Uncategorized

Summary

This discussion focused on local data governance for global public good, featuring panelists from various National and Regional Internet Governance Initiatives (NRIs) who explored how communities can effectively manage data while protecting individual rights and promoting inclusion. Ahmed Fraag emphasized that data governance requires multi-stakeholder collaboration involving governments, private sector, civil society, and technical communities, stressing the need for frameworks that balance innovation with privacy protection. Una Wang from Singapore IGF addressed the challenge of building multilingual AI systems, highlighting how thousands of languages risk digital extinction and proposing community-driven approaches through decentralized autonomous language organizations (LanguageDAOs) that allow communities to own and monetize their linguistic data.

Chelsea Horne from USA IGF discussed mechanisms for helping people understand and manage data permissions, advocating for user-friendly interfaces, granular consent systems, and standardized privacy tools while avoiding deceptive “dark patterns.” Beatriz Costa Barbosa from Brazil IGF shared Brazil’s successful multi-stakeholder approach to developing data protection laws, including constitutional amendments and ongoing public consultations that adapt global standards to local contexts. Nancy Kanasa from Pacific IGF highlighted the need for indigenous data sovereignty and breaking down data silos between institutions, emphasizing how digital exclusion undermines vulnerable communities.

The discussion revealed common challenges across regions, including limited digital literacy, infrastructure gaps, and the need for locally relevant governance frameworks. Participants stressed the importance of community engagement, capacity building, and regional cooperation among NRIs. The session concluded with calls for continued collaboration between NRIs to develop inclusive data governance approaches that respect local values while meeting global standards for fairness and accountability.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Multi-stakeholder Data Governance Frameworks**: The need for collaborative approaches involving governments, private sector, civil society, and technical communities to create responsible data governance that balances innovation with protection against misuse.

– **Multilingual Data Inclusion and Community Sovereignty**: Addressing the digital divide for underrepresented languages (7,000+ languages vs. 100 covered by current systems) through community-driven approaches like LanguageDAO, where language communities control and monetize their linguistic data.

– **User Empowerment in Data Permissions**: Implementing user-friendly mechanisms for data consent management, including granular consent options, just-in-time notifications, and standardized privacy interfaces that avoid “dark patterns” while preventing information overload.

– **Regional Adaptation of Global Standards**: How countries, particularly in the Global South, can adapt international data protection frameworks (like GDPR) to local contexts, infrastructure limitations, and cultural values, as demonstrated by Brazil’s experience with LGPD.

– **Indigenous Data Sovereignty and Digital Infrastructure**: Addressing data silos, building local capacity, and ensuring marginalized communities (especially Pacific Island nations and rural populations) aren’t left behind in digital transformation while maintaining control over their data.

## Overall Purpose:

This session aimed to explore how National and Regional Internet Governance Initiatives (NRIs) can develop locally relevant data governance frameworks that serve the global public good, with particular focus on empowering underrepresented communities and regions in the Global South.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a collaborative and constructive tone throughout, characterized by knowledge-sharing and mutual learning among practitioners. Speakers demonstrated genuine concern for digital inclusion and equity, with the tone becoming increasingly solution-oriented as panelists shared practical experiences and concrete recommendations. The atmosphere was respectful and encouraging, with participants actively building on each other’s insights rather than debating opposing viewpoints.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Ahmed Fraag** – Expert in regulatory frameworks and data governance

– **Tijani Ben Jemaa** – Participant asking questions about Web3 and blockchain technology

– **Aicha Jeridi** – Online session moderator

– **Nancy Kanasa** – Representative from Pacific IGF, works with the government of Papua New Guinea

– **Audience** – Multiple audience members including Mohammad Abdulhakonu (Secretary General, Bangladesh Internet Governance Forum), Abdelgeril Basharbon (National Coordinator, IGF Chad), and Kosi Amesinu (from Benin)

– **Poncelet Ileleji** – Session moderator

– **Chelsea Horne** – Representative from USA IGF, expert in data permissions and privacy mechanisms

– **Beatriz Costa Barbosa** – Representative from Brazilian IGF, member of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee (civil society representative)

– **Una Wang** – Co-founding member of Singapore Internet Governance Forum, founder and CEO of LingoAI, private sector representative

**Additional speakers:**

– **Mohammad Abdulhakonu** – Secretary General, Bangladesh Internet Governance Forum

– **Abdelgeril Basharbon** – National Coordinator, IGF Chad

– **Kosi Amesinu** – Representative from Benin

– **Yeng-Chu Chen** – Participant who asked questions about regional data agreements and commented on Bhutan’s electronic identity system

# Local Data Governance for Global Public Good: A Comprehensive Discussion Report

## Executive Summary

This National and Regional Internet Governance Initiatives (NRIs) session brought together representatives from Singapore, Brazil, Papua New Guinea, and the United States to discuss data governance challenges and solutions. The session was moderated by Poncelet Ileleji with Aicha Jeridi serving as online moderator. Participants included audience members from Bangladesh, Chad, and Benin who contributed questions and perspectives throughout the discussion.

The session featured practical experiences from different regions, with speakers sharing specific examples of data governance implementation, challenges with digital inclusion, and approaches to balancing innovation with protection. Key topics included multilingual data inclusion, user empowerment in data permissions, regional adaptation of global standards, and infrastructure development needs.

## Key Speakers and Their Contributions

### Ahmed Fraag – Regulatory Frameworks Perspective

Ahmed Fraag emphasized that data governance represents a critical priority due to artificial intelligence and emerging technologies requiring responsible, transparent, rights-based use of data. He noted that “Responsible data governance is not about regulation, it’s not just about data regulation. It is about creating an ecosystem where data-served people empower communities and support innovation.”

Fraag highlighted that effective data governance necessitates multi-stakeholder collaboration involving governments, private sector, civil society, and technical communities. He mentioned Egypt’s data protection law from 2020 as an example of recent regulatory developments.

### Una Wang – Singapore IGF and LingoAI

Una Wang, co-founding member of Singapore Internet Governance Forum (recently recognized by UN IGF in January) and founder and CEO of LingoAI, addressed linguistic diversity in digital systems. She presented statistics showing that while over 7,000 languages exist globally, current speech recognition systems cover only 100 languages at most.

Wang proposed community-driven solutions through decentralized autonomous language organizations (LanguageDAOs), explaining that “It’s not just about inclusion, it’s about sovereignty… Each community decides what data to share, how it’s used, and under what conditions.” She clarified the distinction between Web3.0 (defined in 2006 as “the web of data”) and Web3 blockchain applications, noting her use of blockchain specifically for global payments in the LanguageDAO system.

### Beatriz Costa Barbosa – Brazilian Internet Governance Forum

Beatriz Costa Barbosa drew upon Brazil’s 30+ years of experience with the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee. She highlighted Brazil’s data protection law (Lei Geral de Proteção de Dados – LGPD) passed in 2018, which adopted a principle-based structure enabling adaptability in implementation. She noted that data protection became a constitutional right in Brazil through constitutional amendment.

Costa Barbosa emphasized that public participation through consultations and hearings is crucial for developing contextually appropriate laws, and stressed the importance of countries building their own public infrastructure rather than relying solely on global technology companies.

### Nancy Kanasa – Papua New Guinea Government

Nancy Kanasa from Papua New Guinea government provided insights into Pacific Island challenges, noting that “building resilient and inclusive data governance in the Pacific is not just a technical goal. It is a social, cultural, and institutional journey.”

She shared specific examples including VAT certificate delays in Papua New Guinea and Fiji’s e-bus ticketing system, highlighting how digital exclusion undermines vulnerable communities. Kanasa emphasized the need for indigenous data sovereignty and breaking down data silos between institutions.

### Chelsea Horne – USA IGF

Chelsea Horne addressed user experience and data permissions, advocating for user-friendly interfaces that clearly explain data collection and use. She emphasized that “any mechanisms implemented do not force undue burden of responsibility on people to manage their own data security and privacy.”

Horne proposed standardized consent language and icons to reduce cognitive load while empowering users with granular consent mechanisms that allow specific permissions for different data uses.

## Major Discussion Points and Areas of Agreement

### Multi-stakeholder Collaboration

All speakers agreed that effective data governance requires meaningful engagement across governments, private sector, civil society, and technical communities. This consensus emerged consistently across different technical and regulatory approaches.

### Community-driven Approaches

Speakers emphasized that effective data governance must be community-driven and adapted to local contexts. Wang’s sovereignty-focused approach, Kanasa’s emphasis on cultural adaptation, and Costa Barbosa’s experience with public participation all reinforced this principle.

### Balancing Innovation with Protection

Participants agreed that data governance should enable innovation and public good while maintaining strong protections. This balance was reflected in discussions of principle-based regulatory frameworks and ecosystem-building approaches.

## Points of Disagreement and Unresolved Issues

### Web3 Technology Implementation

A disagreement emerged between Una Wang and Tijani Ben Jemaa regarding Web3 technology. Wang advocated for Web3 as a decentralized data ownership solution, while Ben Jemaa raised concerns about blockchain’s energy consumption, asking “How can Web3 projects based on blockchain technology be feasible if the energy consumption issue of blockchain is not solved?”

### Infrastructure Development Approaches

A significant tension arose regarding global technology companies’ role in local infrastructure. Kosi Amesinu from Benin suggested engaging companies like Meta and TikTok to build local data centers, emphasizing that infrastructure is needed before meaningful data governance.

Costa Barbosa strongly disagreed, stating: “I would encourage you not only to invite TikTok or Meta to build data centres in your country, but for your country, your companies, your government, to build a public infrastructure to deal with the data from the dependent citizens, because this is important for your digital sovereignty.”

### Implementation Mechanisms

Several issues remained unresolved, including specific mechanisms for ensuring meaningful consent in low digital literacy environments, funding for local data infrastructure in developing countries, and standardization versus localization in regional frameworks.

## Audience Participation and Questions

### Bangladesh Perspective

Mohammad Abdulhakonu from Bangladesh Internet Governance Forum asked about designing context-sensitive data governance frameworks that uphold global standards while respecting local values, infrastructure limitations, and digital literacy levels.

### Chad’s Communication Challenge

Abdelgeril Basharbon from IGF Chad asked about communicating data protection laws to communities who use social media but are unaware of data protection regulations, highlighting the need for awareness-building in local languages.

### Benin’s Infrastructure Focus

Kosi Amesinu from Benin emphasized that data centers and local infrastructure are needed before meaningful data governance can be implemented, leading to the infrastructure development debate.

### Regional Cooperation Question

Yeng-Chu Chen raised questions about designing regional data agreements that support cooperation without creating trade barriers.

## Practical Recommendations

Based on the discussion, several concrete recommendations emerged:

### Capacity Building

– Organize workshops on data protection awareness in local languages

– Target rural and marginalized communities specifically

– Develop experience-sharing programs between countries with implemented frameworks and those developing them

### Infrastructure Development

– Invest in building public data infrastructure

– Consider hybrid approaches that balance sovereignty with practical needs

– Address infrastructure as a prerequisite to policy frameworks

### Regional Cooperation

– Establish mechanisms for policy coordination

– Develop cross-border data sharing agreements

– Build regional consciousness around data governance challenges

### Implementation Approaches

– Adopt principle-based rather than prescriptive regulatory frameworks

– Create phased implementation strategies for gradual capacity building

– Develop standardized consent mechanisms that don’t burden users

## Conclusion

The session demonstrated the complexity of implementing data governance frameworks that serve diverse communities while addressing practical constraints. While significant challenges remain around infrastructure, capacity building, and balancing global standards with local contexts, the discussion revealed strong consensus on fundamental principles of community empowerment, multi-stakeholder collaboration, and the need for locally adapted solutions.

The role of National and Regional Internet Governance Forums in facilitating these discussions emerged as crucial, with the session itself representing months of collaborative planning between multiple NRIs. As moderator Poncelet Ileleji noted in closing, the session exemplified the value of NRI cooperation in addressing shared challenges while respecting diverse regional contexts and needs.

Poncelet Ileleji: So I will start off with Ahmed to discuss about data in terms of regulatory frameworks and how it looks at it. Over to you, Ahmed. Thank you, Poncelet, and thank you all for attending this session.

Ahmed Fraag: It’s really, I’m proud to be part of this important discussion, and I think we all agree that data governance became a critical priority as we witnessed the growing influence of artificial intelligence and emerging technology, the demand of responsible, transparent, and right-based use of data is greater than ever. These technologies rely heavily on a massive amount of data, making it essential to establish a strong governance framework that protects privacy, builds trust, and promotes digital justice. Without sound of data governance, we risk deepening digital divide and enabling the misuse of data in ways that can harm individuals and communities. When we talk about data governance frameworks, we should not forget the importance of multi-stakeholders’ collaboration efforts. Engaging governments, the private sector, civil society, and technical community is essential as well. The opening consultation, especially when dealing with emerging and complex issues such as AI regulation, is very important. Also it’s very important to share best practice of success stories regionally and globally, ensuring innovative approaches and technology to enhance data governance. I’m confident that responsible data governance is not about regulation, it’s not just about data regulation. It is about creating an ecosystem where data-served people empower communities and support innovation. As AI and digital technology continue to advance, we have to ensure that our governance frameworks evolve accordingly. This issue requires a balanced approach, one that is flexible, enough to encourage innovation and make use of data for public good, but also strict enough to protect personal data and prevent misuse. Back to you, thank you.

Poncelet Ileleji: Thank you very much, Ahmed. I think that last statement to prevent data misuse is very key. I’m not going to waste time. We’ll move to the second question because we have a lot of things to cover here. So over to you, Una, who will be talking about building multilingual systems and how to navigate the tension between data inclusion and data protection. Over to you, Una.

Una Wang: Okay, thank you, Poncelet. Good morning, everyone. My name is Una. I’m the co-founding member of Singapore Internet Governance Forum and the founder and CEO of LingoAI. Today, I’m the representative of the private sector here and it’s a pleasure to join the panel today. So yesterday, I attended the three powerful workshops in the junior languages in the digital age. And one thing is very clear, is that each nation representative deeply cares about their languages not being left behind in the digital and AI era. So there’s a growing awareness that if a language isn’t represented in the digital system, it risks disappearing entirely from future global conversations. So many of the world’s languages are in danger of disappearing and the limitations of a current speech, recognition, and gender. generation technology will only accelerate this trend. We want to make it easier for people to access information and use devices in their preferred languages, and collecting the audio data for thousands of languages was first a challenge because the largest existing speech data sites cover 100 languages at most. So there are currently over 7,000 languages being spoken around the world today. There are more dialects which are often not represented in the training data, even for high-resource languages such as English. So this can lead to undesirable biases in the performance of these models. So from a private sector perspective, Lingo.ai is an AI and data economy platform designed to unlock the value of under-represented language data. So we try to address this by building systems where communities are in control. We take a bottom-up, community-driven approach to build the multilingual AI systems. So one of our core frameworks is something we call LanguageDAO, a decentralized autonomous language organization for each language group. So through this LanguageDAO, speakers of the language can own, govern, and monetize their linguistic data. Each community decides what data to share, how it’s used, and under what conditions. It’s not just about inclusion, it’s about sovereignty. So the platform we support is based on the personal online data storage inspired by the decentralized technologies such as the social link data protocol. This means individuals and the communities can store their data locally and even on personal devices and authorize access to specific organizations. the data remain owned by the people, not by the centralized platforms. So the ownership isn’t enough. We should provide the infrastructure and the connections. We also make data liquid and useful, helping community connect with organizations that need diverse language data for AI, education, accessibility, and more. And this way, we turn data into opportunity, responsibly and transparently, even the monetization opportunity. So we have learned the checkbox, and ultimately the conflict between data inclusion and data protection is real, but it’s not unsolvable. So what need is community-driven governance, open tools, and the deep collaboration between multi-stakeholders. And this is my message.

Poncelet Ileleji: Thank you. Thank you very much, Una. You really rounded it up about the need for inclusion and the need for it to be driven by the community in terms of languages. Without much ado, I’m going to hand over now to Chelsea from the USA IGF. She’ll be addressing the question on how can mechanisms be implemented to make it easier for people to understand and manage the permissions they grant for the use of their data. You know, those permissions for the use of their data is very key. So over to you, Chelsea.

Chelsea Horne: Thank you very much for this fantastic question. And thank you to the organizing committee for putting together this important panel with such esteemed colleagues. I really love this question because it brings together so many of the critical issues of data governance in a seemingly simple question or issue. So these issues are responsibility, design, privacy and security, safety, trust, consent, control, and choice, all within one simple premise of design. mechanisms. It is important to ensure that any mechanisms implemented do not force undue burden of responsibility on people to manage their own data security and privacy. This is part of building in privacy and security measures by design. From there, making data permissions understandable and manageable is key to empowering individuals. There are several approaches to accomplish this. User friendly interfaces, designing intuitive and visually engaging privacy dashboards and settings that are clearly, accessibly, and succinctly designed are important and that as long as they address these few key details such as who is collecting what data and why, so that means for what purpose, and how it will be used. Privacy friendly choices and defaults are also important to address. To be conscious to avoid what’s now being called dark patterns, those are those deceptive and confusing structures that may nudge users towards choices they may not otherwise have made. Some other options in these user friendly facing mechanisms. Granular consent mechanisms. Moving beyond this all-or-nothing consent framework to allow users to grant specific permissions for different types of data use, so for analytics, personalized ads, or sharing with third parties. The challenge here with granular consent mechanisms is that while it offers more nuanced choice and control, it comes at the cost of information overload. Then we have just-in-time notifications, providing contextual notifications at the point of data collection or use, explaining the implications of granting or denying a specific permission. Now this can help with the clarity of data collection, but also can create additional friction as users navigate through an interface. And finally another option to consider are standardized consent language and icons, developing standardized, easily recognizable icons, simplified language for common data permissions like nutrition labels that we see on food, and some standard localized defaults can all help to reduce cognitive load and information overload, all while aiming to empower people with information and choice. So to sum up, the design, development, and deployment of these mechanisms to empower people is a balancing act between responsibility, trust, resilience, and safety, and it’s critical that we get it right. Thank you.

Poncelet Ileleji: Thank you very much, Chelsea. You just spoke of a topic that is very interesting and very passionate, and everybody should take congestant of the fact that a lot of use of our data is basically in fine prints, and I think you have covered all the areas that people need to take note of regarding use of their data and what permissions to seek. Without much ado, I’m going to move on to Beatriz, a colleague from the Brazilian NRI. Beatriz will be speaking on how to develop and implement a multi-stakeholder data governance process that is quickly responsive to new technologies’ challenges, and of course, one of those new technologies’ challenges we are all dealing with is AI. Over to you, Beatriz.

Beatriz Costa Barbosa: This is the first one you’re supposed to turn on. Oh, I didn’t know. I’m so sorry. Thank you. So good morning, everyone. Thank you very much for the invitation for the Brazilian IGF to be here. I’m a member of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee, which organizes the Brazilian IGF. I’m a member of the board as one of the civil society representatives, and I would like to share with you a little bit about the long-standing tradition that we have. So, the first question is, what is the role of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee, which is a global organization that Brazil has in promoting public participation in debates across various policy areas. Regarding digital issues, this tradition is reflected in the stakeholder model endorsed by our Brazilian Internet Steering Committee, that it has more than 30 years of work, and which is why it is a key part of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee. The Brazilian Internet Steering Committee, in Portuguese, has contributed to key Internet development process in the country, including the Internet, the Brazilian Civil Rights Framework for the Internet, and the Brazilian General Data Protection Law, LGPD. Discussions around both laws began in parallel in the early 2010s through public consultations, already adopting a multistakeholder approach. The Brazilian Internet Steering Committee, as you know, our data protection law contains characteristics tailored to the Brazilian context. It’s important to highlight that multistakeholder discussions promoted by the CGI, such as the Privacy and Data Protection Seminar, and the Brazilian IGF, held for over 15 years, played a significant role in shaping the discussions regarding the law. The Brazilian Internet Steering Committee, as you know, has provided a space for the consolidation of a national community engaged in these topics with representatives from various stakeholders. Inspired by the European General Data Protection Regulation, the Brazilian law adopts a principle-based structure that enables adaptability in its implementation. To support the practical application of the law in different contexts, the Brazilian Data Protection Committee elected BIA was instrumental in constructing this approach. It has been involved in employing a of the Brazilian data protection authority. The Brazilian data protection authority is committed to implementing the law. In addition, the Brazilian data protection authority has made efforts to include public participation in its rule-making and regulatory process. These efforts include open calls for contributions and public consultations to capture society’s perspectives on various topics under discussion. The Brazilian data protection authority is committed to implementing the law. The Brazilian data protection authority has a strong governmental views in developing personal data governance in Brazil. Within the national data protection authority structure, the national council for personal data protection and privacy, it’s worth mentioning. This consultative body supports the authority’s work by conducting studies, organizing public hearings and promoting data protection awareness. The Brazilian data protection authority is committed to implementing the law. The Brazilian data protection authority is committed to promoting data protection awareness in the private sector besides labor unions and the CGI.BR itself. We have a seat at this council. Brazil is also in the process of developing, as you mentioned before, developing a regulatory framework for artificial intelligence regulation. This framework is designed to be implemented by the Brazilian government, as well as the national data protection authority, as the coordination authority, and a set of sectoral regulators. Such system would also include a permanent council for regulatory cooperation in AI responsible for dialogue with regulators in civil society. And also a committee of AI experts and scientists. The Brazilian data protection authority is committed to implementing a regulatory framework for artificial intelligence regulation in the private sector besides labor unions and the CGI.BR itself. This framework is designed to be implemented by the Brazilian government, as the coordination authority, and a set of sectoral regulators in civil society. Such system would also include a permanent council for regulatory cooperation in AI responsible for dialogue with regulators in civil society. the framework in the European GDPR and the Brazil data protection law, others are still under development, so principles such as those in Sao Paulo guidelines, the Net Mundial Plus 10 event that deals especially with the multi-stakeholder issue, can be essential in supporting the fair, accountable and responsible implementation of such frameworks. The guidelines emphasize the key elements such as ensuring balanced access to information for informed decision making, respect for human rights and diversity in governance process, continuous stakeholder capacity building, cooperation and oversight among governance mechanisms and a focus on delivering tangible and applicable outcomes. So I’ll be happy to go a little bit further on this topic if we have time later on. Thank you very much.

Poncelet Ileleji: Thank you very much Beatriz, I think it does show the work that this CGI.br is doing in terms of stakeholder engagement in regards to data protection that covers a lot of aspects and the way you go about it dealing with the community. Without much ado, our last panelist for this session before we go into the online questions from online and to you, our audience here, is Nancy Kanasa from the Pacific IGF. She will be speaking how can the Pacific and Global South network develop resilient and inclusive data governance frameworks that uphold indigenous data sovereignty. You know, when we’re talking of indigenous data sovereignty, we have to know we’re also dealing with those people who in a way… this discourse sometimes feel marginalized. Over to you, Nancy.

Nancy Kanasa: Good morning, everyone. I’m Nancy Kanassa from the Pacific, KGF. I work with the government of Papua New Guinea. I would like to take this opportunity to be speaking here. I’m here not only as a practitioner working on the real-world data governance challenges in Papua New Guinea, but also as a representative of government effort across the Pacific region. Our nation share common culture values, institutional landscape, and technological challenges which shape our collective approach to data governance. My response reflects the Pacific context grounded in living experience and the realities of government-led initiative to support sustainable development amid global technological shift. One of the persistent challenges we face across the Pacific is the fragmentation of data systems, often referred to as data silos. This fragmentation – sorry, this silo exists between government agencies, civil society, academia, and communities, limiting every actor’s ability to share knowledge, coordinate response, and make informed decisions. But it is not just the silo themselves. We also face a deeper issue, the lack of strategic thinking and structured process to address them. In many cases, data governance efforts are reactive rather than proactive and without a clear strategy. It’s difficult to align institutions, build trust, or create systems that are resilient and inclusive. In Papua New Guinea, for example, the lack of coordinated data systems and strategies planning, as lead to delays in issuing VAT certificate, a basic but essential service. Without streamlined data sharing between departments, families face long wait times and administrative barriers. Similarly, in Fiji, the e-bus ticketing system has exposed gap in digital inclusion. Elderly citizens, rural communities, and those unfamiliar with digital tools often struggle to access or use the system effectively. This example highlights how digital inclusion and system barriers can prevent citizens from accessing essential service. They also underscore a greater need for public involvement and oversight in our digital system of design and government. So I return to the question again, and in our case, the Pacific developed resilient and inclusive data governance framework that upholds indigenous data sovereignty. Breaking down these silos is essential. It requires trust, collaboration, and culturally grounded approach that respect local knowledge systems while enabling interoperability and innovation. Without strong institutional coordination, trust-building mechanism, and policies that reflect our Pacific values and indigenous knowledge system, it became difficult to create governance framework that are both inclusive and resilient. As global technological shift accelerate, it is increasingly important for Pacific nations to align with international standards, especially in areas like data privacy, cybersecurity, digital inclusion, and now artificial intelligence. One key answer is awareness and capacity building in a global space where we can bring it back to be done in a way that is retailable and contextualize the local realities. Digital frameworks and tools are valuable, but they must be adapted to fit culture, institution, and infrastructural context of Pacific nations to truly solve the issue we face in our countries. This is why government participation in global platforms such as the Internet Governance Forum is so critical for us. From my view, from the government, a department where we are mandated to make policies and technical implementation. The IGF provided space for dialogue, learning, awareness of what we are doing, and influence where our passive voice can be heard. Our unique challenges can be understood and our priorities can be shaped global norms. One key benefit of engaging in such forum is the opportunity to build partnership and access resource that support the development of inclusive, locally grounded, and globally connected data governance framework. Building resilient and inclusive data governance in the Pacific is not just a technical goal. It is a social, cultural, and institutional journey. It requires leadership, strategic thinking, and a commitment to ensure that no one is left behind in the digital age. When digital infrastructure excludes vulnerable groups, it undermines the principle of data as a global public good. Thank you.

Poncelet Ileleji: Thank you very much, Nancy. It’s good we have a speaker speaking from a government point of view, from lessons and implementation frameworks, focusing on indigenous data sovereignty from the Pacific IGF. And now, we are lucky, and thank you, speakers, for keeping the time very good, so we will have a good engagement with our audience here, which I’m sure represents different NRIs and other practitioners. I will now hand over to Aicha, who is moderating the online session on questions online, and then we’ll move over to the audience. From the audience, if you’re asking any question, please say your name and your representation and who you’re addressing the question to. If it’s a general question, then I’ll call on any of the… of our distinguished speakers here to answer it. Over to you, Aicha.

Aicha Jeridi: Thank you, Poncelet. Good morning, everyone. So in terms of comments and reaction online, we didn’t receive any comments yet. The only comment is from Weddybeck, who was thanking Chelsea for her intervention. So we are yet to receive any other reaction. The session is still on, so we can receive other reactions or interventions. So over to you, Poncelet.

Poncelet Ileleji: Thank you, Aicha, for that. So over to you, audience. Please, let’s get your questions coming in.

Audience: Thank you, moderator. This is Mohammad Abdulhakonu, Bangladesh Internet Governance Forum. I am a Secretary General. My question is, given the limited adoption of comprehensive data protection laws in the Global South, how can we design contest sensitive data governance framework that upload global standard of fairness and accountability while respecting local values, infrastructure limitations, and digital literacy levels, especially in countries like Bangladesh?

Poncelet Ileleji: Thank you. Thank you very much for that question. Any other one? That question, I will let Beatriz from Brazil answer it, because they really have a good process we can all learn from.

Beatriz Costa Barbosa: Sir, thank you very much. I’m not pretty aware of the context of Bangladesh, but I can share a little bit what happened in Brazil during the process regarding the data protection development in Brazil, the data protection bill. We, as I mentioned before, we try to foster a very collaborative process, because even if we were inspired by the European General Data Protection Regulation at that time, it was necessary to adapt the context and these global standards, as you mentioned, to our reality, a reality of a country of 220 million people, many of them that don’t have digital literacy, that give our IDs everywhere to have discounts in prices of supermarkets and other sales in magazines, and then the idea was to take advantage of the development of the bill to raise awareness of people on the importance of this topic, and right now, the Brazilian data protection law was approved in 2018, so we have seven years of implementation of the law in Brazil, we still have many people that are not aware at all of their rights regarding personal data protection, but we are moving forward, and one of the things that is important to bring this awareness to the population is the debates that we try to organize at the CGI.br, and also the Brazilian authority has promoted some seminars and public hearings and consultations to involve the Brazilian population in this debate, because if we deal with this topic, thinking that the data protection topic is something for experts or for scientists or for only digital rights civil society organizations, we’re not going to achieve our goal that the Brazilian population feels that they have a right to that. In this process, one of the strategies that the Brazilian civil society managed to put in place was to include the data protection right in the list of civil rights in our constitution. This was a consequence of the bill after the bill was approved in 2018. 2018, and three years later, a Brazilian parliamentarian that was very much connected to the civil society movement decided to propose an amendment to the Brazilian constitution, and now, besides the data protection law, it is inscripted in our constitution that data protection is a right to every citizen, so it was necessary to give more visibility to this process in Brazil, and I think that after that, the Brazilian population started worrying about being worried and being alert at the time regarding their rights, but we still have a long way to fulfil this goal, is that every citizen knows that he has a right to protect, to have his personal data protected, not only by the government, but also by the private companies, but I think that engaging civil society all the time in this process, and not only treating this as something that is related to the government, has helped us to adapt the global standards to our context, and to deal with the daily problems that the Brazilian population suffers.

Poncelet Ileleji: Thank you very much, Beatriz, for that brilliant intervention. I’ll call out to Aicha, who wants to intervene on this topic. Aicha?

Aicha Jeridi: Yes, so we have an intervention, a reaction from the floor. It’s Mr. Tijani Ben Jemaa, who wants to intervene. Mr. Tijani, please reactivate your mic. The floor is yours.

Tijani Ben Jemaa: Thank you very much, Aicha, and thank you all for this wonderful session. I have a question to Una. You spoke about the ownership of the data by the users themselves, but by these big companies that are collecting our data, using them, even without our consent. So we talk about the ownership and the control of the data by the users. I think you are thinking about Web3. That is a project that Henry and other people are working on. I asked Henry in a previous session, since this Web3 project is based on blockchain technology and blockchain technology consumes very, very huge quantity of energy, how this project can be feasible if we don’t solve this issue of energy consumption? Thank you.

Aicha Jeridi: Thank you, Tijani. Una, the floor is yours. Thank you.

Una Wang: Yeah. Thank you for the question. I think you have heard about the panel regarding Henry, who is one of my co-founder of Singapore Internet Governance Forum. And yeah, so a lot of people have the same concerns or the questions with you, like the Web3 is about blockchain or crypto. So this is something that is wrong because Web3.0 has already defined in 2006, it’s called the web of data. So the Sir Tim Berners-Lee who has invented HTTP have already defined what is Web3.0. It’s nothing related to the blockchain or crypto. So blockchain, like Bitcoin, has the value of the personal sovereignty of the finance. That’s a finance value representative. And if you are thinking about Web3.0, you should have data. decentralize the protocol, and you have the right side about the value, how you can monetize those personal data. Because we are talking about community-driven empowerment, it’s related to how we can let the community have the motivation to contribute and have the awareness about how they can get their data back. Now we are in the Web 2.0. Web 2.0 means all the websites, all the infrastructure built on TCP, IP, and HTTP. That leads to the data flow to the centralized platform, such as Meta or Twitter. So every people, we don’t have our own data ownership. That means in the era of the AI, the Chattopadhyay has used the public data size, about three trillion tokens, for training the AI system, and they are using our knowledge. They don’t give our benefit. And you don’t have your rights to know how they use your data. So in the Web 3.0, that is totally different because a lot of people have already got actions on that, such as Henry and I, and also the team, Bernice Lee, who invented the solid social link data, which is a decentralized protocol for all the users to own their data by the personal online pod. That means you can deploy this pod on your local device, on your local PC, on your local phone, or you can choose the different, like the cloud host service, like AWS or any other. But this is going to have the privacy preservation, and you are going to control. whether you want to authorize the organization or not. So we are building that in this way, called Web 3.0, it’s called a web of data, and people have the rights to share all the data, to know who are going to use and how to use, and whether you want to give the money to me, because I share the data, I share the value to the organization who wants to use my data. So we are using the different protocols, and also we are, of course, we have to use blockchain, because for the global payment, each country’s people have the rights to got the different, like their currency, this is more complex when you’re going to send the money to the different people. So the blockchain, like tokens, is one of the value of the backup datas. So you’re going to know what is Web 3.0, and what is Web 3.0. Web 3.0 is wrongly defined by Gavin Wood, because he is in the blockchain and the crypto, and he defined himself as the Web 3.0 father, of the father of the Web 3.0, but it’s totally different. So I think everyone should have the awareness, like what is the real Web 3.0, and we should get our data back in the AI era, because in the future, if you want to have a safe AI, or personal AI agent, you have to got your data back, and you have to deploy a small language model on your local device, combined with your personal data size. Yeah, so hopefully I answer your question. Thank you.

Poncelet Ileleji: Yeah, thank you. Thank you very much, Una. We’ll try to keep it short. We have 20 minutes, and I want to. use five minutes to take questions, then any other questions from the audience, then we go into last words, especially this is a focus on NRIs, and in those last words, I will start with Chelsea.

Aicha Jeridi: Yeah, we have a question from the floor from Mr. Yeng-Chu Chen. It’s a question and a comment. I’ll start by the question. So the question to all the panelists, how can we design regional data agreements to support cooperation without turning them into non-tariff or technical barriers to trade? This was the question, and all the panelists, feel free to answer. And then he commented, Bhutan use electronic identity system on blockchain. I guess it’s to react to the last intervention from the panelists. Every Bhutanese can own their data and the data ownership. That was all from the floor. Now we move to the question that he asked. Thank you.

Poncelet Ileleji: So who wants to take that question? Or I’ll put you on the spot. Okay. I’ll hand the question over to Nancy.

Nancy Kanasa: So one of the ways I could think of is invest in infrastructure and digital literacy and create a probably regional data council for policy coordination and current cross-border data sharing agreement with safeguards.

Poncelet Ileleji: Okay. Beatriz.

Beatriz Costa Barbosa: No, just to add something that after the Brazilian data protection law was approved in 2018, I know that many Brazilian parliamentarians that were involved in the process of designing the law started traveling a lot in the region to talk to other parliamentary members or governments or authorities or regulators, or even with the civil society movement and organizations to share. what happened in Brazil, and mentioning the participatory process that we have when designing the bill. So I think that this kind of, it’s not a scholarship, but some kind of promoting exchanges among bodies and authorities and civil society members and representatives I think this is interesting to help building a regional context, because in Brazil, I mean, Brazil has many differences regarding our neighbors, but there are many things that are quite similar, and for sure I think that is the same in your region. Then we can take advantage of the mistakes and of the problems that we face during the development of the bill and in the implementation of the law that other countries may avoid if we share these experiences. So I think that would be, I think the idea of having councils together in different countries is a super interesting process, but even starting exchange and experience, and that’s why IGF is so important for that, because we’re exchanging experience here from all over the world. So I think it’s important to help build this regional consciousness regarding the importance of data protection.

Poncelet Ileleji: Thank you very much. Aicha, any?

Aicha Jeridi: No, no comments.

Poncelet Ileleji: Anybody from the audience? I’ll go to five. Five, four, okay.

Audience: Hi, everyone. My name is Abdelgeril Basharbon, so I’m coming from Chad, the national coordinator of IGF Chad. So I think that it is a great session, because this session talks about data governance. I think that is very key. I think that in Chad we are thinking now how to work, because in Chad the data protection… The protection act is managed by the National Cyber Security Agency. It’s under the Ministry of Security, not Ministry of ICT. Because last year, during the IGF, we talked a lot about that. People don’t know, the citizens don’t know that we have this kind of act. I think that we need to communicate more on that. So I think that for this year, we need to see how, not for the annual meeting, but how to do some workshop focused on that. And the local languages, we need to go like in village. Some cities that we see, because most of social media is used by people of rural area. Because they are using satellite, this is what we are seeing. So I think that they have WhatsApp group, that administrators don’t know how to deal. They don’t know the data protection act. So I think that this kind of thing that has been analysed, we need to go close to them, to marginalise people, people of rural area, to talk to them. If you do bad things, you can be an injustice on the court. So we need to tell them on that. I think that this is one of our focus this year. And we need to collaborate with other NRIs who have experience on that, and to impact our people. So, thank you so much.

Poncelet Ileleji: Thank you very much, Bashir. From the chat IGF, I think that sums up a lot on how we need to collaborate more as NRIs in this field of local data governance for global public good. Are there any other questions from the audience?

Audience: Kosi Amesinu from Benin. Firstly, this is a very good session. We were talking about data, local data, but we don’t have data centre. Where do I put the data? Where do I put it? We need data centre first, green data centre. And now, process to access to our data locally is very important. Let’s talk to Meta, TikTok, all of them, to come and build data center in Africa, put our data locally in our language also, if it’s possible, and let us check, use our data to train our internet, intelligent artificial process. Thank you.

Poncelet Ileleji: Thank you very much, Kosi. I think you said it all about localization of having data centers built into digital sovereignty. I will now call on Chelsea to give her closing remarks. And as NRIs, what we can do in our communities, remember this is an NRI session, and we are at the bottom of the ladder within the internet governance initiatives, and I think this is a very important topic for all of us, and I would like Chelsea to give her closing comments. Thank you.

Chelsea Horne: Thank you very much, Poncelet, for such a wonderful session. From IGF USA, this is a very exciting session because it gives us lots of energy and ideas for our regional IGF later this year. So we’re very excited to continue the dialogue, and I think that one of the most important things is similar themes here to global IGF, which is the multi-stakeholder dialogue, and to make sure that we are bringing members from all different elements of the multi-stakeholder community, and having that meaningful stakeholder engagement is absolutely crucial for fostering both public trust, transparency towards these data governance and internet governance frameworks, and making sure that they are both robust and legitimate. So that’s something that we are going to be working on in particular, is having the continuing dialogue. hosting, and promoting these multi-stakeholder dialogues. Thank you.

Poncelet Ileleji: Thank you, Chelsea. Nancy, your closing remarks?

Nancy Kanasa: From the PIRC-IGF, I think I would say that having ethical and human-centric governing approach like digital inclusion and also safeguard against exploitation is coming from the Pacific Island. You know, we are kind of like left behind in most of the things that we think that we are doing in regard to digital transformation.

Poncelet Ileleji: Thank you. Beatriz?

Beatriz Costa Barbosa: Yeah, we already have our Brazilian IGF this year before coming to Norway. And the topic of data governance and data protection is always present in the workshops that are proposed for our internet governance community in Brazil, which is very active and participative. And we are facing, I think, a new challenge in Brazil that something I think that is a topic that many other countries from the global south also discusses has to do with the question that our colleague from the BNAM mentioned, that has to do with digital sovereignty. I’m sorry. We are fostering from the civil society perspective a discussion and debating in Brazil that has to do with how do we control our data? How do we guarantee that data treatment is made in Brazil, respecting human rights in general, but also for our development? So one of the things that I would mention to the final comment that our colleague said here is that I would encourage you not only to invite TikTok or Meta. to build data centers in your country, but for your country, your companies, your government, to build a public infrastructure to deal with the data from the dependent citizens, because this is important for your digital sovereignty, and in a world that we are only sharing our data with global companies in a future that is not that far from us, and now we’re going to face many, many big problems. So we are fostering discussions in Brazil. I think that we have at the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee a working group that works with data protection as well. As I mentioned before, we had a seat in the Brazilian Council for Data Protection that is connected to the Brazilian authority, so we’ll keep moving on the discussion and happy always to share this with you. Thank you.

Poncelet Ileleji: Thank you. Una?

Una Wang: Yeah, I totally agree with the panelists. So this is the first time I came to the IGF, and Singapore Internet Governance is quite new. We just are recognized by the UN IGF this year in January, so I attended different workshops and the conference. I saw the similar problems that encountered with the previous what we have been solving is that the audience just raised the questions. They don’t have the data center, and that means the centralized social media platform or any internet infrastructure cannot cover global salespeople’s data, and also they don’t have the rights to share or be represented in this current AI era. So we we really encourage every people from global source to see the new protocols that we don’t have to learn from the current like centralized platform, like you’re building your own data center or you’re collecting the data in a centralized way. You can do something that’s quite fascinating and use the frontier technologies to see you have the data ownership and you build your own data by your own protocol. That means no one can access unless you authorize your consent. So you can help those AI companies to train based on your own data size and some other peoples also can do this in this similar way. At the same time, you have the own data value and you will have monetize your own data. That’s the best way that can bring the wealth to the global source people by using your own local data and you can accumulate your own data size day by day. And in the future, you are the one who control the data and you are building your own value in the future. Thank you.

Poncelet Ileleji: Thank you, Una. Ahmed, closing words.

Ahmed Fraag: Thank you again. I think in the North African IGF in the recent years, many countries of the North African have started to ignite the strategic value of the data governance. Egypt, for example, has taken concrete steps to establish a legal institutional foundation for data governance. And the personal data protection law has been released in 2020 after public and community consultation. Also, the National Digital Strategy of Egypt includes the strong components of data governance. And I think my final words will be, it is very important to be ready and continue enhancing the frameworks. based on the updates on technology we saw every day. And then, so we have to be flexible, not strike on the current frameworks. No, no, we have to be ready and continue our enhancement in this framework. Thank you.

Poncelet Ileleji: Thank you very much, all my panelists. And before I close this session, as I said, this Local Data Governance for Global Public Good session was organized, is an NRI session, and was organized by NRIs. It took a lot, months of planning. So I want to thank all the NRIs that planned this, Singapore IGF, IGF USA, IGF Brazil, Zambia Youth IGF, the Gambia IGF, Portugal IGF, Colombia Youth IGF, Brazil IGF, I’ve said it before, Japan IGF, Lebanon IGF, Benin Youth IGF, Colombia IGF, and Argentina IGF. And I also want to thank my brilliant panelists. I know today’s the end of the session, but please feel free to contact them. These are experts in this field. We have two government representatives. We have an academic who is from the USA IGF. We also have Una, who just started the Singapore IGF. And it’s good we have new, we have old, and we have Brazil, who we learn a lot from within what they are doing. Aicha, thank you very much for the online moderation. And can we give a round of applause for our panelists? Thank you.

Agreement points

Multi-stakeholder collaboration is essential for effective data governance

Speakers

– Ahmed Fraag
– Beatriz Costa Barbosa
– Chelsea Horne

Arguments

Multi-stakeholder collaboration between governments, private sector, civil society, and technical community is essential

Brazilian Internet Steering Committee has 30+ years experience in multistakeholder approach for data governance

Mechanisms must not force undue burden on people to manage their own data security and privacy

Summary

All speakers agree that effective data governance requires meaningful engagement across all stakeholder groups including governments, private sector, civil society, and technical communities. They emphasize that collaborative approaches are fundamental to building trust and legitimacy in governance frameworks.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development | Human rights

Data governance frameworks must balance innovation with protection

Speakers

– Ahmed Fraag
– Chelsea Horne
– Beatriz Costa Barbosa

Arguments

Responsible data governance creates ecosystems where data serves people and supports innovation while protecting personal data

Standardized consent language and icons can reduce cognitive load while empowering users with choice

Brazil’s data protection law adopted principle-based structure enabling adaptability in implementation

Summary

Speakers consistently argue that data governance should not be overly restrictive but should enable innovation and public good while maintaining strong protections for personal data and user rights.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights | Development

Community-driven approaches and local contextualization are crucial

Speakers

– Una Wang
– Nancy Kanasa
– Beatriz Costa Barbosa

Arguments

Bottom-up governance ensures communities control what data to share and how it’s used

Digital frameworks must be adapted to fit cultural, institutional, and infrastructural contexts of Pacific nations

Public participation through consultations and hearings is crucial for developing contextually appropriate laws

Summary

All speakers emphasize that effective data governance must be community-driven and adapted to local contexts, respecting cultural values and institutional realities rather than imposing one-size-fits-all solutions.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Sociocultural | Development

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize the critical importance of inclusion and preventing marginalization in digital systems. Una focuses on linguistic inclusion while Nancy addresses broader digital inclusion, but both argue that exclusion from digital systems leads to permanent disadvantage.

Speakers

– Una Wang
– Nancy Kanasa

Arguments

Languages not represented in digital systems risk disappearing from future global conversations

Building resilient data governance requires leadership, strategic thinking, and commitment to inclusion

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural | Development

Both speakers advocate for user empowerment and control over data, emphasizing transparency and user agency. Chelsea focuses on interface design for informed consent while Una proposes decentralized ownership models.

Speakers

– Chelsea Horne
– Una Wang

Arguments

User-friendly interfaces should clearly explain who collects what data, why, and how it will be used

Community-driven approach through LanguageDAO allows speakers to own, govern, and monetize their linguistic data

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory | Economic

Both speakers emphasize the urgency of addressing data governance challenges in the context of rapidly advancing technology, and the importance of ensuring all voices are represented in global governance discussions.

Speakers

– Ahmed Fraag
– Nancy Kanasa

Arguments

Data governance is critical priority due to AI and emerging technologies requiring responsible, transparent, rights-based use of data

Government participation in global platforms like IGF is critical for Pacific voices to be heard

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development | Human rights

Unexpected consensus

Need for local infrastructure before meaningful data governance

Speakers

– Audience
– Una Wang
– Nancy Kanasa

Arguments

Data centers and local infrastructure are needed before meaningful data governance can be implemented

Over 7,000 languages exist globally but current speech recognition covers only 100 languages at most

Pacific nations face fragmentation of data systems creating silos between government agencies and communities

Explanation

There was unexpected consensus between audience members and panelists that infrastructure limitations are a fundamental barrier to effective data governance. This practical concern bridged different perspectives and highlighted that technical infrastructure is prerequisite to policy frameworks.

Topics

Infrastructure | Development | Legal and regulatory

Data monetization and community benefit sharing

Speakers

– Una Wang
– Beatriz Costa Barbosa

Arguments

Community-driven approach through LanguageDAO allows speakers to own, govern, and monetize their linguistic data

Brazil’s data protection law adopted principle-based structure enabling adaptability in implementation

Explanation

Unexpected alignment emerged between Una’s commercial approach to data monetization and Beatriz’s regulatory framework perspective, both recognizing that communities should benefit from their data contributions rather than only large platforms profiting.

Topics

Economic | Legal and regulatory | Development

Overall assessment

Summary

Strong consensus emerged around multi-stakeholder collaboration, community-driven governance, balancing innovation with protection, and the need for local contextualization. Speakers consistently emphasized inclusion, transparency, and user empowerment across different technical and regulatory approaches.

Consensus level

High level of consensus on fundamental principles with complementary rather than conflicting approaches. The agreement spans technical, regulatory, and community perspectives, suggesting robust foundation for collaborative action on data governance frameworks that serve global public good while respecting local contexts and community sovereignty.

Different viewpoints

Definition and implementation of Web3 technology

Speakers

– Una Wang
– Tijani Ben Jemaa

Arguments

Community-driven approach through LanguageDAO allows speakers to own, govern, and monetize their linguistic data

Blockchain technology for Web3 raises concerns about energy consumption feasibility

Summary

Una advocates for Web3 as a decentralized data ownership solution using blockchain for global payments, while Tijani questions the feasibility due to massive energy consumption. Una clarifies that Web3.0 is about data decentralization (not crypto), but still acknowledges using blockchain for payments.

Topics

Infrastructure | Development | Economic

Approach to building local data infrastructure

Speakers

– Audience (Benin)
– Beatriz Costa Barbosa

Arguments

Data centers and local infrastructure are needed before meaningful data governance can be implemented

Public participation through consultations and hearings is crucial for developing contextually appropriate laws

Summary

The Benin representative emphasizes the need for physical infrastructure (data centers) first, suggesting engagement with big tech companies, while Beatriz advocates for building public infrastructure and government-led initiatives for digital sovereignty rather than relying on global companies.

Topics

Infrastructure | Development | Legal and regulatory

Unexpected differences

Role of global tech companies in local data governance

Speakers

– Audience (Benin)
– Beatriz Costa Barbosa

Arguments

Data centers and local infrastructure are needed before meaningful data governance can be implemented

Public participation through consultations and hearings is crucial for developing contextually appropriate laws

Explanation

Unexpectedly, there was disagreement on whether to invite global companies (Meta, TikTok) to build local infrastructure versus building independent public infrastructure. This reveals a fundamental tension between pragmatic infrastructure needs and digital sovereignty concerns that wasn’t anticipated as a major point of contention.

Topics

Infrastructure | Development | Legal and regulatory

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion showed relatively low levels of direct disagreement, with most conflicts arising around implementation approaches rather than fundamental principles. Key areas of tension included: technical solutions vs. institutional approaches, reliance on global companies vs. digital sovereignty, and infrastructure-first vs. governance-first priorities.

Disagreement level

Low to moderate disagreement level. Most speakers shared common goals of inclusive, community-driven data governance but differed on pathways to achieve these goals. The disagreements reflect practical challenges of implementing data governance in diverse contexts rather than fundamental philosophical differences. This suggests potential for collaborative solutions that combine different approaches rather than requiring choosing between competing visions.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize the critical importance of inclusion and preventing marginalization in digital systems. Una focuses on linguistic inclusion while Nancy addresses broader digital inclusion, but both argue that exclusion from digital systems leads to permanent disadvantage.

