin now to access to all your public information you need. You have your ID, we call FID, we do it with a project called WURI. We have WURI project here in the booth here in Riyadh. You can go to our booth and see their action, what we do for our population. Every person in Benin have today one ID, using their all information online. You can ask anything to government, you can ask private people, you can ask civil society, you can ask everything you need to. Maybe with tax, you need to pay your tax, you need to provide also your ID. That is information I want to share this time. Wow, that’s quite impressive. You mean everyone in Benin has ID, national ID?

Jimson Olufuye: That’s quite impressive. Okay, good. Let’s move to Dr. Melissa Sassi. Thank you, Dr. Melissa, because I know you have to wake up very early in the U.S. to join us. You’ve always provided excellent advisory, best practice, using the U.S. experience to enlighten us more on the approach, the regulation in terms of what citizens need to do. Please, what is your view about this? Data sovereignty, a view of how the U.S. is taking data sovereignty very seriously. Thank you, Dr. Sassi.

Melissa Sassi: Exactly, exactly. So I spend a lot of my time working with highly regulated industries. So, you know, financial services is really my focus right now. And, you know, if you think about the kind of data that is collected, you know, no one wants their, you know, sensitive data, you know, in the hands of nefarious characters. Right. So I think, you know, from my perspective, and I put some slides together, but I won’t share my screen just in light. of time, you know, I kind of look at things from a few different perspectives. I look at it in terms of security, you know, privacy, residency, and, you know, kind of the ownership structure, if you will, of the data center. And I kind of also think about it from the perspective of, you know, what’s the impact of, you know, having a, you know, local data center. And in my mind, it’s kind of bigger than just looking at it from a sovereignty perspective. It’s also kind of thinking about what impact on economic growth those data centers, you know, would have in local communities. You know, what it might bring in terms of infrastructure, you know, development, social benefits, you know, support, you know, of local authorities, if you will, you know, in the form of, let’s say, you know, tax revenues for that sales use income, blah, blah, blah. But, you know, those are, I think, some of the some of the pros. You know, I think it gives, you know, local communities or local government, you know, local, you know, people, companies, what have you, you know, increased autonomy, you know, control over their digital ecosystem. And that, you know, kind of ensures, you know, a reduced reliance on, you know, external entities. Naturally, assuming you’ve got the right technical infrastructure set up, you’ve got the right skills, you know, folks who are managing that data center, you have an enhanced, you know, security. And as I mentioned, skills, you know, leads to jobs, blah, blah, blah. But lots of challenges. And I’ve heard some folks, you know, already share some of those, you know, in many cases, many of our communities across the continent or, you know, any other developing countries, there’s inadequate access to reliable internet, communication technologies, even electricity. And it, you know, kind of requires a dependence on, you know, foreign tech. And, you know, in many cases, reliance on, you know, international tech companies. And again, that kind of connects into skills, it could connect into you know, budget access to funding, you know, as one of our colleagues mentioned, running a data center is not, you know, it’s expensive and it takes a lot to stand up a data center, to run that data center. You know, lots of innovation I think is happening, you know, and people I think are looking at the role of, you know, green hydrogen or all of the many innovations that, you know, are possible to bring down the cost of running a data center. But it also kind of, I think, could bring, you know, kind of an overemphasis on, you know, localization and, you know, I’m big on partnership, you know, so what role does, you know, having such stringent, you know, policies, you know, in place, how does that impact collaboration? You know, does it bring more innovation or does it stifle innovation? I think the vote is probably still out on, you know, many of those things, but I think, you know, truth be told, we have, you know, big skills gaps across, you know, many of our countries, including, you know, the developed world. I, you know, I’m not sure where I personally stand, to be honest, I think, when I think about my data, you know, I’d like it to, you know, I’d like to understand where it’s going, whether it’s, you know, be, you know, everything is, you know, being handled appropriately, whether it’s in, you know, in use, in flight, whether it’s being stored. And I think that that same, you know, safety and security needs to be applied, you know, elsewhere. I look forward to seeing, you know, kind of how the world is going to continue to evolve. And I also look forward to seeing more, you know, locally grown countries, especially, or companies, especially, you know, you know, tech ventures. We often think about, you know, innovation coming from the Valley. I think tomorrow is where we see, and even today and yesterday, innovation coming from the village. So, thank you, and let’s go build those villages.

Jimson Olufuye: That’s great. Thank you for that encouragement, that focusing on the… digital sovereignty empowers local businesses and local interests. You also mentioned the issue of collaboration and partnership. And I know Dr. Martin is very vast in the area of collaboration, really capacity development, as has been mentioned. Has GFCE been progressing concerning, you know, handling these challenges? Dr. Martin?

