Uncategorized

Summary

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

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

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

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

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

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

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

– Balancing the benefits and risks of digital platforms

– Digital sovereignty and compliance with national laws

– Multi-stakeholder approach to internet governance and platform regulation

Overall purpose:

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

Tone:

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

Speakers

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

– Juliano Cappi: CGI.BR secretariat

– Juliana Oms: CGI.BR secretariat

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

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

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

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

Additional speakers:

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

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

Consultation Process and Outcomes

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

Regulatory Approaches and Challenges

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

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

Positive Contributions of Digital Platforms

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

Digital Sovereignty and Democracy

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

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

Content Moderation and Free Speech

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

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

Ongoing Legislative and Judicial Developments

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

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

Platformization of Public Services

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agreement Points

Need for regulation of digital platforms

Bia Barbosa

Monica Guise

Henrique Faulhaber

Economic regulation needed to address market concentration

Regulation should balance benefits and risks of platforms

Multi-stakeholder approach important for developing regulation

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

Importance of preserving free speech and democracy online

Monica Guise

Eugenio Garcia

Platforms play important role in enabling free speech and democracy

Digital sovereignty relates to self-determination over digital future

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

Similar Viewpoints

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

Juliano Cappi

Marchelo Fornazin

Need transparency and social participation in digital health governance

Risks of data concentration and privatization of public infrastructure

Unexpected Consensus

Concerns about Supreme Court potentially changing internet liability rules

Monica Guise

Henrique Faulhaber

Concerns about Supreme Court potentially changing internet liability rules

Need balanced approach to content moderation

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

Overall Assessment

Summary

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

Consensus level

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

Different Viewpoints

Approach to platform regulation

Bia Barbosa

Monica Guise

Economic regulation needed to address market concentration

Regulation should balance benefits and risks of platforms

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

Risks to democracy from platforms

Bia Barbosa

Monica Guise

Risks to democracy from platform business models need addressing

Platforms play important role in enabling free speech and democracy

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

Unexpected Differences

Approach to content moderation

Monica Guise

Eugenio Garcia

Concerns about Supreme Court potentially changing internet liability rules

Digital sovereignty relates to self-determination over digital future

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

Overall Assessment

summary

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

difference_level

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

Partial Agreements

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

Bia Barbosa

Monica Guise

Henrique Faulhaber

Economic regulation needed to address market concentration

Regulation should balance benefits and risks of platforms

Multi-stakeholder approach important for developing regulation

Similar Viewpoints

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

Juliano Cappi

Marchelo Fornazin

Need transparency and social participation in digital health governance

Risks of data concentration and privatization of public infrastructure

Key Takeaways

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

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

Digital sovereignty and protecting democracy are key concerns in platform regulation

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

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

Resolutions and Action Items

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

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

Unresolved Issues

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

Balancing content moderation and free speech protections in platform regulation

Addressing risks of data concentration and privatization in digital health systems

Determining appropriate liability rules for platforms regarding user-generated content

Suggested Compromises

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

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

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

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

speaker

Marcelo Fornazin

reason

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

impact

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

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

speaker

Marcelo Fornazin

reason

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

impact

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

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

speaker

Eugenio Garcia

reason

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

impact

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

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

speaker

Monica Guise

reason

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

impact

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

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

speaker

Monica Guise

reason

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

impact

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

Overall Assessment

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

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

speaker

Bia Barbosa

explanation

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

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

speaker

Monica Guise

explanation

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

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

speaker

Juliano Cappi

explanation

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

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

speaker

Juliano Cappi

explanation

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

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

speaker

Bia Barbosa

explanation

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

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

speaker

Juliana Oms

explanation

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

Summary

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

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

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

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

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– The impact of ICT development on economic growth in Africa

– The importance of energy infrastructure for ICT development

– Strategies for implementing the Global Digital Compact in Africa

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

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

Overall purpose:

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

Tone:

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

Speakers

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

– Sorene Assefa, Cybersecurity & Digital governance Expert, UNECA

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

– Panelist 2: Honorable Minister of ICT in Namibia.

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

Revised Summary: Africa’s Digital Governance and ICT Development

Introduction:

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

1. ICT Development and Economic Growth in Africa:

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

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

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

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

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

2. Africa’s Participation in Global Digital Governance:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. Implementation Challenges and Strategies:

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

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

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

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

– The critical importance of basic digital literacy and access.