Speakers

– Una Wang
– Nancy Kanasa

Arguments

Languages not represented in digital systems risk disappearing from future global conversations

Building resilient data governance requires leadership, strategic thinking, and commitment to inclusion

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural | Development

Both speakers advocate for user empowerment and control over data, emphasizing transparency and user agency. Chelsea focuses on interface design for informed consent while Una proposes decentralized ownership models.

Speakers

– Chelsea Horne
– Una Wang

Arguments

User-friendly interfaces should clearly explain who collects what data, why, and how it will be used

Community-driven approach through LanguageDAO allows speakers to own, govern, and monetize their linguistic data

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory | Economic

Both speakers emphasize the urgency of addressing data governance challenges in the context of rapidly advancing technology, and the importance of ensuring all voices are represented in global governance discussions.

Speakers

– Ahmed Fraag
– Nancy Kanasa

Arguments

Data governance is critical priority due to AI and emerging technologies requiring responsible, transparent, rights-based use of data

Government participation in global platforms like IGF is critical for Pacific voices to be heard

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development | Human rights

Key takeaways

Data governance requires multi-stakeholder collaboration between governments, private sector, civil society, and technical communities to be effective

Community-driven approaches are essential for inclusive data governance, particularly for linguistic diversity and indigenous data sovereignty

User empowerment through clear, granular consent mechanisms and user-friendly interfaces is crucial for meaningful data control

Regional cooperation and experience sharing among countries, especially in the Global South, can help develop context-sensitive frameworks

Digital infrastructure, including local data centers and improved digital literacy, are prerequisites for effective data governance implementation

Principle-based legal frameworks that allow for adaptability are more effective than rigid regulatory structures

Public participation through consultations and hearings is essential for developing legitimate and contextually appropriate data protection laws

National and Regional Internet Governance Forums (NRIs/IGFs) play a critical role in facilitating dialogue and knowledge sharing on data governance issues

Resolutions and action items

NRIs should organize workshops focused on data protection awareness in local languages, particularly targeting rural and marginalized communities

Countries should invest in building public data infrastructure rather than relying solely on global companies for data centers

Regional data councils should be established to support policy coordination and cross-border data sharing agreements

NRIs should continue facilitating multi-stakeholder dialogues on data governance at national and regional levels

Experience sharing programs should be developed between countries that have implemented data protection laws and those developing frameworks

Capacity building initiatives should be implemented to improve digital literacy and awareness of data protection rights

Unresolved issues

How to balance innovation encouragement with strict data protection without creating trade barriers

Energy consumption concerns related to blockchain-based decentralized data systems remain unaddressed

Specific mechanisms for ensuring meaningful consent in low digital literacy environments need further development

Technical implementation details for community-controlled data governance systems require more exploration

Funding and resource allocation for building local data infrastructure in developing countries remains unclear

Standardization of regional data governance frameworks while respecting local contexts needs further discussion

Suggested compromises

Adopt principle-based rather than prescriptive regulatory frameworks to allow flexibility while maintaining protection standards

Implement granular consent mechanisms that balance user control with usability to avoid information overload

Develop hybrid approaches that combine global standards with local adaptations for context-sensitive implementation

Create phased implementation strategies that allow for gradual capacity building while establishing basic protections

Balance centralized and decentralized approaches by building public infrastructure while enabling community control

Use standardized icons and simplified language for data permissions while allowing for local customization

Responsible data governance is not about regulation, it’s not just about data regulation. It is about creating an ecosystem where data-served people empower communities and support innovation.

Speaker

Ahmed Fraag

Reason

This comment reframes the entire discussion by shifting focus from restrictive regulatory approaches to empowerment-based governance. It introduces the concept of data governance as ecosystem building rather than mere compliance, which is particularly insightful for Global South contexts where innovation and development are crucial.

Impact

This comment set the foundational tone for the entire discussion, establishing that the session would focus on empowerment rather than restriction. It influenced subsequent speakers to emphasize community-driven approaches and positive uses of data governance.

It’s not just about inclusion, it’s about sovereignty… Each community decides what data to share, how it’s used, and under what conditions.

Speaker

Una Wang

Reason

This comment introduces the critical distinction between mere inclusion and true sovereignty, challenging the common assumption that simply including more languages or communities in digital systems is sufficient. The concept of community-controlled data governance through LanguageDAO represents a paradigm shift from top-down to bottom-up data governance.

Impact

This comment elevated the discussion from technical inclusion to fundamental questions of power and control. It introduced the concept of decentralized autonomous organizations for language communities, which influenced later discussions about indigenous data sovereignty and community empowerment.

It is important to ensure that any mechanisms implemented do not force undue burden of responsibility on people to manage their own data security and privacy. This is part of building in privacy and security measures by design.

Speaker

Chelsea Horne

Reason

This comment addresses a critical paradox in data governance – how to empower users without overwhelming them. It challenges the common approach of shifting responsibility to individuals and instead advocates for systemic design solutions, which is particularly relevant for contexts with varying digital literacy levels.

Impact

This comment shifted the discussion from user empowerment to user protection, introducing the concept of ‘privacy by design’ and influencing the conversation toward balanced approaches that don’t burden users while still providing them with meaningful control.

Building resilient and inclusive data governance in the Pacific is not just a technical goal. It is a social, cultural, and institutional journey.

Speaker

Nancy Kanasa

Reason

This comment fundamentally reframes data governance from a technical implementation challenge to a holistic transformation process. It emphasizes the interconnectedness of technical, social, and cultural factors, which is crucial for understanding why technical solutions alone often fail in diverse cultural contexts.

Impact

This comment broadened the scope of the discussion beyond technical frameworks to encompass cultural and institutional dimensions. It reinforced the importance of context-sensitive approaches and influenced the conversation toward more holistic, culturally-grounded solutions.

I would encourage you not only to invite TikTok or Meta to build data centers in your country, but for your country, your companies, your government, to build a public infrastructure to deal with the data from the dependent citizens, because this is important for your digital sovereignty.

Speaker

Beatriz Costa Barbosa

Reason

This comment challenges the common assumption that partnering with global tech companies is the solution to data localization needs. It introduces the concept of public digital infrastructure as an alternative to corporate dependency, which is a provocative stance on digital sovereignty and national autonomy.

Impact

This comment responded directly to an audience question about data centers and shifted the conversation from corporate partnerships to public infrastructure development. It reinforced themes of sovereignty and self-determination that had been building throughout the discussion.

Web3.0 has already defined in 2006, it’s called the web of data… It’s nothing related to the blockchain or crypto… blockchain, like Bitcoin, has the value of the personal sovereignty of the finance.

Speaker

Una Wang

Reason

This comment corrects a fundamental misconception about Web3.0, distinguishing between the original concept of a ‘web of data’ and the blockchain-centric interpretation. This clarification is crucial for understanding decentralized data governance approaches and challenges common assumptions about emerging technologies.

Impact

This comment directly addressed technical confusion raised by an audience member and provided important clarification that helped ground the discussion in accurate technical understanding. It demonstrated the importance of precise terminology in data governance discussions.

Overall assessment

These key comments collectively transformed the discussion from a conventional regulatory-focused conversation to a more nuanced exploration of empowerment-based, community-driven data governance. The comments built upon each other to establish several key themes: the shift from regulation to ecosystem building, the importance of sovereignty over mere inclusion, the need for systemic rather than individual solutions, the cultural and institutional dimensions of governance, and the importance of public infrastructure over corporate dependency. The discussion evolved from abstract policy concepts to concrete, contextual solutions that acknowledge the diverse needs and capabilities of Global South communities. The interplay between these insights created a comprehensive framework for understanding data governance as a multifaceted challenge requiring technical, social, cultural, and institutional solutions rather than purely regulatory approaches.

How can we design context-sensitive data governance frameworks that uphold global standards of fairness and accountability while respecting local values, infrastructure limitations, and digital literacy levels, especially in countries like Bangladesh?

Speaker

Mohammad Abdulhakonu (Bangladesh Internet Governance Forum)

Explanation

This addresses the challenge of adapting global data protection standards to local contexts in the Global South, considering limited resources and varying digital literacy levels.

How can Web3 projects based on blockchain technology be feasible if the energy consumption issue of blockchain is not solved?

Speaker

Tijani Ben Jemaa

Explanation

This raises concerns about the environmental sustainability of blockchain-based solutions for data ownership and governance.

How can we design regional data agreements to support cooperation without turning them into non-tariff or technical barriers to trade?

Speaker

Yeng-Chu Chen

Explanation

This addresses the balance between regional data cooperation and avoiding protectionist measures that could hinder international trade.

How can NRIs effectively communicate data protection laws to rural and marginalized communities who use social media but are unaware of data protection regulations?

Speaker

Abdelgeril Basharbon (IGF Chad)

Explanation

This highlights the need for grassroots education and awareness campaigns about data rights in local languages and contexts.

How can African countries establish local data centers and negotiate with global tech companies to store African data locally while maintaining data sovereignty?

Speaker

Kosi Amesinu (Benin)

Explanation

This addresses the infrastructure requirements for data localization and digital sovereignty in Africa.

How can countries build public infrastructure for data governance rather than relying solely on global companies for data centers and storage?

Speaker

Beatriz Costa Barbosa (implied from her response)

Explanation

This explores the concept of public digital infrastructure as an alternative to private sector dominance in data storage and processing.

How can data governance frameworks remain flexible and adaptive to rapidly evolving technologies while maintaining regulatory effectiveness?

Speaker

Ahmed Fraag

Explanation

This addresses the challenge of creating regulatory frameworks that can keep pace with technological advancement without becoming obsolete.

How can Pacific Island nations overcome data fragmentation and silos between government agencies, civil society, and communities?

Speaker

Nancy Kanasa (Pacific IGF)

Explanation

This addresses specific challenges in small island developing states regarding institutional coordination and data sharing.

Summary

This discussion focused on the urgency of e-waste management and its policy implications, exploring global frameworks and sustainable solutions. The session was moderated by Saba Tiku Beyene and featured speakers from diverse regions including representatives from the private sector, civil society, ITU, and Smart Africa. The panelists emphasized that e-waste represents both a significant challenge and an opportunity, particularly for developing countries where proper management could create bankable projects and economic benefits.

Hossam El Gamal highlighted Egypt’s situation as a major e-waste producer in Africa, generating 370,000 tons annually, with most waste handled by the informal sector using unsafe methods. He stressed the need for strengthened Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) frameworks, capacity building, and proper legislation enforcement. Jasmine Ko from Hong Kong discussed the importance of consumer behavior change and local adaptation of global solutions, sharing examples of mobile recycling stations to address logistical challenges in urban environments.

Emmanuel Niyikora from ITU outlined the organization’s work on EPR frameworks with countries like Rwanda and Zambia, emphasizing the need for international knowledge exchange and South-South cooperation. He highlighted that only 32% of the 62 million tons of global e-waste is formally collected and recycled annually. The discussion also explored how data-driven technologies like AI and IoT can support monitoring and enforcement of e-waste policies, with speakers noting that “we can’t manage what we can’t measure.”

Key recommendations included implementing sustainability by design, fostering multi-stakeholder collaboration, supporting youth innovation, and developing digital infrastructure for traceability. The panelists concluded that addressing e-waste requires a consultative approach involving both public and private sectors, with policies that can contribute to multiple Sustainable Development Goals while creating circular economy opportunities.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **E-waste as both challenge and opportunity**: Speakers emphasized that while e-waste represents a significant environmental and health challenge (with over 62 million tons generated annually and only 20% formally recycled), it also presents economic opportunities through job creation, circular economy principles, and bankable projects that can contribute to multiple UN Sustainable Development Goals.

– **Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) frameworks and policy development**: Multiple speakers discussed the importance of EPR policies that make manufacturers responsible for the entire lifecycle of their products, from design to disposal. Examples were shared from Egypt, Rwanda, Zambia, and other countries, highlighting the need for comprehensive legislation and enforcement mechanisms.

– **Role of technology and data-driven solutions**: The discussion explored how AI, IoT, and digital product passports can support e-waste monitoring and management. Speakers emphasized that “we can’t manage what we can’t measure” and highlighted the need for digital infrastructure to make e-waste traceable and create accountability in circular economy systems.

– **Multi-stakeholder collaboration and localization**: Participants stressed the importance of involving all stakeholders – governments, private sector, civil society, and youth – in developing and implementing e-waste policies. They emphasized adapting global standards and frameworks to local contexts, considering different user behaviors, infrastructure, and cultural factors.

– **Consumer awareness and behavior change**: The discussion addressed the critical need for public awareness campaigns and incentivizing consumers to participate in proper e-waste disposal, including examples of innovative collection methods like mobile recycling stations and smartphone apps to facilitate proper disposal.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to explore urgent e-waste management challenges and policy solutions from a global perspective, sharing best practices across different regions and examining how various stakeholders can collaborate to create sustainable, circular economy approaches to electronic waste management.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a professional, collaborative, and solution-oriented tone throughout. Speakers were constructive and knowledge-sharing, with each participant building upon others’ contributions. The tone was urgent yet optimistic, acknowledging serious challenges while emphasizing opportunities for innovation and positive change. The session concluded on an encouraging note with actionable takeaways and calls for continued collaboration.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Saba Tiku Beyene** – Moderator, former MAG member, currently serving as junior advisor at the Africa Union office, representing women’s movement “Defend knives, not guns”

– **Hossam El Gamal** – Private sector representative from Africa, MAG member (current and former for three years), focuses on industry solutions and applications

– **Jasmine Ko** – Co-founder of Hong Kong Youth IGF, former project lead and researcher on eco-Internet initiative, specializes in sustainable consumption intersecting with the Internet

– **Participant** – Youth ambassador for the Internet Society, works in digital infrastructure helping medium and large companies with data infrastructure, business intelligence and sustainability across automotive, fintech and agribusiness industries

– **Athanase Bahizire** – Online moderator from the Democratic Republic of Congo

– **Thelma Quaye** – Works at Smart Africa leading digital infrastructure, digital skills and gender matters

– **Emmanuel Niyikora** – Program officer at ITU Regional Office for Africa based in Senegal, coordinates capacity development and youth-related activities, works on extended producer responsibility efforts

**Additional speakers:**

– **Audience (Leandro Navarro)** – Representative from an NGO, member of ITU study group five question seven on circular economy, waste and supply chain, former reporter and current expert

– **Nicholas** – Online participant who submitted a question (mentioned by the online moderator)

# Summary: E-Waste Management and Policy Implications Discussion

## Introduction and Context

This discussion was moderated by Saba Tiku Beyene, former MAG member and junior advisor at the Africa Union office. The panel included Hossam El Gamal, a private sector representative from Africa and current MAG member; Jasmine Ko, co-founder of Hong Kong Youth IGF; Emmanuel Niyikora, programme officer at ITU Regional Office for Africa; Thelma Quaye from Smart Africa; and a participant working with the Internet Society. The session also featured online participation, including contributions from Athanase Bahizire as online moderator and audience member Leandro Navarro from an NGO and member of ITU study group five.

The discussion explored e-waste management challenges and policy solutions, examining how global frameworks can be adapted to local contexts while creating sustainable solutions.

## The Scale of the E-Waste Challenge

The Internet Society participant presented concerning statistics about the global e-waste crisis, noting that “the global e-waste system is mostly blind” with over 62 million metric tonnes of e-waste generated annually, yet only 32% formally collected and recycled. This measurement problem was highlighted with the observation that “we can’t manage what we can’t measure.”

Hossam El Gamal provided regional context, explaining that Egypt generates an estimated 370,000 tonnes of e-waste annually, with projections showing increases due to rapid technological adoption and shorter product lifecycles. He noted that most of this waste is currently handled by the informal sector using unsafe methods, creating environmental and health risks while missing economic opportunities.

## E-Waste as Economic Opportunity

A key theme emerged when Hossam El Gamal reframed the discussion by stating that “e-waste is a challenge, a risk, but is really an opportunity.” He argued that e-waste management represents “bankable projects” that developing countries should actively pursue, emphasizing that proper management could transform challenges into profitable opportunities.

Thelma Quaye supported this perspective, highlighting that e-waste management can create value and drive innovation. The speakers noted that effective e-waste management addresses multiple UN Sustainable Development Goals, including those related to sustainable consumption, health, water, decent work, sustainable cities, and climate action.

## Extended Producer Responsibility Frameworks

Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) emerged as a cornerstone policy approach. Hossam El Gamal advocated for “comprehensive regulations focusing on strengthening Extended Producer Responsibility with clear mandates for manufacturers, importers and retailers.” He cited Egypt’s Law 202 in 2020, which treats e-waste as hazardous waste with specific collection, recycling and disposal guidelines through authorized facilities, and noted Egypt’s membership in the Basel Convention.

Emmanuel Niyikora provided an international perspective, explaining that ITU works with countries to develop EPR frameworks while promoting international knowledge exchange. He mentioned ITU’s work facilitating collaboration between countries including Nigeria, South Africa, Colombia, and India. He emphasized that effective EPR policies require “consultative approaches involving both public and private sectors, including youth for innovation.”

## Technology and Data-Driven Solutions

The role of technology in e-waste management generated significant discussion. The Internet Society participant argued that “data-driven technologies like AI, IoT and digital product passports are essential tools” for effective e-waste management, emphasizing that “digital infrastructure investment is needed beyond just policies to make e-waste traceable and accountable.”

Leandro Navarro from the audience discussed ongoing work to “develop open source implementations of digital passports for electronics,” specifically mentioning github.com/reuse. He emphasized that without open source implementations, smaller organizations cannot effectively participate in innovation.

The discussion identified several technological applications: AI for predictive analytics, IoT for real-time tracking, and digital product passports for lifecycle management. However, speakers acknowledged that technology alone is insufficient without proper infrastructure investment and supportive policy frameworks.

## Multi-Stakeholder Collaboration and Local Adaptation

Strong consensus emerged around the necessity of multi-stakeholder collaboration. Jasmine Ko emphasized that “multi-stakeholder initiatives involving industry, government and civil society are crucial for effective e-waste management.”

The localization challenge proved particularly important. Jasmine Ko raised questions about adaptation: “How do we make sure that we are able to adopt and really create, design something that fits into the community with different user behaviour, density, and language?” She provided a concrete example from Hong Kong, where traditional collection centers failed because working hours clashed with collection times. This led to innovative solutions including 18 district recycling branches and mobile recycling trucks.

This example illustrated how policies can fail without consideration of local contexts and user behaviors, demonstrating the need for flexible implementation of global standards.

## Consumer Behavior and Awareness

Consumer awareness emerged as a fundamental challenge. Hossam El Gamal identified a “huge awareness gap among consumers regarding proper e-waste disposal and recycling processes.”

Jasmine Ko took a more systemic approach, arguing that consumer behavior changes require proper incentives and infrastructure support. Her Hong Kong example demonstrated how policy design must accommodate actual user needs rather than ideal behaviors.

## Specific Initiatives and Examples

Several concrete examples were discussed:

– Egypt’s Dr. Wee app for e-waste collection

– Hong Kong’s mobile recycling truck solution addressing working hour conflicts

– ITU’s knowledge exchange programs between developing countries

– Open source digital passport implementations through platforms like github.com/reuse

## Challenges and Questions

The discussion identified several ongoing challenges:

– The need to formalize informal e-waste sectors while maintaining livelihoods

– Balancing global standards with local implementation needs

– Ensuring data privacy in digital tracking solutions

– Addressing emerging issues like cryptographically obsolete IoT devices (raised by audience member Nicholas)

## Key Recommendations

The discussion generated several recommendations:

– Countries should seek and replicate existing successful e-waste management projects

– Investment in digital infrastructure beyond just policies to enable traceability

– Development of global standards for digital product passports

– Continued international knowledge exchange programs

– Open source implementations to ensure accessibility for smaller organizations

– Consumer education on proper e-waste disposal

## Conclusion

The discussion demonstrated broad agreement on fundamental approaches to e-waste management, including the importance of EPR frameworks, multi-stakeholder collaboration, and technology-driven solutions. The conversation successfully reframed e-waste from purely an environmental burden to an economic opportunity requiring coordinated policy, technology, and behavioral interventions.

Key areas of consensus included the need for better measurement and tracking systems, the importance of adapting global standards to local contexts, and the potential for e-waste management to contribute to sustainable development goals. The emphasis on youth engagement and South-South cooperation suggests promising directions for future development, while unresolved questions around emerging technologies and informal sector integration indicate areas requiring continued attention.

Saba Tiku Beyene: I’m here on behalf of the women’s movement Defend knives, not guns. Making a difference in the world. I’m a former mag member and currently serving as a junior advisor at the Africa union office and I will be moderating this session. So this session we will be discussing the urgency of e-waste management and its policy implications. We will explore different global frameworks such as ITUs or international telecommunications union EPR principles as well as different national legislations promoting sustainable e-waste management within states. We shall also explore the role of different actors including policy makers, IC device producers, civil society and the individual users in fostering sustainability as well. Our distinguished speakers of course will share their best practices from diverse regions on how digital innovations can really support e-waste reduction as well as circular economy principles and their real world impacts. So saying this, let’s quickly meet our speakers and I will ask each one of them to briefly introduce themselves. So I will start with online speakers if they have joined. First we have Emmanuel. So I will go ahead with our on-site speakers and I will first start with Hossam.

Hossam El Gamal: Hossam El Gamal, I’m a private sector representative from Africa. I am currently a mag member and I used to be a mag member for three years before and I focus mainly on industry for solutions and applications. Thank you.

Saba Tiku Beyene: Thank you very much Hossam, thank you for joining us.

Jasmine Ko: And we have Jasmine. Thank you for having me here, this is Jasmine Koh from Hong Kong. So I have a passion on sustainable consumption and intersecting with the Internet, so I’m here and now currently I’m a co-founder of Hong Kong Youth IGF. I was a former project lead and researcher on eco-Internet in that initiative. So the reason that I’m being here is to bring some Asia perspective, good case practices and also how my former research experience could give an insight from a border sustainable carbon footprint measurement methodology into UA. So that’s why I’m here. Thank you.

Participant: Thank you very much. Thank you Sabah. Hi everyone. My name is Hossam El Muraie. I am currently a youth ambassador for the Internet Society and I work in the digital infrastructure. I help medium and large size companies basically with their data infrastructure, with business intelligence and also with sustainability. I’m deeply engaged with sustainability. I worked in diverse industry, automotive, fintech and currently the agribusiness where we are helping industries manage their energy monitoring and working as well on prediction. So happy to be here today.

Saba Tiku Beyene: Thank you very much. Glad to have you all here. And then I will go ahead and give the floor to our online moderator and our rapporteur to briefly also introduce themselves.

Athanase Bahizire: Greetings everyone. Can you hear? Yes. Thank you so much. My name is Thomas Olsen Aarheim from the Democratic Republic of Congo and I will be helping with online moderation here and happy to be here with you. Thank you.

Saba Tiku Beyene: Thank you, Athanas. We have Dina as our online moderator. Dina, are you with us? Okay.

Athanase Bahizire: Hey, Sabah. We can proceed for now. Thank you.

Saba Tiku Beyene: All right. All right. So thank you to all of you. Now let’s dive deep into our discussion. I will now invite each of our speakers to respond to a question which is tailored to their area of expertise. So you will have maximum up to five minutes so that we have a space for Q&A. And then we will have a Q&A session. So please feel free to ask your questions. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I will now hand over theですか to both of you to start your question and then we will have Q&A. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Welcome. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Hossam El Gamal: Thank you. Thank you. Well, e-Waste is a very interesting topic. Because from one end it represents clear challenge, especially in developing countries. But at the same time it does represent opportunity in the same time. So with proper actions we can easily turn the challenge into opportunity and even profit for some. In order to be able to handle waste management, we always need to start with awareness. And then we need to have capacity building for the right people that are going to handle e-Waste. And we need incentivized legislation or policies that would encourage corporates providing and producing electronics to do the post-implementation support and to recycle or to change or to dismantle properly their goods. And finally, we need to have clear regulations that would be respected in the way they are going to handle the e-Waste. I will give you, for example, in Egypt, this is my country, Egypt is one of the major producers of e-Waste annually in Africa. With an estimated 370,000 tons and projected to increase further due to rapid technological adoption and shorter product life cycle. Generally this sector is really dominated by informal side. Large portion of e-Waste is still managed by the informal sector. Garbage dealers, waste collectors, etc. While they do recover some valuable material, their practice often involves crude and unsafe methods. Example, open burning or acid leaching, leading to severe environmental pollution and health risk for workers and surrounding communities. We had a legislation in 2020, Legislation Law 202, for the e-Waste as hazardous waste and with specific conditions, providing guidelines for collection, recycling and disposal through authorized factories under the Ministry of Environment. And also we have import restriction, a restriction to import used electronics older than five years old is completely prohibited and it is completely prohibited to import e-Waste. Egypt is also a member of Basel Convention, which controls the transboundary movement of hazardous waste, including e-Waste. But the fact is, we have limited formal infrastructure. Despite the regulations, the formal collection and recycling of infrastructure remain very limited. Only a small percentage of generated e-Waste is formally collected and recycled, with the majority ending up in uncontrolled landfills or being informally processed. And there is a huge awareness gap, lack of public awareness among Egyptian households regarding proper e-Waste disposal and recycling processes. Many consumers store old electronics or dispose them with regular trash. There is, from another perspective, emerging initiatives. Some initiatives are such as Dr. Wee, which uses a smartphone app to incentivize e-Waste collection and facilitate proper dismantling and sorting. So what we need is, we need to build a true sustainable and people-centered e-Waste management system in Egypt. A comprehensive set of regulations and policies needed, focusing on key areas. So strengthening and enforcing extended producer responsibilities, EPR, is very important. With clear mandates to implement robust EPR schemes that legally mandate manufacturers, importers and retailers to take responsibility. Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos

Saba Tiku Beyene: Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos

Jasmine Ko: Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos So I’ll give the floor back to Sabah.

Saba Tiku Beyene: Thank you. Thank you very much, Jasmine, for that, for your wonderful intervention. Indeed also for mentioning about the multi-stakeholder initiatives and how the industry itself can support this, can strengthen this. And also I mentioned some examples coming from Hong Kong. And also, yes, as you said, we need more local empowerment opportunities. So I will now go ahead with our interventions from the online speakers. We have Thelma from Smart Africa. Thelma, I will give you the floor to first briefly introduce yourself to the floor. And then I will go ahead with my question, which is from Smart Africa’s perspective as a leading international organization in the digital space. What best practices from different regions can really inform the development of globally aligned digital policies when it comes to e-waste management and how can this be adopted to local context? Over to you.

Thelma Quaye: Thank you. Thank you very much. And once again, my apologies. I think I joined in a bit late. So by way of introduction, my name is Thelma. And within Smart Africa, I lead the digital infrastructure, digital skills as well as gender matters. And maybe for the purpose of those who do not know Smart Africa, we are a pan-African organization and our focus really is on building a single digital market through a multi-stakeholder approach. We have a membership of about 40 countries and over 60 private companies. Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos

Saba Tiku Beyene: Thank you very much, Thelma, for your interventions. Indeed, you mentioned some of the examples led by Congo, as well as some of the initiatives in Romania, and also some of the best practices, which is first to embed US into accessibility, and also promoting reuse, which can also generate job as well as economic growth, and also strengthening the cross-regional collaboration, which is important. And thank you again for that. I’ll now go ahead and give the floor to our online speaker, Emmanuel, thank you very much for joining us. First, I would like you to briefly introduce yourself, and then reflect upon, given from your experience working within the ITU, which is the International Telecommunication Union, we know that ITU has been making a lot of effort to address in US, so how can governments as well as regulatory bodies can strengthen the digital policies such as the extended producer responsibility, or EPR, and the right to repair and to ensure sustainable US management. Over to you.

Emmanuel Niyikora: Thank you so much, Sabah. Good morning, everyone. Sorry, apologies for joining a bit late. I got confused of the time. Sorry for that, and happy that I’m able to be part of this very interesting discussion. Yeah, my name is, as Sabah said, I’m called Emmanuel Nikora. I’m a program officer at ITU, Regional Office for Africa. I’m based in Senegal, the ITU office that cover the West Africa. But in my work streams, I also work on programs that addresses the issues of US, especially the extended producer responsibility efforts with countries. and I also coordinate capacitance case development, the youth-related activities at ITU. So ITU, I think, has been introduced by Samba. ITU is a United Nations specialized agency for digital technologies. It’s a member-driven organization. We have 194 member states and also plus 1,000 technical sector, academia and international organization member states. So when it comes to e-waste, e-waste is one of the fastest-growing waste streams globally for reasons that I think we all know with the growing technology. According to the global e-waste monitor, we are currently generating over 62 million tons annually of e-waste. So then when we look at, we have 32%, which is formally collected and recycled. So which means the remaining 78 remain unmanaged and resulting in polluting our land, air, water and causing severe health risks in the process. So we know the uptake of mobile phones and the laptops. So behind every discarded phone and laptops, laptops are a hidden cost. We can ask ourselves when we discard our phones and our laptops, where do they go? I think most of us, we don’t know what happens after we discard our phones and our laptops. So that’s the problem that we need to address. So this unchecked or unaddressed growth of e-waste poses significant threats to our environment. But this crisis also presents an opportunity to transition from traditional oil and air to a circular economy where electronic products are designed, used and recycled more sustainably. So that’s where the ITU has been working with countries to work on what we call extended producer responsibility frameworks and policies. So we’ve been working with countries like Rwanda and Zambia to develop this extended producer responsibility work streams. We are also now initiating a project that is focusing on international knowledge exchange where we bring countries together to learn from each other and strengthen their e-waste regulatory framework. So this international exchange program is a new one and it is very interesting where we have two countries in Africa, Nigeria and South Africa. And then we have other countries like Colombia, India that we work together to learn from each other. So this is a part of a global South cooperation effort. The project will promote exchange of best practices and lessons learned on extended producer responsibility, sustainable financing and stakeholder engagement strategies for e-waste management. So through study tours, there will be study tours in Africa. We will have a study tour in Pretoria and Joburg where there is a recycling company to run what’s being done there. So sharing lessons and that will result in developing a policy toolkit for extended producer responsibility. So the initiative aims to equip African policy makers and industry stakeholders because this will involve the public and industry stakeholders. So with the tools to be inclusive and environmentally sound, economically and viable economic systems. So this initiative aligns with the work of ITU on creating a cycle economy for electronics. So this is not a lot I could share for ITU. So extended producer responsibility aims to give the responsibility to the producers, you know, right from when the design of the product, not really burden the government to take responsibility of the e-waste management. So it should be a collective effort and giving the responsibility to the producers right from the design to take into account the recycling and disposal of the electronic waste. So this will create again a cycle economy and create jobs. But of course, we know that when you add the responsibility to producers, sometimes it ends up coming to the users, to the consumers. That’s why this policy needs, again, a consultative efforts between different public organizations, public institutions and the government and the private producers.

Saba Tiku Beyene: Thank you so much, Emmanuel. I would have to cut you because of…

Emmanuel Niyikora: Okay, no, it’s fine. Yeah, I was just going to mention the involvement of youth because we are also working to support the youth that have initiatives to contribute to these efforts of cycle economy and the recycling of used products. So, yeah, that was my final contribution. Thank you so much and back to you, Sabah.

Saba Tiku Beyene: Thank you very much, Emmanuel, for that wonderful intervention and also for mentioning examples from across different countries from the region as well as efforts done by the ITU when to address the e-waste management as well as talking about the circular economy. I will now go ahead and give the floor to our last speaker and then we will go ahead to our Q&A or any comment from the audience online. So, Osam, given from your experience working in the private sector, how do you think data-driven technologies such as AI as well as IoT and digital products as well can support the monitoring, enforcement and innovation of e-waste policies across industries? Over to you.

Participant: Thank you, Sabah. So, when we are talking about e-waste policies, for example, the extended producer responsibility or the right to repair, we mainly focus on legislations, stakeholder engagement or sustainability goal. But we rarely ask a very important question, what systems do we actually have to make these policies work? And from my perspective as a data professional, I believe that data-driven technologies are the essential tool to translate these policies into measurable and scalable action. And let me give you a simple truth. We can’t manage what we can’t measure. And right now, the global e-waste system is mostly blind. When we are talking, for example, about the global e-waste monitor, the world generates over 62 million metric tons of e-waste. Less than 20% is formally collected and recycled. So, we have a huge amount of e-waste in our country. And we have also the global e-waste system, which means that we have millions of tons of devices, of batteries, of toxic components that are not accounted for. And here comes exactly the role of AI, IoT, and digital product passports. With detecting which materials we can, for example, recover. Also, it can help us forecast the product failure before it happens. Also, it can help us detect and analyze the patterns of the global waste or the waste management. So, this will give policymakers a real ability to act. Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos Aarheim, Emmanuel Niyikora, Dina Santana Santos This tool, across all borders, across all technologies, otherwise we will be creating silos rather than data sharing solutions. And lastly, I would mention that we should not, we must not overlook data responsibility because with increasing accessibility, we need clear rules about data privacy, about ownership and accessibility, which are all under the umbrella of these governance practices. And I will go back to you, Sabah.

Saba Tiku Beyene: Thank you very much, Ossam. You said one powerful word, which is we can’t manage what we can’t measure. And of course, thank you very much for also mentioning about the digital products passport, also not overlooking the responsibilities, focusing into data privacy and data governance as well. And thank you for your interventions again. Now, yes, since we have only a few minutes left, I will give the floor to Q&A or any comment from the floor. Of course, if you are joining us online, our online moderator, Atanas, will bring your questions to the floor. OK, I see one question from on site. Yes. Yes, that one. And please briefly introduce yourself and answer the question. Thank you.

Audience: Hi, do you hear me? Yeah. So Leandro Navarro, I’m coming from an NGO, but I’m also a member of ITU, the study group five, question seven, which is about circular economy, waste and supply chain. I was a reporter until the end of the year, but still I’m an expert. So just I wanted to comment that regarding ITU, there is also the ITU-R, sorry, ITU-T in which we develop standards. And there are several standards which are publicly available that talk about different aspects of not only e-waste, but also the circular economy. You will find, for instance, one recommendation that provides guidelines for national legislation regarding e-waste. We are in the publication process of an e-waste collection standard, which standards are important because when it comes to develop legislation, it’s important that is certain harmonization across across the different countries, especially because the electronics supply chain is global and then is a global problem. And we need a global, but also local, regional solutions to make sure that it doesn’t get worse. And I recommend you to look at the L series of recommendations in which you will find different aspects, including one recommendation about EPR. But the problem is so hard that I think it’s not enough to come up with legislation, regulation, but we need to act. And there is an encouragement to to to explore innovative ways to deal with a problem that is becoming bigger and bigger as we go. And in practical terms, for instance, a couple of examples. You were talking about the DPP in my activist side of it. Since I was working on standards on DPP in ITU, we are also working with civil society organizations to develop open source implementations of digital passports for electronics. So if you want to go to github.com slash reuse, you will find the code we are developing, because without open source implementations, we cannot really ensure that all this, well, the small, medium size and and tiny organizations are innovating. They would they need to code. They need data. They need tools to produce this information because, you know, digitalization is a form of formalization of the informal sector. And by lowering the entry barrier, we will enable to go from about 80 percent of products that disappear when they become waste to the opposite, because in the end, it’s an environmental problem. There is also encouragement to look at the opportunities to work on the right to repair in different regions. For instance, I’m part of the right to repair EU, but I encourage different communities to create these regional actors, because in the end, even though the problem is global, local solutions are different. And it’s important to create an environment where innovation can find a community, a multi-stakeholder community that can guide them to make sure that they are successful, because the problem deserves solutions. Thank you.

Saba Tiku Beyene: Thank you very much for that for that comment. And do we have any questions online, Atanas?

Athanase Bahizire: Yes, Sabah, thank you. We have a question from Nicholas here. It says with the rapid progress in post-quantum cryptography and the reality that many existing IoT devices cannot be adapted due to firmware and hardware limitations. How should government and regulators prepare for the imminent wave for cryptographical obsolete devices, especially to ensure secure and off-life handling and enforcement on the EPR formats?

Saba Tiku Beyene: Thank you very much. Anyone would like to reflect?

Jasmine Ko: Can I just quickly reflect on the on-site response? I really appreciate you sharing the work standards that have been set by the ITU. I think they are good resources for national governments, regional alliance and even the grassroots community. They have been like who care about EU ways to actually look into it. And the thing is how how I think some of you also mentioned it’s about localizing the global problem. How do we make sure that we are able to adopt and really create, design something that fits into the community? Because people may have different user behavior. We have different density. We have different language. So it’s all about how how do the people bring bring the great global resources back to the local? So I think that these so so one, I think one, something that my community have been doing, trying to references to some global standards and and and try to implement. There are many challenges, I have to say, because it is about what we haven’t mentioned more about consumer behavior and mindset is how would people be incentivized to really add on with using their own ways? Why? You know, like but such as OK, choosing some part of that in the end of the life cycle, creating less waste or like they really do trade, trade in or like really to recycle their the devices they’ve been using. So in Hong Kong, we actually have we actually have recycling, recycling branches in our 18 districts. But we know that the problem is Hong Kong, like Hong Kong people are always, you know, over time working. And then the opening hour of this office are actually kind of crushed to business hours, so we cannot recycle in a weekday. So everyone have to rush to recycle in a weekend. And that creates some kind of logistic problem. So something that being smartly defunct, it’s we at the Hong Kong government trying to have some flexible hour on some mobile station. So not just in a physical store. So I actually have a truck to go around different district in B.C. office CBD area so that to cater people who really want to do recycling during the office hour or the lunch break. Thank you very much.

Saba Tiku Beyene: Thank you. Thank you, Jasmine, for for your. Since we only have five minutes, I would like to maybe ask each panelist to share a final key takeaways or just share upon the comment that we made from our on-site participants. So yeah, something actionable in just 30 seconds or one minute maximum. And I will start with on-site, yeah.

Hossam El Gamal: So once again, Hosam El Gamal, Private Sector Africa. In brief, and especially if I’m talking to developing countries, e-waste is a challenge, a risk, but is really an opportunity. E-waste management is a real opportunity. Why? Because first of all, it can be bankable. E-waste can be considered as bankable projects. And thus, what is required for countries is to search for existing success stories of bankable projects managing e-waste and build on that to replicate in their own countries. One thing very important for all countries to work on e-waste is the fact that e-waste reply to many of the SDGs. I’ll just name, I will number the SDGs, and then you can name it because there are too many. SDG 12, target 12.4, 12.5, SDG 3, target 3.9, SDG 6, target 6.3, SDG 8, target 8.8, SDG 11, target 11.6, SDG 14, 15, and 13. And indirectly, SDG 4, 9, and 17. So for any country working on the SDGs and having a plan to achieve, this is quite important to take into consideration and to encourage having bankable projects in this area and to create the proper awareness for the different stakeholders with that regard. Thank you very much.

Saba Tiku Beyene: Thank you very much. Jasmine? Okay, sorry.

Jasmine Ko: So I think one takeaway for each of you is considering, be aware of how many devices you have, and also considering what kind of more eco-friendly design product that you could have. Think about how you could do more and waste less in your own personal capacity. I think that’s my call to action.

Participant: Okay. So from my side, three fast takeaways. First of all, government industry should invest in digital infrastructure, not just in policies because this is where we can make the e-waste traceable. Second, we need, like we said, to make these global standards, international standards for the products, passports, to make the compliance and innovation in a global scale. And lastly, I believe that we should stop treating data as an afterthought. In fact, data is not for just transparency, but it’s the foundation of accountability as well for a true, for a key circular economy. Thank you. Thank you.

Saba Tiku Beyene: Thank you very much, Osama. Manuel and Thelma.

Thelma Quaye: Okay. Should I go?

Saba Tiku Beyene: Yeah, sure.

Thelma Quaye: So, thank you very much for the opportunity, and I think that we, the first three panelists, and allow me to summarize what they have said to say, if we want a truly global, you know, digital future, we need to build one where sustainability is not an afterthought. It has to be sustainability by design. We need to be our own architects. And when it comes to e-waste, it’s an opportunity, it’s a great opportunity to create value, to drive innovation, and show what inclusive and circular digital economies can look like. Thank you very much.

Saba Tiku Beyene: Thank you. Thank you very much, Thelma and Manuel.

Emmanuel Niyikora: Thank you so much. So, I think my previous speakers have already said, for me, I would say, yes, design, sustainability by design, and then it has to be a consultative approach, private and public consultations. So, in terms of when we are building the extended producer responsibility policies, so we need to involve everyone, including the youth, then to bring in innovation. That is important. Look at the youth that are very active in this space, because there’s no solution now to e-waste. Thank you. So, we need to bring in innovation, and when we talk innovation, we need to support the youth innovations in this space. So, that’s my contribution. And then come out to the public and private in building the policies, but also in applying the policies, making sure that, especially in the case for Africa, making sure that we know what comes in, in terms of…

Saba Tiku Beyene: Thank you very much, Emmanuel. Yes. Thank you. Thank you very much. We’re a bit over time. So, I’d like to say, yes, thank you so, so much to all of our speakers, both on-site and online, also to our reporters, online moderators for joining us and staying with us. As a requirement, we’ll be posting the key summaries as well as takeaways on the IGF website. So, please feel free to go ahead and read or refer it. So, yeah, that’s all. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. I think let’s take a photo together.

Agreement points

E-waste management requires comprehensive multi-stakeholder collaboration

Speakers

– Saba Tiku Beyene
– Jasmine Ko
– Emmanuel Niyikora
– Thelma Quaye

Arguments

Multiple actors including policy makers, ICT device producers, civil society and individual users all have roles in fostering sustainability

Multi-stakeholder initiatives involving industry, government and civil society are crucial for effective e-waste management

EPR policies require consultative approaches involving both public and private sectors, including youth for innovation

Cross-regional collaboration and knowledge sharing between countries like Nigeria, South Africa, Colombia and India strengthens regulatory frameworks

Summary

All speakers agree that effective e-waste management cannot be achieved by any single actor alone and requires coordinated efforts across government, industry, civil society, and individual users through inclusive consultation processes

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) is fundamental to effective e-waste management

Speakers

– Hossam El Gamal
– Emmanuel Niyikora

Arguments

Comprehensive regulations are needed focusing on strengthening Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) with clear mandates for manufacturers, importers and retailers

ITU works with countries like Rwanda and Zambia to develop EPR frameworks and promotes international knowledge exchange between countries

Summary

Both speakers emphasize EPR as a critical policy framework that places responsibility on producers throughout the product lifecycle, with ITU actively supporting countries in developing these frameworks

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

E-waste represents significant economic opportunities beyond environmental challenges

Speakers

– Hossam El Gamal
– Thelma Quaye

Arguments

E-waste represents both a clear challenge and opportunity, especially in developing countries, with proper actions turning challenges into profitable opportunities

E-waste management can be bankable projects that countries should replicate based on existing success stories

E-waste represents an opportunity to create value, drive innovation and demonstrate inclusive circular digital economies

Summary

Both speakers view e-waste not just as an environmental problem but as a significant economic opportunity that can drive innovation, create value, and support sustainable development when properly managed

Topics

Economic | Development

Technology and data-driven solutions are essential for effective e-waste management

Speakers

– Saba Tiku Beyene
– Participant
– Audience

Arguments

Digital innovations can support e-waste reduction and circular economy principles with real world impacts

Data-driven technologies like AI, IoT and digital product passports are essential tools to translate policies into measurable and scalable action

Open source implementations of digital passports for electronics are being developed to lower entry barriers for organizations

Summary

Speakers agree that technological solutions, particularly AI, IoT, and digital passports, are crucial for making e-waste management measurable, traceable, and scalable

Topics

Infrastructure | Development

Awareness and capacity building are foundational to successful e-waste management

Speakers

– Hossam El Gamal
– Jasmine Ko

Arguments

E-waste management requires starting with awareness, followed by capacity building for proper handling personnel

There is a huge awareness gap among consumers regarding proper e-waste disposal and recycling processes

Consumer behavior and mindset changes are essential, requiring incentives for people to participate in proper e-waste disposal

Summary

Both speakers identify public awareness and behavioral change as fundamental prerequisites for effective e-waste management, noting significant gaps in consumer knowledge about proper disposal methods

Topics

Development | Sociocultural

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers highlight the massive scale of the e-waste problem, with Hossam providing regional data from Egypt and Participant providing global statistics, both emphasizing the growing nature of the challenge and poor management rates

Speakers

– Hossam El Gamal
– Participant

Arguments

Egypt produces 370,000 tons of e-waste annually with projected increases due to rapid technological adoption and shorter product lifecycles

The global e-waste system is mostly blind with over 62 million metric tons generated globally but less than 20% formally collected and recycled

Topics

Development

Both speakers emphasize the importance of engaging younger generations and local communities in developing innovative solutions, recognizing that grassroots involvement is essential for effective implementation

Speakers

– Emmanuel Niyikora
– Jasmine Ko

Arguments

Youth innovation and involvement are critical for developing solutions to e-waste challenges

Local empowerment opportunities and community-based solutions are needed to address the global problem at local levels

Topics

Development | Sociocultural

Both speakers advocate for proactive, systematic approaches to e-waste management that go beyond reactive policy measures to include fundamental infrastructure and design changes

Speakers

– Participant
– Thelma Quaye

Arguments

Digital infrastructure investment is needed beyond just policies to make e-waste traceable and accountable

Sustainability must be designed into products from the beginning rather than treated as an afterthought

Topics

Infrastructure | Development

Unexpected consensus

E-waste as economic opportunity rather than just environmental burden

Speakers

– Hossam El Gamal
– Thelma Quaye

Arguments

E-waste represents both a clear challenge and opportunity, especially in developing countries, with proper actions turning challenges into profitable opportunities

E-waste management can be bankable projects that countries should replicate based on existing success stories

E-waste represents an opportunity to create value, drive innovation and demonstrate inclusive circular digital economies

Explanation

It’s unexpected that speakers from different sectors (private sector representative and international organization) would so strongly emphasize the economic opportunities of e-waste management rather than focusing primarily on environmental concerns, suggesting a mature understanding of circular economy principles

Topics

Economic | Development

Critical importance of data and measurement in e-waste management

Speakers

– Participant
– Hossam El Gamal

Arguments

We can’t manage what we can’t measure – the lack of visibility in e-waste tracking is a fundamental problem

E-waste management addresses multiple SDGs including targets related to sustainable consumption, health, water, decent work, sustainable cities, and climate action

Explanation

The strong consensus on data-driven approaches from both technical and policy perspectives is unexpected, showing alignment between data professionals and policy makers on the fundamental need for measurable, trackable systems

Topics

Development | Infrastructure

Overall assessment

Summary

Speakers demonstrated remarkable consensus across key areas including the need for multi-stakeholder collaboration, EPR frameworks, technology-driven solutions, and viewing e-waste as economic opportunity. There was strong agreement on the importance of awareness building, youth involvement, and data-driven approaches.

Consensus level

High level of consensus with no significant disagreements identified. This strong alignment suggests the e-waste management field has matured to where stakeholders from different sectors (private, public, international organizations, civil society) share common understanding of challenges and solutions. The implications are positive for policy development and implementation, as this consensus provides a solid foundation for coordinated global action on e-waste management.