Martin Koyabe: First of all, thank you so much. As introduced earlier, my name is Dr. Martin, and I am involved with GFCE within Africa. Let me shed some light, as my previous colleagues have already shed light on the challenges, but more importantly be guided by the current statistics that we have. When you look at Africa today, we have roughly about just below 100 data centers that are probably of Tier 3, Tier 4 and above. When you look again within Africa, we are not using or optimizing what we call renewable energy in terms of really making sure that we conserve on energy, as alluded by our chair in South Africa and also with Benin, as an example of where energy, we don’t use renewables. I know we have a lot of solar, but on record, I know that there are few countries that do have renewable energy, that are using renewable energy for data center running and so forth. So again, when you look at Africa in terms of its capacity building, which is where we sit, we’ve seen there is a comment that has come out on the skill sets of individuals who can run data centers. So we find the capacity to be able to have skilled engineers to be able to work within data centers is a little bit limited within the continent. Not because we don’t have people, it’s just because we don’t have… the favorable conditions, maybe whether it is incentives that we give to these individuals for them to remain in that particular market. But where I see specific challenges that we’ve seen within the continent is things like, for example, the barriers to international trade. We are seeing that when you have data localization, the rules might be tighter, and therefore what happens is that multinational companies might find it a little bit of a problem to trade within those particular countries. And this is a challenge, which requires also integration so that we can be able to work across borders. In fact, we were in a session this morning talking about borderless Africa, especially when it comes to data. And of course, we can’t be able to have cross-border data transfers because of the trust levels that we have. Infrastructure is not built with our neighbors to the level that we want to trust them in that sense. There’s also the restriction around fragmentation of the market. And here, we are looking at two areas. So there’s one where we look at the isolation in terms of the global market, that is restriction of policies within the least developed countries and developing countries participating in the global digital economy. We are also seeing there is an increased operational cost, meaning that localization requires or rather leads to sometimes inefficiencies, which we don’t use in our own countries. And that sometimes can lead to operational cost. And then the last thing that I really wanted to point out as a barrier that we are seeing is the issue around the impact on the small businesses and startups. I think it has been mentioned here. Let’s look at the statistics. In Africa today, nearly most of the economies of Africa, 75% of their GDP depends on small to medium enterprises. So if that sector is impacted by any of what we are saying here, whether it’s data localization fragmentation of markets, then we are already impacting economically in those particular economies. And I can see two areas. One is the issue around startups will struggle to meet the localization requirements, for example, because it’s very restrictive or very high to afford. Then we also have the issue around limited access to global platform, because by that time when you localize and you don’t provide a platform, then you’re limiting the marketing of this particular startup. So that’s an inhibiting factor. But there could be a light at the end of the tunnel. So what are we trying to do based on what we said? So the first thing we see here is there’s a need for harmonizing policy. We’ve just had a discussion around Africa having a continental data policy that can be adopted by many regions and countries. So there’s a need to harmonize. But even in harmonization, we are calling for what we call layered harmonization. For example, let’s make sure that the infrastructure in ECOWAS countries is up to standard, so that we can be able to build the data centers. Let’s make sure we have a strategy for data centers in terms of the green data centers, which we don’t have a framework in the continent. Let’s have also something that says we have the top-level domain names being used within the countries that we’re talking about. So therefore, the layered approach is so significant. And then the other one is the area around capacity building. And the GFCE, we’ve taken a deliberate and very purposeful approach to actually look at the bottom-up approach. So we are looking at the middle-tier management to train them so that they can have a south-to-south interaction, to bring the experts within the south-to-south collaboration to help converge the development and making sure that we have solutions. I’ll give an example. If there is an engineer in Benin who is well known in doing something, I’m not saying my colleague here, but somebody in Benin. and this person, he or she, has the expertise that we require, then this person can be very useful, one, within the ECOWAS region, or we can take that person to the southern area to be able to help other countries. So the south to south interaction in terms of experience is something that we want to do. The two other points that I want to say, just before I put on the mic, is the PPP. We have to exploit the public-private partnership because the PPPs bring what we call the expertise, the investment, and more importantly, they will be able to solve the problem of this inhibiting of data moving from one country to another and also making sure that countries are able to have proper ecosystem for startups. And then lastly, encourage innovation so that we don’t stifle it. Thank you.

Jimson Olufuye: Fantastic public-private partnership, layered regulation, regulatory framework. We’d be interested in hearing how is it in Japan in terms of data center management, data sovereignty, localization. How is the regime like in terms of business data, citizen data? Are they primarily in Japan or they are outside Japan? Dr. Sakano, please, kindly intervene. Thank you very much, my friend.

Toshikazu Sakano: My name is Toshikazu Sakano from ATR. ATR is Advanced Telecommunication Research Institute based in Kyoto, Japan. And I’m now working for research and development of the ICT for disaster countermeasure. But in the past, I used to work for NTT, the biggest telecom company in Japan. And let me introduce about the data handling. I experienced in NTT, about 2000, 2000 to 2005, NTT Communication, NTT Communication is one of group companies of NTT, and I used to work for that company. In that company, the company has many data centers worldwide, and our company’s data was stored in a data center in Japan, but also in the west coast of the United States, and this data center was interconnected using a submarine optical fiber cable with over 10 gigabit per second, or something like that. So once company created the data, the data is stored in the data center in Japan, but at the same time, the data is transferred to a thousand kilometer away in the west coast data center for security and many other ways. Why we could do that is the west coast data center in the United States was owned and operated by NTT. So the distance and the country, we don’t care. Who is operating, or who owns the data center is a very important issue. And actually, another story, actually 2011, Japan got a big earthquake, and maybe over 20,000 people were dead because of that big earthquake. And at that time, over one million people died. 1.5 million telephone lines are disrupted all the way because of tsunami, big wave. And people in that disaster-afflicted areas, they could not use telephone, but also they could not access to the internet anymore. Under that situation, people were struggling to make their living and looking for missing people and that kind of thing they are doing. So after that big earthquake, I created the new idea of quickly restore the local communication. That we call MDRU, Movable and Deployable Resource Unit, for quick restoration of telephone services. And after that, we moved to not only telephone, but also internet-like services, quick restoration, called LUX, Locally Accessible Cloud System. That kind of system we proposed to ITU-TE and many things I have done. So in the course of proposing and research and development of ICT for disaster recovery, the standalone, very small local cloud system is very useful in very isolated areas. So the data there are localized? Yeah, data is localized. That is one solution. So here is big data center and localized standalone system. So you need to collaborate between big data center and local systems to solve the problem related to… Thank you very much. This is one thing. Thank you.

Jimson Olufuye: Very good. So there’s need to collaborate. There’s need to collaborate. And as a Nigerian, I can see that even in a regulatory framework in Nigeria. Perhaps, Madam Mary, I’m sure the DG, who is the authority in this area, they are the one that gave back to data governance regime in Nigeria and ensuring that data is protected with a lot of regulation and so on and so forth. So, you will intervene later in terms of rounding off, so to speak. But, Ma’am, what is your view? How has Nigeria fared concerning data sovereignty?