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

5. Addressing the Gender Digital Divide:

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

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

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

– Specific strategies mentioned by the Minister from Namibia included:

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

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

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

6. Practical Implementation and Financing:

The discussion addressed practical considerations of implementation and financing:

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

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

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

Conclusion:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agreement Points

ICT sector’s importance for economic growth in Africa

Panelist 1

Panelist 2

Jimson Olufuye

Dr. Mactar Seck

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

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

Private sector is ready to provide solutions to enable increased connectivity

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

Need for multi-stakeholder approach in digital governance

Panelist 2

Jimson Olufuye

Need for costed implementation plans with dedicated funding from governments

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

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

Addressing the gender digital divide

Panelist 2

Dr. Mactar Seck

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

Growing gap between men and women in internet connectivity

Economic impact of excluding women from digital technology

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

Similar Viewpoints

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

Panelist 2

Jimson Olufuye

Need for costed implementation plans with dedicated funding from governments

Leveraging existing frameworks like WSIS for implementing Global Digital Compact

Unexpected Consensus

Importance of energy infrastructure for ICT development

Dr. Mactar Seck

Panelist 2

ICT development correlates with energy availability and efficiency

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

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

Overall Assessment

Summary

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

Consensus level

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

Different Viewpoints

Implementation approach for digital strategies

Panelist 2

Jimson Olufuye

Need for costed implementation plans with dedicated funding from governments

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

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

Unexpected Differences

Overall Assessment

summary

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

difference_level

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

Partial Agreements

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

Panelist 2

Jimson Olufuye

Need for costed implementation plans with dedicated funding from governments

Private sector is ready to provide solutions to enable increased connectivity

Similar Viewpoints

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

Panelist 2

Jimson Olufuye

Need for costed implementation plans with dedicated funding from governments

Leveraging existing frameworks like WSIS for implementing Global Digital Compact

Key Takeaways

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

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

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

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

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

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

Resolutions and Action Items

Develop costed implementation plans for digital strategies at country level

Increase investment in tech education for girls to overcome barriers

Leverage existing frameworks like WSIS for implementing the Global Digital Compact

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

Involve private sector in providing connectivity solutions, potentially through subsidies

Unresolved Issues

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

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

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

Ways to address energy infrastructure gaps that hinder ICT development

Suggested Compromises

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

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

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

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

speaker

Panelist 1

reason

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

impact

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

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

speaker

Dr. Mactar Seck

reason

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

impact

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

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

speaker

Panelist 2 (Honorable Minister)

reason

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

impact

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

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

speaker

Jimson Olufuye

reason

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

impact

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

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

speaker

Panelist 2 (Honorable Minister)

reason

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

impact

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

Overall Assessment

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

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

speaker

Dr. Mactar Seck

explanation

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

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

speaker

Dr. Mactar Seck

explanation

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

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

speaker

Dr. Mactar Seck

explanation

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

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

speaker

Panelist 2 (Honorable Minister)

explanation

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

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

speaker

Dr. Mactar Seck

explanation

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

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

speaker

Dr. Mactar Seck

explanation

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

Summary

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

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

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

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

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Speakers

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

Expertise: Freedom of expression online, content moderation, disinformation

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

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

– Adeboye Adegoke, Senior programme manager at Paradigm Initiative

Expertise: Internet governance, digital rights advocacy

– Aymen Zaghdoudi, MENA senior policy counselor at AccessNow

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

Additional speakers:

– Maria Paz Canales, Global Partners Digital

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

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

Key Trends in Cybercrime Legislation

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

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

2. Criminal restrictions on disinformation

3. Enforcement of authoritarian value systems through content laws

4. A shift towards platform regulation frameworks

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

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

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

Impact on Local Communities and Democracy

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

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

Strategies for Addressing Problematic Cybercrime Legislation

The panellists outlined several strategies for advocating against repressive legislation:

1. Strategic litigation to challenge laws (Adegoke)

2. Engaging with parliamentarians to amend laws (Zaghdoudi)

3. Capacity building for judges and lawyers (Zaghdoudi)

4. Early engagement in policy processes (Adegoke)

5. International advocacy at the UN level (Rowe)

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

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

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

Role of Platforms and International Bodies

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agreement Points

Cybercrime laws are being misused to restrict freedom of expression

Jacqueline Rowe

Aymen Zaghdoudi

Adeboye Adegoke

Overbroad restrictions justified by public safety concerns

Vague terms and disproportionate sanctions in cybercrime laws

Laws used as tools to target activists and opposition

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

Impact on democracy and public debate

Aymen Zaghdoudi

Adeboye Adegoke

Reduced political participation and public debate

Self-censorship and chilling effect on free expression

Undermining of democratic processes

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

Similar Viewpoints

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

Jacqueline Rowe

Aymen Zaghdoudi

Adeboye Adegoke

Engaging with parliamentarians to amend laws

Strategic litigation to challenge laws

Early engagement in policy processes

Unexpected Consensus

Role of platforms in content moderation

Jacqueline Rowe

Need for platforms to improve content moderation globally

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

Overall Assessment

Summary

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

Consensus level

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

Different Viewpoints

Approach to addressing problematic cybercrime legislation

Aymen Zaghdoudi

Adeboye Adegoke

Engaging with parliamentarians to amend laws

Strategic litigation to challenge laws

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

Unexpected Differences

Overall Assessment

summary

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

difference_level

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

Partial Agreements

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

Jacqueline Rowe

Aymen Zaghdoudi

Adeboye Adegoke

Need for platforms to improve content moderation globally

Capacity building for judges and lawyers

Early engagement in policy processes

Similar Viewpoints

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

Jacqueline Rowe

Aymen Zaghdoudi

Adeboye Adegoke

Engaging with parliamentarians to amend laws

Strategic litigation to challenge laws

Early engagement in policy processes

Key Takeaways

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

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

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

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

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

Resolutions and Action Items

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

Advocates should explore strategic litigation to challenge problematic cybercrime laws