Different viewpoints

Primary focus for e-waste management solutions

Speakers

– Hossam El Gamal
– Participant

Arguments

Comprehensive regulations are needed focusing on strengthening Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) with clear mandates for manufacturers, importers and retailers

Digital infrastructure investment is needed beyond just policies to make e-waste traceable and accountable

Summary

Hossam emphasizes regulatory frameworks and EPR as the primary solution, while the Participant argues that technology infrastructure is more critical than policies alone for effective e-waste management

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Infrastructure | Development

Approach to consumer engagement in e-waste management

Speakers

– Hossam El Gamal
– Jasmine Ko

Arguments

There is a huge awareness gap among consumers regarding proper e-waste disposal and recycling processes

Consumer behavior and mindset changes are essential, requiring incentives for people to participate in proper e-waste disposal

Summary

Hossam focuses on awareness gaps as the core consumer issue, while Jasmine emphasizes the need for behavioral incentives and systemic changes to accommodate consumer needs

Topics

Development | Sociocultural

Unexpected differences

Role of technology versus policy in e-waste management

Speakers

– Participant
– Multiple other speakers

Arguments

We can’t manage what we can’t measure – the lack of visibility in e-waste tracking is a fundamental problem

Egypt has legislation from 2020 treating e-waste as hazardous waste with specific collection, recycling and disposal guidelines through authorized facilities

Explanation

Unexpectedly, there was a fundamental disagreement about whether existing policies are sufficient or whether the core problem is lack of technological infrastructure for measurement and tracking. This disagreement was surprising given the technical nature of the forum

Topics

Infrastructure | Legal and regulatory | Development

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion showed relatively low levels of direct disagreement, with most conflicts being about emphasis and approach rather than fundamental opposition. Main disagreements centered on whether to prioritize regulatory frameworks versus technological infrastructure, and whether to focus on awareness-building versus incentive-based behavioral change

Disagreement level

Low to moderate disagreement level. The disagreements were more about strategic priorities and implementation approaches rather than fundamental goals, which suggests good potential for finding common ground and integrated solutions that combine regulatory, technological, and behavioral approaches

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers highlight the massive scale of the e-waste problem, with Hossam providing regional data from Egypt and Participant providing global statistics, both emphasizing the growing nature of the challenge and poor management rates

Speakers

– Hossam El Gamal
– Participant

Arguments

Egypt produces 370,000 tons of e-waste annually with projected increases due to rapid technological adoption and shorter product lifecycles

The global e-waste system is mostly blind with over 62 million metric tons generated globally but less than 20% formally collected and recycled

Topics

Development

Both speakers emphasize the importance of engaging younger generations and local communities in developing innovative solutions, recognizing that grassroots involvement is essential for effective implementation

Speakers

– Emmanuel Niyikora
– Jasmine Ko

Arguments

Youth innovation and involvement are critical for developing solutions to e-waste challenges

Local empowerment opportunities and community-based solutions are needed to address the global problem at local levels

Topics

Development | Sociocultural

Both speakers advocate for proactive, systematic approaches to e-waste management that go beyond reactive policy measures to include fundamental infrastructure and design changes

Speakers

– Participant
– Thelma Quaye

Arguments

Digital infrastructure investment is needed beyond just policies to make e-waste traceable and accountable

Sustainability must be designed into products from the beginning rather than treated as an afterthought

Topics

Infrastructure | Development

Key takeaways

E-waste represents both a significant challenge and economic opportunity, particularly for developing countries, with potential for profitable and bankable projects

Current global e-waste management is inadequate – over 62 million tons generated annually but less than 20% formally collected and recycled

Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) frameworks are essential, requiring manufacturers to take responsibility from design through disposal

Data-driven technologies (AI, IoT, digital product passports) are crucial for making e-waste traceable and manageable – ‘we can’t manage what we can’t measure’

Multi-stakeholder collaboration involving government, private sector, civil society, and youth is necessary for effective solutions

Sustainability must be ‘by design’ rather than an afterthought in product development

E-waste management addresses multiple UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs 3, 6, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and indirectly 4, 9, 17)

Local implementation of global standards is critical, requiring adaptation to community-specific behaviors, languages, and infrastructure

Consumer awareness and behavior change are fundamental to successful e-waste management

Youth innovation and involvement are essential for developing new solutions to e-waste challenges

Resolutions and action items

Countries should search for and replicate existing success stories of bankable e-waste management projects

Governments and industry should invest in digital infrastructure beyond just policies to make e-waste traceable

Global standards for digital product passports need to be established for compliance and innovation at scale

ITU will continue international knowledge exchange programs between countries like Nigeria, South Africa, Colombia, and India

Open source implementations of digital passports for electronics should be developed and made available

Individuals should assess their device usage and choose more eco-friendly designed products

Key summaries and takeaways will be posted on the IGF website for reference

Unresolved issues

How to effectively address the challenge of cryptographically obsolete IoT devices that cannot be updated due to firmware and hardware limitations

How to bridge the gap between global standards and local implementation challenges across different regions

How to effectively incentivize consumer participation in proper e-waste disposal and recycling programs

How to formalize the large informal e-waste sector that currently dominates in many developing countries

How to ensure data privacy and governance while implementing digital tracking solutions for e-waste

How to create flexible collection systems that accommodate different work schedules and lifestyles

How to ensure equitable access to e-waste management solutions across different economic levels

Suggested compromises

Balancing producer responsibility with consumer costs – acknowledging that EPR responsibilities may ultimately be passed to consumers through pricing

Combining formal and informal sector approaches – leveraging existing informal waste collectors while improving their methods and safety

Implementing flexible collection systems – using both fixed locations and mobile stations to accommodate different schedules and locations

Adopting phased implementation of global standards – allowing for local adaptation while maintaining overall consistency

Sharing responsibility across stakeholders – involving government, private sector, civil society, and individuals rather than placing burden on any single actor

We can’t manage what we can’t measure. And right now, the global e-waste system is mostly blind. When we are talking, for example, about the global e-waste monitor, the world generates over 62 million metric tons of e-waste. Less than 20% is formally collected and recycled.

Speaker

Participant (Ossam)

Reason

This comment crystallized a fundamental challenge in e-waste management by highlighting the paradox between the scale of the problem and our inability to track it effectively. It reframed the discussion from policy-focused solutions to data-driven accountability, introducing a systems thinking approach.

Impact

This observation shifted the conversation toward the critical role of technology and measurement systems in policy implementation. It provided a foundation for discussing AI, IoT, and digital product passports as essential tools rather than optional enhancements, elevating the technical discussion beyond traditional regulatory approaches.

E-waste is a challenge, a risk, but is really an opportunity. E-waste management is a real opportunity… it can be bankable. E-waste can be considered as bankable projects.

Speaker

Hossam El Gamal

Reason

This reframing challenged the typical deficit-focused narrative around e-waste by positioning it as an economic opportunity rather than just an environmental burden. The concept of ‘bankable projects’ introduced a business viability perspective that could attract private sector investment.

Impact

This comment established a more optimistic and solution-oriented tone for the discussion. It influenced subsequent speakers to consider economic incentives and business models, moving beyond regulatory compliance to entrepreneurial opportunities. This perspective helped bridge the gap between environmental concerns and economic development.

We are also working with civil society organizations to develop open source implementations of digital passports for electronics… because without open source implementations, we cannot really ensure that all this… the small, medium size and tiny organizations are innovating.

Speaker

Leandro Navarro (Audience)

Reason

This comment introduced the critical concept of democratizing access to e-waste management tools through open-source solutions. It highlighted how technical barriers could exclude smaller organizations from participating in circular economy initiatives, addressing equity in sustainability efforts.

Impact

This intervention deepened the technical discussion by connecting global standards to grassroots implementation. It prompted Jasmine to reflect on localization challenges and sparked consideration of how global solutions need to be adapted for different community contexts and capabilities.

The problem is Hong Kong people are always over time working. And then the opening hour of this office are actually kind of crushed to business hours, so we cannot recycle in a weekday… So something that being smartly defunct, it’s we at the Hong Kong government trying to have some flexible hour on some mobile station.

Speaker

Jasmine Ko

Reason

This comment provided a concrete example of how consumer behavior and lifestyle patterns can undermine well-intentioned e-waste policies. It demonstrated that effective policy implementation requires understanding and adapting to real-world user constraints.

Impact

This practical example grounded the theoretical discussion in real-world implementation challenges. It illustrated how policy design must consider human factors and led to recognition that successful e-waste management requires behavioral insights, not just regulatory frameworks.

We need to stop treating data as an afterthought. In fact, data is not for just transparency, but it’s the foundation of accountability as well for a true circular economy.

Speaker

Participant (Ossam)

Reason

This comment elevated data from a supporting role to a foundational element of circular economy systems. It challenged the traditional view of data as merely reporting tool and positioned it as essential infrastructure for accountability and system effectiveness.

Impact

This insight reinforced the earlier measurement theme and helped establish data governance as a core policy consideration rather than a technical detail. It influenced the final recommendations to emphasize digital infrastructure investment alongside traditional policy measures.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shaped the discussion by transforming it from a traditional policy-focused conversation into a more nuanced, multi-dimensional analysis of e-waste management. The progression moved from identifying challenges to reframing them as opportunities, then to examining practical implementation barriers and technological solutions. The comments collectively established three critical themes: the necessity of measurement and data systems for effective governance, the importance of economic viability for sustainable solutions, and the need for inclusive, locally-adapted approaches. This evolution created a more comprehensive understanding that effective e-waste management requires integration of policy, technology, economics, and human behavior rather than relying on any single approach.

When we discard our phones and laptops, where do they go?

Speaker

Emmanuel Niyikora

Explanation

This highlights a critical knowledge gap about e-waste disposal pathways that most consumers are unaware of, which is fundamental to understanding the scope of the e-waste problem

What systems do we actually have to make these policies work?

Speaker

Participant (Hossam El Muraie)

Explanation

This addresses the implementation gap between policy creation and practical enforcement mechanisms for e-waste management

How should government and regulators prepare for the imminent wave for cryptographical obsolete devices, especially to ensure secure and off-life handling and enforcement on the EPR formats?

Speaker

Nicholas (online participant)

Explanation

This addresses the emerging challenge of post-quantum cryptography making existing IoT devices obsolete and the resulting e-waste management implications

How do we make sure that we are able to adopt and really create, design something that fits into the community with different user behavior, density, and language?

Speaker

Jasmine Ko

Explanation

This focuses on the localization challenge of adapting global e-waste standards and solutions to specific community contexts and cultural differences

How would people be incentivized to really participate in proper e-waste disposal and create less waste in their device lifecycle?

Speaker

Jasmine Ko

Explanation

This addresses the behavioral economics aspect of e-waste management and the need to understand consumer motivation for sustainable practices

Need for research on bankable e-waste projects and replication of success stories in developing countries

Speaker

Hossam El Gamal

Explanation

This identifies the need to study and document financially viable e-waste management models that can be scaled across developing nations

Need for global standards for digital product passports to enable compliance and innovation at global scale

Speaker

Participant (Hossam El Muraie)

Explanation

This highlights the need for standardized digital documentation systems to track electronic products throughout their lifecycle globally

Research needed on youth innovations in e-waste management space

Speaker

Emmanuel Niyikora

Explanation

This emphasizes the need to identify, study, and support innovative solutions being developed by young entrepreneurs and innovators in the e-waste sector

Summary

This panel discussion, moderated by Sabhanaz Rashid Diya from the Tech Global Institute, focused on Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI) and its implementation across different countries, particularly in the Global South. The conversation brought together government officials, academics, and researchers from India, Brazil, Estonia, Dominican Republic, and South Africa to examine both the promises and challenges of DPI systems.

The panelists presented varied experiences with DPI implementation. Luca Belli from Brazil highlighted the success of PIX, Brazil’s digital payment system, which broke the Visa-MasterCard duopoly and demonstrated how DPI can enhance competition while keeping data governance local. In contrast, Keith Breckenridge from South Africa offered a more cautionary perspective, noting that while DPI represents an improvement over previous systems, financial inclusion hasn’t delivered promised benefits and has created new vulnerabilities, particularly for elderly populations susceptible to online fraud and gambling.

Sheo Bhadra Singh from India’s Telecom Regulatory Authority emphasized how India’s DPI journey began with addressing basic service delivery problems, leading to the creation of Aadhaar digital identity system that now serves 1.33 billion Indians. He stressed that DPI enabled massive financial inclusion through Jan Dhan accounts and UPI payments, processing billions of transactions monthly. However, Smriti Parsheera and Bidisha Chaudhury raised concerns about the strong state-market alliance in DPI development, questioning whether digitalization truly equals inclusion and highlighting the risk of creating “alt big tech” monopolies.

Armando Manzueta from Dominican Republic shared his country’s approach to building DPI as a “nation-building tool” grounded in rights and trust, emphasizing the importance of legal frameworks and civil society oversight. Rasmus Lumi from Estonia outlined the Freedom Online Coalition’s rights-respecting DPI principles, including human-centered design, inclusivity, transparency, and interoperability. The discussion concluded with agreement that successful DPI must be citizen-centric, ethical, and accountable, with proper safeguards embedded in law and meaningful participation from civil society to ensure these systems truly serve the public interest.

Keypoints

## Overall Purpose/Goal

This panel discussion aimed to examine Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI) from multiple perspectives, focusing on governance models, implementation experiences across different countries, and the balance between technological innovation and human rights protection. The conversation sought to identify universal principles for DPI while acknowledging that national contexts require different approaches.

## Major Discussion Points

– **Defining DPI and National Implementation Models**: Panelists explored various definitions and approaches to DPI, with examples from India (Aadhaar, UPI), Brazil (PIX payment system), South Africa, Estonia (X-Road), and Dominican Republic. The discussion highlighted how different countries have developed DPI solutions based on their specific problem statements – from financial inclusion to government service delivery.

– **Ownership, Governance, and Public vs. Private Control**: A central debate emerged around who should own and control DPI systems. The conversation contrasted Brazil’s fully public approach (enabling Freedom of Information requests) with India’s foundation-based model, and examined concerns about creating new monopolies while trying to break existing ones, particularly regarding big tech influence.

– **Rights, Privacy, and Accountability in DPI Systems**: Panelists discussed the importance of embedding human rights principles into DPI architecture, including data protection, transparency, and citizen control over personal data. Estonia’s approach of allowing citizens to track who accesses their data was highlighted as a best practice, while concerns were raised about exclusion and the risks of digital systems.

– **Financial Inclusion Benefits and Risks**: The discussion examined both the promise and perils of DPI-enabled financial inclusion. While acknowledging successes in expanding access to banking and payments, panelists raised concerns about predatory lending, online gambling, fraud vulnerability (especially for elderly users), and whether digital access truly equals meaningful inclusion.

– **Stakeholder Collaboration and Civil Society Role**: The conversation addressed the need for multi-stakeholder approaches to DPI development, questioning whether civil society has adequate voice in predominantly state-market partnerships. Panelists emphasized the importance of public participation, regulatory oversight, and the need for trusted intermediaries to help citizens navigate complex digital systems.

## Overall Tone

The discussion maintained a balanced, analytical tone throughout, combining optimism about DPI’s potential with realistic assessments of its challenges. Panelists were respectful but candid about both successes and failures in their respective contexts. The tone was collaborative rather than confrontational, with speakers building on each other’s points and acknowledging the complexity of implementing people-centered DPI. The conversation remained academically rigorous while staying grounded in practical implementation experiences.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Sabhanaz Rashid Diya** – Moderator, Tech Global Institute (not-for-profit focusing on global south digital rights and policy issues), Advisory network member of Freedom Online Coalition

– **Rasmus Lumi** – Director General of the Department of International Organizations and Human Rights at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Estonia

– **Luca Belli** – Professor at FGV Law School, Rio de Janeiro, and Director of the Center for Technology and Society

– **Smriti Parsheera** – Research Fellow at the Interledger Foundation, co-convening the panel with the Freedom Online Coalition

– **Sheo Bhadra Singh** – Principal Advisor for the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India

– **Armando Manzueta** – Vice Minister for Public Innovation and Technology at the Ministry of Public Administration of the Dominican Republic (online participant)

– **Keith Breckenridge** – Standard Bank Chair in African Trust Infrastructures at the University of Witwatersrand, South Africa (online participant)

– **Bidisha Chaudhury** – Assistant Professor of Government, Information, Cultures, and Digital Citizenship at the University of Amsterdam (online participant)

– **Audience** – Audience member asking questions (identified as Elizabeth, working with mobile industry association, previously worked with government of Nigeria on digital policy reforms)

**Additional speakers:**

None identified beyond those in the speakers names list.

# Digital Public Infrastructure: Governance, Implementation, and Human Rights – Panel Discussion Report

## Introduction and Context

This panel discussion, moderated by Sabhanaz Rashid Diya from the Tech Global Institute, examined Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI) from multiple perspectives, bringing together government officials, academics, and researchers from India, Brazil, Estonia, Dominican Republic, and South Africa. The conversation emerged from India’s G20 presidency promotion of DPI and has become a significant topic across global processes including Brazil, South Africa, the Freedom Online Coalition, the Global Digital Compact, and various UN bodies.

The discussion addressed a fundamental tension: whilst DPI represents deeply national technology for citizen databases and processes, it requires global dialogue and common language for interoperability. As Diya noted, this creates both opportunities and challenges for developing universal principles whilst respecting national contexts and sovereignty.

## Defining Digital Public Infrastructure

The panellists offered varied perspectives on what constitutes DPI. Armando Manzueta from the Dominican Republic provided a holistic definition, describing DPI as “not just a set of technologies but a nation-building tool that must be grounded in rights, resilience, and trust.” This framing moved beyond technical specifications to encompass broader governance and social objectives.

The discussion revealed that DPI implementations vary significantly across countries based on their specific problem statements. India’s journey began with addressing service delivery challenges for excluded populations. Brazil focused on breaking payment monopolies. Estonia built comprehensive digital government services over 25 years. Each approach reflected national priorities and contexts whilst contributing to a broader understanding of DPI possibilities.

## National Implementation Models and Experiences

### India’s Comprehensive Ecosystem

Sheo Bhadra Singh from India’s Telecom Regulatory Authority presented the most comprehensive DPI implementation, beginning with Aadhaar in 2009-2010 to provide public services access to large excluded populations. The system now serves 1.33 billion Indians with digital identities, enabling 550 million zero-balance bank accounts and processing 18.77 billion UPI transactions worth $290 billion in a single month of 2025.

Singh highlighted several major platforms beyond identity and payments: GEM (Government E-Market Place) with 11,000 products, 336 services, 164,000 buyers, and $625 billion in procurement; ONDC (Open Network of Digital Commerce) for democratizing e-commerce; and a health platform with 787 million registrations. He emphasised that India’s success required the state to play three key roles: creating institutional space through the National Payments Corporation of India (NPCI), scaling through policy mandates, and providing regulatory oversight of the multi-stakeholder ecosystem.

Singh stressed that DPI must be “user-centric and citizen-centric with the goal of serving society as the basic principle from which everything else can be built.”

### Brazil’s Competition-Focused Approach

Luca Belli from FGV Law School highlighted Brazil’s PIX payment system as exemplifying “good digital sovereignty” that fosters competition, domestic innovation, and people empowerment. PIX broke the Visa-MasterCard duopoly, reducing transaction costs from 3-5% to zero whilst distributing data collection and maintaining public accountability through freedom of information laws.

Belli provided important context about international payment system development, explaining how Russia developed the MIR system after 2014 sanctions, India innovated with UPI, and Brazil enhanced the model with PIX. He argued that PIX demonstrates how DPI can simultaneously increase customer welfare, enhance competition, produce innovation, and distribute data governance. Crucially, local entrepreneurs who innovate using this infrastructure pay taxes in Brazil, creating “a very different dynamic of empowerment through DPIs” compared to foreign-controlled systems.

Belli also emphasised the crucial role of India’s 2016 net neutrality regulations, which prohibited zero rating and dropped connectivity prices by 90%, enabling an innovation boom by making all services equally accessible.

### Estonia’s Long-term Digital Governance

Rasmus Lumi from Estonia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs outlined a 25-year journey of building digital public infrastructure starting around 2000, achieving nearly 100% online public services access. Estonia’s model ensures every citizen owns and controls their data, with the ability to verify which officials accessed their information, providing what Lumi termed “preventive accountability.”

Lumi noted that “I think divorce is now, I think, the only thing that we cannot do online yet” in Estonia. He stressed that “trust is the most important but uncodifiable element for DPI success – people can be forced to use systems but won’t maximise benefits without trust.”

Under Estonia’s chairship, the Freedom Online Coalition is developing rights-respecting DPI principles including human-centred solutions, inclusivity, transparency, privacy, security, sustainability, data-driven approaches, and technology neutrality.

### Dominican Republic’s Rights-Based Framework

Manzueta shared the Dominican Republic’s approach to DPI adoption beginning in 2020, focusing on data interoperability using Estonia’s X-Road platform. With 71-72 institutions currently using the ecosystem for data exchange, the country emphasises shared responsibility and oversight from civil society and private sector in DPI governance and implementation.

The Dominican Republic faces significant financial inclusion challenges, with roughly half the population financially excluded and only 30% of the included receiving broader financial services. This context shapes their approach to building DPI as a foundation for broader development goals.

### South Africa’s Cautionary Experience

Keith Breckenridge from the University of Witwatersrand provided the most critical perspective, noting that whilst South Africa has had digital welfare distribution since the early 1990s and biometric population registers for 20 years, financial inclusion hasn’t delivered promised benefits and has created new vulnerabilities.

Breckenridge highlighted alarming statistics: one trillion Rand was spent on online gambling in 2023 – equivalent to one-third of South Africa’s GDP. He warned that “we’re building an infrastructure that’s going to make a huge population newly vulnerable to really serious crimes, and there’s no discussion of what we should be doing about that.”

He also raised concerns about the Trump administration’s withdrawal from regulatory frameworks that could affect DPI oversight and accountability mechanisms.

## Key Debates and Disagreements

### Public versus Quasi-Public Ownership

A significant disagreement emerged between Belli and Smriti Parsheera regarding ownership models. Belli argued that Brazil’s PIX is “truly public because it’s delivered by government (Central Bank), ensuring freedom of information access, unlike India’s foundation-based model that can avoid transparency requirements.”

Parsheera countered with concerns about the “strong state-market alliance” in DPI implementation, warning of risks of creating “alt big tech that pursues scale recklessly while being blind to due process.” She questioned whether DPI initiatives were truly different from private tech monopolies in their approach to scaling without adequate safeguards.

### Persistent Big Tech Influence

Bidisha Chaudhury from the University of Amsterdam raised a crucial point about the persistence of big tech influence even in state-owned DPI systems. She noted that despite UPI being state-owned infrastructure, users primarily identify it with Google Pay rather than recognising it as public infrastructure.

Chaudhury posed a fundamental challenge: “How do we actually circumvent the influence of big tech when we rely on an infrastructure where big tech interests are so much more embedded already?” This question highlighted the gap between policy intentions and ground reality in DPI implementation.

### Financial Inclusion: Benefits versus Risks

Singh celebrated massive scale achievements in financial inclusion, whilst Breckenridge provided a stark counternarrative about how financial inclusion through DPI can enable harmful behaviours. Beyond gambling statistics, he highlighted risks of usurious lending at 1% daily interest and vulnerability to fraud, particularly affecting elderly populations who lack digital skills.

Parsheera raised important questions about how financial inclusion is defined, asking whether it should encompass only payments and remittances or include broader financial services like insurance. She also questioned whether biometric-based ID systems are necessary for achieving financial inclusion goals.

## Governance Challenges and Civil Society Participation

Parsheera highlighted that “civil society participation is limited in DPI deployment, which follows top-down approaches without robust transparency and accountability culture like regulatory impact assessments.” This observation revealed a significant gap between DPI rhetoric about multi-stakeholder governance and implementation reality.

Belli emphasised that successful DPI implementation requires “independent, well-resourced institutions that understand the technology and can work with stakeholders, plus systemic vision considering connectivity and affordability.” This institutional capacity extends beyond technical expertise to include governance capabilities and stakeholder coordination skills.

## Accountability and Protection Mechanisms

### Metrics of Exclusion

Breckenridge introduced the crucial concept of “metrics of exclusion,” arguing that DPI systems should make visible “the number of people whose identity numbers are at the moment disabled and how long it’s taken to answer queries around those numbers.” He cited South Africa’s example where two million identity numbers were disabled by simply editing a comment field, preventing access to all digital services.

### Liability Frameworks

Breckenridge called for liability frameworks where financial institutions bear responsibility for fraud losses, referencing Britain’s model of bank liability. This approach would shift responsibility from individual citizens to institutions better equipped to prevent and address fraud.

### Privacy and Data Control

Lumi outlined the complexity of privacy in DPI systems, identifying two dimensions: external privacy from outside users and internal privacy with checks on government access to citizen data. Estonia’s approach allows citizens to track who accesses their data, providing transparency and control over personal information.

## Technical Vulnerabilities and Risks

The discussion revealed multiple layers of risk in DPI systems. Breckenridge highlighted technical vulnerabilities including backend hacking where criminals steal encryption codes, plus social engineering attacks targeting vulnerable populations. The fragility of systems was demonstrated by South Africa’s experience where editing a comment field disabled two million identity numbers.

A recurring theme was the particular vulnerability of elderly and digitally unskilled populations to fraud and exploitation through DPI systems. The discussion revealed that whilst DPI can expand access, it can also create new forms of exclusion and harm for those unable to navigate digital complexity.

## Future Directions and Unresolved Questions

Several fundamental questions remained unresolved throughout the discussion:

1. **Digital Access versus Meaningful Inclusion**: Whether digital access automatically translates to meaningful social and economic inclusion remains contested.

2. **Governance Models**: How to balance state-market alliances without creating new monopolies whilst ensuring public accountability.

3. **Big Tech Influence**: How to achieve true digital sovereignty when private platforms control user interfaces and experiences.

4. **Vulnerability Protection**: How to protect elderly and digitally unskilled populations from exploitation whilst expanding digital access.

5. **Civil Society Participation**: How to move beyond token consultation to meaningful participation in DPI governance.

## Conclusion

This discussion revealed DPI as a complex phenomenon that defies simple categorisation as either beneficial or harmful. The panellists demonstrated that whilst DPI can deliver significant benefits in terms of financial inclusion, service delivery, and breaking monopolies, it also creates new risks and vulnerabilities that require careful attention.

The conversation highlighted the importance of context-specific approaches whilst identifying universal principles around transparency, accountability, and human-centred design. The tension between celebrating technical achievements and addressing unintended consequences suggests that DPI development requires more sophisticated evaluation frameworks and stronger governance mechanisms.

The diversity of perspectives represented in this panel – from government officials celebrating scale achievements to academics warning about systemic risks – reflects the broader global debate about digital governance and the role of technology in development. Key areas requiring continued attention include developing meaningful civil society participation mechanisms, creating robust accountability frameworks that make exclusion visible, and addressing the persistent influence of big tech platforms even within state-owned infrastructure.

Ultimately, the discussion reinforced that successful DPI implementation requires not just technical expertise but also institutional capacity, stakeholder engagement, and a commitment to protecting vulnerable populations whilst ensuring these systems truly serve the public interest.

Sabhanaz Rashid Diya: Okay. Let’s get started. Hello and good morning. I am very happy to see that there are still here people on Friday. So fantastic. And I’m very excited about our panel today. For those of you who don’t know me yet, I think I’ve met many of the people here already, but I am with the tech global institute. We are a not for profit that focuses on global south digital rights and policy issues and I’m very excited to be moderating this panel and being joined by a fantastic set of panelists both in person and online. We have about 90 minutes together and we’re going to divide this time up with some conversations with the panelists as well as an opportunity for the audience here as well as online to ask us some questions. So on that note, maybe I can start by introducing our panelists and then moving on to kind of talking a bit more about the discussion topic today, which is something that’s top of mind for all of us, which is digital public infrastructure. A topic that has been actually started by the Indian presidency of the G20 and has really moved on from there to Brazil and now South Africa is now also a major topic of the Freedom Online Coalition, which is where we are. I’m an advisory network member. A number of other global processes where DPI is increasingly coming up, whether that’s the GDC, whether that is some of the work from UNDP and a number of other UN bodies and UN processes. So this is an important topic, especially for those of us who are in the global majority. And I’m sure many of our panelists will have lots to say about that as well. So on that note, I am going to start with my panelists here. From the extreme left of me is Rasmus Lumi, who is the Director General of the Department of International Organizations and Human Rights at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Estonia. Then we have Luca Belli, who is a professor at FGV Law School, Rio de Janeiro, and Director of the Center for Technology and Society. We then have Smriti Parsheera, Research Fellow at the Interledger Foundation, who is also co-convening this panel with the Freedom Online Coalition. We then have Sheo Bhadra Singh, who is the Principal Advisor for the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India. That’s our in-person panelists. And online, we are being joined by Mr. Armando Manzueta, who is the Vice Minister for Public Innovation and Technology at the Ministry of Public Administration of the Dominican Republic. Keith Breckenridge, who is the Standard Bank Chair in African Trust Infrastructures at the University of Witwatersrand, South Africa. I feel like I butchered that name, but hopefully Keith will correct me. As well as Bidisha Chaudhury, who is the Assistant Professor of Government, Information, Cultures, and Digital Citizenship at the University of Amsterdam. So a star-studded panel, as we say, but I’ll probably get started on that. So as I was saying, digital public infrastructure, and I was actually just in a panel right before, where we also quite talked about how do we think about DPI, not just within the context of specific processes, but perhaps all processes. And we were discussing that in the context of the G7 presidency as well, where it hasn’t really come up as much as a priority. But there is real opportunity for that, particularly because this is such an important issue for the global majority. But often as we think about. regional public infrastructure, there’s a bit of a tension, because in many ways, this is a technology that’s deeply national in many ways, right? Because it is about building for your national citizen databases, looking into various national processes, and really strengthening the role of the public sector in delivering services and opportunities for its citizens. But increasingly, these national processes are also becoming, because they’re part of these global dialogues and global conversations right now, there is an increasing need to find a common language around DPI. DPIs can be of many shapes, forms, we still are lacking a very universal definition of DPI. I think we are maybe at the tail end of that debate now, which is great, but that was a major issue of discussion for several years. But because so many countries are finding their own adoption models, thinking through their own public infrastructures, there is increasingly a need for thinking, what is the universal element of it? Are there certain principles that ties DPIs across different kinds of countries? How do we think about governance in this space? And are these governance approaches cross-border? Should they be cross-border? Can they be cross-border? And what are some of the political contexts, the social contexts driving DPI? Because while we want DPIs to be interoperable within national boundaries, we also want them to have some level of interoperability within international borders as well, because the whole point is to really tackle the data fragmentation problem, tackle some of the EGOF fragmentation problems. So there is a lot of promise there. So those are some of the, I guess, topics that I hope we will be discussing today. But that is sort of the context and backdrop within which I am having this conversation. I would also like to flag that as part of the Freedom Online Coalition, Estonia has been, during their chairship, leading on the rights-respecting DPI principles effort as well that Rasmus will speak about, which is also one way of really helping us think through those universal principles. So on that note, maybe I will start with Arma. with Luca, actually, who’s here with us today, maybe share a little bit more about, you know, what are, what do you think are some of the social, political, economic incentives driving DPI adoption in countries? And perhaps, you know, what, what’s, what’s some of the consideration that governments and other stakeholders should be having when they’re thinking about implementing DPI?

Luca Belli: Thank you very much for inviting me here and for organizing this very timely discussion. And let me also clarify that most of the thoughts I’m going to share are the result of our empirical research in one of our flagship projects at the center, which is called CyberBRICS, that analyzes the digital policies of the BRICS grouping. And so we have been analyzing data governance, cybersecurity, digital transformation, AI governance over the past seven years in the various phases. And a parallel theme that has emerged is the theme of digital sovereignty, which is what has led us to analyze even more in-depth DPIs. And let me tell you why. So we have recently published a book, which is online in open access on the site of the editor of Cambridge University Press on digital sovereignty in the BRICS. And by analyzing how the BRICS grouping has shaped the narrative, the initiative on digital sovereignty, you immediately understand that there is an ample spectrum of initiatives. Some of them are those initiatives that we analyze, but we do not recommend to reproduce, that flirt with authoritarianism or protectionism. Some others are some very interesting initiatives that I define as good digital sovereignty, that basically utilize the construction of technology to foster competition, to foster domestic innovation, and to empower people. And one of the very good examples of this is a digital public infrastructure we use in Brazil for online payments, PIX. I’m not sure if everyone knows it, but the So, I’m going to talk a little bit about the digital public infrastructure, and why this is a very good example of digital public infrastructure, and why this is a very good example of good digital sovereignty, and why this is something that automatically triggers from our experience user empowerment, innovation, and competition, and also taxation of the innovation that is happening in the world. So, the first way we have in Brazil, we had in Brazil to perform electronic payments was through Visa and MasterCard. So, we were totally dependent on a duopoly, two companies that are foreign companies, nothing against, I have literally zero against them, but they charge between 3% and 5% for every transaction. So, in every country, the consumers pay 3% for every transaction, and the consumers pay 5% for every transaction to Visa and MasterCard if you are dependent on them. So, since the Brazilian central bank that has developed the PIX with a multi-stakeholder effort with specialists and also with banks and financial intermediaries, and also implements it through a multi-stakeholder process, because there is something called the PIX forum, where all the implementers, the financial sector representatives can participate in the process, and the investors can also participate in the process. So, since this has been implemented, not only the duopoly has been broken, which is something that we should really celebrate, and our antitrust authority, through conventional means, would have never been able to do this, the duopoly has been broken by creating an alternative. And that is extremely powerful. So, the duopoly has been created, and it has dramatically reverted in the pockets of cost of customers, 3% to 5%, which is already something stellar. but also that this has distributed data collection. So people do not realize that over the past 10 years, Visa and MasterCard have become big data companies. So the main part of their revenue is not the three to 5% they collect per transaction, is the data they collect and they process, and thanks to which they generate AI and new services that usually also is the intellectual property of which is usually then delocalized to fiscal havens like the Cayman Islands and the Virgin Islands. So what is interesting here is not only that the customer welfare is increased, but also that competition is automatically enhanced, innovation is produced, and data governance is distributed. And the local entrepreneurs that innovate thanks to this, then they have to pay taxes in Brazil. So we have a very different dynamic here of empowerment through DPIs. So that is why we really see this as an incredible example of good digital sovereignty that actually Brazil has to some extent copied from India. India has UPI, and actually it’s an untold story that we recount in our book that India to some extent took inspiration from Russia, another BRICS country that in 2014, after he invaded for the first time Ukraine and next in Crimea, was blocked from the first sanction was the blockage of Visa and MasterCard. From overnight, they had to create a new system, it’s called MIR, like the space station, but it is based on a card. So it’s a very 20th century conception of it. The great innovation of the Indians has been leveraging their skills and do it a software-based digital public infrastructure. And I think to some extent, Brazil has enhanced it because if you look at the Indian example, that is something that in our observation makes it much easier to implement DPIs to delegate them. to the implementation, at least, to a non-public stakeholder. In India is the National Payment Corporation of India, which is a foundation, which is much more agile in implementing things than bureaucracies, and everyone knows the limits of government and bureaucracy in this sense. But I think that what is the problem here is that if you want to file a freedom of access to information in India, so let’s say that you are a user and you want to know which data it’s collected about you and which are the data security measures implemented, they can reply to you, we are sorry, this is not a public organ, this is a foundation, so we are not bound by freedom of access to information. And I think that this could be easily improved in India, but so far, I see, I have this criticism, the only criticism I actually have on the UPI in India. In Brazil, this has been improved, because it is a public, it’s a truly public service, it’s not something public only because it is publicly accessible, it’s public because it’s the government that delivers it. And so if I file a freedom of access to information request to the Brazilian Central Bank, they have to reply me, otherwise I sue them. And they have to, at that point, they will have to reply me. So if I, as a Brazilian citizen, I want to know which kind of data are collected and what are the measures, they need to tell me. So it’s much more performing in terms of accountability. So I think that for all these reasons, I think that there is a lot of room for considering DPR something very good for digital sovereignty, for good digital sovereignty, but also there are some limits, and so we should not praise them as if it was a religion, but be very pragmatic and analyze the fact. Thank you.

Sabhanaz Rashid Diya: Thanks, Luca, that was very helpful. And I think perhaps that’s where I would love to kind of bring in Keith from online. In terms of, you know, Luca talked a little bit about, sort of, you know, both the promise of DPR, but also the pragmatism associated with it, and the fact that. you know, there’s a very positive example for Brazil, but I know from your research in South Africa, you know, there has also been a different set of results. So, I’m curious, Keith, if you could share a little bit more about what your experience has been, you know, from the old age of IDs, digital IDs, and now, you know, the new shiny DPI, what some of those learnings and experiences has been from South Africa, and perhaps what are some of the political and socioeconomic contexts within which DPIs are existing in the global majority?

Keith Breckenridge: Thank you. Yeah, it is very interesting. Thanks very much for the invitation. Yeah, so DPI has come to South Africa through the G20 and the Gates Foundation and Operation Bulentlela. It’s coming in from the top of the bureaucracy, but many of the things that people think about as being kind of benefits of DPI have existed in South Africa for a long time, as they have in other places. I’m not suggesting we’re the only ones who’ve had that. So, we’ve had a digital system for welfare distribution since the early 1990s, in fact, a little bit older than that, and a biometric population register that covers everybody, at least, I can say it’s been in place for about 20 years, and both of these things interact with the payment system. They do not work in real time. There are all sorts of kind of clunky bits and pieces of it that don’t work well. I will say DPI is a big improvement on the plan that was in place in South Africa three or four years ago, which was one aimed at moving the population register into the security cluster. So, it was all about basically targeting people who were, in the officials’ minds, were illegally in South Africa. So, migrants, in particular, were going to be hunted down using high-resolution ID photographs and a CCTV network, all of this done with the support of the contracting companies. I won’t name them here, but they were selling that as a kind of resource to the bureaucracy. So, DPI, comparatively, wonderful. I mean, it’s a much… better system, a much better plan. And I think there are lots of things that DPI can do that would be excellent in the plans at least especially the UPI plans. We see space for enabling intermediaries for example letting people act as what we would call fiduciaries. And there’s possibility to build that out so that in fact you can. It’s not a question of very under equipped poor people confronting a powerful state and not being able to get any answers or remedies at the moment. But but the big kind of takeaway benefit that people keep pushing for DPI which is really about access and financial inclusion. I mean those things have been in place in South Africa for a long time for generations. There’s no big payoff from that area. I’m really skeptical that there are benefits for poor people a real time settlement. I think there’s actually this risk there. I don’t think it’s a benefit. And then so. And I think we really have to ask some hard questions about financial inclusion. I’m sorry. I can see. I mean I do understand. If you look at my work you’ll see a lot of benefits to this. But we have to ask what’s happening now. And financial inclusion is not doing what people promise for it. It is again something that we’ve seen for a while. We’re at least a decade into mass financial inclusion. It’s encouraging usurious lending. There’s no asset creation. People are borrowing at 1 percent a day and they’re being kind of pushed into a blacklisting engine that says if you don’t pay we’re going to block you out of ever accessing the formal credit system. The biggest problem in South Africa people don’t want to talk about is online gambling. So now people accessing the payment system using the gambling apps. It’s truly astonishing. One trillion Rand was spent on online gambling systems in 2023. That’s a third of GDP one third of GDP spent on gambling. And the tax collector is kind of complicit in this process because it’s like a big chunk of that and put it into. So it’s like a hidden digital tax. And there are lots of risks for families here, too, that people, well, you know, but people don’t want to talk about it while we’re designing and talking about designing a more and more expansive system to make people visible on these networks. So there’s backend hacking, people breaking into, this happens in South Africa. I’ve yet to see what it looks like anywhere else. So when people break in, they steal the encryption codes and they can essentially help themselves to people’s online accounts. Lots of examples of that. We have lots of examples, as everybody else does, of what we call pig butchering, people being kind of, you know, seduced into giving away their money to, sometimes members of the family, but sometimes people they meet online. And all of that worry, that kind of fear of the dangers of moving the poor into the payment system was before the Trump administration, right? Which has now seen a wholesale withdrawal from the regulatory state. And you know what this looks like, I’m not going to repeat it, but, you know, the key institutions, the SEC, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and probably more important than anything else for us was this Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which made companies that behave badly, literally hand themselves into the Department of Justice in the United States. And that’s a wide range. There are dozens of companies that did this, including some famous examples from Brazil. And that kind of regulatory, whatever one calls it, context, has disappeared. All right, so if we don’t ignore all of these problems, what should we be doing? That’s, I suppose, the question. And the fundamental issue really has to be making what we call metrics of exclusion much more visible. So while we’re talking about DPI, what happens with DPI is we make credit scores visible. That’s the big driver. So companies can now build either their own system or they can share data. And it puts individuals in a, you know, truthfully, I’m not sure they’re the beneficiaries of this, I’m not sure. sure that financial inclusion is not much evidence. There’s a lot of good evidence that in fact the overwhelming effect of a kind of mass digital lending system is is actually increasing poverty. It’s not fixing the problem. So exclusion and metrics and publishing that should be immediately on the Web site. It should be. This is the number of people whose identity numbers are at the moment disabled. And this is how long it’s taken for us to basically answer queries around those numbers. I can tell you what this looks like in South Africa. There was a court case last year in January where the Department of Home Affairs admitted that two million identity numbers had been turned off turning off. And in our current system just involves editing literally a comment field in on the third page of the population register. And that disables the identity number from functioning. It means you cannot access the birth of your child. Can’t bury your parents on access to bank accounts. You cannot function digitally. All these Estonian capacities people like to talk about. They’re very easily switched off in the current system. And that needs to be much more carefully regulated. So officials who edit the population register they need to be subject to exactly the same kind of oversight as the as the people who are being essentially identified by. So and then I’d say the third big issue is making space for what we call trusted fiduciaries. I think it has to be more than lawyers. These have to be officials almost or semi-private officials who are self-regulated in the first instance who can interact with this DPI engine. The nicest example of how this actually works in South Africa are the undertakers. So that you know we have excellent death registration and very quick well handled death documentation that when someone dies they get very quickly documented. And the reason is that undertakers earn a fortune from putting bodies in the ground and they’ve been given granted access to the population register in order. it to speed up that whole process. Now we need something like that that helps when you know you go to get an identity documents and you see that the population registers misspelled your name mischaracterize your gender. You know there are so many mistakes. Once you start once you’ve lived with a big powerful system like we have for generations the areas become they sort of lurk in the databases. And as soon as you build a nice clever joined up into operable system you begin to see the dangers of that for all sorts of things. You now can’t access health care because you somehow fall in foul of a maternity suit or paternity suit in the in another area of the state’s databases.

Sabhanaz Rashid Diya: Thanks Keith. I think those are some interesting things I’ve thought for us. And I think lots for also the panel like you know I will definitely come back to you with some questions. Maybe I’ll try and turn to 3D now in terms of I think you know Luca and Keith gave very different starting points for DPI in terms of you know what the political social legacy set of context was in that space. And I’m curious. And I think some of the points that were raised really was around sovereignty around security and governance around transparency access to data in order to kind of build robust systems. So I’m curious from your research and your experience what do you think are some of the prerequisites as far as regulation and governance is concerned to really build a people centered DPI. Thanks.

Smriti Parsheera: They are such a pleasure to be a part of such a stellar panel. Let me just begin by introducing you know the organization I’m with Intelligent Foundation in case people don’t know of them. It’s a nonprofit that works on financial inclusion and open payments. But I should caveat the views I’m expressing here are my own as a researcher and civil society participant from India. And I’m going to try and address that and also speak to some of the points that were made earlier by you know first thing what is the good of the moment that we are in. This momentum that we are seeing around DPI as Keith said not all of it is new. Not all these interventions are new. But what is new is the firepower that’s going. I think that’s a good direction to be going in, but I want to add some observations around, you know, what could be done better, and I think the first thing I want to bring in is, you know, if you think about the participants in this ecosystem broadly for the state, the markets, the civil society, and the actual public, who is the, you know, the beneficiary of this, you know, this ecosystem, who is the, you know, the driver of this ecosystem, who is the, you know, the, you know, the, you know, the, you know, the, you know, the, you know, the beneficiary, ultimately, of, supposed to be the beneficiary of all of these developments, and there is this very strong state-market alliance that we are seeing, both in terms of the implementation of DPI, in terms of how it’s being developed, how it’s being rolled out, but also in terms of the philosophy behind DPI, right? So if, in the Indian context, we often see the entities which are developing DPI being called as a startup in the government, right? So there is this valorization of the idea of startup, of the idea of markets, Aadhaar, which is our digital ID program, has been called as a poverty killer app, you know? So a lot of phrases, a lot of thinking, philosophy, coming from this idea, valorization of the way, you know, the Silicon Valley has developed, but also, as Luca said, it’s a counter to the way Silicon Valley has developed and, you know, proliferated in all over the Global South, in particular. So DPI is, in that sense, both a counter, but also runs the risk of following some of that same playbook, and I think that’s the first thing we need to be a little worried about. And in my work, I, you know, use this concept of an alt big tech. So in the process of being a pushback against big tech, could we be creating another ecosystem which is pursuing scale in the same reckless manner, which is, you know, really blind to due process, really blind to other things in the pursuit of reaching scale fast? So I think those are things to be conscious about in the DPI story. The second thing I want to focus on is when we talk about the public in DPI, there are many, you know, interpretations, as Luca said, is it public in terms of ownership? Is it? public in terms of the deployment landscape, but I think the really important question is, is it public in terms of the participation? And there again, the question is, when we are thinking about, you know, the Global South context, very often we are in ecosystems where, you know, things like regulatory impact assessment, cost-benefit analysis are not part of the day-to-day culture, and there are exceptions like the TRAI in India, which has this very robust culture of transparency and accountability in its regulation-making process, but that’s unfortunately not something which trickles down to all agencies, and it’s certainly not something we’ve seen in the deployment of the DPI process, so it has been very much a top-down sort of approach, and that’s something to think about. The linked point of that is really, you know, the role of civil society in all of this, and I think the fundamental question of who is civil society, right? Usually you think of civil society by definition as something which is, you know, separate from the state and markets, it’s a voluntary association of people who assemble around certain values, but those values could be very different. The values could be about, you know, that the route for empowerment is through market-based mechanism, and that’s one value, or the value could be that you need to push for more human rights and think about, that’s another value, and I think it’s open for debate which value is better than the other, but it is important to have space for both these values reflected in the platform, and sometimes it does happen that, you know, certain allied values find a space in internal debates, but values which are not aligned either have to resort to the media or have to resort to courts to find a voice, so I think that’s an important conversation to shift that and really bring in some, you know, first principles, accountability, participation. And the final point I want to make from the Indian experience, I think I’ve been a bit dull and negative in what I’ve said, but I want to bring in a point about the value of social construction. Right, so much of what we are thinking about DPI from different perspectives is about techno-determinism. There are some people who think, like, this is the path to, you know, to kind of empowerment, to inclusion. There are some people who think this is the path, a sure path to a… So, there is a counter view that there is a process of social construction that is happening in the DPI deployment. I’ll give the example of Aadhaar in the Indian context. So, when it was first deployed, the idea from the agencies was that this would just be a number, this would not be a card, right? But when society accepted it, they said, you know, we actually need a card, we are used to a card as a form of identity, and the, you know, over time the way it was accepted by society and by the authority was that now it is accepted as a form of card. Similarly, several other features like, you know, initially, whenever you would use your Aadhaar, you would use those digits and, you know, that particular number, but over time a virtual version of it has emerged as a part of the pushback, as a part of the questions by, you know, before the court, the idea that, you know, can you have a masked ID where instead of revealing your main ID everywhere, you just reveal this virtual ID. So, there has been positive social construction which has taken place, but again, coming back to the question of participation, very often, you know, these are brought as new mechanisms, but because they are not originating from the agency itself, they’re coming back as a, you know, as a pushback, as a way to accommodate. Sometimes they don’t become the mainstream solution, and I think that’s where we need to go in terms of DPI in recognizing that there is a lot of, just from experience, from your own country, from each other’s country, so as others do, you know, digital ID, I think it would be valuable to look at the default as virtual ID as opposed to the main ID, to learn from each other’s experience, and I think that would be a positive way to proceed with DPI.

Sabhanaz Rashid Diya: Thanks, Smriti . Lots of little nuggets for me to pick up on later. Maybe I’m going to now turn to Bidisha, as you’re coming online, and I think I want to double-click on the question of ownership. I think we just heard different takes on it, you know, in terms of what Brazil’s experience has been in terms of, you know, these being owned by truly public agencies, and therefore the Right to Information Act and FOIAs kind of play in that space. We are hearing sort of a mixed bag of reactions in terms of, you know, DPIs elsewhere, where maybe the public agency is not fully in charge. in terms are fully present in terms of the ownership of the system. And I think just to build on that, DPS are also highly modular systems, right? It’s not just one big technology. There’s multiple parts to it, multiple stakeholders at play. And to Sridhi’s point, really this conversion from, you know, are we actually creating another monopoly in order to tackle, you know, sort of the existing monopoly, right? So how do we think about monopolization and ownership in this space as well? So I’m curious if you could speak a little bit more to that in terms of, you know, your research, how you’re thinking about, how do we truly make DPI a public interest technology and a public facing technology? And how should policymakers, civil society and other stakeholders be thinking about ownership within the DPI architecture?

Bidisha Chaudhury: Thank you, Diya. And thank you everyone for, I think they’ve all made excellent points. I don’t know how much new things I can add to the points that have already been made. But just to respond to the question of ownership and publicness in DPI, I want to underline, at least in the Indian context, the role, very important role of the state in, you know, in conceptualizing and implementing DPI. And not just building on Aadhaar, but if you look at UPI and then other efforts, even though there has been very, very close partnership between the state and the market, which is also not new in the Indian context and elsewhere state market partnership has always been there. But particularly in case of DPIs, I think there are three specific roles that the Indian state has played. And they have been very clear in owning this DPI, even though there has been considerable amount of effort by, I would say, the software industry partnership in India. And I see these three roles as creating an institutional space, like even the creation of NPCI to, you know, push forward. forward the agenda of financial innovation or digitalization of financial products. The state and the RBI has played a very important role in creating that kind of an institutional space where the DPI-like innovation can take place. The second has been in implementation of DPIs or pushing for implementation of DPI and specifically scaling this up. Came through very, very clear state policy. So Aadhaar was mandated for all welfare, right? So this cannot happen. This kind of scale cannot be achieved without the intervention of the state. The same we see for UPI that all, you know, the fact that all welfare accounts needs to be connected to a mobile phone number and a zero balance bank account. That created that whole scale of public who will now be the market for financial innovation or digital financial inclusion. So here the state played very important role for scaling up DPI or even creating the possibility of scaling up something like an UPI. And the other role that the state plays is regulatory role that how to regulate different, this multi-stakeholder ecosystem that we have, how to regulate each of these stakeholders. But having said that, so I think in the case of India, the state has been very much there in terms of subsidizing the infrastructure on which these are built in regulating these infrastructural spaces and stakeholder and also scaling up this infrastructure to, you know, much of the Indian population, let’s say. But I think the word of caution that I would just put here that while the state does play an important role and I think that should play an important role, especially in a global majority, where the role of the state. in bringing in development, bringing in inclusion is more, should be more explicitly realized. But the caution here, I’ll just take the example of UPI in this case. So one of the things that came out of our research is that when the state is regulating and when you are relying on a very, very global digital infrastructure or global digital platform, there is always, there is already very, very big players. So I understand the DPI is kind of thought as an alternative to big tech, this question of digital sovereignty. But to what extent the big tech can, like you can bring, create an alternative infrastructure. And here I mean the software and the technological infrastructure, which is truly independent of the big tech is something we need to really explore and ask more carefully. For example, one of the things that came up in our study of UPI in India is that even though it is seen as something which is owned by the state, to some extent, subsidized by the state, scaled by the state, the major traffic that is, that controls the UPI ecosystem, or at least the volume of transaction, is GPA. So much so that many of the vendors, small scale vendors that we interview, they don’t even think of UPI as a public infrastructure. They kind of synonymously think of it as a Google infrastructure. So, you know, even without knowing much about it, because that’s what they use nonstop, you know, constantly, like GPay, PhonePay, PhonePay is a Walmart subsidiary. So they call this infrastructure as GPay, or as PhonePay. So they don’t even think of it as an UPI which is owned by the state, or maybe not owned by, maintained and sustained by the state. So I think that is where it is, it becomes very critical to understand, or even explore that how do we actually circumvent. the influence of the big tech when we rely on an infrastructure where the big tech interests are so much more embedded already. I think so that’s a cautionary tale with which I will stop.