Mary Uduma: Thank you. I want to start by telling a story. What happened to us in September. September this year, September, October. In Nigeria, we experienced collapse of and it was a bombing of the financial sector data. So, at a point, you couldn’t access your account because there was issue of security. So, for security reasons, we were not able to access. And I think one was even hacked. One of the banks. I won’t mention the name. I think one of them was hacked. Even the DG was startled and was really concerned about what was happening at that time. And even up to now, there are still banks that are still experiencing some difficulties, right? In localization of data, their system, their data services. We don’t know. I don’t know whether they are hosting all their data locally. or there are some that are not hosted locally. Then NIRA, Nigeria Internet Registration Association, the managers of .ng, in September, October, their machine just stopped working. And some of our websites went down. The website of Nigeria Internet Registration Association, the Nigeria Internet Governance Forum, Ndukwe Kalo Foundation, we are all being hosted by the NIRA data center. So we couldn’t access our network. We couldn’t access our website. So that’s a question for me. Does it work to have it totally nationally located, or do we do plan B as they did for redundancy? That’s one. We have tried in Nigeria, but we are supposed to solve that problem. I also want to look at the demand side. When we don’t have enough data generated within the community or within the nation, we cannot attract the big investors to bring in the big data center. So I don’t know what the volume, the big data you have, that will attract the big data service providers so that we have data center that will accommodate all of us. So as a factor, I think we should look at the demand side of data in our countries in Africa. What happens to that demand side? And again, statistics, let’s do research. Let’s do a lot of research in this, and then we can sell it. We can sell this research, saying to the entity. Yes, asking them that we have enough data generated in our countries, please come and invest, you will see it, and they will come, investing in our countries. Again, there should be international policy by the government to say that our data should remain our data, should remain localized, but there must be a lot of redundancy within all collaboration, as we have listened to, and capacity building, as Martin has said, both for the engineers and the policy makers. We need to build the capacity of the policy makers, and we need to build the capacity of the legislators as well. Thank you.

Jimson Olufuye: Excellent. Excellent. Thank you so much. We need to have real redundancy, very, very important. And we are happy that Dr. Sakano is here, Japan, we invest in the regional data center that will be located in Nigeria, so we have the DG here, so investors are welcome. So this brings us to the end of round one. It’s not working. It’s not working? Okay. Okay, this is working, all right. So this brings us to the end of round one, and I’m going to hand over to my online moderator, the deputy chair of AFICTA, Richard Chitanda, to take the second policy question. Ms. Rachel?

Rachael Shitanda: Hello, everyone. Thank you. Thank you so much, Dr. James. Thank you. Thank you so much, Dr. Jameson, for the warm welcome and also for a very good moderated first session. My name is Rachel Chitanda. I’m the deputy chair for AFICTA, currently based in Nairobi, Kenya. I am a… In my daytime job, I’m a CEO for a company called Pamba Tech. So I’m excited to be here today and also to moderate this session. And so we’ll dive in right to our next question. To our panelists, how can the DLDC’s balance objective of digital sovereignty with the benefits of cross-border data flows for the economic growth and innovation as we are addressing the challenges of digital sovereignty and data localization? I think we have already mentioned a bit of this in the session about localization of data and how cross-border data can affect economic growth. But I want for us to dive a bit deeper into the conversation and discuss that. I will start with our first speaker, our chair, Madam Yolande Ekster.

Ulandi Exner: Thank you so much, moderator, as well as my deputy chair, Olufiksa. While I was listening to some of our members, I have some comments and recommendations in terms of how we can address, how we can balance the objectives of digital sovereignty with the benefits of cross-border data flow. But while I was listening to some of the comments mentioned and some of the discussion points, something that really does concern me and is something that we really have to perhaps get a handle on is, do we actually know where our data is located? So yes, we are talking about infrastructure. We’ve got data centers internationally or locally. But do we, can we hang on hard, say that we know where our data is stored? As soon as we submit our data, whether it’s it’s being for government submissions or even personal. Do we as individuals know that our data is being stored locally or it’s being stored internationally? So that’s just one of the concerns that I have in terms of whether we really know where our data resides and who has access to our data? Who is responsible for that data? Who has ownership of that data? Who’s the custodian of the data? So that’s just something that’s been rattling my mind. I mean, it has been rattling my mind for quite some time, but it’s just brought it to the fore again now. So, and that is why it is very important that we do have an understanding of where our data resides. And I think legislation is very, very important. We do need to understand that legislation needs to support us in the sense that if we’re saying that the data can only reside locally, we also have to have a regulator that has some teeth, that is able to enforce regulation. So, we might have in instances a regulator that doesn’t really have much force and perhaps just slaps the organization with a small fine. So it is really important that we do have an understanding of where our data resides. So, be that as it may, perhaps it is important that, or it may be a need that we have data residing in different continents or in different countries. So what is then very important is that we have to perhaps look at select localization. So we’re very specific in terms of what data is stored locally. So if sensitive data and personal data stored locally, and less sensitive and less personal data is stored, perhaps across our borders. So perhaps also to encourage some of the challenges or to address some of the. challenges around digital sovereignty and data localization effectively. We need to incentivize innovation. We need to offer incentives for tech startups and businesses to innovate locally while we’re still engaging in global markets. We also need to, coming back to ensuring that we have an understanding of where our data resides, we need to have cross-border cross-border data flow agreements. Because again, we might find ourselves in a situation where there’s been some cyber breach and we need to be able to bring those, as Dr. Sassi says, nefarious people to book. And we need to be able to have cross-border agreements to ensure that if there are any cyber activities or cyber criminal activities that are taking place, we can address them accordingly. Other than that, Chair, Moderator, I think I’ll leave it at that stage. Thank you for the question.