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

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

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

Unresolved Issues

How to balance legitimate cybercrime concerns with protecting freedom of expression

The appropriate scope of content-based restrictions in cybercrime laws

How to effectively regulate platforms without enabling censorship

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

Suggested Compromises

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

Developing more nuanced policy responses to issues like disinformation beyond criminalization

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

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

speaker

Jacqueline Rowe

reason

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

impact

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

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

speaker

Aymen Zaghdoudi

reason

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

impact

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

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

speaker

Adeboye Adegoke

reason

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

impact

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

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

speaker

Adeboye Adegoke

reason

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

impact

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

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

speaker

Aymen Zaghdoudi

reason

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

impact

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

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

speaker

Adeboye Adegoke

reason

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

impact

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

Overall Assessment

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

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

speaker

Jacqueline Rowe

explanation

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

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

speaker

Jacqueline Rowe

explanation

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

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

speaker

Adeboye Adegoke

explanation

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

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

speaker

Annelies Riezebos

explanation

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

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

speaker

Annelies Riezebos

explanation

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

Summary

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

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

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

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

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

Keypoints

Major discussion points

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

Overall purpose

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

Tone:

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

Speakers

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

Additional speakers:

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

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

Key challenges for CSO participation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The role and value of CSOs in internet governance

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

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

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

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

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

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

Strategies to enhance CSO participation and influence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Improving governance structures for CSO engagement

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

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

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

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

Ongoing research and initiatives

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

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

Unresolved issues and future directions

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

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

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

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

• Harmonising diverse CSO interests and priorities in governance processes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As is typical with technical discussions, so here is where maybe not as specific to ICANN, but quite, let’s say, across the board between ICANN, IETF, is that it’s typical with technical discussions, they often neglect broader policy implications. And because the Global South perspectives are not heard as much as they should, the priorities and needs at the sub-regional level, so here we’re going beyond the region, not just to the regional level, but also to the regional level. 

So this is a problem, obviously. Talking in terms of the needs of Latin America or the needs of Africa, they are often not heard or not heard well, let’s say. So we can see here a mix of barriers, some relating to the substance of the discussions, and here when we’re talking about the substance, this is where some trends emerge between the in the barriers that CSOs face in the standard-setting organizations, and some relate to structural issues, and is the, I would say, the structural issues which are the most specific to these forum. At the IETF – we had to zoom into the IETF – one of the biggest barriers is language. Why? Because the discussions are held exclusively in English, right? And we’re not saying here, hey, let us not use English, far from it, but there are so many tools, so many, you know, interpretation, translation tools that can be added to the discussions, right? So today’s technology, it enables this in a very easy way. 

Another example is the fact that the meetings, the IETF meetings, the three main meetings every year, they take place in North America, Europe, Asia, right? It’s always the same regions. What about having meetings in Africa, in Latin America, right? We know for a fact that if we had to compare, for instance, meetings of the global IGF that took place in Africa, in Latin America, the number of CSOs from the region was much higher, right, than whenever events were in the Global North. So this is, it’s a, let’s say, a structural issue. I would say, particular to the IETF. In the IGF, the meetings take place all over, and ICANN as well. Again, not saying that the face-to-face meetings are, you know, the most important way of engaging. Far from it, because we know that a lot of work takes place in mailing lists, etc., in between meetings, and that work takes place online. 

In terms of trends, if we look at ITU, the problems are, again, of a different type, because it’s, we have to reflect on the way that governments and civil society work together at the local level, right? For civil society to be able to participate at ITU, they need to be part of a delegation. And here, unfortunately, we see that delegations from the Global South, fewer CSOs are actually part of the delegations than those in the Global North. 

Not generalizing, we know that, for instance, delegations from Brazil, Mexico, to take a couple of examples, they do welcome CSOs more broadly as part of the delegations. And then, when it comes to ITU, there’s the big question of accreditation, right? And that’s a very big barrier specific to ITU. There’s been a lot of discussions about this, and I think there are a few policies also, on the waiving of those fees, but why are we still talking about the waiver of fees? Should we start a discussion on not being, there not being any fees at all? So, in terms of trends, the conclusion is that we need to go granular, and not just at a general level.

So, I would say that the main takeaway of the mapping, the work that we want to do in the coming months and years, is specifically along these lines. Back to you, Kenneth. Thank you.

Kenneth Harry Msiska: I see that, Rosemary, you’re itching to add a few things, but before you attempt to add on what Stephanie said, you should also respond to this question. You talked about being able to convene, or being a convener. What successful strategies have been implemented, that you know, at regional level, to enhance the inclusion of CSOs, and also to ensure that, you know, they do play a meaningful role in making sure that they’re able to influence the digital policies. Over to you.