Sabhanaz Rashid Diya: Thanks, Bidisha. I think we’ve heard quite a bit from our non-state stakeholders, if I may, as the term of the multilateral space goes, in terms of the various iterations of DPI, questions around ownership, questions around sovereignty, some positive, some sort of cautionary tale. So it’s been quite a mixed bag, and I think that’s really great because I think it starts demonstrating that not all DPI is the same. It is supposed to be different, and it is in this monolithic technology that just gets replicated around the world, and I think that’s a really important piece of that puzzle. But I will now turn to our government stakeholders, perhaps, in terms of you’ve heard quite a bit from the various panelists here, and maybe I’ll start with you, Mr. Singh, in terms of India has come up quite a bit in this conversation, as it should. I think India has been such a leader in the DPI space in terms of really setting that mark, demonstrating how it’s possible for a global majority country to pull something like that together, and a very deliberate role of the state in terms of tackling issues of inclusion, of whether it’s financial inclusion, whether it is identity inclusion, whether it is socioeconomic inclusion. There have been multiple layers of that, but we’ve also heard these concerns around ownership, these questions around what is really the role of the state? How does the state work with the broader software ecosystem? And perhaps, what are some of the regulatory considerations as the state thinks about scaling this technology? So maybe I’ll turn to you to respond a bit to that, and just one add-on to that question is I know while the DPI infrastructure is a very national, domestic play, India has also been leading in terms of making. need global, right? So I’m curious also as you’re thinking through your response, how does India see sort of its learnings nationally play out in terms of the global scaling of the technology, and particularly some of the principles that it carries forward?

Sheo Bhadra Singh: Thank you, dear. I would just like to start with the problem statement, what actually we are looking at to solve. Because a lot of the times, we go directly to the issues related to privacy and secrecy and all the things. But the problem, and particularly in India, what we were actually looking at is a large section of population which was not having access to the public services. So this was the main driving theme. And when we embarked on this journey of DPI, I think most of us were not aware that this will be named as DPI at all. So because Aadhaar came way back in, I think, 2009, 2010. And that actually laid the foundation of the present-day DPI is what we are having. So the basic requirement to give public services down the pyramid to everybody, access to the public services, was the basic requirement through which this journey started. And once we had the Aadhaar digital identity, and in the present case, we are at almost 1.33 billion Indians are having the Aadhaar digital identity. And that forms the basis of all our services, which are extended to. And once these services are available, it is being used by not only those who were earlier not basically accessing these services. It is being used by the, it has become a citizen-centric. services now. So when we embarked, now we are a lot of in the world it is being discussed actually what DPI is and what should be the foundational principles of these DPI has to be. But as far as we are concerned, we have our own foundational principles when we embarked our journey. And let me say that as we negotiate, as we travel, as we implement, as we learn, we always have some aspects which we change and introduce in our systems. So nothing becomes you can say that it is not like things being cast in stone. Based on our experiences, there has been some judicial pronouncements also. And based on those, we make changes in our systems and we try to be transparent. So the basic principles which we actually have in our systems, I would just like to go through maybe in case of taking the risk of repetition also that we have certain principles like eliminate economic, technical and social barriers. Then the system has to be modular and scalable. Keep privacy enhancing technologies and security features within the core design to ensure individual privacy, data protection and resilience based on standards. And then we have laws, regulations and policies should ensure that these systems are transparently governed and promote competition. So these are the basic principles through which we have been building our DPIs. The government has been the major source of inspiration, major source of finance also in these cases. But I’ll not say that it is basically driven by government. There are a lot of individuals, a lot of organizations who are participating. and helping us build the DPIs. Now once we have this DPIs in place, I just wanted, because we have an experience of already implementing and achieving the scale, which we can showcase to the world at large, and what are the changes it actually makes to the society. I’d just like to give some details of that. But before that, once the Aadhaar was in place, digital identity was in place, we had a challenge of how to provide the financial inclusion to the large section of the society. Most of the Indians, maybe about 10 years back, they were not having bank accounts also. So we went through this digital identity of Aadhaar, and in India, we open an account maybe in less than half a minute. The KYC is being done through Aadhaar, and an account is opened, and that account gets mostly operated through a mobile. So there was in parallel the 4G was being implemented all over India. Mobile phones and the broadband was actually proliferating at a very fast pace, and digital identity, people got, the accounts were being opened, and in the Jan Dhan account, what we call, is the zero balance account which is being opened. The present count is 550 million. So this is the number, so these people who are basically out of any financial inclusion, they got a platform, they got, it is just. a mind-boggling figures, which I am actually quoting, and so many people were out of the banking system. And just because we had these DPIs, we had these platforms, the financial inclusion of large proportion of our population actually happened. Once they were part of the banking system, there were a lot of benefits government was giving, which came to their accounts, money was getting transferred to their accounts, right from building toilets in the villages to building houses in the villages, and pensions were being given. So the experience of India was not very good in giving these benefits to the people because a lot of the proportion of it was being siphoned off so the direct benefit transfer actually came into being. And then UPI happened. UPI happened much at a later date while we had an Aadhaar identity, we had this Jan Dhan account, and what UPI did was that the transaction through the mobile bank happened at a very fast pace. So people adopted, they had an account, so they were able to transact. So these things actually happened, and now, in fact, the last month I am having the details, 18.77 billion transactions were $290 billion. That is only for the month of 2025. The adoption of UPI has been so fast because we had a system of accounts, we had a system of digital identity already in place. And then now India is actually building upon all these advantages. There are three or four examples which I just need to quote to give the context to our audiences today. that we have a GEM, that is Government E-Market Place, where most of you may be aware that the state, federal, and the state governments is one of the biggest, does one of the biggest procurement of services and goods. In our case, there has been a DPI built on that, which we call GEM, and the facilities of procurement of goods and services to all the state governments and the federal government actually happens through that. And if I just give the figures, there are 11,000 products, 336 services, 1,64,000 buyers, and for last year, that is from the April of 2024 to March of 2025, there was a procurement of $625 billion through that. So, and what has happened is, actually before that, there was a small group of suppliers. They had actually controlled the market of procurement, the government was procuring through them. It has basically democratized the suppliers. It has enabled a person sitting in a village, a person sitting there in the remote part of the country to supply, to become a supplier to the government. This is how, actually, the transition is happening. Then we, I don’t know how many of you would be aware of Open Network of Digital Commerce, ONDC, which is being implemented. We have seen, actually, the platforms, which are basically, which provide e-commerce, have not been very democratic in nature. There are issues with small and medium enterprises to actually come on board on them. So, this ONDC also is being made for actually, it doesn’t. So, what we are doing is we are providing a platform for small and medium-sized enterprises to participate in the e-commerce activities. The government actually stops at or it doesn’t say that larger ones cannot come to our platform, but it actually enables small and medium-sized enterprises to actually, it enables them to participate in the e-commerce activity. We have in fact a very popular platform for small and medium-sized enterprises. We have a very large number of small and medium-sized enterprises in the common public, and the number is also, I would like to quote, is 787 million. And there are 409,000 health facilities which have been registered, and 648,000 health professionals. So, what it has done, that you have an animation, and you download to it, regular animation, and the hospitals are registered by the government, health professionals are registered by the government, you go to all these hospitals which are on board, show your card, give your number, and you get the facilities, and the payment is done, the government does the payment for that. So, it’s a very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very difficult thing to do for a human citizen, and earlier, if you just imagine the numbers, and imagine whether it can be done without a DPI in place, the answer is absolutely no. So, in India, we had no option if we have to, the time was very short, services to be provided to the citizens was a very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very difficult. Whether we could have done it without DPI, the answer is no. Whether we could have waited for the definitions to be finalized, the answer is no. We have embarked on our journey, we have achieved a lot, we still learn, and we and based on, there is another aspect, in fact, in our G20 presidency. We had included this DPI as one of the pillars and it was accepted, with certain changes which was made during the negotiations. And I think that was the time when the world actually woke up to the DPIs and started discussing about them. Although a lot of things were happening at other places, but now it is the time for all of us to sit together and to see that there has been a lot of experiences in other places also, how we can learn from them. And as far as India is concerned, we have offered free of cost to any country which wants to adopt DPI platform. Our prime minister has offered this during the G20 presidency, and it can be adopted by any country and we’ll be very happy to actually help that. Thank you.

Sabhanaz Rashid Diya: I think quite a bit of background from what India’s sort of problem statement was and how it kind of approached that larger ecosystem. And I think one of the things that was also interesting, I think India’s G20 presidency also came right after the pandemic, when the world also felt that if governments could not deliver public services and we were in a situation where physical infrastructures were no longer functional, then this was really the way forward. So I think many things kind of tied together and really helped propel DPI into the spotlight. I’m gonna turn to Armando, who has joined us online from the Dominican Republic. And I know it was very interesting to hear from Mr. Singh in terms of what India’s sort of problem statement was, what it was really trying to solve, and sort of the long journey it went through in terms of various iterations of what we now today know as DPI. I’m curious, Armando, as some, you know, leading a lot of the innovation that’s happening in the Dominican Republic in terms of reimagining government services, reimagining public-to-citizen relationships, and how do we sort of rethink digital transformation. So maybe you could share a bit more about what your experience has been in the DPI space, and also just building on the previous question, how is sort of the national priorities tying up to the more universal principles around DPI, and how is sort of Dominican Republic adopting some of those?

Armando Manzueta: Well, first of all, thank you very much for inviting me to this amazing panel. The conversation has been very rich, and I’m more than eager to share a bit of the work that we’re doing so far in the DR. For the Dominican Republic, the DPI as a concept is something that is fairly new. We basically started back in 2020 when we were thinking about how to solve societal-level problems that are tied to public services, especially when it comes to data, interoperability, and identity, and of course payments. So in that regard, for us, DPI is not just a set of technologies, but a nation-building tool, and one that must be grounded in rights, resilience, and trust. In that regard, basically there are two realities that are driving our adoption, and that’s one which is socially, since we’re responding to citizen demands for accessible and inclusive services that respects their dignity and privacy. Politically, in the sense that DPI enables a more transparent participatory result in the government, and the state of course, and economically, because for us it’s a letter for inclusion that is also unlocking opportunities for not just for the people on their feet, but also for small businesses, young women, and especially people that are in underserved areas. But we realized that we can only fulfill our promise to the people when the foundations are right, and for us that means doing a major groundwork for having a strong legal and regulatory frameworks around data protection. interoperability, and open standards, for us to establish institutions that ensure oversight and safeguard implementation, and of course, having institutions that are involved, especially from the third sector, the civil society, private sector, that the one way or another has some sort of shared responsibility on insight and oversight of the work the government is doing on that front. So, from the very beginning, we started first with the most tackling issue for us, which is data interoperability. So, we decided to build our own infrastructure and data exchange based on the work that the government of Estonia has done before on implementing this broad open source platform called XROAD for data exchange. We did local customization and implementation, and we are basically translating all the documentation into Spanish for institutions, and eventually private sector, to understand how it works and get on board on that. And from that, since we started implementing it in 2021, 2022, we probably have around 71, 72 institutions that are currently using the XROAD ecosystem for data exchange. And the result has been very interesting so far. What we face now, another issue, which is, of course, data governance. And now we’re rethinking on how data governance actually works, not just for public services provision, but also how we can empower people on that front. And in that sense, we’re working on a new set of regulations around that principle. One that has focused not just on the data protection itself, but also on the quality of the data that is actually being exchanged. So, we’re working on defining proper data observability and orchestration method mechanisms, so we can actually make some of the principles around data protection something that should be easy and forcible, because sometimes these concepts can be very abstract and very difficult to grasp by institutions. analyze on a technical level. So in that front, defining this proper set of data rules and having the right platforms alongside the data exchange mechanism, it’s very important, especially for them, to be secure and to respect people’s rights on that front. And of course, having a way for this oversight mechanism that should be implemented from the civil society so they can keep the government accountable on the work that is doing on that front. When it comes for identity, basically what we started doing, since the government in the Democratic Republic has the peculiar characteristic that it doesn’t administrate directly the civil registry, although it’s a public institution, but it’s outside of the government. We have made several workarounds based on the work that we previously have done with data exchange. So what we decided was to build some sort of authentication platform for starting for public services that builds on the same principles of data protection, because it’s mostly focused on data minimization and the rights of the people to authorize what kind of personal data it can actually share to provide the minimum requirement for public services. So what we’re doing right now is basically working closely with several institutions, such as the CDPI, on defining a broader architecture for this data identity infrastructure alongside the civil registry authority for us to start providing different means of not just of data protection around identity, but also how we can actually start building this sort of verifiable credential standard that works for everybody and to start having these sort of documents that are actually verifiable, trustworthy, and of course, administered by the right authorities at the right time. And for payments, I think this is the area that we, somehow we have huge advancements because we have like real-time payments that are. actually enabled and effective and available for the universal population. But the way that it’s done is not necessarily the most efficient way. So the central bank, which is the owner of the ad infrastructure, is actually looking at ways to provide a pixel-like solution for the people that is also based on those principles that we’re trying to build. And of course, trying to have this sort of accountability around the society and also getting the private sector on board. So that solution, when it comes available to the people, actually gets adopted very easily and quickly, especially since the country has serious issues when it comes to financial inclusion. Because roughly half, for example, the population is financially excluded. And regarding the other half that is technically included, probably 30% are actually the ones that are receiving broader financial services, whether that’s digital or not. And we are finding ways to reverse that situation. And of course, having these sort of platforms will allow, especially, to do just that. Not necessarily in the way that we have solved the problem in Brazil, but it’s one of the options that are actually on the table. And we hope that we’re going to find ways to do this in the most inclusive way, but also having this participation for oversight and accountability for all the actors that must be involved in that part.

Sabhanaz Rashid Diya: Thanks, Armando. I think kind of really seeing that sort of spectrum of experiences, right? Sort of, you know, kind of India’s very long journey and now kind of Dominican Republic tackling some of the more emerging challenges in this space. I will come to audience questions right after we bring Rasmus in. So if you have a burning question, now is the time to start thinking about it so that you can ask it in a few minutes. Rasmus, maybe turning to you. Estonia is sort of the other major example in the DPI space. And similar to India, I think it has a very long legacy of really digitizing e-government services. digital, but thinking about e-government services, public to citizen delivery, and solving some of the problems that perhaps Dominican Republic is going through right now, and the whole world is going to know. So think about, how should we think about DPA? What is the right governance model? What are the different ways in which we can really cut down some of the costs of it? So there’s many questions on the table, but I would love to know from you, what has Estonia’s experience been in this space, one. But also just to build on that, Estonia is also leading on the rights respecting DPA principles through the Freedom Online Coalition. And so maybe if you can also tie in how Estonia has actually implemented some of those principles in its past, or how it has taught to those principles, as it is now thinking about either its legacy DPA, or sort of emerging DPA iterations in its work.

Rasmus Lumi: Thank you very much. Well, maybe I should start by saying that when in the beginning, when you introduced me as being on the extreme left, I just wanted to clarify that it doesn’t necessarily reflect my political views. Anyway, I think many great angles and aspects have been raised, and the questions you are posing to me now also probably would allow for hours of discussion. But of course, I will stick to just some of the main things for now, which would probably be the fundamentals of the DPA, because we have already heard a lot about the practical backgrounds of why DPA is being built, and so on. So maybe I will get also to the Freedom Online Coalition’s principles of the DPA, as Estonia is in 2025 the chair of the Freedom Online Coalition. But as a representative of Estonia, I I definitely can give a bit of a background as to how we have built it up over the course of for now I think around 25 years, and how we have managed to tie the fundamentals into the actual digital solutions. So as I said, Estonia I think started with its digital public infrastructure in the beginning of I believe 2000 or so, around 25 years ago, and this has really allowed us to see over the years how this digital public infrastructure and all this digital governance has been able to transform the society, and how it has empowered the citizens and how it has fostered economic growth and so on. At the same time of course we have always been very mindful and vigilant about the risks that this has also brought forward, and we have always tried to mitigate those risks to the best of our knowledge at every certain time or time period when something has been built. Now many of the principles that already have also been mentioned here during previous interventions, I mean these principles seem to be self-evident, but they don’t necessarily self-evidently work within the DPI systems, and there also can be very different understandings of what does it mean for example privacy or security within the digital public infrastructure. I will bring you one example which would be that for example when we talk about privacy then within the DPI, does that mean that the person’s data or the information about the person is private to the outside users? Or is it also private on the inside of the DPI, meaning that is there any control or checks and balances on how, so to speak, the owner of the DPI or the government, how they can access this information about the person? I think these are two different concepts, and that’s why, for example, what we have done in Estonia is that one of the very key principles for our DPI is that every citizen is the owner of their own data and has full control of it. In practice, it means that any user, any Estonian citizen can at any time verify which government official or any other person has accessed their personal data within the DPI systems. So this is our way of trying to make sure that there is preventive accountability for the use of personal data within the DPI. Now, in practice, there are also some other important elements which we have prioritized from the very beginning, and one, of course, would be interoperability, meaning that Estonia’s digital public infrastructure works on a platform which is called Crossroad, and the point is that this is a platform that allows for all different institutions to manage their own systems, but they’re all interconnected on the same platform, allowing for the citizens. and to actually be able to access everything from one place. And as I said, already being able to control their own data. Then what was also mentioned and what we have already done since the very beginning is the e-identity. And this is the key or the central part of the whole system, which allows for the people to actually access all the services. And also, in the case of Estonia, it has already also been taken so far as to be able to participate electronically in the elections and so on. The so-called iVoting, Internet voting, we can do it on the computer as well. At the same time, we have been trying to maximize the possibility for people to access all government services, or I don’t know if they can be called necessarily government services but public services, to close in on having 100% of the services being able to be accessed by people. And I think, not sure, but I think divorce is now, I think, the only thing that we cannot do online yet. But I think as the society develops, then that will be possible as well. But now, not to waste too much time, just I would run very quickly through the Freedom Online Coalition’s work currently, which is for this year in the program of action. Estonia, as the chair, has prioritized rights respecting DPI principles, which obviously would be something that we have already naturally kind of built into our digital public infrastructure. And as the chair of the Freedom Online Coalition, we are hoping that the coalition could… could bring this to the global attention as well. Many of those principles, as I said before, are quite natural. There is one thing that is extremely natural, but you cannot write it into anything. It’s not a standard, and you cannot even put it as a principle, and this is called trust. The public trust is something that is actually the most important thing. You can force people to do anything, but without trust, you will not get the most out of whatever you’re building, because people will not want to use it. But anyway, so trust we have not been able to include into the principles, but what we have included in the principles are the notions of human-centered solutions, meaning that everything has to be focused on humans when we develop technology or digital solutions. Everything must serve this objective. Then something very important, which is inclusivity, and we are feeling very strongly about everybody’s need to have access to the Internet, to all the digital services and skills, in order to be able to benefit from digital transformation. Then we believe that international human rights standards should be followed, because otherwise there are too many risks that we will immediately take in undermining the possibility of trust in these discussions. Transparency and accountability, I think, speak for themselves. Everybody probably realizes that we need this to minimize the negative impact of technologies on human rights. Privacy and security, we have already talked about. Then societal context. I think everybody agrees that their own societies, their own communities need to be respected with their own particular – and so on and this is also very important to make any digital public infrastructure work effectively to take into account a societal context. Then sustainability and resilience and this is because it is important to build sustainable programs and to be able to maximize long-term impact. Data-driven. DPI must be data-driven because we want to ensure that quality information is available for decision-making. Interoperability that I mentioned in our case as well we do want to promote interoperable systems which work together seamlessly across organizations. It will make everything cheaper, it will make everything more effective, it will be easier for both the users and the administrators or managers of the systems. Then of course technology neutrality because we we believe that the digital public infrastructure should be built in a technology neutral manner. Openness of course open approach to digital development. It means open standards, open source, open data. This is something that will nicely tie in with privacy and security. And finally of course collaboration meaning both collaboration domestically and and also on the international level. So these are the principles that Freedom Online Coalition is currently working on. We hope to be able to adopt them during this year and then they may be able to serve as some like a guiding light to everybody who wishes to further develop their own digital public infrastructure. Thank you.

Sabhanaz Rashid Diya: Thanks Rasmus. A very comprehensive set of principles I think for all of our stakeholders to think through. We’ve reached we don’t have a lot of time for our panel so I’m curious if anybody in the audience here has any questions they would like to ask. the panel. There are mics there, but we’re also a very intimate room, so also I think we can hear if people are speaking. Or maybe if online also. Yeah, we actually have an online question, but I wanted to make sure. Okay, great. I think we have an online question. I think Rasmus touched on it a little bit more, so maybe, oh, okay, yes. Thank you. You should take the mic. Yeah, maybe the mic will be useful.

Audience: Thank you very much for this insightful question. My name is Elizabeth. My first, I have two questions, if you don’t mind. My first question is to Professor Belli. Thank you very much for the insights around, like, collaboration between government and other stakeholders. I had worked with the government of Nigeria on digital policy reforms, one of which was digitizing business registration processes to reduce the time, the cost, and the procedure of doing business. And my experience with public service is there’s still that gap in terms of getting that sort of entrepreneurial mindset, in seeing how this could be of great benefit, and then fully owning this service, service delivery to the public. So I now currently work with a mobile industry association, and the big question is, for telcos, mobile network operators, what are, like, the opportunities in terms of collaborating with government? Because there’s this buzz around mobile data. Increasingly, mobile devices are becoming very instrumental in increasing access to public services, to digital services across the world, especially in emerging markets. So I don’t know if you could share some examples and some insights on that, that would be great. The second question I have is to Professor Breckenridge. out the session in South Africa and also to Simriti. I’m so sorry. I referred to it properly. It’s on digital financial inclusion. So the comments around really thinking through on how we can guard against digital financial inclusion not being a risk more or less an innovation addressing the problem as opposed to being a risk for misuse, abuse, data harvesting and the likes. And it got me thinking around AI ethics and transparency. And my question is to Professor Breckenridge in South Africa. What is, what would you say are like top priorities in terms of building this very strong AI ethical standards around that? And for Simriti, I’m sorry once again, is in the context of digital financial inclusion. Thank you very much.

Sabhanaz Rashid Diya: Thank you. Before I go to the panelists to respond to this question, we also have some online questions along the same lines. Maybe I can tie the two questions together just in the interest of time. I think we also have an online question that is also asking similar sort of approach as to how do we actually weave in some of the human rights principles within the DPI architecture. And then particularly just speaking on the AI piece, you know, we are now also seeing a moment where using the existing DPI, a lot of AI developments are happening, a lot of API access is being provided. And so that architecture is also scaling some of the AI expansion particularly in the global majority. So as we think about these expansions, how do we actually weave in some of these principles that Rasmus mentioned but also some of the learnings that we have had in the past? And where do the different stakeholders that we have, whether civil society, technical communities, what could be their different roles be? So that’s a question from the online audience and maybe it’ll be a good way to kind of weave them in. So maybe Luca, since we can start with you and then I can maybe turn to some of the other speakers.

Luca Belli: Yeah, I think those questions are excellent and I So, I’m going to talk a little bit about what we are doing in the digital world and what we are doing in the digital world. And I think this actually allows me to delve a little bit more into the details of what could be the success or the failure of this kind of efforts. I think as anything in digital, one has to consider that we are dealing with systems, right? There are a lot of elements and a lot of layers. I like the India stock vision because it revisualizes that the system has layers. So, there are a lot of layers. And the reason why the central bank is successful in implementing PIX, the other reason is because they are a very independent, well-resourced institution, which is key for the success of the DPIs, knowing that the institution that implement them understand what they are doing. They have the resources to do this, both intellectual and financial resources to stimulate this. And they are able to implement it with other stakeholders. So, I think this is a very good example of how the PIX was introduced. So, in the context of PIX and the Brazilian central bank, they really understood that it was not only the PIX, but it was how the PIX was introduced, and they understood very well the system. Let me give you a very concrete example of why. So, Brazil, as most global south countries, although Brazil has a very good level of connectivity, most of the country is not meaningfully connected. As most of the global south, we are connected to the internet, we are connected to the internet, we are connected to the internet, we are connected to social media, and all the rest is very expensive, so, if you want to introduce a new digital service, a DPI, people will not use it, because they have to spend money, and that is why, when the Brazilian government was going to introduce PIX, and META proposed to introduce what’s a payment, three months before the PIX, the Brazilian central bank had the power to minimize, in fact, the risk of falling at the beginning of the first section of the world, and watch the power of the PIX entering force due to competition, data protection, and consumer protection. We will speed this up a little bit, but before it end, a little cautious shift for today. So, they understood very well that if WhatsApp had introduced WhatsApp payment before the PIX, today we would not be celebrating the PIX as a great success. Everyone in Brazil would be using WhatsApp payment. And that leads me also to celebrate another great success of India, and I think that colleagues from the Telecom Authority of India should be really praised for their vision in 2016 when they adopted very strong net neutrality rules that prohibited zero rating in India. And I think that the reason why DPIs have been so successful in India, and I think this is the greatest untold story of good digital sovereignty, India prohibited zero rating in 2016. It’s the only global South country that did this, and the result is not only that connectivity prices have dropped by 90% and connectivity has boomed more than 300% of adoption increase in the past eight years, but also that India is experiencing a belle époque of innovation. Why? Because you can access everything. You don’t have only social media for free and all the rest extremely expensive. Everything is cheap. And that is something that you need to consider. So, you need really to have a systemic vision before thinking about the DPI, and also you need to have an institution that is able to implement that vision. We had this chance in Brazil with the Brazilian Central Bank. I’m not sure all other institutions would be able to do this same success.

Sabhanaz Rashid Diya: Thanks, Luca. Smriti , I’ll turn to the question specifically to you on the role of different stakeholders in that process.

Smriti Parsheera: Yeah, thanks for that question. You know, on the financial inclusion question and stakeholders in that process, I think it’s an important question to think about what were the causes of exclusion, and I think to the extent ID was a cause, you know, we have seen DPIs addressing that, but there is, I think, an underlying question that, you know, what sort of ID did you need? Do you necessarily need a biometric-based ID to solve for financial inclusion? I think those are the debates to be had. So, I think, you know, I think it’s important for us to think about, you know, how do we define financial inclusion? How do we define it in terms of, you know, how do we, you know, certainly, you know, have recognition and being able to verify and identify is a building block. The other question, I think, which is important to the DPI conversation is about, you know, how do you define financial inclusion? Is it only about payments and remittances? A lot of the DPI focuses around that, or is it about a broader bouquet of financial services? And are we thinking about, you know, insurance? Are we thinking about DPI on those fronts? So far, we don’t very actively seem to be solving those through DPI, and I think that’s where, you know, the next layer of thinking should be.

Sabhanaz Rashid Diya: Thanks, Smriti . Keith, there’s a question from, specifically, for South Africa, as well, from your experience. And then maybe just for you. Sorry? I don’t think it’s a South African question.

Keith Breckenridge: I think it’s a global question. For me, the first question is the liability question. You know, who should take responsibility? Someone finds out your information on Facebook, uses a network provider to send you an enticing SMS, you click on the link, and then your pension fund is gone, you know? And this is happening, let’s be honest, it’s happening to, you know, a significant proportion of the populations that are meant to be basically getting resources and capabilities from this. And I think it may be on the age. So, I’m 60, which is, you know, I spent quite a lot of time working with people who are 85, 90, old people, the normal old people who are the actual targets. They’re not 25-year-old Estonians, they’re 80-year-old Africans, and they really don’t have the skill set that they need, that the designers of these systems are assuming are actually available to them. They can’t, they don’t see the buttons, they can’t read the text, they can’t, you know, they can’t, you know, they can’t, you know, they can’t read the text, it’s so easy for them to be robbed. I mean, it’s truly a joke. And no one is really looking at this. No one wants to take it seriously. seriously. The only people who are also the English the British are doing this and you know this they’ve imposed an eighty five thousand pound liability on the banks. Regardless of what happens someone empties your bank account. The banks are responsible. And that’s as far as I can see the only country in the world that’s doing that. And when we start talking about sharing liability the network providers will stop allowing criminals SMS to follow to flow on their systems. You know then then we can talk. So if we’re doing this let’s be aware of what we’re doing. We’re building an infrastructure that’s going to make a huge population newly vulnerable to really serious crimes. And there’s no discussion of what we should be doing about that. So I would start with that. I think that the second. The second issue for me is really the question about asset creation. I’m much more worried about asset creation than I am about what we call usurious interest rates. It’s people need to be getting something out of these mobile systems. It’s not enough to make it a kind of subsistence question. We have to look for how people can create buy things material things that they can keep and not turn it towards consumption. And that for me is fundamentally a matter of fiduciaries and also these kind of collective forms of savings association that are very common everywhere. You find them of one kind or another. They’re very normal. But DPI privileges what we call individual biographical credit surveillance. It gives you an ID number that makes the ID number the core of the credit scoring system. It’s also one of the reasons why everywhere even in the U.S. firms are much less visible. That’s the real problem we’ve got. And again I’d like to hear the engineers who are building this huge infrastructure that’s putting us all at risk speak about the implications of that.

Sabhanaz Rashid Diya: Thanks Keith. In the interest of time maybe I’m going to you know probably not come back to Sreti Luka and Keith but actually give Bidisha Armando. So, Mr. Singh here and Rasmus, a chance to give their closing remarks with like one quick question, which is also from the participants, is really how do we think about weaving in these principles into DPI governance? Some are very legacy systems, some are newer systems, so how do we actually do it? So maybe a quick 30-second, I’ll start with Rasmus.

Rasmus Lumi: Well, I will use my 30 seconds to maybe be quiet. I don’t know how to actually do it. I can only maybe refer to or reuse something I said 10 years ago and with reference with what Keith was mentioning about old people, young people, that I am firmly confident that old people are not as stupid as we think they are and young people are not as smart as we think they are, even in digital.

Sabhanaz Rashid Diya: Fair point. Bidisha?

Bidisha Chaudhury: Yeah, I also don’t have a profound thought last, you know, closing statement, but I think one thing that in the discussion we see that India being this success story in terms or other countries being success story in terms of how many people have bank accounts or how many people, so my broader question would be like, is digitalization equal to inclusion? Is the question that I think I would end with.

Sabhanaz Rashid Diya: Thanks, Bidisha. Armando?

Armando Manzueta: Well, building on the same statements that preceded me, basically, I just want to remark that to earn people’s trust, DPIs must be more than efficient. They must be ethical, inclusive, and accountable. And that means that safeguards, so an AI on the broad DPI effort should be qualified into law, should be embedded into law, ensuring that civil society has a seat on the table, and making systems transparent and elitable. We in the Dominican Republic, we are committed to that. we’re actually trying to do that. We’re committed to building a DPI, not just as a government infrastructure, but rather a civic infrastructure that are governed not just by code, but by values that protects people and empowers them to achieve their very best. That’s all I can say.

Sabhanaz Rashid Diya: Thanks, Armando. Over to you, Mr. Singh, last word.

Sheo Bhadra Singh: I would just like to say that any DPI or any system which is being built has to be user-centric, citizen-centric, and the goal and the principles have to be to how the society is to be served. That is the basic principles, and everything else can be actually built. There are no issues.

Sabhanaz Rashid Diya: Wonderful, on that closing thought of building people-centered DPI, thank you, everyone, for joining in on our panel. I’m sure lunch is being served right now, so I hope to continue the conversation. Thank you for all our participants for joining and staying on, and I look forward to the next IGF. Thank you. Thank you.

Agreement points

DPI requires strong institutional capacity and multi-stakeholder governance

Speakers

– Luca Belli
– Sheo Bhadra Singh
– Armando Manzueta
– Rasmus Lumi

Arguments

Successful DPI implementation requires independent, well-resourced institutions that understand the technology and can work with stakeholders, plus systemic vision considering connectivity and affordability – Institutional Capacity Requirements

Indian state played three key roles: creating institutional space (NPCI), scaling through policy mandates, and regulatory oversight of multi-stakeholder ecosystem – State Leadership Model

Dominican Republic emphasizes shared responsibility and oversight from civil society and private sector in DPI governance and implementation – Multi-stakeholder Oversight

Freedom Online Coalition’s rights-respecting DPI principles include human-centered solutions, inclusivity, transparency, privacy, security, sustainability, data-driven approaches, and technology neutrality – Rights-Based Principles Framework

Summary

All speakers agree that successful DPI implementation requires capable institutions with adequate resources, technical expertise, and the ability to coordinate multiple stakeholders including government, private sector, and civil society.

Topics

Infrastructure | Development | Legal and regulatory

User-centric and citizen-centric design is fundamental to DPI success

Speakers

– Sheo Bhadra Singh
– Armando Manzueta
– Rasmus Lumi

Arguments

DPI must be user-centric and citizen-centric with the goal of serving society as the basic principle from which everything else can be built – User-Centric Design Principle

DPI is not just a set of technologies but a nation-building tool that must be grounded in rights, resilience, and trust – Holistic Definition

Freedom Online Coalition’s rights-respecting DPI principles include human-centered solutions, inclusivity, transparency, privacy, security, sustainability, data-driven approaches, and technology neutrality – Rights-Based Principles Framework

Summary

Speakers consistently emphasize that DPI systems must prioritize citizen needs and human-centered design principles rather than technological or institutional priorities.

Topics

Development | Human rights principles | Infrastructure

Transparency and accountability are essential for DPI governance

Speakers

– Luca Belli
– Keith Breckenridge
– Smriti Parsheera
– Rasmus Lumi

Arguments

Brazil’s PIX is truly public because it’s delivered by government (Central Bank), ensuring freedom of information access, unlike India’s foundation-based model that can avoid transparency requirements – Public vs. Quasi-Public Debate

Metrics of exclusion should be made visible, including publishing numbers of disabled identity accounts and response times for queries, to ensure accountability – Transparency in Exclusion

Civil society participation is limited in DPI deployment, which follows top-down approaches without robust transparency and accountability culture like regulatory impact assessments – Limited Participation

Freedom Online Coalition’s rights-respecting DPI principles include human-centered solutions, inclusivity, transparency, privacy, security, sustainability, data-driven approaches, and technology neutrality – Rights-Based Principles Framework

Summary

Speakers agree that DPI systems must incorporate strong transparency mechanisms and accountability measures, including public access to information about system performance and failures.

Topics

Human rights principles | Legal and regulatory | Development

Similar viewpoints

These speakers share critical perspectives on DPI implementation, highlighting risks of creating new forms of exclusion, exploitation, and corporate dominance despite public ownership claims.

Speakers

– Keith Breckenridge
– Smriti Parsheera
– Bidisha Chaudhury

Arguments

Financial inclusion through DPI risks encouraging usurious lending at 1% daily interest and pushing people into blacklisting systems, with South Africa seeing one trillion Rand spent on online gambling (one-third of GDP) – Financial Inclusion Risks

Strong state-market alliance exists in DPI implementation, but risks creating ‘alt big tech’ that pursues scale recklessly while being blind to due process – State-Market Alliance Concerns

Even with state-owned DPI like UPI, big tech influence remains embedded as major traffic controllers, with vendors often identifying the system with Google Pay rather than public infrastructure – Big Tech Persistence Challenge

Topics

Development | Digital business models | Consumer protection

Both speakers present DPI as successful tools for financial inclusion and breaking private monopolies, emphasizing the scale and positive impact of their respective national systems.

Speakers

– Luca Belli
– Sheo Bhadra Singh

Arguments

Brazil’s PIX payment system broke Visa/MasterCard duopoly, reduced transaction costs from 3-5% to zero, and distributed data collection while maintaining public accountability through freedom of information laws – Brazilian Success Model

India’s UPI processed 18.77 billion transactions worth $290 billion in one month of 2025, demonstrating massive adoption enabled by existing digital identity and banking infrastructure – Transaction Volume Success

Topics

Development | Digital business models | Infrastructure

Both speakers emphasize the importance of genuine public ownership and citizen control over DPI systems, with strong accountability mechanisms and transparency requirements.

Speakers

– Rasmus Lumi
– Luca Belli

Arguments

Estonia’s model ensures every citizen owns and controls their data, with ability to verify which officials accessed their information, providing preventive accountability – Citizen Data Ownership

Brazil’s PIX is truly public because it’s delivered by government (Central Bank), ensuring freedom of information access, unlike India’s foundation-based model that can avoid transparency requirements – Public vs. Quasi-Public Debate

Topics

Privacy and data protection | Human rights principles | Legal and regulatory

Unexpected consensus

Trust as fundamental but uncodifiable element

Speakers

– Rasmus Lumi
– Armando Manzueta

Arguments

Trust is the most important but uncodifiable element for DPI success – people can be forced to use systems but won’t maximize benefits without trust – Trust as Foundation

DPI is not just a set of technologies but a nation-building tool that must be grounded in rights, resilience, and trust – Holistic Definition

Explanation

It’s unexpected that both a European developed country representative and a Latin American developing country representative would emphasize trust as a fundamental but intangible requirement for DPI success, showing convergence across different development contexts.

Topics

Development | Human rights principles | Infrastructure

Need for liability frameworks and consumer protection

Speakers

– Keith Breckenridge
– Audience

Arguments

Need for liability frameworks where financial institutions bear responsibility for fraud losses, as implemented in Britain with £85,000 bank liability regardless of circumstances – Liability Gap Problem

Digital financial inclusion risks creating opportunities for misuse, abuse, and data harvesting rather than solving problems, requiring strong AI ethical standards and transparency measures – Financial Inclusion Risk Management

Explanation

The convergence between an academic researcher’s detailed analysis and audience concerns about consumer protection shows unexpected alignment on the need for stronger liability and protection frameworks in DPI systems.

Topics

Consumer protection | Legal and regulatory | Inclusive finance

Overall assessment

Summary

The panel shows strong consensus on foundational principles (user-centric design, transparency, institutional capacity) while revealing significant disagreement on DPI outcomes and risks. Government representatives emphasize success stories and scale achievements, while academics and civil society highlight implementation challenges and unintended consequences.

Consensus level

Medium consensus on principles but low consensus on outcomes. This suggests that while stakeholders agree on what DPI should achieve in theory, there are fundamental disagreements about whether current implementations are delivering on these promises. The implications are that DPI development needs more robust evaluation frameworks and stronger accountability mechanisms to bridge the gap between aspirational principles and practical outcomes.

Different viewpoints

Ownership structure and accountability of DPI systems

Speakers

– Luca Belli
– Smriti Parsheera

Arguments

Brazil’s PIX is truly public because it’s delivered by government (Central Bank), ensuring freedom of information access, unlike India’s foundation-based model that can avoid transparency requirements – Public vs. Quasi-Public Debate

Strong state-market alliance exists in DPI implementation, but risks creating ‘alt big tech’ that pursues scale recklessly while being blind to due process – State-Market Alliance Concerns

Summary

Luca Belli advocates for direct government ownership of DPI (as in Brazil’s PIX) to ensure transparency and accountability through freedom of information laws, while Smriti Parsheera warns about the risks of state-market alliances that may replicate big tech problems and pursue scale without proper due process.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights principles | Infrastructure

Assessment of financial inclusion benefits through DPI

Speakers

– Sheo Bhadra Singh
– Keith Breckenridge

Arguments

India’s DPI journey started with Aadhaar in 2009-2010 to provide public services access to large excluded populations, leading to 1.33 billion digital identities and 550 million zero-balance bank accounts – Indian Scale Achievement

Financial inclusion through DPI risks encouraging usurious lending at 1% daily interest and pushing people into blacklisting systems, with South Africa seeing one trillion Rand spent on online gambling (one-third of GDP) – Financial Inclusion Risks

Summary

Singh presents India’s massive scale of financial inclusion as a success story with hundreds of millions gaining bank accounts, while Breckenridge warns that financial inclusion through DPI can lead to exploitation through predatory lending and gambling addiction, citing South Africa’s experience.

Topics

Development | Inclusive finance | Consumer protection

Role of big tech in DPI ecosystems

Speakers

– Luca Belli
– Bidisha Chaudhury

Arguments

DPI represents ‘good digital sovereignty’ that fosters competition, domestic innovation, and people empowerment, contrasting with authoritarian or protectionist approaches – Positive Sovereignty Framework

Even with state-owned DPI like UPI, big tech influence remains embedded as major traffic controllers, with vendors often identifying the system with Google Pay rather than public infrastructure – Big Tech Persistence Challenge

Summary

Belli sees DPI as an effective counter to big tech dominance that can foster competition and innovation, while Chaudhury argues that big tech influence persists even in state-owned DPI systems, with users often not recognizing the public nature of the infrastructure.

Topics

Digital business models | Infrastructure | Development

Effectiveness of digitalization for inclusion

Speakers

– Sheo Bhadra Singh
– Bidisha Chaudhury

Arguments

DPI must be user-centric and citizen-centric with the goal of serving society as the basic principle from which everything else can be built – User-Centric Design Principle

Question whether digitalization equals inclusion, challenging the assumption that digital access automatically leads to meaningful social and economic inclusion – Digitalization vs. Inclusion Debate

Summary

Singh advocates for user-centric DPI design as the foundation for serving society, while Chaudhury fundamentally questions whether digital access automatically translates to meaningful inclusion, challenging the basic assumption underlying DPI initiatives.

Topics

Development | Digital access | Human rights principles

Unexpected differences

Trust as a foundational element versus systemic risks

Speakers

– Rasmus Lumi
– Keith Breckenridge

Arguments

Trust is the most important but uncodifiable element for DPI success – people can be forced to use systems but won’t maximize benefits without trust – Trust as Foundation

DPI systems face backend hacking risks where criminals steal encryption codes to access online accounts, plus pig butchering scams, particularly targeting vulnerable elderly populations – Security Vulnerabilities

Explanation

This disagreement is unexpected because both speakers represent countries with extensive DPI experience, yet they have fundamentally different perspectives on the primary challenge. Lumi emphasizes building trust as the key success factor, while Breckenridge focuses on protecting users from systemic vulnerabilities and exploitation.

Topics

Development | Human rights principles | Cybersecurity

Scale and speed of implementation priorities

Speakers

– Sheo Bhadra Singh
– Smriti Parsheera

Arguments

India’s UPI processed 18.77 billion transactions worth $290 billion in one month of 2025, demonstrating massive adoption enabled by existing digital identity and banking infrastructure – Transaction Volume Success

Strong state-market alliance exists in DPI implementation, but risks creating ‘alt big tech’ that pursues scale recklessly while being blind to due process – State-Market Alliance Concerns

Explanation

This disagreement is unexpected as both speakers are from India and discussing the same DPI systems, yet Singh celebrates the massive scale achievement while Parsheera warns about the risks of pursuing scale recklessly without proper due process.

Topics

Development | Digital business models | Human rights principles

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion reveals significant disagreements on fundamental aspects of DPI implementation: ownership models (public vs. quasi-public), effectiveness of financial inclusion, persistence of big tech influence, and whether digitalization equals inclusion. There are also tensions between celebrating scale achievements versus warning about systemic risks.

Disagreement level

Moderate to high level of disagreement with significant implications for DPI policy. The disagreements suggest that there is no consensus on best practices for DPI implementation, governance models, or even basic assumptions about benefits versus risks. This lack of consensus could hinder the development of universal DPI principles and standards, as different stakeholders have fundamentally different perspectives on what constitutes success and what risks should be prioritized.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

These speakers share critical perspectives on DPI implementation, highlighting risks of creating new forms of exclusion, exploitation, and corporate dominance despite public ownership claims.

Speakers

– Keith Breckenridge
– Smriti Parsheera
– Bidisha Chaudhury

Arguments

Financial inclusion through DPI risks encouraging usurious lending at 1% daily interest and pushing people into blacklisting systems, with South Africa seeing one trillion Rand spent on online gambling (one-third of GDP) – Financial Inclusion Risks

Strong state-market alliance exists in DPI implementation, but risks creating ‘alt big tech’ that pursues scale recklessly while being blind to due process – State-Market Alliance Concerns

Even with state-owned DPI like UPI, big tech influence remains embedded as major traffic controllers, with vendors often identifying the system with Google Pay rather than public infrastructure – Big Tech Persistence Challenge

Topics

Development | Digital business models | Consumer protection

Both speakers present DPI as successful tools for financial inclusion and breaking private monopolies, emphasizing the scale and positive impact of their respective national systems.

Speakers

– Luca Belli
– Sheo Bhadra Singh

Arguments

Brazil’s PIX payment system broke Visa/MasterCard duopoly, reduced transaction costs from 3-5% to zero, and distributed data collection while maintaining public accountability through freedom of information laws – Brazilian Success Model

India’s UPI processed 18.77 billion transactions worth $290 billion in one month of 2025, demonstrating massive adoption enabled by existing digital identity and banking infrastructure – Transaction Volume Success

Topics

Development | Digital business models | Infrastructure

Both speakers emphasize the importance of genuine public ownership and citizen control over DPI systems, with strong accountability mechanisms and transparency requirements.

Speakers

– Rasmus Lumi
– Luca Belli

Arguments

Estonia’s model ensures every citizen owns and controls their data, with ability to verify which officials accessed their information, providing preventive accountability – Citizen Data Ownership

Brazil’s PIX is truly public because it’s delivered by government (Central Bank), ensuring freedom of information access, unlike India’s foundation-based model that can avoid transparency requirements – Public vs. Quasi-Public Debate

Topics

Privacy and data protection | Human rights principles | Legal and regulatory

Key takeaways

DPI is not a monolithic technology but varies significantly across countries based on national contexts, with successful implementations requiring strong institutional capacity, systemic vision, and public trust

There are fundamental tensions between DPI as national infrastructure and the need for global interoperability and common principles

Ownership models matter critically – truly public systems (like Brazil’s PIX) offer better accountability through transparency laws compared to quasi-public foundations that can avoid information disclosure requirements

DPI can successfully break monopolies and reduce costs (Brazil’s PIX eliminated 3-5% transaction fees from Visa/MasterCard duopoly) while distributing data collection and fostering local innovation

Financial inclusion through DPI carries significant risks including usurious lending, vulnerability to fraud, and potential harm to elderly populations who lack digital skills

Big tech influence persists even in state-owned DPI systems, with users often identifying public infrastructure with private platforms (e.g., UPI being seen as Google Pay)

Civil society participation in DPI development has been limited, following top-down approaches without robust transparency and accountability mechanisms

Technical success requires addressing systemic factors like connectivity costs and net neutrality – India’s zero rating prohibition was crucial for DPI adoption

Trust is the most important but uncodifiable element for DPI success, and digitalization does not automatically equal meaningful inclusion

Resolutions and action items

Freedom Online Coalition under Estonia’s chairship is developing rights-respecting DPI principles including human-centered solutions, inclusivity, transparency, privacy, security, and interoperability

India has offered to provide its DPI platforms free of cost to any country wanting to adopt them, as announced during G20 presidency

Dominican Republic is implementing specific technical governance standards focusing on data quality, observability, and orchestration mechanisms to make data protection principles enforceable

Need to establish liability frameworks where financial institutions bear responsibility for fraud losses, following Britain’s model of £85,000 bank liability

Unresolved issues

How to effectively weave human rights principles into existing legacy DPI systems versus newer implementations

Whether digitalization truly equals inclusion or if it creates new forms of exclusion

How to balance the state-market alliance in DPI without creating ‘alt big tech’ that pursues reckless scaling

How to address the vulnerability of elderly and digitally unskilled populations to fraud and exploitation in DPI systems

How to ensure meaningful civil society participation beyond token consultation in DPI governance

How to define and measure financial inclusion beyond basic payments and remittances to include broader financial services

How to create effective trusted fiduciary systems that can help citizens navigate DPI complexities and resolve issues

How to make metrics of exclusion visible and ensure accountability for system failures and disabled accounts

Suggested compromises

Implementing virtual ID as default instead of main ID to balance privacy with functionality, learning from India’s Aadhaar experience

Creating hybrid governance models that combine public ownership with multi-stakeholder oversight including civil society and private sector participation

Developing modular DPI architectures that allow different institutions to manage their own systems while maintaining interoperability through common platforms

Establishing shared liability models between network providers, financial institutions, and government agencies for fraud prevention and victim compensation

Building DPI with both external privacy (from outside users) and internal privacy (with checks on government access) to address different stakeholder concerns

Allowing space for different civil society values – both market-based empowerment and human rights approaches – in DPI platform governance

So what is interesting here is not only that the customer welfare is increased, but also that competition is automatically enhanced, innovation is produced, and data governance is distributed. And the local entrepreneurs that innovate thanks to this, then they have to pay taxes in Brazil. So we have a very different dynamic here of empowerment through DPIs.