Rachael Shitanda: Thank you so much, Madam Chair, for that insightful feedback and contribution to the conversation. I’ll go back to Dr. Martin. You mentioned a bit about a need for collaboration in terms of policymaking and also how can we put this in terms of helping, for example, we can see the GDRC and how they’ve been able to manage to improve localization of information and also collaboration around policies on data in Europe and Asia as well, have similar policies framework among some member countries. How can Africa do in order to enable the collaboration and also how can this also help us in terms of economic development and also sovereignty as well. To you, Dr. Martin.

Martin Koyabe: Okay, thank you very much. Let me try and put this into perspective because I know we’ve got other speakers who will talk after me. First of all, within the continent we do have what we call the data policy framework that has been established at the AU level. This is a document that actually helps to guide around how we govern data. There are two dichotomies here. One is when we talk about data governance we are not really referring as controlling data but ideally we are saying how do we govern data within a jurisdiction and there has to be a concerted effort in terms of harmonizing whether it’s policy or regulation especially at regional level. We know various countries have their own national policies, they have their own national legislations but the idea here would be at the regional level and the regional economic communities have a very very strong opportunity and we know ECOWAS are doing a good job, SADC are doing a good job and others to make sure that they can have that regional harmony. We are also seeing continental agreements being able to be fostered. For example the Africa continental free trade area. These agreements do bring together African countries to be able to trade among themselves so we expect data to move from boundary to boundary. Therefore when you look at the requirements of these agreements they would only say that data will move from one boundary to another but they don’t do the prescriptive composition of how that can be achieved. So it is the how that needs to be understood so that it’s more flexible, more agile and it does not stifle innovation. So that’s one thing that we really need to see. The other point is to make sure that we do not necessarily we need to understand the data sets. There’s a possibility that within each country we can understand what’s the actual data that needs to be shared, and what’s the data that should not be shared. So therefore, Chair, I would urge that under this understanding, we should not just talk about data per se, but we should be more descriptive, and say, is this the data that needs to be shared? Because to be honest, there’s some specific data that just needs to be shared. But there’s some data that we agree that should not be shared. And therefore, this frugal, the conservative way of how we look at data could be an enabler to move us to the next stage, rather than blanketing data as it is. Then the last point that I really want to put across is that we really need to emphasize on skills. And when I’m talking about skills here, we are talking about sustainable skills. Because what we have today is people get trained, they go back to their institutions. Because the institutions don’t pay them well, they leave. So we don’t have anything to do with loyalty that is built in. We don’t have anything that does with incentivizing these individuals to be able to be there. One of the areas that we could intervene is that we should concentrate in investing in the middle tier management within the government. Because these are the individuals who actually do the work. I’m not saying that our top level managers are not doing the work. But we’ve got more talking than doing the work. So let’s concentrate on investing in that. And then let’s also give them the incentive to do that. The other point here that I would like us to put up is the institutional memory. When we talk about policymakers, when we talk about leaders, parliamentarians and others, they come and go. What happens to those institutions? How do those institutions… ensure that the next government and the next government will come in and they will be able to propagate the same institutional memory that we have. Many countries in the world that are doing well in this space always insist on specific institutional memory to be carried forward into the next generation. So we have this cycle of politicians or cycle of political cycle that really brings us back to square A. What we want to do is when there’s a political change keep the policies that are good as alluded by our moderator about policy and then continue those policies so that we don’t have policies dying because the government has left. Thank you Chair.

Rachael Shitanda: Thank you so much for that intervention Dr. Martin. I would also like to ask Dr. Toshikazu to also contribute a bit and add on what Martin has said in terms of data, cross-border data and security in regards to what you also contributed first that is maybe how secure can the data be and how as a recovery mechanism can country use the opportunity for cross-border data sharing in disaster management and also continuity of also economic growth as we focus on the policy question.

Toshikazu Sakano: Okay, thank you very much and let me talk a bit about this cross-border data flowing from the point of view of digital surveillance. The key word is layer. and layer structure and layer management and layer operation. What I mean is, the user internet has a structure of layer. Physical layer and IP layer and application layer, something like that. And business structure is almost the same as this layer structure. So physical layer, most telecom company are responsible for mainly for physical layer. IP layer, ISP is responsible for that. And application layer, many big service companies, SNS and Google and many companies are responsible for providing the application layer services. So this layer structure is very important. And we should be strictly keep this structure. And looking at the physical layer, data center, you can see the physical layer, IP layer, application layer, you can see the same thing. So once data center is structured and operated, in the physical layer, then for the data center, engineers need to operate the computers and the storage and once the computer is broken, they need to replace something like that. So that is the chance to grow the engineer if you have the data center in your country. So look at the semiconductor industry. So what is the semiconductor industry? The biggest company for production is TSMC, based in Taiwan. They are focusing on and you can say physical layer of semiconductor for the country. They don’t design the semiconductors, but they focus on the production. The same thing happens in the IT sector. So if you have data center in your country and start operating it, then the engineers start growing. And cross-border data will be increasing, and that will contribute to the country’s economy. This is the kind of viewpoint. Okay, thank you very much.

Rachael Shitanda: Thank you so much, Dr. Toshikazu. I’ll go to Melissa. On this question of cross-border data sharing, and in terms of your experience in policy making, what do you think is your contribution in terms of how cross-border data can foster economic and also innovation, as we also address the digital sovereignty and localization? Dr. Melissa.