Rosemary Koech-Kimwatu: Thank you very much for that question. I think the key successful thing has been being a participant that is able to share knowledge, and bridge the gap. For example, I keep giving this example. Africans, we find ourselves in a very unique place. We don’t manufacture technology too much. Again, we don’t manufacture a lot of legislation. If you look at it, America, China, a lot of manufacturing happens there. Europe manufactures a lot of legislation. Africans, we get the after-effects. Brussels effects, so on and so forth. So we get to become very keen observers of it all. 

And what happens is that, now through the CSOs, in the IGF process, and all the other processes, we then get a unique position of offering the next best practice. Because you’re keen observers, you then act as a partner, say for example, to legislators at the local level. You then become a source of honesty, and actually become the True North, in terms of what, then, is the next best policies for you from an African perspective. And we find ourselves in the middle, putting everyone to task, putting the private sector to task, putting government to task, and putting academia to task. Because we get to view it from an observer level. So what success comes out of that? 

How do you become successful? One, you engage in a lot of research. At KICTANet, for example, we have a whole page on publications that we do. Research that happens throughout the year on various topical issues. If today AI is hot, we will figure it out. If it’s elections and how the internet affects them, we’ll figure it out. If today it’s low earth orbiting technologies, vis-a-vis the old spectrum, in terms of telecommunications, we’ll sit down and figure it out. So you become a trusted partner for policymaking. And when that happens, then this all becomes meaningful. Because you then get to participate in making legislations. 

I’ll give an example. The Data Protection Act in Kenya, the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes Act, any time there’s a legislation, there’s an element in our Constitution of public participation. KICTANet has been a key stakeholder. Today you find, and I was smiling, and through my answer I get to answer, to make a mention on something. In as much as you called it least influential, I think we’re just the most broke. Yeah. But the influence is there. 

We’re trusted by governments, we’re trusted by the private sector, and we get to be that middle ground that makes sure that there’s a True North in terms of what is the best experience that we’ll get as Africans on the ground. And that is done by the CSO entities. 

So, and a reflection for me when you were speaking, in terms of what you could do better, I think it’s a reflection of what have we done with the little that we have so far, what influence have we made, and then now what capacity is going to be added to these CSOs that have been doing this work for several years, that have been part of the whole track, the IGF, IETF, WSIS, over the years. They’ve built particular skills. So what then should happen to capacity build those entities in order to help them make greater influence moving forward? Because at the end of the day, the private sector has got what they want. Government has got its own interests. CSOs come to create a balance. And a lot of support is required at that level. Yeah. Because he who pays the piper calls the tune. So we need to make sure that we have to maintain that element of balance and to build the next best practice as Africans.

Kenneth Harry Msiska: All right. Thank you so much, Rosemary. Just to encourage our colleagues who are following us online, you can keep on sending your comments, questions via the chat. My apologies, you may not be able to speak during this session, but we will accommodate your comments and questions through the chat. Imad is asking, and I’ll pause this, you can reflect on this, I’ll come back to you later on. Imad is saying, besides costs and language barriers, isn’t there an additional barrier for cooperation which is the diversity of interests of CSOs? He thinks this is also a barrier in, for example, he’s saying priorities would be, for example, in other countries basic human rights or safety or corruption so these differences do also affect, you know, the participation. 

Now to the audience I have two questions that we should think about. How do you see the multilateral, multistakeholder processes evolving to better integrate civil society voices, particularly those from the under-represented regions or the Global South? And two, from a policy perspective, what concrete actions can stakeholders take to lower barriers and enhance civil society participation in digital governance processes? Those are my two questions. You are free to react to anything that has been discussed but just bear in mind I need answers to these two questions. So who wants to speak? Oh, Nana. 

Nana Wachako: Good morning or good afternoon everyone. My name is Nana Wachako. Regarding the lowering of barriers, one thing that has stood out consistently in all the conversations I’ve been in for the past couple of days has been about the technical capacity of civil society organizations to engage in very highly technical conversations around digital governance, internet governance. And I was wondering the primary source of financial sustenance for civil society organizations is funding from donors, right? And more often than not what is most common is that those funds are tied to particular projects, right? So we might have diversity of interest but donors have diversity of interest as well, right? 

And to be able to engage in research, for instance, you have to have money for research. To be able to engage in capacity building, you have to have money for that to happen. And I was wondering is there a space for civil society organizations to unify in requesting for unrestricted funding for the core issues, for research, for upskilling? 

There’s a lot of buzz currently around artificial intelligence and as usual like other emerging technologies, right, that come up. The conversation is focusing on one aspect. A lot of people focus on generative AI which is like a dot, a blob. And I have sensed from all of these conversations that focus often is driven rather by capacity to engage. Civil society is the least positioned to hire people who have high technical expertise. Look at the money that big tech is paying and compared to the money that civil society organizations would pay. 