Speaker

Luca Belli

Reason

This comment reframes DPI from a purely technical solution to a comprehensive economic sovereignty tool. Belli demonstrates how Brazil’s PIX system simultaneously broke foreign duopolies (Visa/MasterCard), reduced costs for consumers, distributed data collection power, and kept innovation benefits within the national economy through taxation.

Impact

This shifted the discussion from abstract principles to concrete economic impacts, establishing a framework for evaluating DPI success beyond just service delivery. It influenced subsequent speakers to consider sovereignty and economic empowerment aspects of their own DPI implementations.

One trillion Rand was spent on online gambling systems in 2023. That’s a third of GDP one third of GDP spent on gambling… We’re building an infrastructure that’s going to make a huge population newly vulnerable to really serious crimes. And there’s no discussion of what we should be doing about that.

Speaker

Keith Breckenridge

Reason

This comment provides a stark counternarrative to DPI success stories by revealing unintended consequences. Breckenridge exposes how financial inclusion through DPI can enable harmful behaviors like gambling addiction and financial crimes, challenging the assumption that digital access automatically equals empowerment.

Impact

This fundamentally shifted the tone from celebratory to cautionary, forcing other panelists to acknowledge risks. It introduced the critical concept of ‘metrics of exclusion’ and liability questions that weren’t being addressed in DPI design, adding necessary complexity to the discussion.

So in the process of being a pushback against big tech, could we be creating another ecosystem which is pursuing scale in the same reckless manner, which is, you know, really blind to due process, really blind to other things in the pursuit of reaching scale fast? So I think those are things to be conscious about in the DPI story.

Speaker

Smriti Parsheera

Reason

This insight introduces the concept of ‘alt big tech’ – the idea that DPI, while intended as an alternative to Silicon Valley dominance, might replicate the same problematic approaches to scaling technology without adequate safeguards. It’s a meta-critique of the DPI movement itself.

Impact

This comment prompted deeper reflection on DPI governance models and participation. It challenged the panel to consider whether state-led DPI initiatives were truly different from private tech monopolies, leading to more nuanced discussions about ownership, accountability, and the role of civil society.

So they don’t even think of it as an UPI which is owned by the state, or maybe not owned by, maintained and sustained by the state. So I think that is where it is, it becomes very critical to understand, or even explore that how do we actually circumvent the influence of the big tech when we rely on an infrastructure where the big tech interests are so much more embedded already.

Speaker

Bidisha Chaudhury

Reason

This observation reveals a critical gap between DPI policy intentions and ground reality. Despite UPI being state-owned infrastructure, users primarily interact with it through Google Pay and PhonePay, effectively making big tech the face of public infrastructure.

Impact

This comment exposed the complexity of true digital sovereignty, showing how public infrastructure can still be captured by private interests at the user interface level. It added nuance to discussions about ownership and control, influencing later conversations about the need for stronger governance frameworks.

The fundamental issue really has to be making what we call metrics of exclusion much more visible… This is the number of people whose identity numbers are at the moment disabled. And this is how long it’s taken for us to basically answer queries around those numbers.

Speaker

Keith Breckenridge

Reason

This comment introduces a crucial accountability mechanism that’s missing from most DPI discussions. Instead of just measuring inclusion success, Breckenridge argues for transparency about who gets excluded and why, using South Africa’s example of 2 million disabled identity numbers.

Impact

This shifted the conversation toward concrete governance mechanisms and transparency requirements. It influenced the discussion about the need for oversight, fiduciaries, and accountability measures, moving beyond theoretical principles to practical implementation requirements.

is digitalization equal to inclusion? Is the question that I think I would end with.

Speaker

Bidisha Chaudhury

Reason

This closing question encapsulates a fundamental tension running throughout the discussion. It challenges the core assumption underlying much DPI advocacy – that providing digital access automatically translates to meaningful inclusion and empowerment.

Impact

Though brief, this question crystallized the skeptical undercurrent that had been building throughout the discussion, serving as a powerful summary of the concerns raised about conflating technical solutions with social outcomes.

Overall assessment

These key comments transformed what could have been a promotional discussion about DPI success stories into a nuanced examination of digital governance challenges. The interplay between optimistic government perspectives (Singh, Manzueta) and critical academic analysis (Breckenridge, Parsheera, Chaudhury) created a productive tension that elevated the conversation. Luca Belli’s economic sovereignty framework provided a middle ground, showing how DPI can deliver benefits while acknowledging implementation complexities. The discussion evolved from celebrating technical achievements to grappling with fundamental questions about power, accountability, and the relationship between digitalization and genuine inclusion. The critical voices didn’t dismiss DPI but demanded more sophisticated approaches to governance, transparency, and protection of vulnerable populations – ultimately strengthening the case for more thoughtful DPI development.

How do we truly make DPI a public interest technology and a public facing technology, and how should policymakers, civil society and other stakeholders be thinking about ownership within the DPI architecture?

Speaker

Sabhanaz Rashid Diya

Explanation

This question addresses the fundamental challenge of ensuring DPI serves public interests rather than creating new monopolies, and clarifying ownership structures across the modular DPI ecosystem.

To what extent can we create an alternative infrastructure that is truly independent of big tech when big tech interests are already so embedded in the digital ecosystem?

Speaker

Bidisha Chaudhury

Explanation

This explores whether DPI can actually achieve digital sovereignty or if it remains dependent on existing big tech infrastructure, as evidenced by Google Pay’s dominance in India’s UPI system.

Is digitalization equal to inclusion?

Speaker

Bidisha Chaudhury

Explanation

This fundamental question challenges the assumption that digital access automatically leads to meaningful inclusion and empowerment.

How do we define financial inclusion – is it only about payments and remittances, or should it encompass a broader bouquet of financial services including insurance?

Speaker

Smriti Parsheera

Explanation

This questions whether current DPI approaches to financial inclusion are too narrow and whether they should address broader financial service needs.

What sort of ID do you actually need for financial inclusion – do you necessarily need a biometric-based ID?

Speaker

Smriti Parsheera

Explanation

This challenges assumptions about the necessity of biometric identification systems for achieving financial inclusion goals.

Who should take liability when people are defrauded through DPI systems – network providers, banks, or government?

Speaker

Keith Breckenridge

Explanation

This addresses the critical gap in accountability when vulnerable populations are targeted by criminals exploiting DPI infrastructure.

How can we make metrics of exclusion more visible in DPI systems, including publishing data on disabled identity numbers and response times for queries?

Speaker

Keith Breckenridge

Explanation

This calls for transparency about who is being excluded from DPI systems and how quickly exclusion issues are resolved.

How do we create space for trusted fiduciaries who can help people navigate DPI systems when errors occur?

Speaker

Keith Breckenridge

Explanation

This addresses the need for intermediaries to help vulnerable populations when they encounter problems with DPI systems.

How do we weave human rights principles and AI ethical standards into existing DPI architectures, both legacy and newer systems?

Speaker

Online participant and Sabhanaz Rashid Diya

Explanation

This explores the practical challenge of retrofitting ethical frameworks into operational DPI systems, especially as they expand into AI applications.

What are the opportunities for mobile network operators to collaborate with government in DPI implementation?

Speaker

Elizabeth (audience member)

Explanation

This seeks to understand the role of telecommunications infrastructure providers in the DPI ecosystem and potential partnership models.

How do we guard against digital financial inclusion becoming a risk rather than a solution, particularly regarding data harvesting and abuse?

Speaker

Elizabeth (audience member)

Explanation

This addresses concerns about unintended negative consequences of DPI implementation, particularly for vulnerable populations.

How do we address the problem of online gambling consuming significant portions of GDP through DPI payment systems?

Speaker

Keith Breckenridge

Explanation

This highlights an unexpected consequence of financial inclusion through DPI that requires policy attention and research.

Summary

This discussion, hosted by the APNIC Foundation at the Internet Governance Forum 2025 in Oslo, focused on addressing digital funding gaps in the developing world. The panel brought together representatives from various organizations including the Tech Global Institute, Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, ICANN, GIZ, and the APNIC Foundation to examine challenges in internet and digital development funding.

The panelists highlighted that despite 20 years of progress since the World Summit on the Information Society, significant disparities persist, with 32% of the world’s population remaining unconnected and stark differences between global north (93% connectivity) and global south (27% connectivity) regions. A concerning trend has emerged where official development assistance, philanthropic giving, and corporate funding are declining simultaneously, creating unprecedented funding gaps for digital development initiatives.

Key challenges identified include the creation of new digital divides, forced internet shutdowns affecting marginalized populations, and the tension between digital transformation goals and human rights protection. The discussion emphasized that meaningful digital transformation requires more than just infrastructure deployment—it needs local capacity building, community ownership, and alignment with national development priorities rather than externally imposed solutions.

Panelists stressed the importance of shifting from traditional donor-recipient models toward collaborative partnerships that respect local sovereignty and decision-making. They advocated for outcome-focused rather than output-focused approaches, transparency in funding mechanisms, and the mainstreaming of digital solutions across all development sectors including health, education, and climate resilience.

The conversation concluded with calls for greater coordination among stakeholders to avoid duplication of efforts and maximize impact despite shrinking resources. Participants emphasized that digital inclusion should be treated as a fundamental development issue requiring collective action and innovative funding models to ensure sustainable progress across developing regions.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Persistent Digital Divides and Funding Challenges**: The discussion highlighted that despite 20 years of progress since WSIS, 32% of the world’s population remains unconnected, with stark disparities between Global North (93% connected) and Global South (27% connected). This is compounded by declining Official Development Assistance (ODA), reduced philanthropic giving, and shrinking corporate funding for digital development.

– **Need for Structural Change and Local Ownership**: Panelists emphasized moving beyond traditional donor-recipient models toward approaches that prioritize local capacity building, government sovereignty in determining digital futures, and community-driven solutions. There was strong criticism of supply-oriented approaches that impose solutions without considering local contexts and procurement processes.

– **Collaboration Over Competition**: A recurring theme was the urgent need to reduce duplication of efforts among organizations and instead focus on meaningful collaboration. Speakers called for breaking down silos, sharing resources, and creating collective impact frameworks rather than competing for the same objectives with shrinking funding pools.

– **Digital Transformation as Cross-Sectoral Enabler**: The conversation explored how digital transformation should be mainstreamed across all development sectors (health, education, climate, etc.) rather than treated as a separate infrastructure challenge. This includes ensuring that digital solutions contribute to broader socio-economic outcomes and sustainable development goals.

– **Balancing Digital Development with Human Rights**: Panelists discussed the tension between rapid digital transformation and human rights protection, emphasizing that meaningful access must include not just connectivity but also digital literacy, affordability, cybersecurity, and the ability for communities to shape their own digital futures while maintaining fundamental rights.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to address critical funding gaps in digital development across the Global South and developing regions, bringing together diverse stakeholders to explore innovative funding models, partnership approaches, and collaborative frameworks that could ensure sustainable progress in internet and digital development despite declining traditional funding sources.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a professional yet candid tone throughout, with speakers demonstrating both concern about current challenges and cautious optimism about potential solutions. The tone was collaborative and solution-oriented, with panelists building on each other’s points rather than debating. There was an underlying sense of urgency about the widening digital divides, but this was balanced by constructive dialogue about practical approaches. The conversation became increasingly inspiring toward the end, with speakers drawing parallels to successful global health initiatives and emphasizing the potential for collective action to overcome seemingly insurmountable challenges.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Neeti Biyani** – Works with the APNIC Foundation, Session moderator/host

– **Sabhanaz Rashid Diya** – Executive Director at Tech Global Institute, working at the intersection of government, businesses and civil society

– **Remy Friedmann** – Senior Advisor Human Security and Business at the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs

– **Maarten Botterman** – Director on the Board of Directors at ICANN (participating online)

– **Franz von Weizsaecker** – Responsible for Economic Development and Digital Transformation at GIZ

– **Raj Singh** – CEO of the APNIC Foundation

– **Audience** – Various audience members who asked questions and provided comments

– **Online moderator** – Colleague named Omar, serving as online moderator

**Additional speakers:**

– **Molly** – Works with the Digital Health and Rights Project, released research report on ODA donors in Europe

# Addressing Digital Funding Gaps in the Developing World: A Comprehensive Discussion Report

## Executive Summary

This discussion, hosted by the APNIC Foundation at the Internet Governance Forum 2024, brought together experts to examine critical challenges surrounding digital funding gaps in developing regions. The session, moderated by Neeti Biyani from the APNIC Foundation, featured representatives from the Tech Global Institute, Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, ICANN, GIZ, and the APNIC Foundation.

The discussion revealed persistent digital divides despite decades of progress. With 32% of the world’s population remaining unconnected and stark disparities between the Global North (93% connectivity) and Global South (27% connectivity), the challenge has been compounded by declining official development assistance and reduced corporate funding for digital development initiatives.

Key themes included the need to shift from traditional donor-recipient models toward collaborative partnerships, the importance of mainstreaming digital solutions across all development sectors, and the tension between rapid digital transformation and human rights protection. Speakers emphasized moving from capacity building to capability building and focusing on sustainable outcomes rather than project outputs.

## Key Participants and Their Main Contributions

### Neeti Biyani – APNIC Foundation (Session Moderator)

Biyani framed the discussion around the need for digital transformation that serves whole-of-society and whole-of-government approaches. She emphasized that meaningful digital transformation must lead to better lives and socio-economic outcomes, questioning the balance between government interventions and market-driven solutions.

### Sabhanaz Rashid Diya – Tech Global Institute

Diya provided critical statistics showing that 32% of the world’s population remains unconnected, with 93% connectivity in the Global North versus 27% in the Global South. She highlighted concerning trends including “296 shutdowns in 54 countries” and identified an “unhealthy tension between digital development and human rights.” Diya criticized the “culture of imposition” where Global North actors decide what gets implemented in Global South countries, describing this as a “norm shapers versus norm takers dynamic.”

### Remy Friedmann – Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs

Friedmann emphasized Switzerland’s approach to partnership, inclusiveness, and community-driven solutions. He stressed that governments have a responsibility to protect human rights while setting digital standards and safeguards. He advocated for mainstreaming digital exclusion within climate, gender, education, and health agendas rather than treating it as a separate issue, calling for collective impact frameworks that center local actors.

### Maarten Botterman – ICANN (Online Participant)

Botterman represented ICANN’s “one world, one internet” vision through capacity building and regional outreach programs. He highlighted ICANN’s Coalition for Digital Africa and engagement with 41 African governments. He emphasized that local capacity building and understanding are crucial for successful digital inclusion initiatives, with communities needing to determine their own digital transformation priorities.

### Franz von Weizsaecker – GIZ

Von Weizsaecker noted that German development funding faces a 10% decline while some philanthropic funding attempts to compensate. He advocated for mainstreaming digital transformation across all sectors as an enabler for sustainable development goals. He warned about potential waste of global public goods like low earth orbit satellite infrastructure due to corporate monopolization and called for open ecosystem approaches.

### Raj Singh – APNIC Foundation

Singh highlighted that despite decades of work, “we seem to be creating new digital divides constantly” and questioned whether the development community is solving problems or perpetuating them. He advocated for a fundamental shift from “capacity building to capability building,” explaining that “when you have capabilities, then you can do things.” Singh noted the APNIC Foundation’s 16-year-old innovation fund and criticized significant duplication of efforts among organizations despite shrinking funding resources.

## Major Discussion Topics

### Persistent Digital Divides and Funding Challenges

The discussion opened with stark statistics highlighting ongoing connectivity gaps. Diya’s presentation showed that despite 20 years of progress since the World Summit on the Information Society, significant portions of the global population remain unconnected, with particularly acute challenges in the Global South.

Singh added regional context, noting that the Asia Pacific region presents unique challenges with the most advanced and least developed economies coexisting. He specifically highlighted that “half of the South Asia sub-region remains unconnected” and observed that “there’s a lot of submarine cables being deployed all across the world. The problem is, it’s the cables that are being deployed. There’s no supporting ecosystem that’s being set up at the same time.”

Multiple speakers acknowledged declining resources across traditional funding streams. Von Weizsaecker reported the 10% decline in German development funding budgets, while Singh noted that private sector funding is shrinking due to margin pressure and reduced corporate social responsibility investments.

### Power Dynamics and Local Ownership

A significant portion of the discussion focused on power imbalances in digital development. Diya’s analysis of the “culture of imposition” highlighted how Global North actors often determine solutions for Global South contexts. She suggested that when communities gain the ability to define conditions for accepting or rejecting interventions, “we see a little bit more of that negotiation, a little bit more of that empowerment and that ownership happening.”

Singh supported this perspective by distinguishing between capacity and capabilities: “It’s no longer for us… it’s not about building capacity anymore, it’s about building capabilities. Because when you have capabilities, then you can do things.” This represents a shift from training-focused approaches toward enabling actual implementation and sustainable outcomes.

### Digital Transformation as Cross-Sectoral Enabler

Speakers emphasized viewing digital transformation not as standalone infrastructure but as an enabler across all development sectors. Von Weizsaecker stated that “digital transformation should be mainstreamed across all sectors as an enabler for sustainable development goals.”

Friedmann reinforced this view, emphasizing that “digital exclusion should be mainstreamed within climate, gender, education, and health agendas.” This mainstreaming approach suggests that digital solutions should contribute to broader socio-economic outcomes rather than being pursued independently.

### Human Rights and Development Tensions

The discussion addressed tensions between rapid digital transformation and human rights protection. Diya identified this as an “unhealthy tension,” noting that digital transformation often comes with “disconnection trends through forced shutdowns and network throttling” that particularly affect marginalized populations.

Friedmann offered a governmental perspective, emphasizing that “governments have responsibility to protect human rights whilst setting digital standards and safeguards,” suggesting that human rights considerations should be integrated into digital development from the outset.

## Key Challenges Identified

### Coordination and Duplication

Singh highlighted the problem of “multiple organizations doing similar work with little actual collaboration despite funding constraints.” He questioned whether progress had been made on collaboration, asking “In six months, have we gone any step forward or not in terms of collaboration and avoiding duplication?”

### Infrastructure Without Ecosystems

The discussion revealed concerns about infrastructure deployment without supporting systems. Singh noted that submarine cables are being deployed without supporting ecosystems, while Von Weizsaecker warned about potential waste of satellite infrastructure due to corporate monopolization.

### Declining Traditional Funding

Multiple speakers acknowledged the convergence of declining official development assistance, reduced philanthropic giving, and shrinking corporate funding, creating unprecedented challenges for digital development initiatives.

### Transparency and Accountability

An audience member from the Digital Health and Rights Project asked: “How can we work together as funders and other stakeholders, with transparency in investment amounts, where they’re being invested and who we’re working with?” This highlighted the need for better tracking and coordination mechanisms.

## Proposed Solutions and Next Steps

### Outcome-Focused Approaches

The APNIC Foundation committed to shifting focus from outputs to outcomes in their grant-making and project evaluation. Singh offered to share expertise on outcome-focused metrics with other organizations, including ICANN.

### Collaborative Frameworks

Friedmann proposed collective impact frameworks that center local actors while bringing together funders, implementers, and communities into strategic alignment. This approach could help reduce duplication while respecting different organizational mandates.

### Mainstreaming Digital Solutions

Multiple speakers advocated for integrating digital solutions across all development sectors rather than treating them as separate initiatives. This requires coordination across health, education, climate, and gender programs.

### Open Ecosystem Approaches

Von Weizsaecker proposed open ecosystem approaches to infrastructure development, particularly for satellite networks, to ensure that global investments automatically benefit underserved regions.

## Audience Participation and Questions

The session included active audience participation, with questions about transparency in digital health investments and challenges faced by private companies trying to offer solutions in developing regions. A representative from a Norwegian company highlighted difficulties private companies face due to skepticism and lack of trust, making it difficult to offer even low-cost solutions to developing regions.

These questions underscored ongoing challenges in creating effective mechanisms for private sector engagement in development contexts while maintaining focus on sustainable, locally-owned solutions.

## Conclusion

The discussion revealed that addressing digital funding gaps requires more than mobilizing additional resources—it demands fundamental changes in how digital development is conceptualized and implemented. Key themes included shifting from donor-recipient to partnership models, from capacity building to capability building, and from outputs to outcomes.

While speakers identified significant challenges including declining funding, persistent coordination problems, and ongoing power imbalances, they also outlined concrete steps forward. These include the APNIC Foundation’s commitment to outcome-focused approaches, proposals for collective impact frameworks, and emphasis on mainstreaming digital solutions across all development sectors.

The conversation concluded with recognition that success will depend not just on what is done, but how it is done—with genuine partnership, respect for local priorities, and focus on sustainable outcomes that serve the communities digital development aims to support. As Singh observed, the challenge is ensuring that decades of development work actually solve problems rather than perpetuate them, requiring honest assessment and willingness to make fundamental changes in approach.

Neeti Biyani: Hello, a very good afternoon to everyone who’s joining us in person in Oslo and good morning or good evening if you’re joining us online. I am Neeti Biyani. I work with the APNIC Foundation and I am going to be hosting this session today, which is titled Addressing Digital Funding Gaps in the Developing World. Considering we do have the scope for a roundtable set up here, I’d request if anyone wants to join us on stage so that we can have a more candid, informal conversation, I’d like you to be as big a part of it as we are. So if anyone wants to please come on stage and join us here, please feel free. All right. Let me just start out by introducing the APNIC Foundation, a little bit about what we do. We are an internet and digital development organisation. We serve across 56 economies in the Asia-Pacific region. We invest in and channel resources towards building technical and human capabilities. We help drive digital innovation and we enable digital transformation across the region, working with a host of different stakeholders and partners. I am privileged to be hosting this conversation on addressing gaps in funding for digital development at the IGF 2025 in Oslo today, this afternoon. As we all know, we’ve seen quite a rapid decline in official development assistance, ODA, philanthropy giving, corporate giving, all of which have together exacerbated gaps in funding available for internet and digital development or ICT for development in the global majority especially. In this context, I hope that you know, as various stakeholders present in the room today, we can discuss, have a rethink of funding models, partnerships and collective impact to ensure that we are impacting sustainable progress and outcomes across the various regions in the developing world. I am joined today by a remarkable panel. I’ll maybe start from my absolute left. I have Sabhanaz Rashid Diya. She is Executive Director at Tech Global Institute, working at the intersection of government, businesses as well as civil society. To my left is Remy Friedmann, who is Senior Advisor Human Security and Business at the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs. I am joined online by Maarten Botterman, who is a Director on the Board of Directors at ICANN. On my right, I am joined by Franz von Weizsaecker. Did I completely murder your last name? Who is responsible for Economic Development and Digital Transformation at GIZ. And to my absolute right is Raj Singh, CEO of the EPNIC Foundation. And I am Neeti, your moderator today. So, I maybe want to start out by asking Diya, how do you understand digital development efforts across the global majority, across the developing regions so far, maybe, you know, in the last couple of decades, you know, how do we, how do we, you know, for the establishing of a common understanding of digital development, of internet development, how do we understand that collectively?

Sabhanaz Rashid Diya: Thanks, Neeti. And hi, everybody. Very privileged and excited to be on this panel. I think just diving right into it, you know, in the last, I would say, if you take the last 20 years, perhaps, starting with the original commitments of the WSIS process and how there was a real sort of global understanding around bringing the unconnected online, you know, supporting digital transformation, particularly an important, and addressing some of the issues in digital divides, gender, you know, sort of creating more equitable world that is digitally transformative. We’ve seen a tremendous amount of progress. We’ve seen sort of, you know, more countries coming online, communities coming online. There has been a huge push to create jobs, create sort of development outcomes, you know, tackle some of the most pressing, pressing issues in society using technology. But at the same time, I think, you know, we are still, you know, 20 years later, we’re still at a point where 32% of the world’s population still remains unconnected. And, you know, that continues to be a challenge. And it’s, and the global north-south disparity is, is quite, still quite prevalent. In the global north, we have 93% who are people who are online. In the global south, we only have 27% of the people who are online. So that disparity is very much present. And we know, you know, from our work and communities that the people who are most disproportionately affected are women, girls, marginalized populations, you know, minority groups, et cetera, who, who just are not able to come online, whether that’s for device affordability, whether that’s because of, you know, lack of the actual infrastructure, being able to reach certain parts of the world. And so we have a number of challenges, which is beyond just the infrastructure, but also many structural challenges. And so I think there’s still a lot of need for that push to happen. But also in the last 10 years, I would say, there’s also been trends of not just people not having the resources to come online, but also when people are online, a tendency to also disconnect them. So we talk a lot about the unconnected population, but there is also a tendency of disconnecting populations through forced shutdowns or network throttling. And that’s also a huge concern. And so just based on Access Now’s report, last year alone, there was 296 shutdowns in 54 countries. So that’s an extraordinary number. So even when there is this push in the broader development agenda to get more people online, there’s also this counter, I would say, sort of trend where people are getting disconnected. And in that sort of a situation, I think there’s we’re at a pivotal moment where more and more people, especially the global south, they feel the need to kind of catch up with the global technology race. They’re seeing huge amounts of some countries moving very fast, some countries slowing down. And so I think at this point, and especially in line with the discussion we’re going to have today, the funding reductions we see around the world, the older systems falling is a really concerning trend, because in many ways, that’s going to really set back years of progress that has been made. And now more than ever, we need that to happen, because that disparity between the global north and south is, you know, whatever progress we’ve made, that’s probably going to widen a lot more. And it’s going to put an entire part of the world, perhaps the majority part of the world, in a position where they’re completely left out of any kind of technological progress and any kind of opportunities to see the benefits of digital in their countries. And so I think this broad connection between resource availability, you know, the country’s aspirations for development and broader economic progress is very much at risk today, and happy to speak more about it to them.

Neeti Biyani: Thanks Diya. I think just bouncing off of what we’ve heard so far, let me turn to Raj. Raj, if you can speak on behalf of the APAC region, which is one of the largest developing regions in the world with the bulk of the unconnected, underserved, remote, dispersed populations. How do you understand, you know, Diya’s reference to the changes that we’ve seen in the funding landscape quite recently?

Raj Singh: So you’re quite right to say that the Asia Pacific is very diverse. It’s the world’s largest region. And just before this session, I was speaking in the parliamentary session and what I said there was, and I’ll just repeat that here, the fact that the Asia Pacific as an example, you know, we’ve got some of the most advanced economies in the world and we’ve got some of the most least developed economies in the world. And that in itself becomes a challenge. Now, overlaid on top of that is that, you know, you see parts of the world leaping ahead in various types of new technologies, be it, you know, the government itself either invest in it or they’ve got very mature industries or the private sector who are taking the lead in moving forward. Then you have all these other economies that are nowhere near that level of development. And then, you know, for example, you go to an event like the IGF or to various other multilateral meetings and other conferences around the world and you hear all these stories, people say, no, we’re doing this, we’re doing that. AEA does this, you know, IOT or whatever the next iteration is going to be, it’s going to change everything and this is what you need to do. So suddenly you have here an economy which probably doesn’t even have a fully-fledged policymaking unit. in their regulatory section that can actually develop policies and shape what things should look like because most of the time they’re working off a reactive basis right something happens they need to react to that so it’s what I call reactive policy making not proactive policy making so that just to sort of lay the foundation there of why I think this is a problem right then you have the different levels of development that exists and again Asia Pacific is pretty much a poster child South Asia which is one of the four sub-regions in the Asia Pacific half of that sub-region is still unconnected okay which is a very stark statistic right now there are various challenges on why that is the case but the fact still remains half that sub-region is unconnected and and if someone’s heard me speak before they you would know that I always bring up one thing is and that’s that we seem to be creating new digital digital divides constantly we’re not stopping and I’ve been in this sector this industry for pretty much all my career so going on close to 30 years now we were talking about stuff 30-20 years ago in a slightly different guise it was ICT4D we’re still talking about the same issues some of those issues have not been solved I mean last year we did a couple of panels at the AGF and we brought up these issues again given it’s only been six odd months since the last IGF but the fact is you know nothing has changed all that much now on top of all that what we’ve seen in in the front end of this year there’s been changes made globally in how things have been funded ODA for example overseas development assistance so so that’s one the part of money is shrunk but if you look at the private sector even their own parts of money are shrinking because there’s margin pressure right there was a time when a lot of the private sector would go and fund things out of CSR or other reasons what we are seeing right now that’s shrinking very very rapidly And then governments themselves, they have their own priorities. I mean, you know, do they invest in primary health care, or do they invest in a funky new internet infrastructure, right? So that’s sometimes a hard decision to make. So I’m just going to let that hang there, because, you know, what I’m keen to see is, and Franz was with me on the panel last year, we had some interesting discussions on where we should get to, and which means, you know, don’t duplicate stuff, work together, collaborate, complement. But I’m keen to understand, in six months, have we gone any step forward or not? I don’t know.

Neeti Biyani: Thanks, Raj. We’ll definitely come to that in the course of this conversation. I think at this point, let me turn to Maarten. Maarten, you’re online. Hopefully, you can hear me, even though I can’t see you at the moment. But, you know, you’re here representing ICANN. I see you. Hi, Maarten. You’re here representing ICANN, wearing a few more hats, I’m very sure. ICANN’s had a particularly focused approach to supporting initiatives and developments across the world, which is that you want to further your vision of a single, open, globally interoperable internet. I just want to ask you, bouncing off of what we’ve heard from Raj, and, you know, the particular challenges that, you know, either being unconnected or, you know, not having meaningful connectivity or meaningful access. How do you interpret those in terms of ICANN’s mission, the role that ICANN plays, as well as how you envision ICANN’s impact across the landscape, across the sector?

Maarten Botterman: Thanks, Neeti, for the question. It’s indeed, as you say, it’s one world, one internet. And ICANN is there to serve the world. Raj is representing the APEC region. As we know today, most of the internet users live in the APEC region, whereas 25 years ago, most of them lived in North America. So you see a shift in the world. This also means that there’s a shift in the world in terms of experience, where the markets are. And we’re very much aware that we are there to support the world. And that means that in countries where advancement of internet is less, there’s more to win. And we actually actively reach out to support that. An example is the continent of Africa. The continent of Africa is where, percentage-wise, there’s most growth happening over the years to come in terms of people also getting connected. That is where we see many of the next billion, as well as in other parts of the world, including APEC. But in Africa, we are, for instance, actively engaged in a capacity-building initiative, which is called the Coalition for Digital Africa, which is really to support all kinds of transformative projects that aim at enhancing Africa’s internet infrastructure, cybersecurity, digital inclusivity, and the governance. So initiatives we have there is engaging with about 41 African governments, countries, but also with, for instance, the African University Collaboration Group. And things we’ve been doing there is, on one hand, together with internet society, for instance, setting up new connection points for the internet, installing new root server instances from the ICANN managed route that Elroot referred to. That results now, most of the traffic within the region and to expand also the top-level domain performance monitoring in Africa. All this to help Africa to also step up and grab the opportunities. Next to that, we’re also supporting, for instance, as you know, ICANN is a multi-stakeholder organisation in which different groups have their place. And also for governments, we do capacity development. We help them to get on board of the GECC, become aware of law-making practices and with people from over 19 countries on the technical functioning of the internet. Now, next to that, of course, this is just a regional example and we have regional outreach throughout the world because we are very much aware that we are there to serve the world. Now, with that, a very clear example of that would be the next round of top-level domains where there will be an opening for new initiatives to have a top-level domain that serves specifically also regions around the world. For instance, in their own character sets, on languages. Languages are important, they represent culture, but also not everybody in the world is able or should be expected to communicate in English. So it’s good that we also support that richness and we actively do of languages and character sets. Also in a new round. And also being aware that particular regions that aren’t that advanced yet, extra support is necessary. We foresee that the applicant support programme that has been put in place for those who are less aware at the moment, to help them to get up to speed with appropriate applications and good business plans. So with that, we truly believe one world, one internet and ICANN is standing ready to support that effectively.

Neeti Biyani: Thanks Maarten. I think, Franz, if I can come to you. We’ve heard from Maarten that, you know, their support starts with squarely serving the mission of a single, open, interoperable internet. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I feel like GIZ had a slightly different approach, where you support bettering and furthering socio-economic progress and outcomes across the service regions you work in. But you’ve, since 2018, mainstreamed digital solutions as part of the projects that you do support, wherein you’re trying to make sure that every project has a digital solution, a digital infrastructure component that then can be mainstreamed or replicated or scaled. What’s your experience been like working on real, very real world issues, if I may call them that, but with, you know, squarely mainstreamed digital solutions?

Franz von Weizsaecker: Thank you so much. Maybe let me get one thing straight. It shouldn’t come across as if I was not in favor of free and open and internet for everybody. So that definitely is part of our agenda. And the general trends in development funding, you’ve been describing it initially, the official development assistance tendencies, looking at USAID and so on, are going down. At the same time, some philanthropic funding is coming with the Gates Foundation, trying to compensate some of those declines. And just today, we got the draft budget of the German government. We have about a 10 percent decline in the German development funding budget of the BMZ ministry, which is not as disruptive as in some other contexts. So indeed, what you mentioned is digital transformation is indeed a mainstreaming topic across our entire portfolio of achieving all the sustainable development goals or all the goals of the African 2063 agenda or various national development agendas. And just like, I mean, there are some mainstreaming topics that development actors are working on. We have gender mainstreaming, human rights mainstream and digital mainstreaming. And to be honest, the digital mainstreaming is possibly the most successful one of those, knowing that no line ministry, no initiative, no health initiative, education initiative, and throughout all the sectors, the Internet became a key enabler to be achieving the sustainable development goals and the factor for economic growth and for trade and for all the other goals that you have there. At the same time, some of the goals are conflicting. So if you look at the climate goals, of course, we have a huge energy consumption and corresponding carbon emissions resulting from AI, from data centers, from digital infrastructures. But then if you compare how much carbon emissions per economic activity you have in the digital sector, that is still much less than you have in more traditional industries in mining and manufacturing and all these other economic activities. So still you could say the the GDP per carbon emission is still quite good in the digital economy in comparison. And yeah, we do try to achieve these sustainable development goals in a context where, you know, our funding governments from Germany, from Europe, there are some political shifts we have to deal with. And if you look at the European Union, the major initiative is called the Global Gateway. And that is the attempt to leverage also private capital, also private capital of European investors in the achievement of development goals in infrastructure and for energy, for digital data centers, IXPs. So, that is part of what we are doing, is trying to leverage these private capital for the achievement of the development goals, knowing that we cannot entirely rely on public ODA funding all the time. So, that is maybe the big trend going forward. Of course, at the same time, any private capital depends on the regulatory and the investment environment to be ready for that. And I cannot say that this is the case in all of the countries that we work with, where any European investors might be very hesitant to come in and invest in some countries when the general investment environment doesn’t seem to be ready. So, that is part of the risk of this tendency, is that we are losing out, especially on some of the security-wise, like those countries where the security situation or the general investment environment is not good. So, that is indeed a big open question of how we best… deal with that. For the Asian region, largely, a very large part of it is very ready for private investment, also international FDI. However, not all of the places, and especially in Africa, many countries, private investors would be concerned to be putting their money in. So, it’s about de-risking from using development banks’ mechanisms, de-risking these private investments, and then, of course, using the ODA where it is needed, where there is no alternative with this, for example, global gateway investment package.

Neeti Biyani: Thanks, Franz. Having spoken of EU governments, we happen to have a representative on our panel. Remy, if I can turn to you, last but not the least at all. How do you see the role of the Swiss government in the debate of digital development, building the digital rights narrative, contributing to this ongoing conversation of more and more people having access, what kind of access, etc.? While there is an infrastructure and a connectivity and access question, there is also a quality of access question. So, would you want to comment on that from the Swiss government’s perspective?

Remy Friedmann: Thank you, Neeti, and thank you for inviting me to this very interesting conversation. Hello, everyone. You put me just in an awkward position. Switzerland is not an EU member, so we’ll speak for Switzerland, not for the EU. But anyway, I mean, Switzerland’s international cooperation is guided by several principles, including promoting sustainable development, alleviating poverty, fostering peace and human rights. This is embedded in our international cooperation strategy, which is currently being renewed. And we really emphasize partnership, inclusiveness. Switzerland really strives to strengthen digital capacities of its partner countries to improve the resilience of public services and civil society, but still risks like the digital divide which worsens inequalities must be addressed. We are, as Switzerland, committed to establish strong digital governance frameworks aligned with international law and the different processes, ensuring fair and secure data use that protect individual dignity and safety. We are all here committed to advancing digital inclusion through open, rights-respecting and sustainable approaches, but we must recognize that the declining landscape of ODA and philanthropic capital poses a serious challenge, but also an urgent call for innovation and coordination also in the way we work. We are all convinced, and you just asked what we are striving for, is really that we all believe that meaningful Internet access is not a luxury, it’s really a foundational element of economic development, participation, democratic participation and community resilience. Switzerland is a member of the Freedom Online Coalition, and in line with the donors’ principles for human rights in the digital age at the Coalition published in 2023, we support efforts that are transparent, locally grounded and aligned with broader development goals. So, to this end, we see value in pooling resources, whether through catalytic funding, regional investment mechanism or blended finance, in order to unlock scalable and context-sensitive solutions. But we need, really most importantly, to ensure that these solutions are community-driven, inclusive and capable of strengthening local digital ecosystems rather than creating dependency. So really, this session is an opportunity to rethink how we work together, but not just how we fund. So, let’s see how we can construct a collective impact framework that builds. on Existing Knowledge, centering on local centres, local actors, bringing together funders, implementers and communities into a strategic alignment. These are great assemblages, but it’s a big question also. So let’s see how we can do so to more effectively close the digital divide and ensure that communities are not left behind in this digital transformation. So a question for all of us, I mean, how can we collectively address this growing gap and ensure that digital progress benefits everyone, not just a few?

Neeti Biyani: Thank you, Remy. I think you did my job there. That was going to be my next question, actually. So maybe before I just go back to some of the speakers, I wanted to open up the question to the audience and ask if you wanted to step in at this point and share any ideas, any reflections you had about, you know, how do we bridge the gaps that we see in internet development, digital development at the moment? Remy brought in, you know, a very key element of what the rest of the conversation is hopefully going to focus on, which is establishing a collective impact framework or ways of thinking where we are not competing, but we’re sharing space and we’re working with one another to hopefully make change, transformation, impact more sustainable, where we’re not reinventing the wheel, excuse me, but we’re replicating and scaling solutions where we can. The floor is open. The mic’s all yours. If you want to jump in, share your ideas, share your thoughts.

Audience: Yes, hello. I work for a Norwegian company within law enforcement, and we currently sell to… police in all across the world. What we see is it’s difficult to sell to countries that are used to getting funding, even though they are, you know, have support from the UN system. It is a lot of skepticism around how this can be done. And also this zero trust is also difficult to handle. So there are ways that this works in the current setup. And we are happy to offer a low cost version of our tools to these regions, but it’s difficult to find the way. So I think that is, there are options of using current setups that we’re using in every other country. But it’s the zero trust and the lack of kind of solutions and ways to work around this that is difficult, I would say. So how to get in, how to be able to market or talk about the solution, because nobody wants to talk about who they’re collaborating with, if it’s a private company. So there’s a lot of skepticism around private companies. And I think this is a challenge that could have an easy solution. If there was kind of a marketplace or one or another way of dealing with these challenges. So I don’t know if anybody has any experience with this or yeah, can help.

Neeti Biyani: Okay, maybe we can, yeah, Maarten, just before I come to you, maybe we can take one more reflection before we go back to the panel. Ah, I see someone already at the mic there. Yeah, please go ahead.

Audience: I don’t have my headphones in, so I can’t hear. Should I go for it? Thank you. My name is Molly. I’m with the Digital Health and Rights Project, and I’ve just released a research report looking at seven ODA donors in Europe alongside the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Wellcome Trust looking at their investments into digital health. We found it really difficult to understand where investments were being made, who to talk to, different collaborating partners, and I’m really interested in this idea of collaboration and how we can work together as funders and other stakeholders, but transparency in those investment amounts, where they’re being invested and who we’re working with is really important. So I wondered if the speakers had any comments on transparency and tracking and M&E for investment portfolios. Thank you.

Neeti Biyani: That’s a great question. Thank you. Maarten, if I could go to you for the first reflection, if you had any responses before checking in with the rest of the panel. Yeah, no, thanks.

Maarten Botterman: Thanks a lot. I think it’s a very good question. What we see is there is a lot of offer of willingness to help, but how do you get that to help where it’s most needed? And there is organizations to focus on that. I think the crucial element is that if you talk about digital inclusion, if you really want to serve the world with the internet, if you want the world to access the internet, you also need local capacity building. And without local understanding of what’s needed and what can help, it’s very difficult to lend anything there successfully. So there is initiatives that really follow up on that, ranging from youth training programs to, for instance, the Global Forum for Cyber Expertise, that has capacity building workshops in diverse regions, where they bring in global knowledge together with local knowledge and local stakeholders to match what’s needed today, how good practice looks like, how to implement it. from the global perspective, Topol Tweif, Insights, and Local Needs, and then work together on, so, how would an action plan, what actions could we draw from here that would really help us to leapfrog? Because many of the problems that we have in different regions are already solved somewhere in the world. And also, I think, strategically, we recognise very much in the ICANN strategic plan. If it’s about inclusion, you need to work with locals. You need to make sure that you reach out. And also, Internet Society is very active in reaching out to the regions in that way. So, without contact in the local community, how can you successfully lend a global donation? Global Forum for Cyber Expertise is one of those things. But indeed, it’s to funnel it right and transparency is limited. I realised that we had a conference in Ghana, in Accra, where somebody from the UN presented all the different funds that were available to stimulate something of the Internet in the region. And there were like 60 different ones. Impossible to see where they overlap, how they connect, etc. So, we really need to work on that, and organisations like GFC, but also Internet Society, Global Cyber Alliance and other bodies, they can be very helpful in that, because they understand it’s about linking the global to what’s needed local.

Neeti Biyani: Thanks, Maarten. Do any of my other panellists have responses or views to what we’ve heard so far from the audience? Franz?

Franz von Weizsaecker: Yeah, I would like to respond to the intervention from the Norwegian company trying to sell a digital government solution worldwide. and I do see a major gap and I do see there is an unhealthy tendency sometimes that some of the aid projects they come basically saying like okay here’s your solution we bring it and this is what we want to bring and so it’s a very much supply oriented approach and then not looking about how does the government procure these services in their local national legal system and not looking about how this is going to be how the operational cost of it is going to be covered resulting in quite a few of solutions that come there and then as soon as the project is over they’re gone and that is very unhealthy tendency and therefore I believe the solution to the challenge you were describing is this is a governmental solution so it needs to go through the national governmental procurement process it needs to be a conscious decision by a competent procurement body saying like is this something make or buy is this something which part of the solution can we can we do and maintain locally through our ministerial staff which part of the solution do we need to buy what’s the mode of purchase is this software as a service do we purchase hardware what what is the mode so and that requires quite some more capacity and procurement than is present in many of our partner countries so I definitely am a great advocate in favor of supporting even though it’s not a sexy topic but supporting public procurement for digital solutions that is that is really at the core of it to achieving a lot of the development goals in the line ministries in the security sector as the example you mentioned.

Neeti Biyani: Thanks Franz, Diya you wanted to respond as well?

Sabhanaz Rashid Diya: Yeah thank you I think I’ll try to get a bit to the second question but also maybe till the time of the first one I think one of the challenges we also see in the broader digital transformation narrative is this I think, not really by design, but over the years, sort of this unhealthy tension between digital development and human rights. And I think that itself is the reason why, you know, we don’t see the kind of transparency, see the kind of ownership, or see the kind of, I would say, sort of clarity from many of, particularly in the Global South, right? So I think that tension between, you know, where transformation comes at the cost of human rights, I think that narrative, in many ways, has actually been quite challenging to navigate, particularly in the digital kind of development space. But that has also, at the same time, created this other tension, which is, you know, what we call the norm shapers versus norm takers, right? So you have the Global North, who are shaping the norms, you know, you go to the IGF, look around you, there’s just so few Global South representatives, whether it’s governments, whether it’s civil society, whether it’s the private sector. So there’s also that, because of that tension, I think, even more, there’s this also this culture of, you know, imposition that has also come over the years, where, you know, some of the norm shapers are kind of also deciding what gets done in some of the Global South countries. So to Frances’ point, you know, I think in some ways, you know, ODA, while having a lot of meaningful transformation in many countries, and meaningful impact in many parts of the world, has also kind of permeated that system of, you know, that tension between norm shapers and norm takers, where, you know, you’re constantly having other countries defining in some ways how you should be thinking about development, how you should be thinking about your economy. And that continues to be a challenge. And I think and I think part of trying to tackle that, which goes a bit into Remy’s points, you know, how do we work collectively together, I think is really kind of recognizing that digital transformation and human rights actually can work hand in hand. And when people in the in the norm receiving parts of the world are able to start defining the conditions in which they’re going to take something or reject something. They have the rights to decide, make those choices, I think. Then we see a little bit more of that negotiation, a little bit more of that empowerment and that ownership happening.

Neeti Biyani: Thanks, Diya. That’s a great perspective. And, you know, one that we should try and unpack more, depending on if we have the time. I know that we have a question online. My colleague Omar is with us here as online moderator. Omar, do you want to come in with the question you have?

Online moderator: Yeah, sure. Thank you, Neeti. So we have an insight. One of the participants, Maarten, says that in our work at the UNUEGOV with the governments and stakeholders globally, we often observe the following in relation to the Internet auctions and digital government investment, including those with donor contributions. First, licensing auctions often end up with a focus on profit optimization. This often leads to slower rollout of the infrastructure by telcos. Once license is issued, subpar infrastructure is in remote or less profitable areas and or increase relative cost to end user. While government naturally want to profit maximize it, it often become counterproductive to digital inclusion, affordable access. And this dilemma is seen in both. developed in emerging economies. Second point he mentions is that many government ICT investments are not focusing on post-project benefit realization, cost benefit, productivity gains are generally not monitored or measured. This often leads to envisioned resource relocation is not happening in practice, including to reinvest new service in new solutions. So this was Maarten. I have a question from Robert. Hold on, let me, he has got two questions. The first one is I would like to know what the panelists have to say about very low digital knowledge in global south. Investing in digital infrastructure is fine, but need to go hand in hand with global scaling. The second question he asks is that, okay, thank you, moderator, for pointing out the access in quality of access. Internet down here in Africa is still very slow, inexpensive. I would like to know what the panelists have to say. Thank you.

Neeti Biyani: Thank you. Thank you, Omar, and thank you to the panelists. Thank you to the audience who’s joining us online and for your wonderful thoughts and you know, useful questions. I think for both of the questions that we’ve heard, let me first maybe turn to Raj. We’ve, you know, at the APNIC Foundation, had quite significant experience with skilling across various different groups. I know that the APNIC Foundation also has quite a bit of work that we’re doing on meaningful access, quality of access, bringing about affordability of connectivity. Would you want to step in here?

Raj Singh: So, yes, just a couple of things though. One, there was a question about submarine cables. There was a reference to submarine cables, right, in one of the comments. I have a comment on that. You know, there’s a lot of submarine cables being deployed all across the world. The problem is, it’s the cables that are being deployed. There’s no supporting ecosystem that’s being set up at the same time. And in particular, I’m talking about regions such as the Pacific Islands, but as well as other parts of the world. Now, some of the reasons these submarine cables are suddenly being deployed is geopolitical in nature. I think you all recognize that. Some are, of course, very private sector driven. Irrespective of why it’s happening, the fact is, cables are being landed in economies. And when you ask the locals, what are you doing? Has it improved capacity? Yes, they’ve got a big, fat internet pipe coming in. But there’s no supporting ecosystem that can actually leverage the potential that the cable has. You know, there is no supporting ecosystem around creating new industries that could leverage that. Yeah, you can try and retrofit old industries into using whatever capacity is there, but how about the new economy that we want to build using digital connectivity? So that’s one issue. And I’ve raised this multiple times, including with some of the governments who are actually funding these cables. for various developing economies. There’s no clear answer yet, so I’ll also say that, on why that focus is not there yet. In terms of capacity building, and there was a comment about building skills, is this necessary as building connectivity? I absolutely agree. At the APNIC Foundation, we’ve done something interesting this year. We’ve got a new strategic plan that we’ve developed, and what we’ve done is actually we’re going to start speaking about capacity building in a very different way. It’s no longer for us, and I would suggest for the rest of the world, it’s not about building capacity anymore, it’s about building capabilities. Because when you have capabilities, then you can do things. So we’ve been using capacity building for probably three decades, if not more, in this sector. I think enough of that, now we need to build capabilities. And when I talked about the submarine cable example, the capability does not exist. The connectivity capability exists, but not leveraging a capability out of that cable or what it could do to that economy. There was, I’m sorry, just give me one more minute. The comment we had from my right, the person talked about M&E and transparency and so on. A quick comment on that, that’s something I think we’ve also been looking very hard at at the Foundation in particular. So part of our remit is also grant-making. So we’ve got, in fact, the Asia-Pacific’s longest-running innovation fund. It’s been running for 16 years now, and it’s supported some great technologies and developments over the years. But one thing, since I took over the CEO role, what I’ve been looking at, I am no longer interested in the outputs that those projects create. I want to see outcomes. And that goes to something Remy said at the beginning when he was talking about the structural or the ecosystem that needs to be built. So that’s structural in nature, right? And I think a lot of times we get so carried away with trying to do little things at the very granular level. We don’t recognize that if we don’t build a supporting ecosystem, if we don’t make the structural changes, all that is just a one-shot. I think Franz maybe said something about something dropping in and then you go and that’s it. So I think that the need for the structural changes is very, very important and more so to focus on outcomes. And that goes to things like M&E, which the person also mentioned. If I look at a lot of the metrics that are being used, the metrics are very output-related, they’re not outcome-related. And that’s something else that we’re trying to focus on. So Maarten, maybe there’s some advice there for you and your grant-making. I’m happy to have a chat with you and your team on how we can make that better. So thanks, Neeti.