Melissa Sassi: Yeah, so I’ve spent just the last 10 years working on tech innovation. Before that, financial services, I did a couple of stints on Wall Street. And about a year ago, I kind of looked at the number of companies that I’ve worked with around the world. And I realized that I had an opportunity to work with 250 companies, 250 founders, probably more, because some of the companies had multiple co-founders, across 80 countries. They had kind of went on to raise half a billion dollars in investment capital. And those companies now are worth a collective total of. $2.7 billion. And as I looked at that, I said, wow, you know, these, these, you know, innovation can come from anywhere. But, you know, I think that there is a, you know, strong connection between having, you know, a strong, you know, tech, having strong technical, you know, infrastructure locally. And, you know, it, as I mentioned before, I think, you know, brings jobs and also brings, you know, this concept in my mind that, you know, technology is kind of an equalizer, if you will. And, you know, I think it enables, you know, local people, again, from any village anywhere to think about what is it that I can solve? What is it that I can do in my, you know, local community to bringing innovation, whether that’s, you know, for that data center, or, you know, any other, any other, you know, kind of product service, whatever, that, you know, might be relevant. And I was looking at something, I’m just gonna, you know, you can’t see my screen, but I’m gonna flip it over. I was looking at something around, you know, the size of data centers, you know, in terms of, you know, power consumption. And, you know, 10 years ago, you know, a 30 megawatt data center was, you know, considered large. You know, today, you know, data centers, you know, are, you know, let’s say normal, a normal data center, nobody’s, you know, kind of blinking an eye at, you know, 200 megawatts, and, you know, and much bigger, you know, as we think about, you know, the compute power that is, you know, required for, you know, AI workloads, you know, that impacts, you know, energy consumption, it impacts, you know, local communities. So I think, again, that also brings innovation, if you wake up, you know, today, and you your village is not electrified, you don’t have access to, to the internet, you know, what role could, you know, building data centers in, you know, whatever country it is, again, across the continent or anywhere else, you know, what role could that play to enable, you know, local, local people anywhere to think about. a role bigger from a workforce development perspective than in the local community. That said, I think whether these predictions are right or wrong, that’s to be determined. But I was reading a study also recently saying that in the future, it’s expected that the hyperscalers, that would be your Microsoft’s, AWS’s, you know, Google, others, should take about 60 to 65% of, you know, let’s say cloud, you know, having hosted in the cloud, whereas, you know, hosted, let’s say privately, or maybe not necessarily, you know, with one of the hyperscalers at like 35 to 40%. You know, who knows what’s what’s going to happen with that. But I also was kind of thinking about another thing. And I was looking at a kind of new list, you know, and I think came out probably the end of last year. And there’s always, you know, a lot of innovation that’s happening again, everywhere. And it lists kind of a really interesting innovations that’s happening around the world, some in local communities, and some from, you know, innovators, wherever they may come from, and what they’re, you know, what they’re working on, what they’re doing. So you know, what I was able to kind of look at in terms of trends was, you know, a cooling technology, you know, how can you, you know, provide, you know, solutions that, you know, enable, you know, different tech solutions that bring more, you know, sustainable, you know, data center, you know, running a more sustainable data center. I also saw some, you know, really interesting things around, you know, efficiency, again, you know, kind of cooling, eliminating water, thinking about chemical usage, and, you know, the impact that that has on, you know, on the climate, which in many cases, you know, impacts, you know, developing nations at a, you know, more, you know, at a larger rate. And I also looked at, you know, some of the innovation that’s happening in terms of you know, compute capabilities and how can, you know, these data centers really think about performance density and availability? You know, how can, you know, innovation impact, you know, bring about, let’s say, zero impact, you know, on the environment? I mentioned earlier, you know, green hydrogen, you know, how can local communities think about planning and building, you know, energy efficient, you know, solutions that are, you know, trusted, you know, secure and, you know, having the right level of, you know, data center, you know, or security, privacy, blah, blah, blah. You know, we’ll see how, how things, you know, continue to, you know, transpire. But as I mentioned, I am always very excited about the innovation that can come from a village versus always hearing about what’s happening, you know, in the valley.

Rachael Shitanda: So thank you. Thank you so much for the contribution. It’s always nice to hear from you, Melissa. Very knowledgeable and resourceful. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. I think I’ll give a chance to Mrs. Mary Uduma to just tell us a bit about how as a civil society champion, champion of the people and the society, what is your take on data localization and how that can impact the society? How can it impact human beings in terms of their rights, their socio-economic aspects? On to you, Mary. Okay. Thank you. Just to know that we are short of time.

Mary Uduma: Data is universal. Data is everywhere. I don’t know whether we can hold back data. there’s good data without borders. But when we talk about cross-border data, cross-border data flow, there are legal issues that will be involved, there’s the economic issues which Melissa had enumerated, I don’t want to go into. There are the regulatory issues, data governance, data protection, and you know, some countries, you may have developed your own data protection and it becomes now very difficult to relate with the other people that, the other countries that your data will flow. So they don’t have data protection law and it becomes a difficult thing for us in the civil society. We want to flow from Nigeria to South Africa without restriction. When we get there, our data, we’ll be able to get our data and work on that or use it. But where we don’t have the same level of development in terms of regulatory issues, we have problem. There’s security issues also. For us, we want to be secured when we move from one country to the other and when we are looking at our data. Our data should be protected, it should be secured, whether it’s flowing into another country or it’s within our country. So the cross-border data flow is very, very critical for us and we also want to look at, you know, policies or cooperation where we could have the multi-stakeholder cooperation or multi-stakeholder groups coming together to say, this is my issue when it comes to data flow. The academia will say this is our issue and all that and we sit on a round table and find solution to just as we are doing now. Thank you.

Rachael Shitanda: Thank you, Mrs. Mary Oduma. I’ll go to Dr. Kosi. What is your take on this policy question on how this can affect the socio-economic, the innovation, and also governance of the same? Maybe you can give us your piece of wisdom on that.