I mean in my country, I’m Nigerian, there are people who offer, CSOs will offer you maybe a hundred dollars a month as salary. Not because they want to shortchange you but because that is the capacity, that’s the amount they can offer you. Now compare that to what other people in the same country in the private sector are paying. So is it possible that we start, when we say we want to fund civil society organizations, when we say we want to do projects, is it possible that there’s a space to engage with the donor to say look if you are really focused on this, there has to be money for research. We need to build in funding for research into projects, right. We’re building money for evaluation, we’re building money for baseline studies. 

But there are other forms of research that’s not just evaluating the project. That’s very critical. It’s understanding the key principles, it’s understanding the fundamental aspects that relate to what you want to work on. So that, in my opinion, is something that might be helpful to start moving the needle a little bit. Thank you.

Audience: Yeah, thank you for raising those points. Those are really valid points, I think, in context of not only African continent but also Global South that has been discussed. I want to reflect upon one point that, you know, that like generally on the call, like you know, on your discussion, that civil society organizations do the most impactful work but the recognition is very less to the fact that we are bringing out the voices from the grassroots. We are the ones who are bringing out what the big tech wants in terms of their products, in terms of their policies, the change that they want, the demand that they look forward to. 

But then again, when it comes to monetary gains or losses, we are the ones who are losing it, right. We are the ones who are being put into the corner that, okay, you have done this small job for us, okay, there is some pretty amount of money for you. Also another challenge when the grants are open for civil society organizations, the process that civil society organizations have to go through is enormous. The amount of documentation you have to give to prove that you are a civil society organization, the amount of documentation that you have to go give to prove the work that you have done is enormous, that it also takes another six months to get evaluated and then, oh sorry, you don’t get that grant. 

So the whole of those processes are so challenging, coming from a developing nation especially, that that needs to be recognized. Then again, I circle back on the point that recognition is missing, though the impactful work is being done by the major civil society organizations all across. I don’t want to understate civil societies in the US or the UK or Canada, but also again in Africa, in India, in Sri Lanka, in Bangladesh, in all the countries. They’re putting the heart and soul, they’re working 24-7 around the clock, they’re running helplines, they’re doing enormous work, but then what are we losing is that recognition. That’s it. Thank you.

Audience: I am Pratishtha from India. Thank you, that’s been a very interesting conversation. Just on the first one, which is the question I suppose, it’s more on, you know, I think this was touched upon earlier, but on regional collaborations and whether bringing together certain segments. Again, Africa is a very large continent, so bringing together more regional cooperation and collaboration, whether perhaps that might increase, say, voting power and capacity to influence policy on an international level. But coming to the policy and more practical considerations, one of the organizations that has worked with is the Digital Natives Academy, which is a Maori-run organization in Aotearoa, New Zealand. 

And what they did was really emphasize the importance of local knowledge in building principles and policy. So what we have, as mentioned earlier by Rose, was, you know, we have to just accept this Brussels effect and, you know, the GDPR, as the Europeans have formulated it. But what’s also important is, there are local knowledge and local community-based perspectives that can frame it as well. So in the Maori context, what they did was not only ask how data sovereignty is important, but how would the Maori do it? 

And they have less of an individualistic approach, which is what is enshrined in GDPR, and more of a community-based thing. So culture being a common good of the people of that culture. So how do we protect the data involved in the cultures of these different societies? So that’s one of the things that perhaps is worth noting. And I think to build all of this, you would need digital literacy and public trust. But those are just my thoughts, would be keen to hear as well. Thank you. 

Audience: I’m Paolo from Malawi. I think that looking at the global internet governance platform, and I can speak particularly about ICANN, which has already been mentioned. I’m not speaking in any capacity as of ICANN. I’m from Malawi. I run the country code for Malawi. So I have participated in ICANN activities and IGF activities at both the national and global levels. I think that one of the problems that I see with civil society participation at these levels is how civil society is defined. If you look at ICANN, there are the government constituencies. Everything is based around constituencies. There is the GAC, which is government constituency. There is the Telco constituency in which I participate, the country codes, the generic names organizations, the IP addresses, and so forth. But if you look at the definition of civil society at the ICANN level, it’s not there. You have organizations like At-Large, non-commercial, which are not properly defined as civil society. Academia is in there. And so the civil society constituency is not there. It’s not well defined. And at the ICANN level, if you are not well-defined as a constituency, then your level of participation or empowerment is very low. Basically, you can wander around the ICANN infrastructure or meetings, but your voice will not be heard because you don’t belong to a defined constituency. 

So I think that if one thing that needs to be taken care of for civil society empowerment and participation at ICANN or global levels, there needs to be a properly defined constituency for the participation of civil society where they can be heard. Right now, there isn’t.

Kenneth Harry Msiska: Okay, I come back to our two speakers. There is an additional one online, from Michael from OHCHR. First of all, I think he’s congratulating the CADE Alliance for the studies and also the presentation, but he’s also looking ahead in terms of the Global Digital Compact and he’s saying, you know, this is the next thing that CSOs have to participate in as well as the WSIS plus 20 review. What lessons could be learned from the study to help civil society participate and follow these processes? What would be the minimum in terms of civil society participation in these processes? So you can give it the first shot and then I’ll also pass it around for others to help.