Neeti Biyani: Thanks, Raj. And thank you to everyone who intervened. Maybe we can come back for a final round of reflections once we’ve discovered a few more things with the panel. I think we’ve heard a lot of thoughts about how to make sure that impact and transformation is more outcome-oriented, how it should really help human beings, societies at large, better their social and economic outcomes, their lives, really. How there are still significant structural challenges that we’re experiencing. And finally, because this panel is about the global majority, it is about the developing regions, how do we then therefore determine our own development goals and our own development outcomes and transformation pathways? So maybe, Franz, if I can start by picking your brain, how does the GIZ understand and approach digital transformation? I’d like to also caveat that by saying that there is no commonly understood and accepted definition of digital transformation at the moment. So I’d just like to say that the way that we understand it at the APNIC Foundation is… Digital transformation is a whole-of-society and whole-of-government approach to really using communication technologies, the internet, everything digital and tech, to better lives, to better quality of lives, and to further socio-economic outcomes. Franz, over to you.

Franz von Weizsaecker: Absolutely.

Online moderator: And Neeti, Maarten also has his hand raised, so later on maybe you could give him a chance.

Neeti Biyani: Thank you. Sorry, Maarten, I’ll come to you.

Franz von Weizsaecker: Yes, absolutely. It’s digital transformation, goes across all the sectors, and we don’t talk anymore about this is a health project. I mean, we say it’s a health project, but it has become a health in a digital age project or education in a digital age project and so on and so on. So that is for all the sectors. But then, of course, you have the underlying digital transformation enablers, which are across the sectors. So internet access, the most prominent one, and may I pick up the question from the online participant on why is internet so little available and so unaffordable in many parts of Africa? It’s the regulatory environment for that. It’s the investment environment for it. And it’s also in some parts, it’s just that the GDP density, like in some rural parts of Africa, there is no economic incentive to build infrastructure. And that maybe leads me to another point. We are about to waste a huge global public good, which is the lower earth orbit and the medium earth orbit by the scramble for space that is happening, driven by a couple of companies that compete in allocating their satellites in this low and medium earth orbit. In a way where it’s not like an open ecosystem where anybody can engage with, but it falls into the hand of a few. very powerful either private companies or governments to occupy that space, so that it will not be used, that this resource will not be put to the best possible use. And I have some slight hope, I don’t know yet where it’s leading to, but I have some slight hope that what either the European Union or some other players are trying to set up with the Iris Square initiative, that this will result in a sort of more of an open ecosystem approach on satellite connectivity, which allows, as you know, these orbits automatically, any satellite that flies over Europe also flies over Africa, if it’s a north-south orbit, or likewise east-west orbit. So you will have an investment that comes, that is fostered by the very, very high developed, like the developed economies, but automatically you’re building an infrastructure that is available for the very low GDP per square kilometre parts of the world, and it will make it economically much more feasible to connect these areas as well. If we are able to establish a framework in which there is good competition, and that’s the second answer to the question, there’s sometimes lack of competition in those telecommunications markets. If there’s one incumbent, and then there is competition from the sky, that also is a factor to lower the prices. So, yeah, that’s my answer to your question.

Neeti Biyani: Thanks, Franz. Maarten, is your comment or intervention to do with digital transformation?

Maarten Botterman: I think so. Okay, go ahead. Well, basically, in a way, it connects also to Frans’ comment about, for instance, low orbit networks. Accessibility is key if you want to participate in the digital transformation, and as the dear colleague asked online in this question, is not only accessibility but also affordability of that for people. It was so good quality. And part of the answer is in what Franz gave. It’s competing infrastructures. I mean, if you just do Starlink for low-orbit networks, it would be very difficult to have a competitive offer. If there’s some kind of competition between networks, be it Starlink, be it 5G, 4G, 3G networks, or even making good use of LoRaWAN in areas where that would be best in connection with the C cables from Dutch. I think then we talk about enabling something. And let me take you back to 1996 when I worked for the European Commission, I admit. And I had the honor and pleasure of running the European Telework Agenda. And I got to one of the outskirts of Europe. I mean, within Europe, it’s not the world, but also in Europe, there were areas that were less connected. And this specific area was the Western Isles, which is in the very north of Scotland. And by that time, they just had one big line from the two large islands for telecom to get access, to get bits from also other telecom providers and make sure there was good quality. The local council took it upon them to define a strategy for how they would want to do this digital transformation over there, how they would commit to supporting and promoting a digital transformation by their own requirement of products, of access, but also stimulation of their local community in what they call the telework commitment. that led to much higher connectivity. But that’s why it’s so important that it’s understood locally what digital transformation can bring for you. Because if you don’t create a pool from that location, what you will get is what the big companies want to push. And that may not always serve you well. So back to really the matter of making sure that local understanding arises of what’s needed and then to get it. Last point on the point that was made by this gentleman on slow and expensive networks in Africa. This is also where governments can make a difference and a very good example there is India. What one can see in India is that internet access and participation is set as a priority in the digital India plan. And one of the key conditions that helps a lot is to ensure that access to the internet for people is affordable. And government can play a role there either by ensuring competition of infrastructures or if there is too little competition by imposing lower reasonable rates. I hope it is a digital development enough.

Neeti Biyani: Thank you, Maarten. I think on that note, I want to come to Remy. Remy, we’ve heard some interesting perspectives, you know, from the panel itself, from, you know, our participants online, as well as the audience we have here today. Where we’ve talked about digital transformation, the key role, the very unique role that indeed only governments can play in trying to determine what national strategies can look like, what those development outcomes look like. How do we know that we’ve gotten to a place where we can claim that we’ve benefited? you know, many, many of our citizens and our people. On the other hand, we’ve also heard some key questions about, you know, meaningful digital transformation, where we’re factoring in accessibility, affordability, where we’re talking about cooperation, where we’re talking about sharing infrastructure. I’d maybe like to glean your thoughts on these, and I’d like to ask you a follow-up question, which is, what is the role that you think government interventions can play here? Vis-a-vis, what is the role that the market itself and competition can play here?

Remy Friedmann: Thank you, big question. Thank you, Neeti. Well, digital transformation is not only ensuring equitable access to the internet worldwide. This comes with a responsibility, because digital transformation is everything that comes with access. We all have the same connectivity, the same speed. Do we have the capacity to deal with the other side of the coin and be responsible in using the internet? And their governments have the role of protecting human rights, setting standards, the necessary safeguards. And that’s why governments are coming together, for example. It was mentioned in the online coalition and their principles. The workforce working in the tech industry must be a right-respecting workforce. But the rights of the workforce need to be respected as well. So, it’s a fourth industrial revolution. It’s a transition, as we speak, of just transition, when we talk about a fair, I would say, energy transition, climate action that needs to respect human rights. The same thing happens with digital transformation and the fact that it comes with We have a responsibility, we still have the obligation to protect human rights, companies need to respect human rights, citizens, individuals need to have access to effective remedy when the rights are not respected and everything we are discussing here at the IGF and in other spaces about respecting human rights in the digital space, everything becomes relevant when we have equitable access, do we have the capacity and there, well, we have capacity building and that’s also an element, development cooperation must come together with capacity building on cyber resilience for example, how cyber development comes with cyber capability or capacity building as well. So that’s why I was saying we need to join forces across different disciplines, use existing frameworks but sometimes really governments have an important role to play, but needless to say that.

Neeti Biyani: Diya, if I turn to you with a similar question of digital transformation, what role does the government have to play here? I know that some bit of your context is also informed by when governments cannot fulfil that role. I know this is a bit of a stretch, probably not what we are here to interrogate, but because the government has a very key role to play here, maybe a very short reflection from you on a scenario like that.

Sabhanaz Rashid Diya: Yeah, thank you for that. I think Remy actually articulated quite well, we are both part of the Female Online Coalition with the advisory network and I think a lot of what we talk about is the role of governments not just to tackle the digital divide, and I think Raj eloquently talked about we see digital divides being created every day in different ways. It’s not just being connected and unconnected, but it’s also connected and disconnected. It is also, you know, some having rights, some not having rights. It’s about being norm shapers versus norm takers. So there’s so many layers and layers of device that we see across the board. So I think, you know, in the coalition, we talk quite a bit about, you know, how, what role can governments play to ensure that transformation is meaningful, and we say meaningful, that it actually takes into consideration some of the, you know, unique social and political context of where they’re existing, that it isn’t coming at the cost of, you know, an imposition and at the cost of people’s rights. So I think the perspective that I will perhaps take here is, I mean, we’ve heard from governments, we’ve heard from APNIC, perhaps of the actual communities that we serve, for whom we’re doing all of this. And I think from the community’s perspective, it’s, you know, oftentimes, I guess, people start, I guess, you know, having seen that distance from digital or seeing that, you know, seeing themselves removed from transformation, when they’re unable to exercise their voices, and they don’t feel empowered by it. And I think that empowerment is quite critical to a meaningful transformation agenda, where it’s not just about rights, but it’s also about redress. It’s about being able to shape it the way that that makes sense for them, it is able to tackle some very real problems for them. And I think connectivity is just the first step or access is the first step to a much broader conversation around, you know, how do we think about transformation in a way that actually serves the people it’s intended for.

Neeti Biyani: Thank you, Diya. I think we do have some time to go into one final round of reflections or thoughts or comments from our audience. Would anyone like to participate? The mic’s all yours.

Maarten Botterman: I’m always willing to reflect. I really see a lot coming together here. Digital transformation is ongoing, and we want it to be for the world. We want it to be for all. But we can’t stuff it down the throat of the world. We need to enable the world to come to the table, to participate, to make sure they know what they get, what they want, how they can benefit from all these things that the new technologies are offering. The Internet is offering. So I’m really very much inspired by the many young people who have engaged in programs like the Youth Ambassadors Program, the AP Youth Program, and other programs, because this shows that new generations will be even making more of a difference than we’ve been building the Internet in the old days, from the outset. So start young with capacity building. Take your responsibility as a stakeholder, whether you’re a government or an NGO or a company. Take your responsibility and empower people. Make sure that they know what to ask for and help them to get it, help to create the circumstances. I think there’s no way back for digital transformation, but we could do it in a way to make sure it’s fair, it’s inclusive and it serves the world as a whole.

Neeti Biyani: Thanks, Maarten. I think you’ve brought us to almost the close of the session on a very inspiring note. I think I’m just going to turn back to my panel for any final thoughts on everything we’ve heard today, everything we’ve discussed today. I will leave the audience with, finally, if I may start with Raj.

Raj Singh: Thanks, Neeti. Thanks to the panellists for joining us today. I think it’s been, we’ve discussed, we’ve covered a lot of ground. I’m not sure how well we answered the actual question that we had for today’s panel. So, what I will say, very quickly, is that we’re back to that same situation where funding is shrinking, issues keep on popping up, digital divides keep on widening. There are multiple organisations doing lots of things, be they governmental, non-governmental, private sector, philanthropic organisations and family offices and whatnot. Each time I look at what everyone’s doing, including my own organisation, it’s also very clear to me that there’s actually, we talk about collaboration, but there’s actually very little of it. Everyone’s got their specific objectives they have to do something and they go out and try and do it. Yes, there’s some discussions and some collaboration at some level, perhaps, but there still is a lot of duplication out there. I think that really is something we need to address, knowing that funding levels are shrinking. Because if we just keep on duplicating someone else’s work, I don’t think we’re actually achieving much in the end. So, I’ll just leave it at that, thanks.

Neeti Biyani: Franz?

Franz von Weizsaecker: All right, let me try to leave us with a positive note. In times of shrinking funding, it’s a time for reckoning as well and it’s a time for maybe reinventing the way how the international development community used to operate. And maybe it’s a time to really build on the sovereignty of governments, the sovereignty to determine their own digital future, to get away from the traditional donor and receiver model and to build on what really matters for the individual economies to emerge, good regulatory systems, good public procurement. good rule of law, a fair taxation system that does not rely entirely on taxing telecommunications, making internet very expensive, and that as a basis to encourage also investments also from private sector to become sovereign in many ways and less depending on international development. So ideally I would wish that our role as GIZ at some point may not be needed anymore, at least not in that form, and we’re shifting from the traditional development towards an international mode of cooperation. Yeah, we’re all trying to work ourselves out of a job.

Neeti Biyani: Remy?

Remy Friedmann: Thank you. Well, maybe pointing at the fact that digital exclusion is fundamentally a development issue, as it was already mentioned, and that we need to somehow break the silos and integrate mainstream digital inclusion within different streams, for example within climate resilience, gender equity, education, health agendas, rather than treating this as a really a separate infrastructure challenge. So this could be maybe a way to go really, because it has to be mainstream, it’s not a separate thing that is only related to infrastructure and access.

Neeti Biyani: Thank you. Diya?

Sabhanaz Rashid Diya: I guess I get the last word, but unless Maarten wants to come in. You know, one of the things I always take a lot of inspiration from is I come from the traditional development sector, right? So I’ve worked in digital, but digital for health, digital for agriculture, the old ICT4D crowd. And, you know, whenever I feel a bit hopeless, I think a lot about the polio movement in the world, and it was an impossible problem to solve many, many years ago. It still had this, it’s not similar, but, you know, infrastructure gaps, funding gaps, collaboration gaps. And I think the problem got really, truly solved when all the different actors began to come together and realize this is how we’re going to solve polio. We’re going to innovate around vaccines. We’re going to go out to the most ruralest part of the world and solve this disease. And in many ways, the world has eradicated some out of polio. There’s a few more cases not coming up, but by and large, it has eradicated polio. So I think if we can solve something as dramatic and as drastic as that, I think there is a natural incentive within digital transformation, digital infrastructure, digital connectivity community to come together. And I hope this current moment that we’re in, where funding is shrinking, it seems that we’re back to square one. I hope this becomes a moment of reckoning to realize that we can really solve tough problems better when we come together. So my hope for the Oda community is that this isn’t just a cry for help or something, but also a real moment to see the value of coming together as a community.

Neeti Biyani: Thank you. Thank you. Maarten, and just in the interest of time, I am going to wrap this up here wearing my moderator’s hat. I wanted to very quickly say thank you to all of our panelists who joined us today, especially Maarten, who joins us virtually. Thank you for attending this session hosted by the APNIC Foundation, to everyone who’s here in person and online as well. I just want to leave everyone on the note of saying I agree with a lot of sentiments we’ve heard today, that I think we are stronger together. I think we need to have very informed conversations about exactly how we determine our own transformation, how we collaborate between various stakeholder groups, and how we make sure that we’re holding space for different voices to be heard as we determine our own development futures. Having said that, I think in the Asia-Pacific, with the region that’s as The APNIC Foundation is as vast and diverse as it is, unlike any other region in the world. The APNIC Foundation has the unique privilege of working across 56 economies, serving the many communities that we do, hopefully, you know, having some amount of impact over the course of our work, touching lives and, you know, making sure that we’re leaving communities a bit better than how we found them. We’re very open to having more conversations with different stakeholders, different groups, different communities, you know where to find us. And once again, thank you for being part of this conversation. Hopefully, we’ll see you next year as well.

Agreement points

Digital transformation requires mainstreaming across all sectors rather than standalone approach

Speakers

– Franz von Weizsaecker
– Remy Friedmann
– Neeti Biyani

Arguments

Digital transformation should be mainstreamed across all sectors as an enabler for sustainable development goals

Digital exclusion should be mainstreamed within climate, gender, education, and health agendas

Digital transformation requires whole-of-society and whole-of-government approach to better lives and socio-economic outcomes

Summary

All three speakers agree that digital transformation cannot be treated as a separate infrastructure challenge but must be integrated across all development sectors and government approaches to achieve meaningful outcomes.

Topics

Development | Sustainable development

Local ownership and understanding crucial for successful digital development

Speakers

– Maarten Botterman
– Sabhanaz Rashid Diya
– Franz von Weizsaecker

Arguments

Local capacity building and understanding crucial for successful digital inclusion initiatives

Need to address norm shapers versus norm takers dynamic between Global North and South

Government procurement processes need strengthening for sustainable digital solutions

Summary

Speakers consensus that digital development must be locally driven and owned rather than imposed from external actors, with communities determining their own transformation priorities and approaches.

Topics

Development | Human rights

Need to shift focus from outputs to outcomes in development work

Speakers

– Raj Singh
– Franz von Weizsaecker

Arguments

Focus should be on outcomes rather than outputs in development projects

Government procurement processes need strengthening for sustainable digital solutions

Summary

Both speakers emphasize the importance of measuring and achieving sustainable outcomes rather than just project outputs, requiring structural changes and proper implementation frameworks.

Topics

Development | Sustainable development

Collaboration needed despite current duplication of efforts

Speakers

– Raj Singh
– Sabhanaz Rashid Diya

Arguments

Multiple organizations doing similar work with little actual collaboration despite funding constraints

Unhealthy tension exists between digital development and human rights protection

Summary

Both speakers acknowledge that despite funding constraints, organizations continue to work in silos with significant duplication, and call for better collaboration to address complex challenges.

Topics

Development | Human rights

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers highlight the persistent digital divide with specific statistics showing large populations remain unconnected, particularly in developing regions, despite decades of development efforts.

Speakers

– Sabhanaz Rashid Diya
– Raj Singh

Arguments

32% of world population remains unconnected with stark global north-south disparity

Half of South Asia sub-region still remains unconnected despite progress

Topics

Development | Infrastructure

Both speakers acknowledge the significant decline in development funding across multiple sources, creating substantial resource constraints for digital development initiatives.

Speakers

– Franz von Weizsaecker
– Neeti Biyani

Arguments

German development funding budget faces 10% decline while some philanthropic funding tries to compensate

Rapid decline in official development assistance, philanthropy, and corporate giving exacerbates funding gaps

Topics

Development | Economic

Both speakers emphasize the importance of empowering people with actual capabilities rather than just providing training, with focus on enabling action and meaningful participation.

Speakers

– Maarten Botterman
– Raj Singh

Arguments

Youth engagement and empowerment essential for meaningful digital transformation

Need to shift from capacity building to capability building to enable actual implementation

Topics

Development | Capacity development

Both speakers recognize the critical importance of integrating human rights considerations into digital development, rather than treating them as competing priorities.

Speakers

– Remy Friedmann
– Sabhanaz Rashid Diya

Arguments

Governments have responsibility to protect human rights while setting digital standards and safeguards

Unhealthy tension exists between digital development and human rights protection

Topics

Human rights | Development

Unexpected consensus

Private sector engagement challenges in development contexts

Speakers

– Franz von Weizsaecker
– Audience

Arguments

Government procurement processes need strengthening for sustainable digital solutions

Transparency in investment portfolios and tracking mechanisms remains challenging

Explanation

Unexpected consensus emerged around the challenges private companies face in engaging with development contexts, including procurement difficulties and lack of transparency in investment tracking, suggesting systemic issues in public-private partnerships for development.

Topics

Development | Economic

Infrastructure deployment without ecosystem development

Speakers

– Raj Singh
– Franz von Weizsaecker

Arguments

Submarine cables are being deployed without supporting ecosystems to leverage their potential

Low earth orbit satellite infrastructure could provide competitive alternatives if managed as open ecosystem

Explanation

Unexpected alignment on the issue that infrastructure deployment alone is insufficient – both speakers emphasize the need for supporting ecosystems and open approaches to maximize infrastructure benefits, whether for submarine cables or satellite networks.

Topics

Infrastructure | Development

Overall assessment

Summary

Strong consensus exists around the need for locally-driven, mainstreamed approaches to digital development that prioritize outcomes over outputs, integrate human rights considerations, and require better collaboration among stakeholders. Speakers also agree on persistent connectivity challenges and declining funding landscapes.

Consensus level

High level of consensus on fundamental principles and challenges, with implications suggesting a shared understanding of systemic issues requiring coordinated, rights-based, and locally-owned solutions. The agreement spans technical, governance, and development perspectives, indicating potential for unified approaches to addressing digital development gaps.

Different viewpoints

Role of private sector vs government in digital development solutions

Speakers

– Franz von Weizsaecker
– Audience member (Norwegian company)

Arguments

Government procurement processes need strengthening for sustainable digital solutions

Private companies face skepticism and zero trust when trying to offer solutions to developing countries

Summary

Franz emphasizes that digital solutions must go through proper governmental procurement processes to avoid dependency and ensure sustainability, while the audience member from a Norwegian company highlights the challenges private companies face due to skepticism and lack of trust, making it difficult to offer even low-cost solutions to developing regions.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development | Economic

Approach to capacity building terminology and focus

Speakers

– Raj Singh
– Maarten Botterman

Arguments

Need to shift from capacity building to capability building to enable actual implementation

Local capacity building and understanding crucial for successful digital inclusion initiatives

Summary

Raj argues for a fundamental shift from ‘capacity building’ to ‘capability building’ after three decades of insufficient results, while Maarten continues to emphasize traditional capacity building approaches through local understanding and community engagement.

Topics

Development | Capacity development

Unexpected differences

Measurement focus in development projects

Speakers

– Raj Singh
– Audience member (Molly)

Arguments

Focus should be on outcomes rather than outputs in development projects

Transparency in investment portfolios and tracking mechanisms remains challenging

Explanation

While both recognize measurement challenges, Raj advocates for shifting from output-focused to outcome-focused metrics, while the audience member emphasizes the need for better transparency and tracking of existing investment portfolios. This represents different priorities in addressing measurement challenges.

Topics

Development | Economic

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion revealed relatively low levels of fundamental disagreement among speakers, with most conflicts arising around implementation approaches rather than core goals. Main areas of disagreement included the role of private sector versus government-led solutions, terminology and approaches to capacity building, and specific mechanisms for achieving collaboration.

Disagreement level

Low to moderate disagreement level. The speakers largely agreed on fundamental goals of digital inclusion, bridging digital divides, and the need for collaboration, but differed on specific approaches, mechanisms, and priorities. This suggests a mature field where stakeholders share common objectives but are still working out optimal implementation strategies. The disagreements are constructive and focused on ‘how’ rather than ‘what’ or ‘why’, which is positive for advancing the field.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers highlight the persistent digital divide with specific statistics showing large populations remain unconnected, particularly in developing regions, despite decades of development efforts.

Speakers

– Sabhanaz Rashid Diya
– Raj Singh

Arguments

32% of world population remains unconnected with stark global north-south disparity

Half of South Asia sub-region still remains unconnected despite progress

Topics

Development | Infrastructure

Both speakers acknowledge the significant decline in development funding across multiple sources, creating substantial resource constraints for digital development initiatives.

Speakers

– Franz von Weizsaecker
– Neeti Biyani

Arguments

German development funding budget faces 10% decline while some philanthropic funding tries to compensate

Rapid decline in official development assistance, philanthropy, and corporate giving exacerbates funding gaps

Topics

Development | Economic

Both speakers emphasize the importance of empowering people with actual capabilities rather than just providing training, with focus on enabling action and meaningful participation.

Speakers

– Maarten Botterman
– Raj Singh

Arguments

Youth engagement and empowerment essential for meaningful digital transformation

Need to shift from capacity building to capability building to enable actual implementation

Topics

Development | Capacity development

Both speakers recognize the critical importance of integrating human rights considerations into digital development, rather than treating them as competing priorities.

Speakers

– Remy Friedmann
– Sabhanaz Rashid Diya

Arguments

Governments have responsibility to protect human rights while setting digital standards and safeguards

Unhealthy tension exists between digital development and human rights protection

Topics

Human rights | Development

Key takeaways

Digital transformation requires a shift from capacity building to capability building, focusing on outcomes rather than outputs to create sustainable impact

Collaboration among stakeholders is essential but currently lacking, with significant duplication of efforts despite shrinking funding resources

Local ownership and understanding are crucial for successful digital transformation – solutions cannot be imposed from outside but must be community-driven and context-sensitive

Digital inclusion should be mainstreamed across all development sectors (health, education, climate, gender) rather than treated as a separate infrastructure challenge

The tension between digital development and human rights protection needs to be resolved, with Global South countries having more agency in defining their own development priorities

Structural ecosystem changes are more important than granular interventions – supporting infrastructure like submarine cables needs accompanying ecosystems to be effective

Government procurement processes and regulatory environments need strengthening to ensure sustainable digital solutions and competitive markets

Meaningful access encompasses not just connectivity but also affordability, quality, and the ability to leverage digital tools for socio-economic improvement

Resolutions and action items

APNIC Foundation committed to shifting focus from outputs to outcomes in their grant-making and project evaluation

Raj Singh offered to share expertise on outcome-focused metrics and evaluation with other organizations including ICANN

APNIC Foundation expressed openness to continued collaboration and conversations with different stakeholders and communities

Panelists agreed on the need to move away from traditional donor-receiver models toward more sovereign, government-led digital development approaches

Unresolved issues

How to effectively coordinate and reduce duplication among the numerous organizations working in digital development

How to address the transparency gap in tracking investments and understanding where funding is being allocated across different initiatives

How to balance private sector profit motives with digital inclusion goals, particularly in licensing auctions and infrastructure deployment

How to create effective marketplace or coordination mechanisms for private companies offering solutions to developing countries

How to ensure sustainable funding models as traditional ODA and philanthropic giving continues to decline

How to address the growing digital divides that continue to emerge even as some connectivity gaps are being filled

How to manage the ‘scramble for space’ in low earth orbit to ensure satellite infrastructure serves global development rather than just commercial interests

Suggested compromises

Leveraging private capital through blended finance mechanisms and de-risking strategies while maintaining focus on development outcomes

Using development banks and Global Gateway-type initiatives to bridge public and private funding while ensuring community ownership

Adopting a ‘make or buy’ approach in government procurement that balances local capacity building with necessary external solutions

Creating open ecosystem approaches for satellite infrastructure that allow developed economy investments to automatically benefit less developed regions

Establishing competitive infrastructure frameworks that balance profit optimization with digital inclusion goals

Moving toward international cooperation models rather than traditional development assistance to respect sovereignty while maintaining support

We seem to be creating new digital divides constantly we’re not stopping… we were talking about stuff 30-20 years ago in a slightly different guise it was ICT4D we’re still talking about the same issues some of those issues have not been solved

Speaker

Raj Singh

Reason

This comment reframes the entire discussion by challenging the assumption of progress in digital development. Instead of celebrating advances, Singh highlights the cyclical nature of digital exclusion and questions whether the development community is actually solving problems or just creating new forms of inequality.

Impact

This shifted the conversation from a focus on solutions to a more critical examination of systemic issues. It prompted other panelists to address structural challenges and led to discussions about the need for outcome-focused rather than output-focused approaches.

There’s also this culture of imposition that has also come over the years, where some of the norm shapers are kind of also deciding what gets done in some of the Global South countries… this unhealthy tension between digital development and human rights

Speaker

Sabhanaz Rashid Diya

Reason

This comment introduces a power dynamics perspective that challenges the traditional donor-recipient model. Diya identifies a fundamental tension between development goals and human rights, while highlighting how Global North actors often impose solutions rather than enabling local ownership.

Impact

This comment deepened the conversation by introducing questions of agency, sovereignty, and power imbalances. It led Franz to acknowledge the ‘supply-oriented approach’ problem and influenced the discussion toward more collaborative, locally-driven solutions.

It’s no longer for us… it’s not about building capacity anymore, it’s about building capabilities. Because when you have capabilities, then you can do things… I am no longer interested in the outputs that those projects create. I want to see outcomes.

Speaker

Raj Singh

Reason

This distinction between capacity and capabilities, and outputs versus outcomes, represents a fundamental shift in how development impact should be measured and achieved. It challenges the traditional metrics-driven approach to development work.

Impact

This comment influenced the entire panel’s approach to discussing solutions, with subsequent speakers adopting more outcome-focused language. It also prompted discussions about structural changes and ecosystem building rather than project-based interventions.

We are about to waste a huge global public good, which is the lower earth orbit and the medium earth orbit by the scramble for space that is happening, driven by a couple of companies… it will not be used, that this resource will not be put to the best possible use

Speaker

Franz von Weizsaecker

Reason

This comment introduces a completely new dimension to the digital divide discussion by framing satellite infrastructure as a global commons issue. It connects digital inclusion to resource allocation and corporate monopolization in space.

Impact

This shifted the conversation from terrestrial infrastructure challenges to broader questions of equitable resource distribution and opened up discussion about alternative connectivity solutions for underserved regions.

Digital transformation and human rights actually can work hand in hand. And when people in the norm receiving parts of the world are able to start defining the conditions in which they’re going to take something or reject something… Then we see a little bit more of that negotiation, a little bit more of that empowerment and that ownership happening

Speaker

Sabhanaz Rashid Diya

Reason

This comment offers a constructive resolution to the tension she earlier identified between development and rights. It reframes the relationship from opposition to synergy, while emphasizing local agency in determining development pathways.

Impact

This comment helped steer the conversation toward more collaborative approaches and influenced subsequent discussions about government sovereignty and locally-driven digital transformation strategies.

There’s a lot of submarine cables being deployed all across the world. The problem is, it’s the cables that are being deployed. There’s no supporting ecosystem that’s being set up at the same time… There’s no clear answer yet… on why that focus is not there yet

Speaker

Raj Singh

Reason

This comment reveals a critical gap between infrastructure investment and actual capability building. It exposes how geopolitical motivations for infrastructure development don’t necessarily align with local development needs.

Impact

This observation led to deeper discussions about the disconnect between technical infrastructure and meaningful digital transformation, influencing the conversation toward ecosystem thinking and structural changes.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shifted the discussion from a traditional development narrative focused on funding gaps and technical solutions to a more critical examination of power dynamics, structural inequalities, and the need for locally-driven transformation. The most impactful interventions challenged basic assumptions about progress, questioned whose voices are centered in development decisions, and reframed success metrics from outputs to outcomes. The conversation evolved from problem identification to systemic critique, ultimately arriving at calls for genuine collaboration, local ownership, and recognition that digital transformation must be determined by communities themselves rather than imposed by external actors. The discussion became increasingly sophisticated as speakers built on each other’s critical insights, moving beyond traditional donor-recipient frameworks toward more equitable partnership models.

How can we collectively address the growing gap and ensure that digital progress benefits everyone, not just a few?

Speaker

Remy Friedmann

Explanation

This is a fundamental question about creating inclusive digital transformation that was posed to stimulate discussion on collective action frameworks

How to get in, how to be able to market or talk about solutions, because nobody wants to talk about who they’re collaborating with, if it’s a private company – how can there be a marketplace or another way of dealing with these challenges?

Speaker

Norwegian company representative (audience)

Explanation

This addresses the practical challenge of private companies trying to offer solutions to developing countries but facing skepticism and lack of clear pathways for engagement

How can we work together as funders and other stakeholders, with transparency in investment amounts, where they’re being invested and who we’re working with?

Speaker

Molly (Digital Health and Rights Project)

Explanation

This highlights the need for better transparency and coordination mechanisms in development funding, particularly around tracking and M&E for investment portfolios

How can we construct a collective impact framework that builds on existing knowledge, centering on local actors, bringing together funders, implementers and communities into strategic alignment?

Speaker

Remy Friedmann

Explanation

This seeks to identify practical mechanisms for creating coordinated approaches to digital development that avoid duplication and center local ownership

In six months, have we gone any step forward or not in terms of collaboration and avoiding duplication?

Speaker

Raj Singh

Explanation

This is a follow-up to previous discussions about the need for better coordination, questioning whether progress has been made since the last IGF

How does the government procure digital services in their local national legal system and how will operational costs be covered after project completion?

Speaker

Franz von Weizsaecker

Explanation

This addresses the sustainability challenge of digital solutions in developing countries and the need for proper procurement processes

How can we establish frameworks for more open ecosystem approaches to satellite connectivity that allow global investments to automatically benefit low GDP areas?

Speaker

Franz von Weizsaecker

Explanation

This explores how to prevent the waste of global public goods like orbital space and ensure satellite infrastructure benefits underserved regions

What is the role that government interventions can play vis-a-vis what is the role that the market itself and competition can play in digital transformation?

Speaker

Neeti Biyani

Explanation

This seeks to clarify the balance between government regulation/intervention and market-driven solutions in achieving digital transformation goals

How can we ensure that digital transformation serves the people it’s intended for, with empowerment and the ability to shape transformation in ways that make sense for local communities?

Speaker

Sabhanaz Rashid Diya

Explanation

This addresses the need for community-driven approaches to digital transformation that go beyond just connectivity to meaningful empowerment

Summary

This discussion at the UN Internet Governance Forum focused on enhancing digital trust by transitioning from rigid to elastic frameworks in global cybersecurity and data governance. The session was organized by multiple Chinese organizations and moderated by Susan Ning, bringing together perspectives from China and international business communities.

The Deputy Director General of China’s Cybersecurity Association opened by arguing that traditional rigid approaches to digital trust, which rely on strict rule-setting and network isolation, are becoming inadequate in today’s complex digital environment. She advocated for resilient digital trust systems that emphasize flexibility, adaptability, and collaboration to respond swiftly to technological changes while accommodating different countries’ distinct digital ecosystems. China’s efforts in this area include developing comprehensive legal frameworks through data security and personal information protection laws, promoting blockchain technology applications, and launching the Global Initiative on Data Security to foster international cooperation.

Arne Byberg from Weibo Japan provided a business perspective, highlighting how multinational companies struggle with the lack of predictable regulatory frameworks. He noted that while Europe offers more cohesive AI regulation, the US lacks federal AI standards, forcing businesses to develop multiple compliance strategies across different regions, which increases costs and inefficiency. CUI Jie from the China Internet Development Foundation discussed their organization’s work in digital adoption, internet security education, and digital village construction projects.

The session concluded with emphasis on establishing a robust global data compliance system built on universal principles of privacy, security, transparency, and accountability, requiring international cooperation to create seamless and secure data governance frameworks.

Keypoints

**Major Discussion Points:**

– **Shift from rigid to elastic digital trust frameworks**: The need to move away from traditional rigid rule-setting and strict network isolation toward more flexible, adaptable, and collaborative digital trust systems that can respond to rapidly evolving technologies and diverse global contexts.

– **Regulatory fragmentation and business challenges**: The lack of harmonized international regulations, particularly in AI governance, creates significant challenges for multinational businesses who must navigate different regulatory frameworks across regions, leading to costly duplicate compliance efforts.

– **China’s comprehensive digital governance approach**: China’s multi-faceted strategy including legal frameworks (Data Security Law, Personal Information Protection Law), technological innovation (blockchain applications), and international cooperation initiatives (Global Initiative on Data Security).

– **Digital inclusion and social responsibility**: Efforts to bridge the digital divide through programs targeting vulnerable populations like the elderly and youth, including anti-fraud education, digital literacy initiatives, and responsible internet usage programs.

– **Global data compliance system necessity**: The urgent need for universally recognized principles governing data privacy, security, transparency, and accountability, supported by international cooperation and harmonized regulations while respecting national differences.

**Overall Purpose:**

The discussion aimed to explore strategies for building enhanced digital trust in an increasingly complex global digital environment, focusing on the transition from rigid regulatory approaches to more flexible, collaborative frameworks that can accommodate diverse national contexts while maintaining security and promoting international cooperation.

**Overall Tone:**

The discussion maintained a consistently formal, diplomatic, and collaborative tone throughout. Speakers emphasized cooperation, shared challenges, and mutual benefit rather than competition or conflict. The tone was forward-looking and solution-oriented, with participants presenting their perspectives as complementary contributions to a shared global challenge rather than competing viewpoints.

Speakers

– **Susan Ning(F)**: Session moderator

– **Deputy Director General for China Cybersecurity Association**: Deputy Director General for China Cybersecurity Association (also referred to as “Madame Duanyin”)

– **Arne Byberg**: From Oslo Law Firm, Weibo Japan Tech Practice, serves multinational customers

– **CUI Jie**: Deputy Secretary General from China Internet Development Foundation

Additional speakers:

– No additional speakers were identified beyond those in the provided speakers names list.

# Comprehensive Report: Enhancing Digital Trust Through Elastic Frameworks in Global Cybersecurity and Data Governance

## Executive Summary

This discussion at the UN Internet Governance Forum examined the critical transition from rigid to elastic frameworks in global cybersecurity and data governance to enhance digital trust. The session was organized by the China Cybersecurity Association, China Internet Development Foundation, China Daily, and King Edward Madison’s law firm, and moderated by Susan Ning. The discussion brought together perspectives from China’s cybersecurity establishment and the international business community to address the evolving challenges of digital governance in an increasingly interconnected world.

The central thesis of the discussion revolved around the inadequacy of traditional rigid approaches to digital trust, which rely heavily on strict rule-setting and network isolation. Speakers advocated for a paradigm shift towards resilient digital trust systems that emphasize flexibility, adaptability, and international collaboration while maintaining security and accommodating diverse national digital ecosystems.

## Key Participants and Their Perspectives

### Deputy Director General for China Cybersecurity Association (Madame Duanyin)

The Deputy Director General opened the discussion by establishing the theoretical foundation for the session’s central theme. She argued that traditional approaches to building digital trust, characterized by “rigid rule-setting, strict network isolation, and one-way regulatory mirrors,” are becoming increasingly inadequate as global connectivity deepens and digital environments grow more complex.

Her presentation emphasized that “the shift toward a resilient digital trust framework has become an inevitable divergence,” highlighting the need for systems that can respond swiftly to technological changes while accommodating different countries’ distinct digital ecosystems. She positioned China’s approach as comprehensive and forward-thinking, encompassing legal frameworks through the Data Security Law and Personal Information Protection Law, technological innovation through blockchain applications, and international cooperation through initiatives such as the Global Initiative on Data Security.

### Arne Byberg – International Business Perspective

Byberg, from Weibo Japan Tech Practice, provided a crucial business perspective that grounded the theoretical discussion in practical realities. His contribution highlighted the significant challenges multinational companies face due to regulatory fragmentation, particularly in artificial intelligence governance. He noted that “businesses are increasingly looking for predictability,” while acknowledging that “the technology is moving really, really fast, faster than the regulation.”

His most striking observation concerned the economic inefficiencies created by inconsistent regulatory frameworks: “We see businesses starting to build up double and triple AI initiatives simply to cope with the various regulations of the different regions. And as everyone understands, that is costly and a lot of time wasted, actually.” This comment effectively illustrated how the lack of harmonized international regulations creates tangible costs and operational complexity for global enterprises.

Byberg’s analysis revealed contrasts between regulatory approaches across regions, noting differences between Europe’s AI regulation approach and the United States, where federal AI standards have been affected by recent political changes, forcing businesses to develop multiple compliance strategies across different jurisdictions.

### CUI Jie – Digital Development and Social Responsibility

CUI Jie, Deputy Secretary General from the China Internet Development Foundation, delivered his presentation in Chinese and focused on the practical implementation of digital inclusion initiatives and social responsibility programs. The China Internet Development Foundation, established in June 2015 as a 5A national public-private partnership, has undertaken comprehensive efforts to bridge the digital divide.

His presentation covered three main areas: supporting digital adoption plans to help elderly citizens overcome digital barriers, implementing youth internet anti-addiction programs and cybersecurity education initiatives, and investing in digital village construction projects in locations including Lingyuan in Liaoning and Fuping in Shaanxi to integrate smart agriculture and e-commerce platforms for rural development.

### Susan Ning – Moderator

Susan Ning served as the session moderator, providing brief introductions and transitions between speakers. Her role was limited to facilitating the discussion, with contributions such as “Ladies and gentlemen, it’s my great honor to moderate this session,” “Thank you very much, Madame Duanyin. Our next speaker is Mr. Arne Byberg,” and “Thank you, Mr. Byberg. Our next speaker will be Mr. CUI Jie.”

## Major Discussion Points and Arguments

### The Paradigm Shift from Rigid to Elastic Frameworks

The discussion’s central theme focused on the fundamental inadequacy of traditional rigid approaches to digital trust. The Deputy Director General for China Cybersecurity Association established this framework by arguing that conventional methods relying on strict rule-setting and network isolation are becoming obsolete in today’s complex digital environment.

The proposed alternative—resilient digital trust frameworks—emphasizes flexibility, adaptability, and collaboration as essential characteristics for responding to rapid technological changes. This approach recognizes that different countries have distinct digital ecosystems that require tailored solutions while maintaining interoperability and security standards.

### Regulatory Fragmentation and Business Challenges

A significant portion of the discussion addressed the practical challenges created by inconsistent regulatory frameworks across different regions. Byberg’s contribution was particularly valuable in highlighting how regulatory fragmentation creates substantial costs and inefficiencies for multinational businesses.

The lack of harmonized international regulations, especially in AI governance, forces companies to develop multiple compliance strategies, leading to duplicated efforts and wasted resources. This challenge is exacerbated by the varying approaches taken by different regions and the changing political landscape affecting regulatory stability.

### China’s Comprehensive Digital Governance Strategy

The discussion highlighted China’s multi-faceted approach to digital governance, which encompasses legal, technological, and international cooperation dimensions. The comprehensive legal framework includes the Data Security Law and Personal Information Protection Law, while technological innovation focuses on blockchain applications and other emerging technologies.

China’s international cooperation efforts, particularly through the Global Initiative on Data Security, represent an attempt to foster collaborative approaches to global digital governance while promoting Chinese perspectives and solutions.

### Digital Inclusion and Social Responsibility

The discussion addressed the importance of ensuring that digital development benefits all segments of society. CUI Jie’s presentation highlighted specific programs targeting vulnerable populations, including elderly citizens struggling with digital barriers and youth requiring protection from internet addiction.

These initiatives reflect a broader understanding that digital governance must address social equity and inclusion alongside technical and regulatory challenges. The digital village construction projects represent an attempt to extend digital benefits to rural areas through integrated smart agriculture and e-commerce platforms.

## Key Insights and Observations

### Economic Impact of Regulatory Fragmentation

Byberg’s revelation about businesses building “double and triple AI initiatives” to cope with various regional regulations effectively illustrated the concrete costs of regulatory fragmentation. This insight demonstrated how the lack of harmonized international regulations creates tangible economic consequences and operational complexity for global enterprises.

### Paradigm Shift Recognition

The Deputy Director General’s observation about the inevitable shift from rigid to resilient digital trust frameworks provided the conceptual foundation for the entire discussion. This insight reframed digital governance challenges as requiring fundamental paradigm shifts rather than incremental improvements to existing approaches.

### Comprehensive Approach to Digital Development

CUI Jie’s presentation demonstrated how digital governance extends beyond technical and regulatory considerations to encompass social responsibility and inclusion. The China Internet Development Foundation’s work illustrates practical approaches to ensuring digital development benefits all segments of society.

## Areas Requiring Further Development

### Implementation Mechanisms

While speakers agreed on the need for international cooperation and more flexible regulatory frameworks, specific mechanisms for achieving these goals across different legal systems and cultural contexts require further development.

### Business-Regulatory Balance

The tension between the need for regulatory flexibility to accommodate rapid technological change and businesses’ requirements for predictable regulatory environments remains an ongoing challenge requiring creative solutions.

### Technical Standards

The discussion highlighted the need for interoperable technologies and advanced cybersecurity measures but did not address specific technical standards or implementation details required for practical deployment.

## Conclusion

This discussion at the UN Internet Governance Forum successfully identified critical challenges in contemporary digital governance while proposing conceptual frameworks for addressing them. The session brought together diverse perspectives from regulatory authorities, business communities, and civil society organizations to examine the transition from rigid to elastic approaches in digital trust frameworks.

The speakers demonstrated consensus on fundamental principles, including the need for international cooperation, comprehensive legal frameworks, and inclusive approaches to digital development. However, the discussion also revealed important challenges, particularly the tension between regulatory flexibility and business predictability, and the practical difficulties of implementing harmonized approaches across diverse national contexts.

The session’s emphasis on building flexible, secure, and inclusive digital frameworks provides a constructive foundation for future policy development. The recognition that traditional rigid approaches are inadequate for contemporary digital challenges, combined with practical insights about business needs and social inclusion requirements, offers valuable perspectives for advancing digital governance discussions.

*Note: The transcript indicates that an additional speaker may have presented content about global data compliance systems, but the attribution of this content is unclear from the available materials.*

Susan Ning(F): Ladies and gentlemen, it’s my great honor to moderate this session to discuss the enhanced digital trust, from rigidity to elasticity. And this session is organized by the China Cybersecurity Association, China Internet Development Foundation, China Daily, and King Edward Madison’s, the law firm. Now our first speaker is Madame Duanyin, who is the Deputy Director General for China Cybersecurity Association.

Deputy Director General for China Cybersecurity Association: Ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon. On behalf of the Cybersecurity Association of China, it gives me great honor to attend the IGF and have an exchange with you all on the important topic, enhancing digital trust from rigidity to elasticity. In today’s world, digital technologies are reshaping economic and social life at speed and scale. However, alongside the opportunities, come growing challenges to digital trust. Traditional approaches to build trust tend to rely on the rigid rule-setting, strict network isolation, and one-way regulatory mirrors. Such mechanisms have proven necessary and effective at a certain stage of development and in specific contexts. However, as global connectivity continues to deepen, the digital environment is becoming increasingly complex, and modern techniques are rapidly evolving and becoming deeply incorporated. Evidence in digital governance, philosophies, legal frameworks, and technology capabilities among countries and regions are becoming evident. Really, the digital trust architectures are revealing limitations explicitly. As a result, the shift toward a resilient digital trust framework has become an inevitable divergence and a pricing challenge for global digital governance. A resilient digital trust system emphasizes flexibility, adaptability, and collaboration, such as responding swiftly to changes brought about by new technologies and applications. The trust framework should align with the distinct characteristics of each country or region’s digital ecosystem. Given the different stages of digital economic development, cultural backgrounds, and legal foundations around the world, a resilient system should meet these needs through different trust streets and governance mechanisms. This underscores the importance of cooperation among all stakeholders in building digital trust on a global scale. China has undertaken extensive efforts and explorations in advancing the development of a resilient digital trust framework. China has been continually improving its policy and regulatory system for digital governance while also placing emphasis on maintaining policy flexibilities in the area of data security. The data security law and the personal information protection law provide the foundation legal framework for data governance. On the technological innovation front, China has been actively promoting the research and development of key digital trust technologies, such as applications of blockchain in supply chain finance. In terms of international cooperation, China has taken an active role in growing rulemaking for digital governance prospects. The global initiative on data security upholds the principles of openness, equality, and mutual benefit to build a peaceful, secure, open, and cooperative cyberspace. This initiative provides an important cooperation framework for the global development of a resilient digital trust system. As a national, industry-based, and non-profit social organization formed vocabulary by institutions, enterprises, and individuals engaged in cybersecurity-related industry, education, research, and application in China, the Cybersecurity Association of China maintains a broad collaboration connection with all sectors involved by cyberspace security. We remain committed to promoting technological application, improving industry self-regulation, and facilitating exchange and cooperation in order to create a more trustworthy digital world. Let us work together to build a safer, more trusted, and more prosperous global cyberspace with resilient digital trust as our shared foundation. Thank you.

Susan Ning(F): Thank you very much, Madame Duanyin. Our next speaker is Mr. Arne Byberg from the Oslo Law Firm, Weibo Japan. Arne. Is this on?

Arne Byberg: Yeah, it is. Thanks for having me. Yeah, so I’m Arne Byberg from Weibo Japan Tech Practice. We basically serve multinational customers. And I think what I’d like to share and augment to the Chinese perspective here is that businesses are increasingly looking for predictability. The technology is moving really, really fast, faster than the regulation. We see in the US, for instance, they have still no federal AI regulation. It was, they had one, it was starting to come along, but it was revoked by the current president. Hence, we are basically stuck with the sectorial regulation and state regulation, which makes it hard to navigate. In Europe, it’s a little bit easier to navigate because at least there is some cohesive regulation when it comes to AI Act and the Council of Europe Convention, et cetera. So that is helpful. But what we see is that there is still a lot of dependency on humans in the chain. So sort of having AI actually perform at a level where you can derive direct value is going to be challenging going forward. So I think in terms of international businesses, the multinational businesses, we see them struggle. They are certainly looking for some predictability. Whether that can be achieved through governance in the internet space and organizations and events like this, or collaborations on the AI front, I don’t know. But we hope and would welcome developments in that space because currently we see businesses starting to build up double and triple AI initiatives simply to cope with the various regulations of the different regions. And as everyone understands, that is costly and a lot of time wasted, actually. So with short end to that, that is my input. Thank you. Cheers.

Susan Ning(F): Thank you, Mr. Byberg. Our next speaker will be Mr. CUI Jie, who is the Deputy Secretary General from China Internet Development Foundation. Now Mr. Cui, yeah.