Kossi AMESSINOU: Thank you, Moderator. Data is very important for government, because when we don’t have data, we don’t have also money. We need data to know who is there to pay tasks, for example. That is very important for government. We have to know security of data is very important. We can’t share any kind of data. It’s not possible. For some sharing, we need convention between two countries or our country and some big companies. That is very important also to know. But whatever, we have some specific big countries who have their own data center. They are putting there their information like bank, finance, and all of specific big countries have their own data. But we’re supposed to have backup on national data centers also, and let government and their system protect the data, because if we have any problem on data in any country, government is firstly affected. People are not possible to attain their money. That is a problem for government first, before we are talking about civil society and so on. That is very important. We need to have for that, we need to be identified online. to let security people do their job very clearly and simply. That is very important for us too. Thank you.

Jimson Olufuye: Thank you so much, Dr. Kosi. I think, Dr. Jimson, I think I have exhausted all the speakers. Thank you. I think we can go to our next session. Yes, yes. Thank you so much, Deputy Chair, Ms. Rachel Chitanda, for doing justice to that round. Time is already well spent. We just have barely 15 minutes. Time runs so fast. I want to give opportunity to our special guest of honor this occasion. That’s the Director General of National Information Technology Development Agency. He has done a lot. I know it. I don’t want to say anything because he is the authority to speak. That is my brother, you know.

Kashifu Inuwa Abdullahi: Thank you. Thank you, Dr. Jimson. And I’m super excited to be here with you this afternoon. And I’m really honored to contribute to this conversation. In Nigeria, for the past six months, we’ve been working with the ecosystem on this issue of digital sovereignty. For us, when you talk about digital sovereignty, it’s beyond data sovereignty. You need to look at the operations sovereignty, the infrastructure sovereignty, even the talent sovereignty. Like Madam Mary shared the challenges we are experiencing with our banking sector, which has a result of just a regulation for them to upgrade this co-banking application. The co-banking application is developed in another country which they upgraded using it and still they are grappling to even go back to the previous standard where they are. Even yesterday I tried to use my bank. A lot of features were no more there. So for me this is part of sovereignty also. As a nation we should be able to control our digital future. So we’ve been working with all the data center providers, the ecosystem, the hyperscalers and so on, on how to achieve that sovereignty. And also I hear a lot of data sovereignty, localization, residency and so on. So we need to create clarity about it. What is sovereignty? Sovereignty is not the same thing with residency. It’s not the same thing with localization. So when you talk about sovereignty, it’s about having, applying laws of country where the data is stored. So you can have your data anywhere. It will respect the laws of that country as well as it can respect your laws. So that cannot in any way affect cross-border data flow. So you can agree even with the hyperscalers to have your data staying anywhere, but that data must comply with your country’s laws and regulation. While residency has nothing to do with even laws and regulations, but mostly they look at it where you can store your data for tax incentives and other things. But the big question is localization, which talks about storing and processing data in a country where it is created. So for me the question or the answer to this… this challenge is we need to come up with data classification because there are sensitive data that cannot go beyond borders. And even today we are talking about even creating cloud infrastructure for military services and other things. Because today we are using the same cloud infrastructure for military, for intelligence, for civilian, which is not good for any country. In case of any war or something, if your military infrastructure is attacked, it will affect the civilian. So countries need to create that cloud sovereignty. So we are working hard within Nigeria. We had an issue of working with one of hyperscalers to help us develop cloud-first strategy. But you know, most of the time business people, they will help you, but they are there for profit. Whatever they do, they will try to benefit from it. And we have a local content regulation that talks about data localization in Nigeria, which is in clash with the cloud-first policy So now we are working with all the local data center providers, the hyperscalers, how can we get them to come and have a zone or data centers in Nigeria. On 10th of December, Huawei launched its local zone in Nigeria. So we are working with others. We are engaging them to see how they can come to build data center or even to use a local data centers to have zones in Nigeria. So most of them, they are asking of data challenges in Africa or we are not. ready but they don’t have a clear answers to what they want us to do for them to come to African countries. So but we are engaging them we know most of them they look at the energy source, they look at the land availability, they look at the talents which we all have this. So and the only way to achieve that is through that negotiation and dialogue which we believe very soon we’ll have them coming to Africa, coming to Nigeria so that we can build on data because if you look at today our internet traffic more than 85% of transatlantic traffic is on content and most of this content we access our own hyperscalers and they are created locally. You hardly see a Nigerian watching movies or music from other part of the world but they we all watch them on YouTube and so on. So why can’t we localize them and you spoke about it is beyond just national security but the economic impact of it that’s the most important and when you talk about AI today you cannot trend your foundational model over public cloud. We need to have that compute power in our countries we even need to have age compute power across the country so that we can upload our data and trend the algorithm. So thank you very much it’s quite interesting I will take some of the feedback to shape the work we are doing on attracting the hyperscalers to Nigeria and Africa.

Audience: Thank you. Excellent thank you very much DG. Well I’m going to throw this open to the audience just one question or one comment. Can you do it in one minute? Hello, good afternoon everyone. My name is Berhard Fares. I’m from Indonesia and currently I’m studying in Tsinghua University for my master degree and my research is all about digital sovereignty. So I’ve been researching this for several years so I’m really interested with the topic. So basically I already add LinkedIn to all of you guys. Please accept me on LinkedIn. And we can talk more about it later. But the thing is, regarding to my thesis as well, basically we have to have a clear understanding about what digital sovereignty is. Because like I see every single people, every single country have its own perspective of what digital sovereignty is and it’s quite hard to to be in the same frequency because like there is so many things to measure, right? So I hope that we can conclude with this through this event and through my research as well later on I can get feedback from you and I can get your source so I can build my measurement tools and the global definition of digital sovereignty. That’s it. Thank you.