Rosemary Koech-Kimwatu: As I said earlier, if civil society views itself the way traditionally it’s been positioned as a True North, then they need to take the lead in finding out what are the key initiatives, what are the key outcomes, and then being the ones who hold the creative tensions between all stakeholders and helping to manage that. I think it’s a very short answer, but that’s basically it. Civil society plays a role in these systems. The same way we have built, and I keep calling it, the multistakeholder DNA sits in CSOs to tap into that in the next problem and the next problem and the next problem. They’ve already built the muscles for this. They know how to convene. They know how to analyze issues. So whether today it’s global digital compact, next time it’ll be AI, something, something, something. These are the people with the skills. Let’s build their capacity because they’re the only teams that can give you a true feeling of what is it that happens on the ground and then reflect that into a truly global perspective. And that is my short response to that.

Kenneth Harry Msiska: Stephanie?

Stephanie Borg Psaila: Thanks, Kenneth. I’ll reflect on a few comments that our colleagues have made, and I’ll start with Michael from OHCHR. Something basic, I think, that CSOs need to engage, is to understand what is really going on, especially with the parallel processes that we see in terms of the GDC, WSIS, and all the bodies that are being created, the new processes. So there’s a lot going on in 2025. 

So at the least, a basic understanding of what these processes are about. It’s a big thing to understand why, because there’s a lot of confusion. And not many people are able to really see what is, you know, what is happening and what the aim is, and whether things will run in parallel or will converge at some point. But at least, following and using tools out there to understand that is, I would say, a basic premise. I’m going in reverse order to the gentleman from Malawi. You made a good point regarding definitions of CSOs, and I would say the definition even of the technical community has changed, right? Because in the past, the so-called techies were, you know, the guys with the ponytails. 

Today, who is the technical community, right? Swallowed up by the private sector. At the same time, we see a lot of members from the technical communities that fall under the CSO heading. So there is a lot of change, there is a lot of movement. So this is the landscape where we’re operating. And probably, you know, so strict of a definition, it’s probably not the right way to look at it, right? We have to be a little bit more, not flexible, but seeing what the agendas are, right? And it’s basically what those agendas are that tell us, you know, which stakeholder you belong to. So I would invite to see it, I would invite to see things from this perspective. 

The lady also mentioned a good point regarding recognition. This is precisely the aim of the work that we are doing, right? At the end of the work here, and now this is in the context of the project, this is what I can talk about. What we want is for civil society to be recognized as the valuable player that it is, right? Especially from the Global South. 

And in terms of the funding, I can only talk insofar as the funding for this project. It’s co-funded by the European Union, and the reason why there was a mapping was precisely to understand the landscape. What was the definition of CSO? Do we need a definition there? What is the landscape, right? I can, you know, compliment the EU for the way that it has, let’s say, put the call for proposals together, because in reality they, with the help of the EU, we, the partners, are able to do more than just the mapping, right? So the mapping is just the starting point, and in the next two years we will be developing capacity-building programs, but targeting the issues that I mentioned, right? So we’re going granular, and this is, you know, the, let’s say, the key aspect of this project. This is what I think it will differentiate it from other projects, right? We don’t want to tackle issues at the general level. It’s not just about funding. It’s so much more nuanced than that, right? And what we are developing for this specific camp, let’s say, the standard setting space, will probably be the same for other areas. 

Just one final comment, Imad, last but not least, although you asked, you intervened the first. Are diverse issues a barrier? No, because the competition is not between CSOs as such, right? The competition, to be heard, because it’s, if we can frame it as a competition, it’s between private sector and the government, right? It’s as Rosemary said, balancing the two. It’s holding both accountable. The fact that there are various needs, that adds to the strength of civil society, because they can come together, understand that there are needs, but also understand what their bottom line is, right? So from that perspective, it is, I feel it is certainly not a barrier. And I’ll stop there. And I think you want, would like to intervene.

Rosemary Koech-Kimwatu: Yes, especially the question on, is it a barrier? I think the CSOs, if they all came to us with the same issues, they’d not be doing their work. So let each CSO respond to the technical nuances, the local nuances of whatever they are, in order for them to give meaning feedback to the global and regional issues. So it would be, there’s no script in this. It’s all like a play. Everybody gives authenticity of what they feel on the ground. So it is not, it’s not a bad thing. I think they’re actually doing their jobs by covering for the issues. In one country, it could be internet shutdowns. In another country, it can be technology, emerging technology and the impacts. In another one, we all operate in different playing fields, but now the interplay comes now is sharing the next best practice amongst ourselves. 

For example, our democracy is a bit more advanced. This is how we dealt with internet shutdowns. Here’s a playbook. If technology, you’re caught in between tech, you’re caught in between regulatory issues. This is how we dealt with our legislators. For example, I’ll give an example of a current initiative. A very positive impact from regional CSO collaboration from the Kenya IGF to the East Africa IGF. We realized that in East Africa, we have got different data protection laws that you borrowed from Brussels, that’s a union, and the challenge has been, we’re having technical challenges in terms of cross-border data transfer, challenges on business, for example. The issue has been, how then do we convene legislators? 