CUI Jie: I speak in Chinese. Hello, everyone. It is a great honor to be able to discuss with you on the UN Internet Governance Forum. On behalf of the China Internet Development Foundation, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to the UN Internet Governance Forum and my sincere greetings to all of you. With digitalization, networkization, and smartness continuing to advance and develop, public services are deeply integrated with the internet. The Internet Project is a new form of public-private partnership where public-private partnerships are based on the Internet and develop public-private partnerships through the use of Internet technology. The China Internet Development Fund, which is the leading social organization in the field of Internet public-private partnerships, was established in June 2015 and is a 5A national public-private partnership. We have always insisted on studying and integrating Xi Jinping’s new era Chinese characteristics and socialist ideas, especially Xi Jinping’s cultural ideas, as well as Xi Jinping’s important ideas on Internet power, focusing on Internet content construction, Internet security, informationization, and global Internet governance. We have established a special fund to support the healthy development of China’s Internet industry, promote Internet positive energy transmission, promote national Internet security and information development, promote Internet-related international and Hong Kong-Macao-Taiwan areas and make active contributions to the development of Internet power. With this opportunity, I would like to share with you some of our key work. In terms of improving digital adoption, we are committed to combining the digital red loop and the national development concept to support the implementation of the digital adoption and public-private partnership plan, combining online and offline to promote anti-fraud and anti-fraud content and help the elderly to cross the digital red loop. This year, we will also implement the Youth Internet Anti-Addiction Plan to help youth establish the correct concept of online and develop good habits of using the Internet. In terms of serving Internet security, we will support the implementation of the Internet Security College Student Innovation Support Plan to promote universities to support innovation and industrial development and improve the ability of students to solve practical problems. In addition, we will support the national Internet Security Standards Week to promote the broad agreement on Internet security standards, improve the standard quality level, promote standard implementation, and promote the standardization of Internet security and high-quality development. We will support the development of digital village to develop innovative Internet security talents. In terms of promoting digital village construction, we will invest in a special fund to support the implementation of digital village distance actions. We will build demonstration villages in ten locations, such as Lingyuan in Liaoning, Fuping in Shaanxi, and Fuping County in Shaanxi Province. The county relies on good ecological tourism resources and regional advantages. We will focus on Lenshuiyu, Longcaoping Village, Lenshuiyu and Mifeng Farming Base, Yingchang Village, and Dianshang Fuhua Base. We will build smart agriculture, produce and sell integrated, comprehensive improvement projects, build industrial development models, and drive the rapid transformation and upgrade of the whole industry. Ladies and gentlemen, these are the key points that I would like to share with you. With this opportunity, I would like to introduce the first project, the Internet of China Public Service Action. This project is aimed at uniting the power of the Internet industry to promote the development of the Internet public service industry and to spread the positive energy of the Internet, and to use the resources and advantages of the public service project to serve the network industry and to promote the security and information development of the national Internet. Last year, we successfully held the first Internet of China Public Service Action. Through technological adaptation, ecological construction, and regional practice, we have created an innovative form of artificial intelligence and public service. We have demonstrated the potential of artificial intelligence technology and provided valuable experience for the digital transformation of the Internet public service industry. This year, we will focus on the two groups, one large and one small, to clean up and refine the experience to help the elderly better use the Internet, and to help young people develop good habits of using the Internet so that they can better enjoy the results of digital development. Here, we call on everyone to pay attention and participate in the 2025 Internet of China Public Service Action. We hope that everyone will integrate with the Internet public service industry from different interfaces and jointly write a new chapter in the digital age of public service. Thank you.

Susan Ning(F): The rapid proliferation of data has also brought unprecedented challenges, including privacy violations, including the misuse of personal information and data breach. It is imperative that we establish a robot global data compliance system to address these challenges and ensure that data serves humanity in a responsible and ethical way. First and foremost, the foundation of a global data compliance system must be built upon a set of universally recognized principles. These principles shall include data privacy, data security, transparency, accountability, and the protection of human rights. Every country, regardless of its size and level of development, must adhere to these principles to create a level playing field for all stakeholders in the digital ecosystem. To achieve this, international cooperation is essential. Data does not recognize national borders. It flows freely across the globe, connecting people and systems in ways we could never have imagined. Therefore, we must work together to harmonize our data protection laws and regulations. This does not mean that we should eliminate all the differences, but rather we should strive for compatibility and interoperability. By doing this, we can create a seamless and secure environment for data economy. Moreover, we need to foster a culture of data responsibility. This involves educating individuals, businesses, and governments about the importance of data compliance. It means promoting best practices in data management and encouraging the development of ethical guidelines for data use. We must also empower citizens to take control of their own data, ensuring that they have the right to access, correct, and delete their own personal information. In addition, the role of technology cannot be overstated. As we develop new technologies, we must also develop the means to secure and protect the data. This includes investing in advanced cybersecurity measures, promoting the use of privacy computing, and encouraging the development of privacy-enhancing technologies. We must also stay ahead of emerging threats such as artificial intelligence and machine learning, which can both enhance or undermine the data security and privacy. Ladies and gentlemen, the global data compliance system is not just a regulatory framework. It is a collective commitment to safeguard the digital future of our planet. It’s a commitment to ensure that data is used for the greater good, that it respects the rights and the freedom of individuals, and that it fosters innovation and economic growth in a sustainable and responsible manner. As we move forward, let’s remember that we are all stakeholders in this digital revolution. Governments, businesses, civil society, and individuals all have a role to play. Together, we shall build a global data compliance system that is resilient, inclusive, and forward-looking. Together, we can create a digital world that is both secure and open, where data flows freely but responsibly. Thank you so much. Thank you.

Agreement points

Need for international cooperation in digital governance

Speakers

– Deputy Director General for China Cybersecurity Association
– Susan Ning(F)

Arguments

A shift toward resilient digital trust frameworks emphasizing flexibility, adaptability, and collaboration is necessary to respond to new technologies and applications

International cooperation is essential to harmonize data protection laws while maintaining compatibility and interoperability across different regulatory frameworks

Summary

Both speakers emphasize the critical importance of international collaboration in building effective digital governance frameworks, whether through resilient trust systems or harmonized data protection laws

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Cybersecurity

Technology development must be accompanied by security measures

Speakers

– Deputy Director General for China Cybersecurity Association
– Susan Ning(F)

Arguments

China has developed comprehensive legal frameworks including data security law and personal information protection law while promoting blockchain applications and international cooperation through initiatives like the global data security framework

Technology development must include advanced cybersecurity measures and privacy-enhancing technologies to address emerging threats from AI and machine learning

Summary

Both speakers agree that technological advancement must be paired with robust security frameworks and legal protections to ensure safe digital development

Topics

Cybersecurity | Legal and regulatory | Infrastructure

Importance of comprehensive legal frameworks for digital governance

Speakers

– Deputy Director General for China Cybersecurity Association
– Susan Ning(F)

Arguments

China has developed comprehensive legal frameworks including data security law and personal information protection law while promoting blockchain applications and international cooperation through initiatives like the global data security framework

A robust global data compliance system must be established based on universally recognized principles including data privacy, security, transparency, accountability, and human rights protection

Summary

Both speakers advocate for comprehensive legal frameworks that establish clear principles and regulations for digital governance, whether at national or global levels

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights | Cybersecurity

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers recognize that traditional approaches to digital governance are insufficient for current challenges and advocate for new, more comprehensive frameworks

Speakers

– Deputy Director General for China Cybersecurity Association
– Susan Ning(F)

Arguments

Traditional rigid approaches to digital trust are becoming inadequate as global connectivity deepens and digital environments become more complex

A robust global data compliance system must be established based on universally recognized principles including data privacy, security, transparency, accountability, and human rights protection

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Cybersecurity | Human rights

Both speakers identify regulatory fragmentation as a major challenge and implicitly support the need for more harmonized approaches to digital regulation

Speakers

– Arne Byberg
– Susan Ning(F)

Arguments

Businesses are struggling with lack of predictability due to inconsistent AI regulation across regions, with the US having no federal AI regulation and Europe providing more cohesive frameworks

International cooperation is essential to harmonize data protection laws while maintaining compatibility and interoperability across different regulatory frameworks

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Economic

Unexpected consensus

Flexibility in digital governance approaches

Speakers

– Deputy Director General for China Cybersecurity Association
– Arne Byberg

Arguments

A shift toward resilient digital trust frameworks emphasizing flexibility, adaptability, and collaboration is necessary to respond to new technologies and applications

Businesses are struggling with lack of predictability due to inconsistent AI regulation across regions, with the US having no federal AI regulation and Europe providing more cohesive frameworks

Explanation

Despite representing different perspectives (regulatory authority vs. business), both speakers converge on the need for more adaptive and flexible approaches to digital governance, though from different angles – one advocating for resilient frameworks and the other highlighting the problems of rigid, inconsistent regulation

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Economic

Human-centered approach to digital development

Speakers

– CUI Jie
– Susan Ning(F)

Arguments

The China Internet Development Foundation focuses on combining digital development with national concepts, supporting digital adoption plans and helping elderly citizens overcome digital barriers

A robust global data compliance system must be established based on universally recognized principles including data privacy, security, transparency, accountability, and human rights protection

Explanation

Both speakers, despite focusing on different aspects (domestic digital inclusion vs. global data governance), share a human-centered approach that prioritizes protecting and empowering individuals in the digital space

Topics

Human rights | Development | Sociocultural

Overall assessment

Summary

The speakers demonstrate significant consensus on the need for international cooperation, comprehensive legal frameworks, and human-centered approaches to digital governance, while recognizing the inadequacy of traditional rigid regulatory approaches

Consensus level

High level of consensus on fundamental principles with complementary perspectives from different stakeholders (regulatory authorities, business, and civil society). This strong alignment suggests potential for collaborative solutions in global digital governance, particularly around building flexible, secure, and inclusive digital frameworks that balance innovation with protection of rights and interests.

Different viewpoints

Regulatory approach – flexibility vs predictability

Speakers

– Deputy Director General for China Cybersecurity Association
– Arne Byberg

Arguments

A shift toward resilient digital trust frameworks emphasizing flexibility, adaptability, and collaboration is necessary to respond to new technologies and applications

Businesses are struggling with lack of predictability due to inconsistent AI regulation across regions, with the US having no federal AI regulation and Europe providing more cohesive frameworks

Summary

The Chinese representative advocates for flexible and adaptive regulatory frameworks that can respond to technological changes, while the business representative emphasizes the need for predictable, cohesive regulation that businesses can rely on for planning and compliance

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Economic

Unexpected differences

Scale and scope of regulatory solutions

Speakers

– Arne Byberg
– Susan Ning(F)

Arguments

Multinational companies are forced to build multiple AI initiatives to comply with different regional regulations, resulting in increased costs and wasted resources

International cooperation is essential to harmonize data protection laws while maintaining compatibility and interoperability across different regulatory frameworks

Explanation

While both speakers acknowledge the problems caused by regulatory fragmentation, they propose different solutions – Byberg focuses on the business impact and need for predictable frameworks, while Susan Ning proposes a comprehensive global compliance system. This disagreement is unexpected because both should theoretically support harmonization, but they approach it from different perspectives and with different priorities

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Economic

Overall assessment

Summary

The main areas of disagreement center around regulatory philosophy (flexibility vs predictability), the scope of solutions (national vs global approaches), and priorities in digital governance (business efficiency vs comprehensive protection)

Disagreement level

The level of disagreement is moderate but significant for policy implications. While speakers generally agree on the need for better digital governance and international cooperation, their different approaches – China’s emphasis on flexible national frameworks, business community’s need for predictability, and calls for universal global principles – reflect fundamental tensions between sovereignty, economic efficiency, and universal standards in digital governance

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers recognize that traditional approaches to digital governance are insufficient for current challenges and advocate for new, more comprehensive frameworks

Speakers

– Deputy Director General for China Cybersecurity Association
– Susan Ning(F)

Arguments

Traditional rigid approaches to digital trust are becoming inadequate as global connectivity deepens and digital environments become more complex

A robust global data compliance system must be established based on universally recognized principles including data privacy, security, transparency, accountability, and human rights protection

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Cybersecurity | Human rights

Both speakers identify regulatory fragmentation as a major challenge and implicitly support the need for more harmonized approaches to digital regulation

Speakers

– Arne Byberg
– Susan Ning(F)

Arguments

Businesses are struggling with lack of predictability due to inconsistent AI regulation across regions, with the US having no federal AI regulation and Europe providing more cohesive frameworks

International cooperation is essential to harmonize data protection laws while maintaining compatibility and interoperability across different regulatory frameworks

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Economic

Key takeaways

Digital trust frameworks must evolve from rigid, rule-based approaches to flexible, resilient systems that can adapt to rapidly changing technologies and diverse global contexts

There is an urgent need for international regulatory harmonization, particularly in AI governance, as inconsistent regulations across regions create significant compliance burdens and costs for multinational businesses

China has established comprehensive legal frameworks for digital governance while emphasizing flexibility and international cooperation through initiatives like the global data security framework

Digital inclusion efforts must address both ends of the demographic spectrum – helping elderly citizens overcome digital barriers while protecting youth from internet addiction and promoting healthy online habits

A global data compliance system based on universal principles (privacy, security, transparency, accountability, human rights protection) is essential for responsible data governance in an interconnected world

Technology development must be coupled with robust cybersecurity measures and privacy-enhancing technologies to address emerging threats from AI and machine learning

Resolutions and action items

Call for participation in the 2025 Internet of China Public Service Action to promote digital public service integration

Continued implementation of digital village construction projects across multiple Chinese provinces

Ongoing support for cybersecurity education initiatives and youth internet programs

Promotion of international cooperation frameworks for digital governance and data security

Unresolved issues

How to achieve practical regulatory harmonization across different legal systems and cultural contexts while respecting national sovereignty

Specific mechanisms for creating predictable regulatory environments for multinational businesses operating across multiple jurisdictions

Technical standards and implementation details for interoperable privacy-enhancing technologies

Concrete steps for establishing universal data compliance principles that can be effectively enforced globally

How to balance the need for regulatory flexibility with business requirements for predictability and consistency

Suggested compromises

Striving for compatibility and interoperability in data protection laws rather than complete harmonization, allowing for regional differences while maintaining functional cooperation

Maintaining policy flexibility in data security areas while providing foundational legal frameworks

Balancing openness with security in cyberspace governance through collaborative international initiatives

Traditional approaches to build trust tend to rely on the rigid rule-setting, strict network isolation, and one-way regulatory mirrors… However, as global connectivity continues to deepen, the digital environment is becoming increasingly complex… the shift toward a resilient digital trust framework has become an inevitable divergence.

Speaker

Deputy Director General for China Cybersecurity Association

Reason

This comment is insightful because it frames the entire discussion by identifying a fundamental paradigm shift in digital governance – moving from rigid, static approaches to flexible, adaptive frameworks. It acknowledges that traditional security models are becoming inadequate for our interconnected digital reality and introduces the core theme of ‘rigidity to elasticity.’

Impact

This comment established the conceptual foundation for the entire session, setting up the central tension between security and flexibility that subsequent speakers would address. It provided the theoretical framework that other participants could build upon or respond to.

Businesses are increasingly looking for predictability. The technology is moving really, really fast, faster than the regulation… we see businesses starting to build up double and triple AI initiatives simply to cope with the various regulations of the different regions. And as everyone understands, that is costly and a lot of time wasted, actually.

Speaker

Arne Byberg

Reason

This comment is particularly thought-provoking because it introduces the practical business perspective and highlights a critical inefficiency in the current system. It reveals how the lack of harmonized regulation is creating real economic costs and operational complexity for multinational companies, adding a concrete dimension to the abstract discussion of digital trust.

Impact

Byberg’s comment shifted the discussion from theoretical policy frameworks to practical implementation challenges. It introduced the business stakeholder perspective and highlighted the economic consequences of fragmented regulatory approaches, which influenced the moderator’s subsequent focus on global harmonization and practical solutions.

Data does not recognize national borders. It flows freely across the globe, connecting people and systems in ways we could never have imagined. Therefore, we must work together to harmonize our data protection laws and regulations. This does not mean that we should eliminate all the differences, but rather we should strive for compatibility and interoperability.

Speaker

Susan Ning (Moderator)

Reason

This comment is insightful because it captures the fundamental challenge of governing a borderless digital world with nation-state regulatory frameworks. The distinction between ‘harmonization’ and ‘elimination of differences’ is particularly nuanced, suggesting a middle path that respects sovereignty while enabling cooperation.

Impact

This comment synthesized the previous speakers’ points and elevated the discussion to a more strategic level. It moved beyond identifying problems to proposing a specific approach – seeking compatibility rather than uniformity – which provided a constructive framework for thinking about international cooperation in digital governance.

The global data compliance system is not just a regulatory framework. It is a collective commitment to safeguard the digital future of our planet. It’s a commitment to ensure that data is used for the greater good, that it respects the rights and the freedom of individuals, and that it fosters innovation and economic growth in a sustainable and responsible manner.

Speaker

Susan Ning (Moderator)

Reason

This comment is thought-provoking because it reframes data compliance from a technical/legal issue to a moral and civilizational imperative. It connects digital governance to broader themes of planetary stewardship and collective responsibility, elevating the stakes of the discussion.

Impact

This comment provided a philosophical capstone to the discussion, transforming it from a technical policy debate into a broader conversation about shared values and collective responsibility. It unified the various practical concerns raised by previous speakers under a larger moral framework.

Overall assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by creating a clear progression from problem identification to solution frameworks. The Chinese representative established the theoretical foundation by identifying the paradigm shift needed in digital trust. Byberg’s business perspective grounded the discussion in practical realities and economic consequences. The moderator then synthesized these perspectives, first by proposing a nuanced approach to international cooperation that balances harmonization with sovereignty, and finally by elevating the entire discussion to a moral and civilizational level. Together, these comments created a comprehensive narrative arc that moved from technical challenges through practical implications to philosophical imperatives, demonstrating how effective moderation can weave together diverse perspectives into a coherent and progressively deeper conversation.

How can predictability be achieved for multinational businesses navigating different AI regulations across regions?

Speaker

Arne Byberg

Explanation

Businesses are struggling with inconsistent regulations across different regions, leading to costly duplicate AI initiatives, and there’s uncertainty about whether governance through internet organizations can provide solutions

How can international cooperation effectively harmonize data protection laws while maintaining compatibility and interoperability?

Speaker

Susan Ning

Explanation

She emphasized the need to work together to harmonize data protection laws without eliminating all differences, but the specific mechanisms for achieving this compatibility remain unclear

How can we stay ahead of emerging threats from AI and machine learning that can both enhance and undermine data security?

Speaker

Susan Ning

Explanation

She identified AI and machine learning as dual-nature technologies that present both opportunities and threats to data security, requiring proactive approaches that weren’t fully explored

What specific governance mechanisms can effectively address the limitations of rigid digital trust architectures?

Speaker

Deputy Director General for China Cybersecurity Association

Explanation

While she identified that traditional rigid approaches are showing limitations in complex digital environments, the specific alternative mechanisms for resilient trust frameworks need further development

How can different countries align their distinct digital ecosystems while maintaining their unique characteristics?

Speaker

Deputy Director General for China Cybersecurity Association

Explanation

She noted that trust frameworks should align with each country’s distinct digital ecosystem characteristics, but the practical methods for achieving this alignment require further exploration

Summary

This discussion focused on safeguarding democracy in the digital age through legislative priorities and policy pathways, bringing together members of parliament from around the world to address how digital technologies impact democratic institutions. The session was part of the parliamentary track at the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) 2025, with participants from Norway, Kenya, California, Barbados, and Tajikistan sharing their national experiences and challenges.

Key speakers emphasized the urgent need to balance freedom of expression with combating misinformation and disinformation, particularly as artificial intelligence technologies blur the lines between fact and fiction. Norwegian MP Grunde Almeland highlighted concerns about truth becoming less relevant in political discourse, while advocating for strengthening independent media organizations as a crucial countermeasure. Kenyan Senator Catherine Mumma outlined her country’s comprehensive legal framework including cybercrime and data protection acts, while noting ongoing challenges with hate speech and electoral misinformation that sometimes leads to violence.

California Assembly Member Rebecca Bauer-Kahn discussed the state’s pioneering role in privacy legislation and AI regulation, including requirements for watermarking AI-generated content and disclosure in political advertisements. She emphasized the need for “technology for good” and increased investment in academic institutions to compete with profit-driven tech companies. Barbados MP Marsha Caddle shared experiences with deepfakes targeting political leaders and stressed the importance of democratic literacy and creating a culture of evidence-based information.

Several participants raised concerns about technological dumping by advanced economies onto developing nations, comparing it to historical patterns of exploitation. The discussion concluded with calls for stronger international cooperation, similar to nuclear weapons treaties, to hold big tech companies and advanced nations accountable for their global impact on democratic processes and human rights.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Balancing Freedom of Expression with Combating Misinformation**: Parliamentarians discussed the challenge of protecting free speech while addressing the spread of false information, particularly how AI and deepfakes are blurring the lines between fact and fiction in democratic discourse.

– **Legislative Frameworks and International Cooperation**: Panel members shared their countries’ approaches to digital governance, from Kenya’s comprehensive legal framework to California’s privacy legislation, emphasizing the need for harmonized international standards rather than fragmented national approaches.

– **Electoral Integrity and Democratic Trust**: Significant focus on protecting elections from AI-generated disinformation, deepfakes, and manipulation, with examples ranging from deepfakes of political leaders to concerns about electronic voting systems across different jurisdictions.

– **Technology for Good vs. Profit-Driven Solutions**: Discussion of the need to invest in academic institutions and civil society to develop beneficial AI tools, rather than leaving technology development solely to well-funded private companies focused on profit.

– **Global Digital Divide and Technological Responsibility**: Strong emphasis on addressing “technological dumping” where advanced economies and big tech companies export harmful practices to developing nations, with calls for accountability similar to nuclear weapons treaties or climate agreements.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to bring together parliamentarians from different countries to share legislative approaches and policy solutions for safeguarding democratic institutions in the digital age, while fostering international cooperation on digital governance frameworks.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a serious but collaborative tone throughout. It began with formal opening remarks emphasizing urgency and responsibility, evolved into practical sharing of national experiences and challenges, and concluded with passionate calls for global accountability and cooperation. While acknowledging significant challenges, the tone remained constructive and solution-oriented, with participants demonstrating mutual respect and shared commitment to democratic values despite representing diverse jurisdictions and political systems.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Nikolis Smith** – Founder and President of StratAlliance Global, a strategic advisory firm supporting public-private partnerships and technology policy engagement; Session moderator

– **Junhua LI** – Undersecretary General of the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs

– **Martin Chungong** – Secretary General of the Inter-Parliamentary Union (appeared via video message)

– **Catherine Mumma** – Senator from Kenya

– **Rebecca Bauer-Kahn** – California Assembly Member, Chair of the Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee

– **Grunde Almeland** – Member of Parliament from Norway

– **Marsha Caddle** – Member of Parliament from Barbados, former Minister of Innovation and Technology

– **Zafar Alizoda** – Member of Parliament from Tajikistan

– **Audience** – Various audience members who asked questions during Q&A sessions

**Additional speakers:**

– **Kenneth Pugh** – Senator from Chile, South America

– **Mounir Souri** – Member of Parliament from the Kingdom of Bahrain

– **Hugo Carneiro** – Member of Parliament from Portugal

– **John K.J. Kiarie** – Member of Parliament from Kenya

– **Anna Luhmann** – Member of Parliament from Germany

# Safeguarding Democracy in the Digital Age: A Parliamentary Perspective on Legislative Priorities and Policy Pathways

## Executive Summary

This comprehensive discussion brought together parliamentarians from across the globe to address the challenge of protecting democratic institutions in an era of rapid digital transformation. The session, moderated by Nikolis Smith of StratAlliance Global as part of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) 2025 parliamentary track, featured representatives from Norway, Kenya, California, Barbados, Tajikistan, and other jurisdictions sharing their national experiences and legislative approaches to digital governance.

The discussion revealed both the universal nature of digital threats to democracy and the diverse approaches being taken to address them. From deepfakes targeting world leaders to sophisticated misinformation campaigns undermining electoral processes, participants shared practical experiences and legislative solutions while emphasizing the need for international cooperation and balanced approaches that protect both democratic processes and fundamental rights.

## Opening Context and Urgency

The session began with a video message from Martin Chungong, Secretary General of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, who emphasized that digital technologies have fundamentally altered the information landscape, creating an environment where governments struggle to distinguish fact from fiction and electoral processes face constant manipulation. He highlighted how artificial intelligence has transformed the misinformation landscape through deepfakes, AI-generated content, and algorithmic amplification.

Junhua Li, Undersecretary General of the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, reinforced the need for global cooperation on combating misinformation, noting that fragmented approaches risk undermining democratic discourse worldwide.

## National Experiences and Legislative Approaches

### Kenya’s Comprehensive Framework and Challenges

Senator Catherine Mumma from Kenya provided a detailed overview of her country’s approach to digital governance. Kenya has established a comprehensive legal framework including the Computer Misuse and Cyber Protection Act, the Data Protection Act, and the Media Council Act. However, she acknowledged significant gaps, particularly in addressing misinformation and disinformation specifically.

“We don’t have a law that specifically addresses misinformation and disinformation,” Mumma explained, noting the challenge of “hitting the balance between protection of human rights and regulating and also allowing innovation to progress unhinged, is something that is beyond legislation, is something that sometimes is beyond the politics of the day.”

She described how Kenya faces particular challenges with misinformation and disinformation on social media during electoral periods, which sometimes escalates to violence and ethnic tensions. Mumma emphasized that electoral integrity depends largely on neutral electoral management bodies rather than just technology, highlighting the importance of institutional frameworks alongside technological solutions.

### California’s Pioneering Regulatory Approach

California Assembly Member Rebecca Bauer-Kahn shared her state’s experience as a pioneer in both privacy legislation and AI regulation. She detailed California’s Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) and ongoing efforts to implement watermarking requirements and disclosure laws for AI-generated political content.

Bauer-Kahn focused heavily on technological solutions, emphasizing watermarking technology and device-level authentication for distinguishing reality from AI-generated content. She described California’s push for embedded authentication technology in cameras and requirements for platforms to implement watermarking systems.

She acknowledged constitutional constraints, noting that “constitutional protections of free speech create challenges in regulating misinformation while requiring creative solutions like disclosure requirements.” Her approach emphasized “technology for good,” advocating for increased funding for academic institutions to compete with large AI companies and ensure democratic alternatives to profit-driven technological development.

### Norway’s Media-Centric Strategy

Grunde Almeland from Norway presented his country’s approach, which centers on strengthening independent media organizations as a crucial countermeasure to misinformation. He detailed Norway’s legislative measures that prevent media owners from interfering with editorial decisions and provide extensive public funding for media organizations.

“Truth is becoming less relevant,” Almeland observed, explaining that AI-powered content creation enables people to remain in confirmation bias bubbles where they engage only with information that confirms their existing beliefs. He argued that this makes it “hard and harder to pierce with factual debate and true, well, facts.”

Almeland’s perspective was notably pragmatic, arguing that “most things are already quite heavily legislated” and that international cooperation is often more important than creating new legislation. He referenced an expert group on AI and elections and emphasized providing people with fundamental information to make their own decisions rather than making judgments for them.

### Barbados’ Transparent Parliamentary Process

Marsha Caddle from Barbados shared her country’s experience with implementing cybercrime legislation through transparent parliamentary processes that included extensive citizen input. She described Barbados’s transparency measures, including broadcasting parliamentary committee meetings and Prime Minister speeches.

Caddle provided a compelling example of the real-world impact of deepfakes: “The deepfake was about the prime minister saying something in relation to another major world power. Now that has the potential to completely, especially in this current global political environment, to completely put at risk a lot of what a country is doing with respect to policy and global engagement.”

She emphasized the responsibility of platforms to implement better verification methods while balancing accessibility concerns, and called for building local tech ecosystems that can create tools to fight misinformation while promoting innovation.

### Central Asian Perspectives

Zafar Alizoda from Tajikistan highlighted challenges facing Central Asian countries, particularly how global platforms apply different policies to different regions. He noted that while EU citizens benefit from GDPR protections, developing countries often lack the same priority in platform policies, creating unequal protection standards globally.

His intervention highlighted the unequal treatment of different regions by global technology platforms and the need for more equitable international standards.

## Critical Interventions and Broader Perspectives

### Addressing Technological Inequality

A significant intervention came from John K.J. Kiarie, a Member of Parliament from Kenya, who challenged assumptions about technological equality through a post-colonial lens. “To imagine that countries in places like Africa will at one point be at par with Silicon Valley is a fallacy,” Kiarie stated. “To imagine that such advanced economies do not have responsibilities is also wrong.”

He drew explicit parallels to historical exploitation: “what will happen with this AI is that my people will be condemned to digital plantations, just like they were condemned with sugar cane and with coffee and with all these other things that happened in slave trade.”

This intervention prompted discussion about the responsibilities of advanced economies and technology companies, with speakers acknowledging the need for more equitable approaches to global digital governance.

### Audience Engagement and Practical Concerns

The session included substantial audience participation, with questions covering electronic voting security, financial scams targeting vulnerable populations, and age verification challenges. These interventions highlighted practical implementation challenges beyond the policy frameworks discussed by panelists.

Questions about children’s rights and access to information in the context of age restrictions revealed tensions between protection and access that remain unresolved in many jurisdictions.

## Areas of Common Ground

Despite representing diverse jurisdictions, participants found common ground on several key principles:

### International Cooperation

Speakers consistently emphasized that digital governance challenges require coordinated international responses. Almeland suggested that IGF could serve as a platform for developing shared rules, while Mumma described how African parliamentarians have formed regional caucuses to share experiences and develop common approaches.

### Supporting Independent Media and Verification

There was broad agreement on the importance of independent media and verification technologies, though speakers proposed different approaches. The discussion covered various verification methods, from technological solutions like watermarking to institutional approaches focused on editorial independence.

### Balanced Approaches

All speakers emphasized the need to balance protection of democratic processes with preservation of fundamental rights like freedom of expression, though they acknowledged this remains challenging in practice.

## Ongoing Challenges and Future Directions

The discussion identified several unresolved challenges:

### Implementation Gaps

Multiple speakers acknowledged that policy development moves slower than technological advancement, creating persistent gaps between emerging challenges and regulatory responses.

### Cross-Border Enforcement

The global nature of digital platforms creates significant enforcement challenges, with existing international cooperation mechanisms often inadequate for addressing sophisticated cross-border digital manipulation.

### Technological Inequality

The discussion highlighted fundamental questions about ensuring equitable access to digital technologies and preventing the reproduction of historical patterns of exploitation in digital forms.

## Practical Outcomes and Commitments

The session produced several concrete commitments:

– Participants agreed to carry IGF 2025 outcomes back to their respective countries to drive policy coherence

– California committed to continuing legislative efforts on watermarking requirements and embedded authentication technology

– African parliamentarians indicated they would continue using regional caucuses to develop common approaches

– Speakers agreed to explore developing codes of conduct for social media platforms

## Conclusion

The discussion demonstrated both the complexity of challenges facing democratic institutions in the digital age and the potential for meaningful international cooperation. While participants represented different political systems and levels of technological development, they found substantial common ground on fundamental principles while acknowledging that implementation must be adapted to local contexts.

The conversation revealed that effective digital governance requires moving beyond purely regulatory approaches to encompass investment in beneficial technologies, strengthening of democratic institutions like independent media, and genuine international cooperation that addresses power imbalances. The parliamentarians’ commitment to continuing engagement through regional and international forums suggests potential for meaningful progress, though significant challenges around enforcement, technological inequality, and the pace of change remain to be addressed.

Nikolis Smith: Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome back. I trust that everyone was able to get a bite to eat and their stomachs are replenished and ready for more IGF 2025. So today’s session, the title of today’s session is Safeguarding Democracy in the Digital Age, Legislative Priorities and Policy Pathways. This session gathers members of parliament from across the globe to discuss how digital technologies are impacting democracy and what legislative and policy actions are being taken to preserve democratic institutions and trust. Again, my name is Nikolis Smith. I’m the founder and president of StratAlliance Global. StratAlliance is a strategic advisory firm supporting public-private partnerships and technology policy engagement. Now, before we call our distinguished panel to the floor, we have to start by recognizing a familiar face that I’m going to call in just a second. He’s been an advocate for the IGF since its existence. Please welcome Mr. Junhua LI, Undersecretary General of the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs.

Junhua LI: Your Excellencies, distinguished members of the parliament, dear colleagues, good afternoon. It is my great pleasure to welcome you all to the parliamentary tract of the IGF 2025 in Lillestern. As we convened this important meeting, our purpose is very clear, to bring legislators together with all the other stakeholders in shaping digital policies and legislative frameworks to ensure an open, inclusive, and secure Internet for all. Under the overarching theme of the IGF 2025, Building Digital Governance Together, we will focus on the critical needs for international digital cooperation to address today’s digital challenges. Among the most urgent of these is the dual imperative to protect the freedom of expression while combating the rampant spread of misinformation and disinformation. The ability to speak freely, access accurate information, and engage in an open online discourse is the bedrock of democratic societies. Yet, these fundamental rights are being tested, not only by disinformation and censorship, but also by the rise of powerful technologies like the generative AI that further blurs the lines between fact and fiction, challenging our very understanding of truth. We face profound challenges, from the false narratives that erode trust in public institutions to the targeted disinformation campaigns that threaten peace and stability. The digital environment demands new approaches that uphold human rights while preserving civic space. At the same time, We must ensure that the responses to these threats do not infringe upon the very freedoms we seek to protect. As members of the Parliament, your role in navigating this complex terrain is pivotal. You have the authority to craft the legislation that safeguards the freedoms of the expression and the access to the information. Promotes the media and the information literature and strengthens the resilience of the democratic discourse. You can foster a digital environment where the right to express the diverse views is protected and respected. And where the reliable fact-based information is prioritized over the manipulation and distortion. This is how we can ensure that the innovation and inclusion advance in lockstep with the human dignity and safety. By actively engaging in this forum, you are not only contributing to a vital global dialogue on the digital policies, but it also shaping the national frameworks that reflect these shared values. I appealed and urged all of you to carry the outcomes of our discussions here in IGF 2025, back to your respective departments. Driving continued momentum and policy coherence at the both national and the regional levels. Over the past years, we have seen encouraging progress while expanding the parliamentary engagement in national and the regional IGFs. From West Africa to the Asia-Pacific, this localization of our goal conversation is essential. We are eager to learn from your insights and national experiences and identify the new avenues for collaboration. Let us strengthen this engagement and champion the digital governance that respects the freedom of expression, addresses the information integrity, and supports open, inclusive, and rights-based digital space. I extend my sincere thanks to the Inter-Parliamentary Union, the Norwegian Parliament, and our partners for their invaluable collaboration on the parliamentarian track, and for their commitment to integrating the parliamentary voices into the UN processes. I wish you a very fruitful exchange and impactful outcomes. Thank you.

Nikolis Smith: Thank you very much. Mr. Li, thank you very much for those words of encouragement. As we go through the challenges with Internet governance, now, this would not be a proper parliamentary track session if we did not hear from a very respected person that we all know, Mr. Martin Chungong, Secretary General of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, and as a prominent advocate for resilient democratic institutions, we have a video message that we would like to show you now.

Martin Chungong: Mr. Under-Secretary General, Distinguished Parliamentarians and IGF Participants, I have great pleasure in welcoming you to this Parliamentary Roundtable at the 20th Internet Governance Forum. This session provides a unique platform for parliamentarians, policymakers and digital governance experts to build consensus on one of the most pressing challenges, safeguarding democratic institutions in the digital age. At a time when democratic norms face unprecedented pressure and public trust continues to erode, global cooperation on combating misinformation is more crucial than ever. A fragmented approach to information integrity risks undermining the very foundations of democratic discourse and exacerbating the crisis of trust that threatens our societies. The rapid spread of misinformation through digital technologies has fundamentally altered the information landscape in which our democracies operate. Governments struggle to distinguish fact from fiction, electoral processes face manipulation through coordinated disinformation campaigns, and democratic institutions find their legitimacy questioned based on false narratives. The rise of artificial intelligence has fundamentally transformed the misinformation landscape, with deepfakes, AI-generated content and algorithmic amplification creating unprecedented challenges for democratic discourse. Yet, within this challenge lies profound opportunity. By working together across borders and political systems, we can develop common principles that preserve both free expression and democratic integrity. Parliaments as the voice of the people have a pivotal role in ensuring that digital transformation strengthens rather than weakens democratic governance. In our response, we are guided by the Global Digital Compact, an emerging international consensus on information integrity. And while the Global Digital Compact represents an important foundation, there is still much work to transform its vision into effective safeguards for democracy. I encourage all participants to actively engage in these discussions, recognizing that the frameworks we develop today will determine whether democratic institutions emerge stronger from the digital transformation. Together we can ensure that democracy not only survives the digital age, but emerges more resilient, transparent, and responsive to the citizens we serve. Thank you.

Nikolis Smith: Okay, thank you Mr. Chungong for those remarks. Now it is my deep honor to introduce our panel that’s going to be with us this afternoon. First we have Senator Catherine Mumma from Ghana, I’m from Kenya. Then we have Rebecca Bauer-Kahn, California Assembly Member, Chair of the Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee. Grunde Almeland from Norway, Member of Parliament. Marsha Caddle from Barbados, also a Member of Parliament and former Minister of Innovation and Technology. Zafar Alizoda from Tajikistan, Member of Parliament as well. I’d like to welcome them to the stage. Full disclosure, everyone, I made the first mistake, said that one of our first speakers is actually from Ghana, but she’s from Kenya. My apologies. Wanted to get that out there first and foremost. Okay, so here we are. We’re back. This is the parliamentary track session. We have a lot to talk about over this next hour. So what we’re going to do is we’re going to have our distinguished panelists here. We’ll go through a series of questions. We will also leave time for the audience to ask questions because that’s very important. And then we’ll have some closing remarks as well. So let me start first with the host of this year’s IGF, Grunde Almeland. Recently you just concluded an expert group on AI and elections, was recently tasked with this. What are the biggest challenges that you see, Gunda, from the Norwegian democracy in terms of how it faces and what are those challenges? What are you doing exactly in parliament? Because I know, you know, when we think of AI, it’s at every intercourse that we see, you know, from not only just the IGF, but other bodies. But I know that it’s very important for Norway and the parliament. So if you can just kind of enlighten us and kind of where you guys are at this point.

Grunde Almeland: Of course, first of all, it’s an honor to host this event here and it’s an honor for all of us in Parliament as well that this event is taking place here in our country. But to your question, I think what worries me the most is one of the key findings in the report you’re referencing, and that is that truth is becoming less relevant. And with that, the report that went through all these different elections in 2024 and 2024, how AI is super powering content, creating so much more content to engage with for people, we see that truth is becoming less and less important because what you engage with, what you look at, is things, content that is already confirming your held beliefs and are kind of helping you stay in this comfortable bubble that it’s hard and harder to pierce with factual debate and true, well, facts, so to say. And I don’t want to be all doom and gloom, because there is a lot that we can do. And one of the, you know, they look at a lot of different measures in that report. You know, they look at how you can build competency, you know, how to implement stuff in schools, how you, you know, you should advance research. But one of the key measures is supporting and strengthening independent media organizations. And I think this is the measure that I want to focus on in the beginning now, because it is such an important measure in order to have something that can kind of combat this reality that is being created in a lot of different bubbles. And there is such a connection between our trust as politicians, trust in us as politicians, and people having access to true information. and having access to also media or content that is being edited by a professional, well, independent media, edited media, so to say that they know that what we are doing as politicians are being checked, you know, that we are being transparent about what we are doing and this is where the media comes in. And I think for Norway, independent media has been an important political issue across the isle for a lot of years. I’m very happy to say that we are number one on the press freedom index and it’s partially because of what we are doing in parliament, but of course hugely what the reporters are doing every day on their work. But looking at what the parliaments can do, you know, starting with a strong legislative foundation and that is having, we are having an act that ensures independence, editorial independence, that ensures that owners of a newspaper cannot go in and challenge what the editor or the journalist are reporting on, making sure that we as politicians are not, we do not have access, even though we do allocate a lot of funds to the media, we are not able to access independent decisions on what is being reported. Any owner of a newspaper cannot require to see a journalist’s work before it’s being published. You know, these kind of legislative measures are really important to have a strong foundation. And then comes, you know, funding and we do quite extensively fund the media in Norway. I think this is very important in order to have all these, not only national newspapers that would be there, that could thrive in almost any kind of society, but also having those small local news outlets that can also check what the politicians and staff is doing on a local level. And I think having this kind of built-up media system ensures that people who know it can, you know, they know that they can access information on what we’re actually doing. And there is a lot to be said for this, you know, we have a lot to work on in order to become more transparent, especially when you see a shift in how we also communicate as politicians going from, you know, more simpler days of writing letters to each other and going now on to all these different channels of technology, you know, there is a lot of things to be done. But I think this is a good starting point and I’ll end on this note saying that the report also, you know, is also highlighting one last thing and that is that we have to be level-headed and not exaggerate the impact of AI because exaggerating it, you know, and trying to fearmonger as politicians is also a way of making that kind of misinformation have a stronger meaning in itself.

Nikolis Smith: Thank you for those remarks and you’re absolutely right about keeping the level, right, because we don’t want to approach everything with fear, right? We have to remember that AI is a tool that was invented by humans, right? But there’s benefits, right, to AI and what we’re going to talk about today will speak to that. And so I appreciate those introductory remarks. I wanted to turn now to you, Senator, my good friend from Kenya. You’re very well known in circles on the African continent. You’re very active in the regional things that are happening as it relates to the IGF. Can you help us kind of take us through what are you seeing as kind of the emerging threats in Kenya? And kind of what are the countermeasures that you’re taking to this point?

Catherine Mumma: Thank you very much. First to say that Kenya has embraced matters relating to digital technology in a profound way. We recognize that this is where the world is headed, not just on actually all democratic matters, including both politics and development. So Kenya has kind of anticipated this, and I would want to say that we have a good legal framework that currently supports the growth of internet and digital technological advances. We have a very facilitative constitution that protects freedoms of expression, the right to access information, but also provides for protection of human rights. It is very strong on human rights. It also provides for protection of consumer rights. As a result, we have a number of laws that actually guide or regulate issues relating to matters of internet and digital technology. We have the Computer Misuse and Cyber Protection Act. We have the Data Protection Act. We have the Media Council Act. We have the Copyrights Act that protects intellectual property. And we have the National Cohesion and Integration Act that set up a commission to deal with matters relating to hate speech. But we still have are challenges when it comes to misinformation and disinformation using the social medias. And we don’t have a law that specifically addresses misinformation and disinformation, not because the law is somewhere and needs to quickly come, as you will appreciate from the conversations we’ve had since this morning, hitting the balance between protection of human rights and regulating and also allowing innovation to unhinged, to progress unhinged, is something that is beyond legislation, is something that sometimes is beyond the politics of the day. Because as politicians, a lot of the misuse, the disinformation and misinformation is particularly during electoral times. And for us in Kenya, every time is election time. We actually finish elections today, and the next day we are competing for the next, we are already campaigning. So there is a lot of disinformation use of hate speech in our part of the country, or a part of where our country is. We have been, or we have suffered post-election violence following hate speech that was negatively, I mean, that used negative ethnicity. And that’s how we came up with the Cohesion Commission. But now with matters, digital technology, we’ve had a lot of misinformation that is used by political competing, politically competing groups to actually use demonizing language, misinformation around maybe national policies that are happening. to try and demonize a government, or information to try and demonize an opposition leader. And it’s happening to a stage where it’s ending up in violence. And I would want to say that our challenge, really, is on how we can regulate that without looking as if we are over-correcting or over-enforcing. There is also the challenge of the possibility of abuse of office, misuse by government of some of the privileges. How would we use, for instance, surveillance around matters, digital content, to the advantage of the government and to abuse rights of opponents, political opponents. So I would say we have a good legislative framework not complete enough in the sense that we still have to find ways of protecting rights, including rights of children. I think we have a lot of, we have a lot of access for children on the internet that is actually harming their health, including matters relating to pornography and so on. Now, we would need to think through to find out how do we, beyond the Kenyan parliament and Kenyan legislation, how would we think through a violator that is situated in another jurisdiction? What kind of conversation can we have in forums like the IGF to ensure that beyond national legislation, we are able to come up whether with its codes of conduct that would one hold, accountable, those in charge of these platforms, as well as ensure that the freedom to advance in digital technology happens. There is also, when you’re talking about human rights, we also need to think about beyond the issue of information and disinformation, how do we include more people? In our area, I think one of the things we need to do is have greater investment. Beyond regulation, we need to give some financial investment in the necessary public digital infrastructure that would see those in rural areas equally participating in the benefits of the digital space and technology, to see more women participating in this space, to see more other vulnerable and minority groups participating in this space. So as a country, I believe beyond protecting against disinformation, there is the issue of also inclusion, which is a human rights issue that we need to look at. So as we discuss this issue, beyond just discussing the regulation, we need to discuss how best to invest more in order for more people to participate in this space.

Nikolis Smith: Well, let me just say that, hats off to all the work that you’re doing in Kenya, because as you listed a long list of laws that you’ve been able to implement, so that’s progress, right? Obviously, you made the point clear that there’s still more progress to be done, but I think that Kenya’s in the right direction, they’re going in the right direction, and I commend you guys for that. Thank you. You know, on this same topic, I wanna move now to… Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahn of California. You know, I lived in California as a kid as well, so there’s a little bit of priority here with that. But California has been very active in this space. Probably more active than other states in the country. So tell us how, you know, what are the approaches now? Knowing what you did back in 2018 when CCPA was passed, and we’re looking now into the future, where are we going forward? And when we think about regulatory approaches, what’s being explored in terms of, to ensure information integrity, right? Because now, as the Senator mentioned, it’s elections, right? And we just got through one election, right? And there’s gonna be more on the horizon. So in terms of integrity, where do we go now?

Rebecca Bauer-Kahn: Well, thank you so much for this conversation. It’s my first time at the IGF, and I have to say that one of my takeaways so far this morning is that, despite the fact that all of our jurisdictions are so different, we’re really all struggling with this same issue of information integrity. And for those that don’t know, the law that was cited is our privacy law. We were the first state in the United States to pass a privacy protective piece of legislation shortly after the European Union passed their privacy laws. And some states have followed, but we’re still not nearly as protective as the European Union. And, you know, I should ground this in being from California. We are home to 32 of the top 50 AI companies. We are home to all of the major social media companies. So, you know, these are the people I represent. They make this technology. They proliferate it to the world. And with that, I think we feel a great responsibility and sitting there this morning, listening to what is happening across the world as a result of some of this, it’s intense what these companies are doing to change the global ecosystem. And we have the federal government. I have long believed the federal government is in the best position to regulate these technologies for us as a country, but they won’t, and they don’t. And so the states are taking it upon themselves to protect our constituents and to try to push these companies in the direction of responsibility. But as I’m sure many people in the room are aware, we too have constitutional protections of freedom of speech. Our constitutional protections say that we may not stop people from speaking. It also says we cannot force people to speak, which is an interesting dynamic because one of the ways that we have tried to combat mis- and disinformation as a result of our First Amendment, our protection of freedom of speech, is to require more speech, to say you have to disclose when you’re using AI in a political advertisement so people know that they’re seeing something that’s AI-generated. That’s held up in the courts right now because the courts are seeing that as forced speech. And so we have a very complicated dynamic of how we get at this issue of mis- and disinformation when we have such strong protections around speech. But that’s one way, and so we continue to try to do that. We’ve passed legislation that requires those disclosures, that require the platforms to take down serious misinformation in the political context, although political speech is even more protected than your average speech in America, so that is a really challenging thing to do. And so the next step we’re taking is trying to push forward on watermarking, which I know is something that the European Union has pushed for. But this ability to understand reality from fiction I think is fundamental to protecting our democracies. And so watermarking and the technology that will go along with it is critical. And I think with the EU pushing on watermarking and California pushing. You know, we are the fourth largest economy in the world. We have a lot of tech companies in our backyard, and can we really make sure that technology comes to fruition so that around the world we can all require it? We can all say we need watermarking. Right now the technology is not yet where we want it to be, but if it is there, maybe it will give us that ability for constituents to know what is real and what is not, and I think that would be game changing. Just a few hours ago someone asked me about what’s happening in California. Many have seen in the worldwide news about what is happening in my home state as it relates to our friction with the federal government right now, and one of the things we’ve faced is massive disinformation. So many deepfakes about what is happening on the streets of Los Angeles. I was there just a week ago. It is incredibly peaceful. That is not what you’re seeing on the social media sites because of all the deepfakes that are being generated, and when people cannot tell that from reality, it leads to serious outcomes in our elections, in our society, and we have to do more, and so California’s gonna continue to push, although I will say that right now the federal government is moving what would be a 10-year ban on state enforcement of artificial intelligence, which would stop most of California’s efforts, and so there really is, when I talk about friction with the federal government in California right now, it’s, I can’t overstate it.

Nikolis Smith: Thank you for that. As a former federal employee, I’m not going to start any more frictions right now, especially that we’re both from the same state, so I wouldn’t want to do that. I do want to turn, though, to another region of the world, and for everybody here who does not speak Russian, please use your headsets. I want to turn now to our friend from Tajikistan. Mr. Alizoda, in kind of the Central Asian response to information manipulation and the steps that are being taken, can you talk to us about the measures that you are taking in terms of building that type of institutional resilience as it relates to everything that you’ve heard so far?