Jimson Olufuye: That’s wonderful. Berhard assured that we are more than ready to support your research because we believe in research a lot. Well, we’re coming gradually to the conclusion of this session and it has been quite illuminating and there has been a number of points shared so we’re looking at takeaways and a call to action. Well, digital sovereignty I think DG got it right. Because when you talk about digital you’re talking about ICTs, you’re talking about different segments of the information communication technology and we need to classify. from that, classified data. I had a bid, I’m a businessman, and I was to tender for a project, a cloud project, and if I were to use a local data center, I would never have won that project. But because it was a kind of commercial or academic data, so it’s not top secret data, so I could use cloud in the US, which a company have a data center, and with that, I got very competitive pricing, and with that, we won the bid. So there is a provision, the law in Nigeria, that say, okay, for government data, you must, if you are to host it overseas, you must get approval. But basically, at default, it must be hosted in Nigeria, which is a good one, that segmented the classified public data from commercial data. So that is smart regulation, which I really want to encourage other countries to emulate. With that, we can still do our business, we can transition gradually, to building a more robust local data center. So with regard to takeaways, we have discussed extensively, and we identified that, yes, we need to build capacity locally, we need to build an economy, we need to have an economic rollout with data sovereignty, and that we should not forget about cross-border data flow, with regard to cross-border trade, which is indefensible to prosperity, even though digital sovereignty is imperative. Mention the AU digital data policy framework, so we need to work with that, okay? And then, also, we look at… The cost, the cost of having this locally is high. So I just illustrated with the business, so we have to look for, classify the data. And then also electricity is a major challenge that has been identified, but I’m happy to say here that we deploy for a client, 10 years ago, we deployed a data center for a client 10 years ago, and it’s been running using just solar. We deploy solar and everything running 24 sevens for 10 years, even with some cooling system, even though it might not be like tier four, tier three, but at least it serves their need. So we have the capability locally to really, you know, deploy the experiences there to really make this happen. Then we got to call to action. I think we talk about security, therefore countries that are yet to sign the Malabo Convention should do so. And then the WTO, ITA2 agreements, we need to look at that and be signatory to that. Many are signatory to Budapest Convention. Those are yet to be, they should be connected to that. And then we have the issue of data abuse, breaches all over the place, and that’s give back to lack of confidence in a way. But we have new metrics. There is a new metrics that will help us to even do assessment. It’s available on tcmm.africa, tcmm.africa. You can check it out. It will help the organization or businesses or even government to check the assessment level, to assess themselves, identify the gaps. And all this we are discussing measure to the sustainable development goal. We must not forget, we want to have no hunger, we want to achieve prosperity, and we want to ensure that the Global Data Compact that was signed in September. 2024 in the U.S. at the UNGA is realized by 2030. So on this note I want to thank all our speakers and the moderator, our chair, Ms. Sulandi Esna, thank you so much for taking the time for your insightful speech. Dr. Kosi, thank you. Appreciate you. Dr. Melissa Sessi, thank you again. When we call, you always respond. And Dr. Toshiki Sakano, thank you very much for those perspectives. Dr. Martins, as always, thank you. And the Amazon, Ms. Mary Uduma, thank you always on the point. And of course, very importantly, I want to thank our DG, Kashiwe Nwa Abdullahi, for that pungent contribution. And to the students, thank you. And everybody, thank you. Oh, I can see the Grand Master of Internet Governance there. Thank you very much for supporting the upcoming Masters. So on this note, I want to say thank you to all the participants online. Thank you again, Deputy Chair Richard Sitanda. This brings to the conclusion of this session. Thank you. Thank you, everyone. Thank you, everyone. Bye-bye. Bye-bye.

Agreement Points

Need for local data centers and infrastructure

Ulandi Exner

Toshikazu Sakano

Kashifu Inuwa Abdullahi

High infrastructure and capital costs for local data centers

Importance of having local data centers for economic growth and job creation

Need for data classification to determine what can be stored locally vs. internationally

Speakers agreed on the importance of developing local data center infrastructure, while acknowledging the challenges and costs associated with it.

Importance of capacity building and skills development

Ulandi Exner

Martin Koyabe

Mary Uduma

Limited local technical expertise to run data centers

Need for sustainable skills development and retention of trained personnel

Importance of building capacity of policymakers and legislators

Multiple speakers emphasized the need for developing local technical expertise and building capacity across various stakeholders.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers highlighted the need for harmonized policies and agreements to facilitate cross-border data flows while addressing legal and regulatory challenges.

Martin Koyabe

Mary Uduma

Need for cross-border data agreements and harmonized policies

Legal and regulatory challenges with cross-border data sharing

Both speakers emphasized the economic importance of data flows, either for innovation and business opportunities or for government functions.

Melissa Sassi

Kossi AMESSINOU

Cross-border data flows enable innovation and economic opportunities

Government need for data to collect taxes and provide services

Unexpected Consensus

Balancing data sovereignty with practical considerations

Kashifu Inuwa Abdullahi

Jimson Olufuye

Need for data classification to determine what can be stored locally vs. internationally

Need for smart regulation that segments classified government data from commercial data

Both speakers, representing different stakeholder groups, agreed on the need for a nuanced approach to data sovereignty that considers practical business needs while protecting sensitive data.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement included the need for local data infrastructure, capacity building, harmonized policies for cross-border data flows, and a balanced approach to data sovereignty.

Consensus level

Moderate consensus was observed among speakers on key issues. This suggests a shared understanding of the challenges and potential solutions related to digital sovereignty in developing countries, which could facilitate more coordinated efforts in addressing these issues.

Different Viewpoints

Approach to data localization

Ulandi Exner

Kashifu Inuwa Abdullahi

High infrastructure and capital costs for local data centers

Need for data classification to determine what can be stored locally vs. internationally

While Ulandi Exner emphasizes the challenges of building local data centers due to high costs, Kashifu Inuwa Abdullahi suggests a more nuanced approach through data classification to determine what needs to be stored locally.