We came together. We did a training. We trained our legislators on the need of harmonization of data protection laws, so that maybe you can have a unified law one day in East Africa. That’s a positive impact by CSOs. They probably weren’t paid for it, but they came with their passion, and they’re solving the problems. So that’s, I think, who talked about appreciation? That’s the kind of appreciation that needs to come up today. Yeah.

Kenneth Harry Msiska: All right.

Rosemary Koech-Kimwatu: What time do I make the presentation? The kick-start one?

Kenneth Harry Msiska: Oh. We only have five minutes. We only have five minutes, so I’ll give you two and a half.

Rosemary Koech-Kimwatu: Do I get a screen?

Kenneth Harry Msiska: No. That had to be done in advance. 

Rosemary Koech-Kimwatu: So I’ll speak to it. Some has been mentioned. Okay. Some has been mentioned. A bit has not. What does the face of African participation look like? It looks like complexity. And that is very honest. You mentioned it. We mentioned it. But you realize that there’s a complex interplay of both opportunities, challenges, and outcomes. And the research that we did at CADE actually just showed a few things. 

First and foremost is that there’s an uneven playing field. For example, as an African, try apply for a visa if you’re going physically to go somewhere. Compared to somebody maybe in the states who wakes up and the next day they can book a flight. It’s not like that in my country. For example, if it’s in Spain, I need a few months to plan. So you can’t call me tomorrow and say there’s a meeting next week, come to Spain, unless I had a Schengen visa before. Those are some of the complexities that are there. So it’s actually an uneven playing field, both in terms of best practice forums, policy networks, dynamic coalitions. 

But we have shown significant engagement, especially in regional and national initiatives. We’ve had 36 national and 7 regional initiatives that exist across Africa. And I think kudos. But global participation remains uneven. And accessibility is a key issue. However, there’s some light at the end of the tunnel. I guess post-COVID, we learned to work with what we have, hybrid. Some of us are here, many of us are online. That has been a great win. Hi, guys. Yeah, we’re in the same meeting. So post-COVID, that has been good. We also learned lessons on youth initiatives. For example, we had youth representation from all over East Africa at the East Africa IGF, where we sponsored young people to come and we put them in buses. We couldn’t do flights, but we put them in buses and you accommodate one thing. And they’re so excited to participate. 

We engaged in sideline meetings, teaching them about the IGF process, what it means for them. And an amazing thing is that we’ve seen that the best tech policy talent comes from the CSOs, whether they work for GIZ, Access Kenya – and sometimes we almost feel like we’re a pipeline for talent. Our biggest issue is retention, because after two years, we can’t afford them. Speak to them, even in private sector. The heads of data protection in the largest corporation, where did they come from? The CSOs. 

We’re building a… My two minutes are done. Almost. Almost done. Yeah, 30 seconds. And, of course, post-COVID was hybrid. And then, of course, I’ve mentioned the barriers. And, of course, participation is necessary. So what are the recommendations? We need to strengthen institutional support, increase funding for them, capacity. If it’s travel, if it’s digital, whatever, which way it goes. Increase capacity building, expand youth-focused initiatives, promote inclusivity, and we leverage on digital tools. 

But importantly, I’ll challenge back: How much investment is happening to build the capacity of the CSOs to respond to the future. They came in in very low economies, and the power imbalances are increasing. As big tech grows stronger in those markets, as governments become more powerful, there’s a need to continue supporting those CSOs. There’s only so far passion can take you, and we need to build frameworks. And we can’t have a situation where we have new entities coming into the IGF space and receiving most of the funding, and you complain that these small CSOs are still who they are. They’ve done this for 20-plus years. They have the DNA. Let’s support them, and let’s grow them.

Kenneth Harry Msiska: Thank you. All right. So just a quick recap. I’ve been shown the time. We have two minutes. So I think things that actually garner traction here, we need to use the convening power. There is need for research, and also for the funders to actually accommodate that, so that our advocacy is evidence-based. Then we also need to strengthen regional collaborations among CSOs, so that we’re able to move as a group. 

But there is also a need to define CSOs within these platforms that we engage with, especially at ICANN. Then I think there is also an agreement to say much stakeholderism DNA resides in the CSOs, and there is need to actually make sure that we maximize this. But we must also, as CSOs, we must also be proactive to invite ourselves to the table when we are not invited. I think these are some of the issues that I can quickly summarize. 

But in terms of continuing to hear from you, you can actually scan that QR code and give us feedback in terms of the mapping study or the discussions that we may not have covered today. Once again, I would like to thank you all for joining us, both online as well as in this room. Thank you to our speakers, Stephanie from Diplo and Rosemary from KICTANet. I was supported by Patricia from CIPESA, who is our rapporteur, and then Nipunika from Sarvodaya Fusion, who was our online moderator. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you.