Zafar Alizoda: Thank you, Nikolis. I would like to note and provide information on international stability and the assistance of comprehensive information in Central Asian countries, including the protection of personal data, which is one of the most important tasks in terms of the application of digital technology in Central Asian countries. Each country has its own laws that regulate the collection, storage and use of personal data. In Central Asian countries, personal data falls under the broader concept of the right to protect private life and privacy. According to the legislation of these countries, privacy is a personal property. Responsibility for violations related to personal data depends on specific circumstances, as well as on the legislative norms and rules in the country. Sensitive personal data is a category of personal data that relates to the most personal and confidential information of a person. They can include such data as race or ethnic origin, political beliefs, religious and philosophical beliefs, professional affiliation, medical information, biometric data, information on finance and credit history, and so on. Personal data of this category requires special protection and processing, as their disclosure or use can lead to discrimination, stigmatization and other negative consequences for a person. The formation of legislation that comprehensively provides for the right to regulate relations related to the protection of personal data is one of the most complex tasks of the state. Currently, the Central Asian countries are actively developing a legal institute for the protection of personal data. However, it should be noted that the legislation does not regulate many issues in the field of the protection of personal data of citizens. It can be attributed to the absence of national legislation on the protection of personal data. on measures to react quickly when personal data is leaked and the necessary measures to minimize the consequences of such a leak, as well as the absence of obligations on the notification of authorities for the owner or operator. The provision of digital privacy is a complex problem affecting the rights and legal interests of the public and private sectors. According to the assessment of national experts, it is necessary to revise the law on the protection of personal data and to make adjustments to it that reflect the modern applications of advanced technologies. The development of the digital economy, even with all its good intentions, should not have the consequences of the refusal to protect human rights and freedoms. Any current and proposed business practice should envisage the assessment of its consequences for the non-permanent privacy so that there is an opportunity to consider the provision of information on how politics and technology ensure the alleviation of risks for the non-permanence of private life. In parallel with European law, as our colleague has already said, on the protection of personal data, legislators and central countries should consider the possibility of introducing a legal mechanism for assessing the risks of the General Regulation on the Protection of Personal Data, GDPR. It should be noted that the DPI assessment procedure is not always used, especially when the processing of data is associated with a high risk of violation of the rights and legal interests of citizens. For the conscientious and effective development of the technology used, society should have modern effective legal instruments and independent control over the compliance of human rights to the non-permanence of personal life and confidentiality of personal data. It should also be noted that at the legislative level, there is an important role for the promotion of information policy. and the strategy of legal measures that allow to increase integrity and balance of the information space, the Central Asian countries are state members of the Inter-Parliamentary Assembly of the CIS and jointly develop joint proposals of national parliaments of the countries of cooperation

Rebecca Bauer-Kahn: on issues of mutual interest in this direction. Thank you.

Nikolis Smith: As you mentioned, I think the first kind of task I think our panelists would agree is that domestically as you’re going through a process you have to have something to formulate a risk assessment. It’s key. I think that using the IGF to discuss these issues would be a great opportunity so hopefully you’ll be able to take back what you hear here and take it back to Tajikistan and continue those efforts. Last but not least from the island of Barbados Miss Marsha Caddle What steps are underway in Barbados to rebuild public trust in elections and the democratic system?

Marsha Caddle: Thanks. That’s a big question.

Nikolis Smith: It’s loaded.

Marsha Caddle: Let me just set some context by saying that Barbados is a small island in the Caribbean. Population of 270,000 and declining, which is another of the existential threats that we’re facing. Falling population and aging population. Barbados has always had since independence a history of stable, free and fair elections and a high degree of political stability. I think it’s important to set that context because you know the circumstances in which we are talking about these issues of maintaining democracy and democratic participation are against the backdrop of expectations of stability and truth. The other thing that we have in Barbados is extremely high internet and digital penetration. So you’ll see our numbers say something like 114% mobile penetration. So we are kind of over the maximum, right? People have very immediate access to information and high expectations about that information. So then the question becomes about not just access, but meaningful access and use as we talk about these issues. Just before I got on a plane to come here, the office of the prime minister in Barbados had to push out urgently warnings about a deepfake that had just been circulating. And I want to share the example because it highlights not just the domestic issues when it comes to democratic participation and trust, but also the potential risk to destabilize global relations, international relations, and foreign policy. The deepfake was about the prime minister saying something in relation to another major world power and saying untruthfully that Barbados was taking a certain diplomatic stance with respect to this country. Now that has the potential to completely, especially in this current global political environment, to completely put at risk a lot of what a country is doing with respect to policy and global engagement. So we’re not just talking about domestic trust, but we’re talking about international and a country’s global position in the world. And so I wanted to say a little bit in answer to your question about what we are doing. One of the things I think is very important. is this issue of democratic literacy. How do people interact with policy conversations, with electoral processes? So one of the things that we’ve tried to do simply is to push out as much truth and transparency as we can. Start to get people accustomed to an environment of truth and evidence, because that, even before we started talking about technology, is perhaps something that hasn’t been as strong as we would like. So for example, we have these joint select committees of parliament that consider issues before they’re passed, consider legislation that have to do with governance, with social issues, and so on, and they’re broadcast. There are very few things that the Prime Minister says, speeches, engagements, that are not broadcast either in real time or recorded and shared. And why? Because we want to be able to get people used to the idea of truth. This is the original source, and this is where you can find it. You can find it on these channels, you can find it in these ways. The other thing that we are working on is investing in a tech ecosystem that can balance or build tools that essentially fight against misinformation, so that there are others who are investing very heavily in misinformation. What can we do to invest in tech creators who are going to combat that with things that promote truth? One of the things, though, that we think is very important is encouraging platforms to return to more robust methods of verification. We think that that is critical. And I’ll say very quickly, I think it was Rebecca who said earlier that political speech is very protected in general in your jurisdiction. The interesting thing is that while political speech is protected and while I can sit in one jurisdiction in a country like Barbados and see things proliferating about political actors in my space, on the other hand, as a political actor on a social media platform sitting in Barbados, I am not trusted to generate content. And so as soon as I try to generate content as a politician, I’m told, well actually you’re a politician and we’re not sure that you should be able to say these things on our platform. So the question of being able to combat misinformation is also, I’m also constrained because of some of the rules that platforms that are generating in other parts of the world but impact the way I can talk to my constituents, the way that they operate. So I think that these are some of the ways that we’ve started to really try and encourage an environment of real evidence and truth. There is legislation. I was the minister who brought cybercrime legislation. We took it to the Joint Select Committee. We heard evidence. We heard pushback. We heard concerns on human rights from citizens and we amended the legislation. And so I think that this is a healthy way to get people in the conversation and make sure that we realize that democratic participation and adherence to truth and evidence is everybody’s concern.

Nikolis Smith: Thank you very much. So we’ve talked an array of different areas in terms of what we’re doing within our governments, the challenges that we’re facing. What else? We’ll start back with you, Senator. But what are the other gaps that we’re missing? I think there’s room there where we can recognize the existing challenges that are there. But are there areas that we’re not focusing on? Maybe that could help us kind of bring this together? And then the second piece of that is that on the non-legislative side, right? Are there areas where we can collaborate? Obviously the IGF is a great platform, right? But are there other areas that we could be doing on an international front, right? Because we’re looking at it from a domestic lens, right? To make sure that we come together. So I’ll start with you.

Catherine Mumma: Thank you very much. Now, because we are parliamentarians, I have noticed that we tend to focus on the impact of technology in the political space. But I would want us to think broader and imagine the innovation in the health sector, for instance, with digital technology. How will telemedicine look like? And how should parliament anticipate the possibilities of human rights violations with advancement of digital technology in the health sector? And therefore, how would that law look like? So we should not be fixated with a particular law that would deal with matters of digital technology. We need to think broadly to see, would we need to look at the laws in the health sector? Do we need to tweak something in the health sector, in the water sector, in the other sectors, so that we know the dangers that we are seeing now around democratic spaces could actually extend and have even more, or even more profound implications to the common person. So we need to think broadly around that and agree on how best to deal with this. So I think laws on digital technology are not about a particular legislation. It’s cross-border. And we need to think beyond this and allow our professionals. in all sectors to help us think around this. Now when it comes to thinking on what to do internationally and nationally, first to thank the IGF for the proactive way in which they are actually moving this agenda and getting us to learn and also discuss more within their forums. In the Africa space, African parliamentarians have actually taken the liberty to form the African Parliamentary Caucuses, the Africa-wide in West Africa, in East Africa, so that we can actually compare notes and know that what happens in Tanzania will affect us and Kenya will affect those in Malawi, will affect those in Nigeria. So we need to start borrowing from each other and listening to each other and learning to grow on this. And beyond legislation, we need to find out how the mechanisms we have in place could be built upon to do, somebody in the morning talked about a mechanism for auditing information. How would that look like? Kenya has the Data Protection Commissioner. It also has the Media Council. Should we add on to their mandates some more clauses that will help us to monitor the area better? Do we need maybe an African Union or East African community mechanism that will help us to check the situation further? So there is all these opportunities. Thank you.

Nikolis Smith: Thank you. We have about 10 minutes left of this section, then we’re gonna go into some Q&A. So I’m just gonna go down the line. Rebecca, I’ll turn to you next.

Rebecca Bauer-Kahn: So I think that where I’m sitting, one of the things that is missing is technology for good. We see sort of technology in the hands of very few players right now. that are, for better or worse, profit-driven. And how do we push technology to be the solution in the technology age? And I think that that’s something that we really need to be working on, both locally in California, but also globally. And so part of what we’re trying to figure out is how can we fund that? How can we put more money into our academic institutions to have the compute power to compete with the largest AI companies? Right now, the only companies able to build large language models are these very well-funded companies, and our academics need to be in that space. Our civil society needs to be playing in this space to create technology for good. There’s one example for us in the United States. On the intellectual property front, the University of Chicago created an AI model that allows you to put something into your copyrighted material that if a model is trained with your material, it will actually refuse it, if you will. And that’s not a legal protection, it’s a technology protection. And those are the kind of tools that I think we need to really allow us to battle against, as you said, the misinformation and the disinformation ecosystem that is growing and can, I believe, be solved in part by better technology for good, and we have a real role in doing so. And part of that, I also, the reason we believe we’re home to so many of these companies is our academic institutions, is the training that they provide. And if we’re investing in technology for good at our academic institutions, are we then putting people into the world to create companies for good? And how do we create that ecosystem, I think is really important. And then I’ll say on the global landscape, I think it is this kind of collaboration. I think it is understanding we’re all trying different things. We’re all out there in a world that was created over the last decade, trying to find solutions to very new problems. And as has been said many times today, this technology is moving faster than the policy. And so to the extent that we can listen to each other. and hear what is working in your jurisdiction, how can I bring it home to help the people where I live, I think we’re better off, because we have to move fast in order to protect our societies, and the only way to do that is in collaboration and partnership.

Nikolis Smith: Thank you, Rebecca. Grunde?

Grunde Almeland: Well, I think I’ll pick up on technology for good, and as you were talking about democratic literacy, we know very well that being able to adapt digitally does not necessarily translate to democratic literacy or media literacy, but one of the reasons why I wanted to focus on independent media in the beginning is because the example of Norway is also an example of how digital adaptability enabled us to still have quite a high level of trust in media, and how that technology actually were able to create a foundation for people being able to access independent media, being able to have this high level of media literacy that we are very fortunate to have, and I think it’s such a good example, because in the months and years that we’re moving towards, using that same kind of inspiration on taking technology as a tool to enable to have more transparency, making sure that we adapt technology that strengthens these kind of institutions that we want to uphold, strengthen democracy is such an opportunity. There are so easy to point at all the challenges, because they are so evident and apparent to us, but it’s also such big possibilities in having these tools that also can create more transparency. Just as a small example to end off, we have a lot of complaints from journalists in Norway of how much time we’re using to review their applications for access for information in government institutions. It’s such a small example of how you can simplify a lot of these processes as well. That ensures the whole process being more simple, easier accessible for journalists and also more transparent for the public.

Nikolis Smith: Thank you.

Marsha Caddle: Yes. So I think that, you know, creating this culture of evidence so that people feel that, OK, should I propagate something if I cannot show that it is true? I think that that is something that that has certainly helped. But also investing in in the kind of learning, certainly in countries in the in the global majority countries, investing in the kind of learning that will allow our people to create tools that they find useful and that they that they generate and are able themselves to trust one of the ways in Barbados that we started when I was minister of technology is to be able to train people in things like data analytics and data science. And this is not just informal academic institutions, but partnering with companies. There’s one, for example, that does a lot of work on the continent of Africa called Zindi that we’re working with so that people can learn some of these skills and be able to create. Tools and play in that space, we think that there’s an AI value chain, which means that for some countries in the global majority, it may not be practical to say we are going to build these large language models, but we can create at some part of that value chain and start to create some of these technology tools. So I do think that the culture of evidence to support strong legislation and establishing sources of truth that people see that they can trust is a part of of the puzzle as well.

Nikolis Smith: Thank you. Headsets for.

Zafar Alizoda: I would like to add that the policy of global platforms is different for different countries and regions. If, for example, the data of EU citizens is protected by GDPR, then small developing countries in the regions of Asia are deprived of such a priority. For example, the legislation of Tajikistan, although it is close to GDPR, but still many issues remain unresolved, such as the trans-border data transfer, the third-party data transfer in order to improve the product of the company. It is possible to improve the legislation of Tajikistan, and the legislators of Tajikistan always work on these issues. However, there is a question of the application practice. It is difficult to control the implementation of the law-enforcing levers due to the limited market for global platforms. In this regard, I think it is necessary for global platforms to improve their policies for all users, regardless of the country of the user.

Nikolis Smith: You can go to the microphone. Make sure to state your name and affiliation, please.

Audience: Thank you. Hi, I will make my question in Spanish. So, put the headphones on. I would like to ask you about the Tribunal of Ethics of the Council of the Peruvian Press. In the electoral processes, there is a basic problem, which is a massive action to move towards the digital vote. We have already had a couple of problems in Latin America. One is the data transmission, not precisely in the electoral process, but in the transmission. and the other in electoral processes, as was the case in Bolivia and Venezuela a few years ago. There is a movement of retrogression in declaring electronic votes unconstitutional in various countries, not only in the Latin American region, but also in other countries around the world. From the legislative point of view of these countries, how can we avoid the misuse of these electronic systems, especially the electronic vote, to avoid affecting democratic processes? And this in addition to the processes prior to the elections, as happened in Romania, where disinformation or misinformation is used, if you want to put it that way, to affect an electoral process. So we have, on the one hand, the problems prior to electoral processes, and on the other hand, we have the problems of the electoral process itself. Thank you very much. I’m Senator Kenneth Pugh from Chile, South America, and I would like to ask the panel precisely about an issue. We are human beings. Humans, we have human rights, and that’s Article 19 in the chapter of human rights. Problem is, in order to get confidence, we need to know each other, we need to talk, we need to have a will, and then we will trust. So human beings need to be in contact. How we are gonna achieve that in the digital environment with digital trust, when we are providing one of the most important right, which is freedom of expression to artificial intelligence, which are not humans. How we are gonna define who has a human identity, it doesn’t mean that we are getting the ID provided by the government. How we are gonna differentiate humans from not humans in the cyberspace. How we will know if they are minors or not, because in the real life, we can see them. It’s a young boy or girl. But how we will do it in the cyberspace. If you have anything to share, I will be very grateful. Thank you very much.

Nikolis Smith: Thank you. So why don’t we pause there and start addressing before we go through the whole line, and I lose track of all the questions. So why don’t we start directly with Hiz. Anybody on stage wanna go first?

Marsha Caddle: Yeah, I think Rebecca will end up talking a lot longer, so let me take the last one. Yeah. Let me take the last one about how do you, really this is about intent. The last question, how can you differentiate the origin of an idea or a certain idea? set of information, and I think it is less about origin and more about output, that’s going to be what we end up having to regulate and legislate, because it is going to be very difficult to say, just like often we don’t know now, we can’t see the author behind something, we may be able to eventually verify, but that takes time and more and more people are very impatient when it comes to information. But I think one of the things that we’re going to have to concern ourselves with is really verification of what is generated, and as well as being able to tell where it was generated from, so to require that we can see that this particular output used AI, but also to be able to use different pieces of legislation to generate output. So for example, we’ve seen cases recently where there was coercion used to get young people to do certain things, and this came from an AI actor, and what that jurisdiction, I don’t want to mention which country it was in, but what that jurisdiction ended up having to start to look at is, well, what is the kind of content, no matter the source, that can make its way into this space where vulnerable people are represented, and to start to use kinds of keyword technology and authentication technology to say, look, because this content has come into this space, it cannot be allowed here because of the nature of the people who are here, whether they’re young people and children and so on. So I think that, as you say, it’s going to be very difficult more and more to kind of police the difference between the two, but I think identifying the and then regulating or being able to direct the content and the outcome is going to be more and more the kinds of work that we’re going to have to do.

Nikolis Smith: Thank you for that.

Catherine Mumma: On the issue, I think it was the first question about what can Parliament do about electoral laws and electoral systems where there is misuse of technology, I guess, for rigging elections. My view is that a good electoral system is largely dependent on the electoral management body because for the fraud to happen, whether with AI or any, it usually will take place with some collusion by people within the electoral management board. So whether it is through the person they procure to carry out the elections, whether it is through their own IT systems and Kenya has usually gone to the Supreme Court to discuss the issue of manipulation of the transmission of elections, the electronic transmission of the presidential results and we’ve had issues where, for instance, the last election, the electoral management body completely refused to open the service to audit the electoral system that transmitted the results. So I believe it’s not so much the technology as is a corrupt set of minds that are behind this whole thing and I believe if electoral management bodies is remained neutral, then elections, whether digitally driven or not, will remain credible.

Nikolis Smith: I know both, I was looking at Grunde and Rebecca, you guys are both vying for one, so I’ll let you go first.

Rebecca Bauer-Kahn: No, I love, I just want to start there, which is I love that perspective in the United States, every state runs their own elections, and so it’s done differently across our whole country. And I think that this is a question not just is the election integrity real, but do people believe it, right? I mean, part of what holds our democracy up is sort of an agreed principle that our elections are free and fair, and that’s been a challenge. And so I do think that one of the things that’s critical personally is a paper trail. So even if you’re using a machine that you get a receipt, that there is a way to audit it, which I think is so critically important, so I’ll just add that on. Somebody asked about our watermarking legislation in California, last year we did pass a law, and it was signed by the governor that requires the platforms to show a watermark in a few years. And we did that because we wanted to signal to the innovation economy that California was going to require this, because we knew that although the technology isn’t there today, if we required it, the brilliant minds out there would create the technology because there would be a market for it. So I believe that’s coming, which is very exciting, I think, for the whole world. This year, we’re moving a piece of legislation that would require the devices, so your camera, to have embedded in it the technology that would authenticate. We actually, as a legislature, we’re one of the entities that used Adobe’s technology for the first time, where every image we took in-house was run through their watermarking technology, so that when we then put it out into the world, we could trace it back. We could prove whether this was a real image or whether it was a doctored image. So that technology is coming. it in practice and I think it’s really exciting because it is one of the things that will enable us to see fiction from reality.

Nikolis Smith: There was a question about financial scams. That’s something that has come up. We have not moved legislation yet on AI and financial scams but I think it’s so important and I think the foundation of that is privacy legislation. Part of why the financial scams are getting so sophisticated is because there is so much access to information about every single one of us. When they call and they say they’re your aunt or your uncle and they know your children’s names, you fall for that scam in a way you wouldn’t if they didn’t have that much information about you. So part of it is protecting privacy which I think is critical and then the second piece is making sure that as you said, this isn’t just about AI legislation. It’s about legislation. We already have laws that outlaw these type of scams. So how do we say that it’s as much a violation of the law if it’s done by a real person or done by an AI tool and making sure that our laws that protect our communities extend out to all AI actors which I think goes perfectly to the last question which was about this question about AI being humans and that’s an interesting question in the United States because we just had a court for the first time have to struggle with this question. There was a chatbot that a young boy in Florida died by suicide because a chatbot told him to take his own life and the mother has sued the company and the company claims they had a First Amendment protected right to speak. They had a right to speak. The chatbot could say whatever it wanted and the court said no. The chatbots do not have constitutional rights like humans do. So that was a huge win. It’s one court but I think it’s a step in the right direction to saying these AI companies are not humans. They are not the same as you and I. They do not have the rights that we do and really pushing that forward I think will be critical in making sure that we have the protections necessary to protect them from these AI tools.

Grunde Almeland: I think it’s important to remember as politicians and legislators that we should not meet this whole new world of technology with panic and believing that we do not have anything legislated already, because most things are already quite heavily legislated. And sometimes it has to be amended, and sometimes we need to come up with new legislation, but most of things are already legislated. We just have to see how technology fits into it. And I think this relates to a lot of the different questions that are put forward here. And talking about the scam as well, I think this is, well, AI used in scams, you know, it falls under, I think if you look in any kind of country and legislative space, you see that this would fall under what is already in criminal codes. But the issue is really that there is a lack of cooperation between countries in order to tackle these new challenges. And I think when you see, we have a really good example that came out in Norwegian media just a few weeks ago of a system called Magicat, and it’s a great piece of journalism that is available in English as well, you can Google it, and it shows how sophisticated these kind of scams are, and how not well prepared Norwegian society in this case was also to actually tackle these kind of international scams. So I think international cooperation is often more the answer than, you know, coming up with the exact new legislation. And just a quick remark on the watermarking side of it. We have a good case study about this in the Norwegian society as well, the media landscape in Norway came together to create this technology, and are cooperating with BBC and New York Times, a lot of these big media outlets to have good watermarking technology in place. implemented in journalism, but what is the key component of that is not, you know, having this kind of verification check, but it’s having the information accessible for people to, who took the photo, where is it from, this kind of essential information that gives people an opportunity to make their own decision upon the content and are not trying to force them to by saying this is real or this is not real. So I think this is something also to remember for us as politicians that we need to give people the fundamental information, just not always trying to decide for them.

Nikolis Smith: So we are running out of time, but I want to see if we can be really efficient in the queue line. I know that there’s some members of Parliament that is also looking to ask some questions. So can we just do really shrunk-created questions, make sure they’re not too long, so we can get some quick responses before we go into the closing part. Please.

Audience: Assalamu alaikum. I am Mounir Souri from the Kingdom of Bahrain, a member of the Parliament. Can you hear me or do you want me to speak in English? Is it okay in Arabic? English would be great. I think it’s very important that we have the power to control the legislations in order to protect the society. We say today that it’s difficult, the legislations have changed. The technology has evolved day by day and the legislation is difficult. If we make a legislation today, the technology will evolve tomorrow. If we make it, it will be difficult to preserve it. My question today is, is it possible that there are other powers other than the legislations to protect privacy while we have freedom? We are between transparency and freedom. Do we want to protect the society? Can we make the AI control the content? So that we don’t depend on humans? The AI is producing information and people are misusing it. Can we, as artists and officials, make the content balanced? Does it help itself to protect the content? Does the AI protect the content? Thank you. My name is Hugo Carneiro and I’m an MP from Portugal. So the questions are this. Social networks should verify news and fake news and misinformation. But following the US elections, we became aware that, for example, Facebook Meta will stop doing that kind of verification. What do you think that we should do? So regulation should be a solution for these kinds of cases or we should trust in these big companies to verify this information. Second question. a colleague asked before about the ID, when we want to open an account, a bank account, for example, even if we use a cell phone, we have face recognition, we can take a photo from our ID, should we implement these solutions, for example, when someone wants to open an account in a social network, because there are a lot of fake profiles, and I don’t see other solution if we don’t give a stronger step on this. And last question, the French president, Emmanuel Macron, announced that probably he will enact laws to prohibit youngsters under 15 years old to have a social network account. So there are a lot of misinformation and fake news that influence the political decisions that our youngsters are taking or are learning. Do you believe that a solution or a path should be to prohibit youngsters of having social network accounts? Thank you.

Nikolis Smith: So we’re going to have time for one question for each side, and we’ll try to do our best in a kind of a lightning round as we respond to this. I know I wish we had more time, but one more question from each, and I would encourage you at the conclusion of this, there will be a reception this evening. Some of the MPs, you’ll be able to kind of engage with them there, if you don’t get a chance to answer your question here now. So one more on each side, thank you.

Audience: Thank you very much. John K.J. Kiarie, Member of Parliament in Kenya, and it is to all the people on the panel, including the moderator, and mine is to ask, to your mind, what do you think are practical pragmatic steps that IGF can take to place responsibilities not only on big tech developers but also on economies that are advanced, in jurisdictions that are advanced to an extent that they are feeding all the other countries with the technology they are doing so that we have so much of technological dumping because to imagine that countries in places like Africa will at one point be at par with Silicon Valley is a fallacy. To imagine that such advanced economies do not have responsibilities is also wrong. We are here at IGF. It takes a lot for even some of these countries to be represented at IGF and we have real cases of technological dumping that does not speak to even the basic human rights. In Kenya, for example, we had a company walk into the country and start collecting biometric data, scanning people’s irises and inducing vulnerable populations with tokens in the name of world coin and the behavior that they brought to Kenya are things that they would never do in their own countries, even with the existing laws. But whenever the countries in the southern hemisphere raise this, we are told to go and develop our own laws. So I’m asking, is IGF practically able to rein in on us so that we can place responsibilities not only on big tech, but even on countries that develop this technology to the extent that they carry responsibility to carry everyone along. Because as we speak today, even as we talk about Internet, everything about Internet is never manufactured in Africa. We do not manufacture the fiber optic cables. We do not manufacture the devices. We do not have a single satellite in the terrestrials. To imagine that we are all on the same table and working on the same laws at IGF and working on the same conventions would be a fallacy. So I am asking practically, is IGF able to do what the world did on the onset of the nuclear weapons? Because that was fast. We are here in the 20th IGF, but when we look at nuclear, the bomb was invented in 1945, and by 1957, there were already treaties that were putting responsibilities on the developers and on the inventors of that technology. When will that happen for internet? When will that happen for social media? When will that happen for big tech? When will that happen for the countries that are so advanced? Because if we do not do anything right now, we will end up exasperating the divisions that exist and the disparities that exist, and what will happen with this AI is that my people will be condemned to digital plantations, just like they were condemned with sugar cane and with coffee and with all these other things that happened in slave trade. To imagine that we will all work together as a world is a big fallacy. What practical examples can we take out of IGF? What practical actions can we take to put responsibilities where it belongs? Because to imagine that we are all okay in that part would be a big fallacy. Thank you very much.

Nikolis Smith: Thank you very much. So, for the last question, what we’re gonna do, we’ll do something a little bit different instead of having everybody respond to all those questions. Why don’t we package that in our closing remarks? And we’ll start with Mr. Alizoda because he didn’t get a chance to respond, and that way we can still finish. One last question? Yes. One second.

Audience: I tried to be very brief.

Nikolis Smith: Thank you.

Audience: And a concrete question. because I would be very interested in a Kenyan perspective on this issue. You said earlier that you hope that IGF will help to facilitate a code of conduct for social media organisations’ platforms. I’m wondering if you really think that that will be enough, a voluntary code of conduct for social media organisations, or if we rather need more like standards regulation plus also alternative platforms that actually work for democracy instead of undermining it, that work for freedom of speech instead of restricting it, and what is a Kenyan perspective on these kind of new social media platforms, who could do it, how, and what would be something that you would want there. My name is Anna Luhmann. I’m a member of parliament from Germany. Thank you.

Nikolis Smith: Thank you. Thank you, everybody. Thank you, as I said. We’ll start with Mr. Alizoda. If you can, I know you heard, you didn’t get a chance to respond in the first round, so as you’re thinking about your closing remarks, you can try to think it and kind of contextualise it in a way that you can respond to some of these questions from the audience. Thank you.

Zafar Alizoda: Thank you, Nikolis. I agree with the proposal of the Kenyan representative. Indeed, the efforts of parliamentarians and experts from all countries in the discussion of the issue of the protection of information once again confirm the fact that no country can be an outsider in this matter. Becoming an equal participant in these interrelationships on the Internet, we must respect the general conditions and measures to regulate the preservation of the integrity of information as a whole. Thank you. and also to harmonize the regulations in each country with global principles and standards. Thank you.

Marsha Caddle: And this is really a kind of a repeat of that conversation, right? That we saw the dumping, in this case of greenhouse gas emissions, we experienced it, we suffered from it, and then we started to slowly try to regulate a global system that would see the polluting countries start to invest in adaptation and mitigation, and it’s been a long, arduous process that has not settled. And so for me, we have to learn the lessons of nuclear regulation, we have to learn the lessons of climate that we’re still experiencing now, and to be able to say, look, these are the things that we require of major tech countries and major tech companies. For example, you’ll see that major social network companies and creators can benefit hugely. They don’t even have to physically come to a country and collect data, but they can benefit hugely just from pushing information into a jurisdiction where there is little control. So I agree with you. I cannot speak to whether IGF is that place, but I do think that we have to learn the lessons of the last three decades in climate and in other areas, and rather than having it take another three decades to come to a global compact that is about accountability, that that needs to happen. We already have models for it. We already know what that looks like. And it’s just time to act in a global way.

Grunde Almeland: Well, IGF certainly can be a space where we are able to find this kind of common ground, and I really hope it will be, because this is such an international question that trying to, I think, you know, often trying to regulate this in our national jurisdiction is just creating a lot of Swiss cheese for these companies. And while it is delicious with Swiss cheese, it’s not always good for you. And I really do believe that we need to find these spaces where we work together internationally in order to find this common ground, a common set of rules. And there are a lot of challenges, and I think a lot of the questions point to those challenges, when in terms of verification, you know. Having a set rule on verification also excludes vulnerable people in vulnerable situations, or is able to exclude them. You know, having people in, making sure that in areas that are able to actually speak up is also important, you know. Requiring an age verification for children to access networks, while it is an active discussion in Norway as well, it still has the dilemmas of, you know, children also have fundamental rights in order to gain information, be active in, you know, they are not small people that are being put in a room until they become adults. They should be an active part of society, you know. These are all dilemmas that we have to navigate as well, while we still try to protect, but not overprotect.

Nikolis Smith: Thank you so much.

Rebecca Bauer-Kahn: Yeah, I think, I mean, I think what is being said is really at the crux of all of it, which is global cooperation. I think, you know, we talk about… so much of what the world has done, and we’ve gone different directions. I mean, I don’t know if we have MPs from Australia here, but they have banned social media for young people. How is that going for them? Is it having the problems you describe? I think we can learn so much from one another and really move the ball forward, because as the gentleman from Bahrain said, policy moves slower than technology, and I think only through that collaboration can we really move forward in a way that protects our communities. You know, there was a question about privacy versus some of these society-protecting tools, and I think we can figure this out together. I mean, we’re moving a piece of legislation this year that would require devices to be able to verify your identity so that you don’t have to share that with the platforms, that there is a way technologically to do that in a privacy-protective way, and if we do that together, I think we can move the world forward, not have Swiss cheese, and have societies that are protected from some of the ills that we’ve talked about today. I want to acknowledge that I live in one of those jurisdictions that is responsible for these tech companies, and the weight of that is real, and you also can imagine how it affects our electoral politics, especially in a country where you can buy elections, and that’s perfectly legal now in America, and so we live in a very complicated political dynamic, but I will say that this topic of technology and its impact on society is becoming one of the most agreed-upon political topics, because I think that we are living in a reality where we see the downsides, whether it be for our children and how their mental health is being affected, or our democracies and truth, and so I’m hopeful that even in the complicated country and democracy I live in, we’ll be able to move forward solutions that will be protective, not just of our own people, but of the world. Thank you.

Nikolis Smith: Thank you.

Catherine Mumma: Now, codes of ethics are… The first tool for self-regulation for a lot of professionals and professional associations and organizations. So I think the first self-regulation opportunity lies in some codes of ethics. And since the big tech may not necessarily be in an association where we can say as an association come up with a code of ethics, I’m thinking IGF could be a good space to initiate this. And I would want to suggest that you look at the IPU resolution on AI. Also look at the IPU draft code of ethics on science and technology which might give some suggestions on what could happen. But that would be actually extending some opportunity for big tech companies to realize that the freedoms may have crossed the lines in terms of freedoms and what they’re doing may be harming very vulnerable populations, especially in countries that may not be as enabled. And that brings me to the point my colleague KJ just raised around the more developed countries taking responsibility and the big tech companies taking responsibility in regard to what the negative sides of tech is happening in the more developing countries. I would want to say first we need to recognize that the international protective mechanism around human rights is breaking as far as I’m concerned. We’ve seen what’s happened in Gaza. and we are all helpless, or the world seems to be helpless as a lot of human rights violations are happening, not just in Gaza, but in other places, in Sudan, in Ukraine, and wherever else. I would want to first query whether we need to reimagine what international cooperation was supposed to be, and whether that international cooperation can be rethought and reimagined to truly provide the protections that it’s supposed to provide. Meantime, I think as the small countries, we may need to do what we have to do. One of the things I think from the morning session, I would think we must, in protection of our vulnerable populations, we must start putting conditionalities to the licenses that we give until that time when we will have the tech companies realize that ruining our young people through facilitating access to what they wouldn’t do in their own countries is a violation of human rights. That distorting, facilitating, or enabling the distortion of elections in our countries in order for us to end up with wrong governments is a violation of our rights. So even as we place the responsibility to the United Nations and the international community, we must start looking inward and determine the incremental kind of arrangement that we will have with these companies to ensure that for the very vulnerable, we give conditionalities to the licenses before we issue those licenses to the big tech companies. Thank you very much.

Nikolis Smith: Wow, I’m seeing the flashing red. We should be done already. I just want to say, can we just give a round of applause to this great panel, this discussion? Thank you all. Two things that I just want to make sure that I underscore here. Number one is that this is still day zero. Day one is actually tomorrow, so this track will continue tomorrow morning. So make sure that you’re looking at the schedule. You’ll have more opportunities throughout the week to talk to some of these people on stage through other sessions. So make sure you take advantage of that, especially the folks that didn’t get a chance to as they were queuing to ask questions. One more thing before we close for all members of Parliament that will be going to an event and reception at the Parliament this evening. What you’re going to do when we leave here, we’ll exit out and go to the left and down. There will be some folks waiting for you guys to take you. The bus, I believe, that’s going to escort you leaves at 1600. So 4 p.m. If you have any questions, you can come talk to some of us as we come off the stage as well. But again, thank you so much and enjoy the rest of your week. Thank you. Yeah.

Agreement points

Need for international cooperation and global standards rather than fragmented national approaches

Speakers

– Grunde Almeland
– Martin Chungong
– Catherine Mumma
– Rebecca Bauer-Kahn
– Zafar Alizoda
– Audience

Arguments

IGF can serve as a platform for finding common ground and developing shared rules rather than creating fragmented national regulations

Global cooperation on combating misinformation is crucial as fragmented approaches risk undermining democratic discourse

African parliamentarians have formed regional caucuses to share experiences and develop common approaches

Need for international mechanisms similar to nuclear weapons treaties to place responsibilities on big tech developers and advanced economies

Global platforms have different policies for different regions, with developing countries lacking the same protections as EU citizens under GDPR

Need for international mechanisms similar to nuclear weapons treaties to place responsibilities on big tech developers and advanced economies

Summary

All speakers agreed that digital governance challenges require coordinated international responses rather than isolated national efforts, with IGF serving as a key platform for developing common standards and approaches

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights | Development

Technology should be leveraged for democratic good and transparency

Speakers

– Grunde Almeland
– Rebecca Bauer-Kahn
– Marsha Caddle

Arguments

Technology should be used as a tool to strengthen democratic institutions and create more transparency

Need to invest in technology for good through academic institutions and civil society to compete with profit-driven companies

Investment in tech ecosystems that can build tools to fight misinformation while promoting innovation is essential

Summary

Speakers agreed that technology should be actively developed and deployed to strengthen democratic institutions and combat misinformation, rather than being left solely to profit-driven entities

Topics

Development | Economic | Human rights

Importance of verification and authentication solutions

Speakers

– Grunde Almeland
– Rebecca Bauer-Kahn
– Marsha Caddle

Arguments

Verification should provide fundamental information allowing people to make their own decisions rather than forcing judgments about what is real

Watermarking technology and device-level authentication are critical for distinguishing reality from AI-generated content

Platforms should return to more robust verification methods while balancing accessibility concerns

Summary

All three speakers emphasized the critical need for verification and authentication technologies, though with different approaches – from watermarking to providing source information to enable informed decision-making

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Infrastructure | Human rights

Supporting independent media and transparency mechanisms

Speakers

– Grunde Almeland
– Marsha Caddle

Arguments

Independent media organizations are crucial for combating misinformation, requiring strong legislative foundations ensuring editorial independence and public funding

Promoting transparency through broadcasting parliamentary proceedings and providing original sources helps establish a culture of truth and evidence

Summary

Both speakers agreed that independent media and transparent government processes are fundamental to combating misinformation and maintaining democratic trust

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory | Sociocultural

Similar viewpoints

Both emphasized the need for rapid international action similar to nuclear weapons regulation, with specific focus on addressing technological dumping and ensuring big tech companies are held accountable for practices in developing countries that they wouldn’t engage in at home

Speakers

– Catherine Mumma
– Audience

Arguments

Need for international mechanisms similar to nuclear weapons treaties to place responsibilities on big tech developers and advanced economies

Need for international mechanisms similar to nuclear weapons treaties to place responsibilities on big tech developers and advanced economies

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights | Development

Both emphasized the importance of building local capacity and alternative technology ecosystems that serve democratic purposes rather than just profit motives, though Bauer-Kahn focused on academic institutions while Caddle emphasized practical skills training

Speakers

– Rebecca Bauer-Kahn
– Marsha Caddle

Arguments

Need to invest in technology for good through academic institutions and civil society to compete with profit-driven companies

Countries should invest in training people in data analytics and science to create their own tools rather than just consuming technology

Topics

Development | Economic

Both recognized that existing legal frameworks can address many digital challenges but require adaptation and creative approaches, particularly when balancing free speech protections with the need to combat misinformation

Speakers

– Grunde Almeland
– Rebecca Bauer-Kahn

Arguments

Most issues are already legislated and need adaptation rather than entirely new laws, with international cooperation being more crucial than new legislation

Constitutional protections of free speech create challenges in regulating misinformation while requiring creative solutions like disclosure requirements

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights

Unexpected consensus

Balanced approach to AI regulation without fear-mongering

Speakers

– Grunde Almeland
– Nikolis Smith

Arguments

Most issues are already legislated and need adaptation rather than entirely new laws, with international cooperation being more crucial than new legislation

AI is a tool invented by humans that has benefits alongside challenges

Explanation

Despite the serious concerns about AI’s impact on democracy, both speakers emphasized avoiding panic and fear-mongering, instead advocating for measured responses that recognize both challenges and opportunities. This balanced perspective was unexpected given the gravity of the democratic threats discussed

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural | Legal and regulatory

Cross-sectoral approach to digital governance beyond just political applications

Speakers

– Catherine Mumma
– Zafar Alizoda

Arguments

Need to think broadly about digital technology impacts across all sectors including health, water, and other areas beyond just political spaces

Personal data protection requires special attention for sensitive categories and comprehensive legislative frameworks

Explanation

Both speakers from very different regions (Kenya and Tajikistan) independently emphasized that digital governance must extend beyond political concerns to encompass healthcare, personal data protection, and other sectors. This holistic view was unexpected in a session focused on democratic safeguards

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights | Development

Overall assessment

Summary

Strong consensus emerged around the need for international cooperation, technology for democratic good, verification solutions, and supporting independent media. Speakers from diverse regions and political systems found common ground on fundamental principles while acknowledging different implementation approaches.

Consensus level

High level of consensus on core principles with recognition that implementation must be adapted to local contexts. The agreement suggests potential for meaningful international collaboration on digital governance frameworks, though speakers acknowledged significant challenges in enforcement and ensuring equitable treatment across different jurisdictions.

Different viewpoints

Approach to content regulation and verification

Speakers

– Grunde Almeland
– Rebecca Bauer-Kahn

Arguments

Verification should provide fundamental information allowing people to make their own decisions rather than forcing judgments about what is real

Watermarking technology and device-level authentication are critical for distinguishing reality from AI-generated content

Summary

Almeland advocates for providing information and letting people decide for themselves what is real, while Bauer-Kahn emphasizes the need for technological solutions like watermarking to definitively distinguish reality from AI-generated content

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Legislative approach – new laws versus adapting existing frameworks

Speakers

– Grunde Almeland
– Catherine Mumma
– Zafar Alizoda

Arguments

Most issues are already legislated and need adaptation rather than entirely new laws, with international cooperation being more crucial than new legislation

Kenya has established a comprehensive legal framework including Computer Misuse and Cyber Protection Act, Data Protection Act, and Media Council Act, though gaps remain in addressing misinformation specifically

Central Asian countries need to revise personal data protection laws and consider GDPR-like risk assessment mechanisms

Summary

Almeland believes most issues are already covered by existing laws that need adaptation, while Mumma and Alizoda emphasize the need for new specific legislation to address gaps in digital governance

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights

Role of government versus platforms in content moderation

Speakers

– Rebecca Bauer-Kahn
– Marsha Caddle

Arguments

Constitutional protections of free speech create challenges in regulating misinformation while requiring creative solutions like disclosure requirements

Platforms should return to more robust verification methods while balancing accessibility concerns

Summary

Bauer-Kahn focuses on government regulatory approaches constrained by constitutional protections, while Caddle emphasizes the responsibility of platforms themselves to implement better verification

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Unexpected differences

Trust in electoral management versus technology solutions

Speakers

– Catherine Mumma
– Rebecca Bauer-Kahn

Arguments

Electoral integrity depends largely on neutral electoral management bodies rather than just technology

Paper trails and audit capabilities are essential for maintaining election integrity and public trust

Explanation

This disagreement is unexpected because both speakers are concerned with election integrity, but Mumma emphasizes human institutional factors while Bauer-Kahn focuses on technological safeguards. This reveals different cultural and systemic approaches to the same problem

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Overall assessment

Summary

The main areas of disagreement center on regulatory approaches (new laws vs. adapting existing ones), the balance between government regulation and platform responsibility, verification methods (information provision vs. technological authentication), and institutional vs. technological solutions for election integrity

Disagreement level

The level of disagreement is moderate and constructive. Speakers share common goals of protecting democracy and human rights in the digital age, but differ on implementation strategies. These disagreements reflect different national contexts, constitutional frameworks, and development levels rather than fundamental philosophical differences. The implications are positive as they provide multiple pathways for addressing digital governance challenges, allowing different jurisdictions to adopt approaches suited to their specific circumstances while maintaining overall coherence in global digital governance efforts.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both emphasized the need for rapid international action similar to nuclear weapons regulation, with specific focus on addressing technological dumping and ensuring big tech companies are held accountable for practices in developing countries that they wouldn’t engage in at home

Speakers

– Catherine Mumma
– Audience

Arguments

Need for international mechanisms similar to nuclear weapons treaties to place responsibilities on big tech developers and advanced economies

Need for international mechanisms similar to nuclear weapons treaties to place responsibilities on big tech developers and advanced economies

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights | Development

Both emphasized the importance of building local capacity and alternative technology ecosystems that serve democratic purposes rather than just profit motives, though Bauer-Kahn focused on academic institutions while Caddle emphasized practical skills training

Speakers

– Rebecca Bauer-Kahn
– Marsha Caddle

Arguments

Need to invest in technology for good through academic institutions and civil society to compete with profit-driven companies

Countries should invest in training people in data analytics and science to create their own tools rather than just consuming technology

Topics

Development | Economic

Both recognized that existing legal frameworks can address many digital challenges but require adaptation and creative approaches, particularly when balancing free speech protections with the need to combat misinformation

Speakers

– Grunde Almeland
– Rebecca Bauer-Kahn

Arguments

Most issues are already legislated and need adaptation rather than entirely new laws, with international cooperation being more crucial than new legislation

Constitutional protections of free speech create challenges in regulating misinformation while requiring creative solutions like disclosure requirements

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights

Key takeaways

Truth is becoming less relevant in the digital age as AI-powered content creation enables people to remain in confirmation bias bubbles, making factual debate harder to achieve

Supporting and strengthening independent media organizations is crucial for combating misinformation, requiring strong legislative foundations that ensure editorial independence and adequate funding

Most digital governance challenges can be addressed through existing legislation that needs adaptation rather than entirely new laws, with international cooperation being more important than creating new regulations

A comprehensive approach is needed that balances protecting human rights and freedom of expression while regulating harmful content and allowing innovation to progress

Technology for good initiatives must be prioritized, including investment in academic institutions and civil society to create tools that compete with profit-driven platforms

Global platforms apply different policies to different regions, with developing countries lacking the same protections as more developed jurisdictions

Watermarking and authentication technologies are critical for distinguishing between real and AI-generated content, requiring both legislative mandates and technological development

Electoral integrity depends more on neutral electoral management bodies than on technology itself, though paper trails and audit capabilities remain essential

Digital inclusion requires investment in public infrastructure to ensure rural areas, women, and vulnerable groups can meaningfully participate in digital spaces

Resolutions and action items

Parliamentarians should carry IGF 2025 outcomes back to their respective countries to drive policy coherence at national and regional levels

Continue expanding parliamentary engagement in national and regional IGFs, particularly in West Africa and Asia-Pacific regions

California will continue pushing watermarking requirements for platforms and devices, with legislation requiring embedded authentication technology in cameras

African parliamentarians will continue using regional caucuses (Africa-wide, West Africa, East Africa) to share experiences and develop common approaches

Countries should consider implementing conditionalities on licenses given to big tech companies to protect vulnerable populations

IGF should explore developing codes of conduct for social media platforms, potentially building on IPU resolutions on AI and draft codes of ethics on science and technology

Parliamentarians should look beyond political spaces to consider digital technology impacts across all sectors including health, water, and other areas

Unresolved issues

How to effectively regulate misinformation and disinformation without appearing to over-correct or enabling government abuse of surveillance powers

How to place meaningful responsibilities on big tech developers and advanced economies that export technology to developing countries without adequate protections

Whether voluntary codes of conduct for social media platforms will be sufficient or if mandatory standards and regulations are needed

How to verify human identity versus AI-generated content in digital spaces while protecting privacy and avoiding exclusion of vulnerable populations

How to handle cross-border enforcement when violators are situated in different jurisdictions from those being harmed

Whether and how to restrict social media access for minors while respecting children’s fundamental rights to information and participation

How to balance age verification requirements with privacy protection and inclusion of vulnerable populations

How to address the challenge that policy moves slower than technology development

How to ensure meaningful international cooperation when existing international protective mechanisms for human rights appear to be failing

Suggested compromises

Focus on regulating output and content rather than trying to identify the origin of AI-generated material, as verification of source becomes increasingly difficult

Provide fundamental information through watermarking and verification systems that allow people to make their own decisions rather than forcing judgments about what is real or fake

Use existing criminal codes and legislation to address AI-enabled crimes like scams, rather than creating entirely new legal frameworks

Implement incremental arrangements with tech companies through licensing conditionalities while working toward broader international cooperation

Require disclosure and transparency (such as watermarking AI-generated political content) as an alternative to restricting speech, though this faces constitutional challenges

Invest in both regulation and digital infrastructure to ensure broader participation while protecting against harmful uses

Combine legislative approaches with investment in technology for good and media literacy education

Use keyword technology and authentication to regulate content based on the nature of vulnerable populations in specific spaces rather than blanket restrictions

Truth is becoming less relevant… what you engage with, what you look at, is things, content that is already confirming your held beliefs and are kind of helping you stay in this comfortable bubble that it’s hard and harder to pierce with factual debate and true, well, facts, so to say.

Speaker

Grunde Almeland

Reason

This comment cuts to the philosophical heart of the democratic crisis in the digital age – not just that misinformation exists, but that truth itself is losing its currency as people retreat into confirmation bias bubbles. It reframes the problem from technical to epistemological.

Impact

This observation set the tone for the entire discussion by establishing that the challenge isn’t just about regulating technology, but about fundamental changes in how societies relate to truth. It influenced subsequent speakers to focus on building trust and verification mechanisms rather than just content moderation.

We don’t have a law that specifically addresses misinformation and disinformation, not because the law is somewhere and needs to quickly come… hitting the balance between protection of human rights and regulating and also allowing innovation to unhinged, to progress unhinged, is something that is beyond legislation, is something that sometimes is beyond the politics of the day.

Speaker

Catherine Mumma

Reason

This comment reveals the profound complexity of democratic governance in the digital age – acknowledging that some challenges transcend traditional legislative solutions and require deeper societal consensus-building.

Impact

This shifted the conversation from a focus on what laws to pass toward a more nuanced discussion about the limits of legislation and the need for multi-stakeholder approaches, influencing other panelists to discuss non-legislative solutions like media literacy and international cooperation.

The deepfake was about the prime minister saying something in relation to another major world power… Now that has the potential to completely, especially in this current global political environment, to completely put at risk a lot of what a country is doing with respect to policy and global engagement. So we’re not just talking about domestic trust, but we’re talking about international and a country’s global position in the world.

Speaker

Marsha Caddle

Reason

This comment expanded the scope of the discussion beyond domestic democratic concerns to international relations and diplomacy, showing how digital manipulation can destabilize global governance systems.

Impact

This observation elevated the urgency of the discussion by demonstrating that digital threats to democracy have immediate geopolitical consequences, leading other speakers to emphasize the need for international cooperation and shared standards.

To imagine that countries in places like Africa will at one point be at par with Silicon Valley is a fallacy. To imagine that such advanced economies do not have responsibilities is also wrong… what will happen with this AI is that my people will be condemned to digital plantations, just like they were condemned with sugar cane and with coffee and with all these other things that happened in slave trade.

Speaker

John K.J. Kiarie (audience member from Kenya)

Reason