Unexpected Differences

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement revolve around the approach to data localization, the balance between cross-border data flows and local data storage, and the prioritization of economic benefits versus data sovereignty.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among the speakers is moderate. While there are differing perspectives on how to approach digital sovereignty and data localization, there is a general consensus on the importance of balancing economic growth, innovation, and data protection. These differences in approach highlight the complexity of the issue and the need for nuanced, context-specific solutions that take into account the varying needs and capabilities of different countries.

Partial Agreements

Both speakers agree on the need for cross-border data agreements, but they differ in their focus. Martin Koyabe emphasizes regional and continental harmonization, while Mary Uduma highlights the challenges arising from different levels of data protection laws between countries.

Martin Koyabe

Mary Uduma

Need for cross-border data agreements and harmonized policies

Legal and regulatory challenges with cross-border data sharing

Both speakers agree on the importance of economic growth and innovation, but they differ in their approaches. Melissa Sassi emphasizes the benefits of cross-border data flows, while Toshikazu Sakano focuses on the importance of local data centers for job creation and skill development.

Melissa Sassi

Toshikazu Sakano

Cross-border data flows enable innovation and economic opportunities

Importance of having local data centers for economic growth and job creation

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers highlighted the need for harmonized policies and agreements to facilitate cross-border data flows while addressing legal and regulatory challenges.

Martin Koyabe

Mary Uduma

Need for cross-border data agreements and harmonized policies

Legal and regulatory challenges with cross-border data sharing

Both speakers emphasized the economic importance of data flows, either for innovation and business opportunities or for government functions.

Melissa Sassi

Kossi AMESSINOU

Cross-border data flows enable innovation and economic opportunities

Government need for data to collect taxes and provide services

Key Takeaways

Resolutions and Action Items

Unresolved Issues

Suggested Compromises

Do we actually know where our data is located? So yes, we are talking about infrastructure. We’ve got data centers internationally or locally. But do we, can we hang on hard, say that we know where our data is stored?

speaker

Ulandi Exner

reason

This comment challenges the fundamental assumptions of the discussion by questioning whether we truly have control over or knowledge of our data’s location, even when discussing data sovereignty.

impact

It shifted the conversation to consider the practical challenges of implementing data sovereignty policies and the need for greater transparency in data storage practices.

When you talk about digital sovereignty, it’s beyond data sovereignty. You need to look at the operations sovereignty, the infrastructure sovereignty, even the talent sovereignty.

speaker

Kashifu Inuwa Abdullahi

reason

This comment expands the concept of digital sovereignty beyond just data, introducing a more comprehensive view that includes multiple aspects of digital infrastructure and capabilities.

impact

It broadened the scope of the discussion, encouraging participants to consider sovereignty in terms of operations, infrastructure, and human capital, not just data storage.

We need to come up with data classification because there are sensitive data that cannot go beyond borders. And even today we are talking about even creating cloud infrastructure for military services and other things.

speaker

Kashifu Inuwa Abdullahi

reason

This comment introduces the crucial concept of data classification as a solution to balancing data sovereignty with the need for cross-border data flows.

impact

It led to a more nuanced discussion about how different types of data might require different levels of sovereignty protection, moving away from a one-size-fits-all approach.

We deploy solar and everything running 24 sevens for 10 years, even with some cooling system, even though it might not be like tier four, tier three, but at least it serves their need.

speaker

Jimson Olufuye

reason

This comment provides a practical, real-world example of how renewable energy can be used to address the energy challenges of data centers in developing countries.

impact

It shifted the discussion towards more practical, implementable solutions to the challenges of digital sovereignty, particularly in addressing energy concerns.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by expanding the concept of digital sovereignty beyond just data location, introducing the need for nuanced approaches through data classification, highlighting practical challenges in implementation, and offering real-world solutions to infrastructure challenges. The discussion evolved from theoretical concepts to more practical considerations and potential solutions, while also broadening the scope of what digital sovereignty entails.

How can we create a clear, globally accepted definition and measurement tools for digital sovereignty?

speaker

Berhard Fares

explanation

Different countries and individuals have varying perspectives on digital sovereignty, making it difficult to align on a common understanding and approach.

What specific requirements do hyperscalers need to establish data centers in African countries?

speaker

Kashifu Inuwa Abdullahi

explanation

Understanding these requirements could help attract more investment in local data infrastructure and improve digital sovereignty.

How can countries develop separate cloud infrastructure for military and civilian use to enhance security?

speaker

Kashifu Inuwa Abdullahi

explanation

This separation could prevent civilian infrastructure from being affected in case of attacks on military systems.

What incentives can be offered to encourage tech startups and businesses to innovate locally while still engaging in global markets?

speaker

Ulandi Exner

explanation

This could help balance digital sovereignty with the benefits of cross-border data flows.

How can countries implement effective cross-border data flow agreements to address cybersecurity concerns?

speaker

Ulandi Exner

explanation

Such agreements could help combat cyber criminal activities across borders while maintaining data sovereignty.

How can we ensure institutional memory in government agencies to maintain consistent policies on digital sovereignty across political cycles?

speaker

Martin Koyabe

explanation

This could prevent policies from being abandoned due to changes in government and ensure long-term progress.

What strategies can be employed to develop and retain skilled professionals for managing local data centers in developing countries?

speaker

Martin Koyabe

explanation

Addressing the skills gap is crucial for implementing and maintaining digital sovereignty initiatives.

How can developing countries leverage renewable energy sources like solar to address the energy challenges associated with local data centers?

speaker

Jimson Olufuye

explanation

Sustainable energy solutions could help overcome one of the major obstacles to establishing local data infrastructure.