Agreement Points

Financial constraints limit CSO participation

Stephanie Borg Psaila

Nana Wachako

Rosemary Koech-Kimwatu

Financial constraints limit participation, especially from Global South

Lack of technical capacity to engage effectively on certain topics

Need to strengthen institutional support for CSOs

Multiple speakers highlighted that financial constraints significantly limit CSO participation, especially from the Global South, affecting their ability to engage effectively and maintain technical capacity.

Importance of research and capacity building

Rosemary Koech-Kimwatu

Nana Wachako

Conduct research to become a trusted source for policymaking

Provide unrestricted funding for research and upskilling

Speakers emphasized the need for CSOs to conduct research and build capacity to effectively engage in policymaking and technical discussions.

Leveraging digital tools and hybrid formats

Kenneth Harry Msiska

Rosemary Koech-Kimwatu

Leverage digital tools and hybrid formats for increased accessibility

CSOs act as observers and offer next best practices

Speakers agreed on the importance of using digital tools and hybrid meeting formats to increase accessibility and participation, especially for CSOs from the Global South.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers highlighted the crucial role of CSOs in balancing interests and providing valuable perspectives in Internet governance processes.

Stephanie Borg Psaila

Rosemary Koech-Kimwatu

CSOs hold other stakeholders accountable and balance interests

CSOs act as observers and offer next best practices

These speakers emphasized the importance of CSOs in bringing grassroots perspectives to global discussions and building partnerships among various stakeholders.

Rosemary Koech-Kimwatu

Audience

Develop convening power and build trusted partnerships

CSOs bring grassroots perspectives to global discussions

Unexpected Consensus

CSOs as a talent pipeline for tech policy

Rosemary Koech-Kimwatu

Nana Wachako

CSOs are a pipeline for tech policy talent

Lack of technical capacity to engage effectively on certain topics

While discussing challenges faced by CSOs, there was an unexpected consensus on CSOs serving as a talent pipeline for tech policy, despite facing challenges in retaining technical expertise due to financial constraints.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement centered around financial constraints limiting CSO participation, the importance of research and capacity building, and the need to leverage digital tools for increased accessibility. There was also consensus on the crucial role of CSOs in bringing grassroots perspectives and balancing interests in Internet governance processes.

Consensus level

There was a moderate to high level of consensus among the speakers on the key challenges faced by CSOs and potential strategies to enhance their participation. This consensus suggests a shared understanding of the issues at hand and potential pathways for improvement, which could lead to more coordinated efforts to address these challenges in Internet governance processes.

Different Viewpoints

Definition and role of CSOs in governance bodies

Stephanie Borg Psaila

Audience

CSOs hold other stakeholders accountable and balance interests

Need for better definition of CSO constituency in governance bodies

While Stephanie emphasizes the role of CSOs in balancing interests and holding stakeholders accountable, an audience member points out the lack of clear definition for CSOs in governance bodies, particularly ICANN, which limits their effectiveness.

Unexpected Differences

Diversity of CSO interests as a barrier or strength

Stephanie Borg Psaila

Rosemary Koech-Kimwatu

CSOs hold other stakeholders accountable and balance interests

CSOs act as observers and offer next best practices

While Stephanie views the diversity of CSO interests as a strength for balancing stakeholder interests, Rosemary unexpectedly frames it as a unique position for offering ‘next best practices’, suggesting a slightly different perspective on how diversity of interests contributes to CSO effectiveness.

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement revolve around the definition and role of CSOs in governance bodies, approaches to research and capacity building, and the implications of diverse CSO interests.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among speakers is relatively low, with more emphasis on complementary perspectives rather than outright contradictions. This suggests a generally aligned view on the challenges and potential solutions for CSO participation in Internet governance, with nuanced differences in approach and emphasis.

Partial Agreements

Both speakers agree on the importance of research for CSOs, but they differ on how to achieve it. Rosemary emphasizes conducting research to become a trusted source, while Nana focuses on the need for unrestricted funding to enable research and upskilling.

Rosemary Koech-Kimwatu

Nana Wachako

Conduct research to become a trusted source for policymaking

Provide unrestricted funding for research and upskilling

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers highlighted the crucial role of CSOs in balancing interests and providing valuable perspectives in Internet governance processes.

Stephanie Borg Psaila

Rosemary Koech-Kimwatu

CSOs hold other stakeholders accountable and balance interests

CSOs act as observers and offer next best practices

These speakers emphasized the importance of CSOs in bringing grassroots perspectives to global discussions and building partnerships among various stakeholders.

Rosemary Koech-Kimwatu

Audience

Develop convening power and build trusted partnerships

CSOs bring grassroots perspectives to global discussions

Key Takeaways

CSOs face significant barriers to participation in Internet governance, including lack of inclusivity, financial constraints, and technical capacity gaps.

Strategies to enhance CSO participation include developing convening power, conducting research, strengthening regional collaborations, and leveraging local knowledge.

CSOs play a crucial role in amplifying marginalized voices, promoting digital inclusion, and balancing interests of different stakeholders.

There is a need for better definition and recognition of CSOs within governance structures.

Funding models need to be improved to provide more unrestricted and capacity-building support for CSOs.

Resolutions and Action Items

CSOs should proactively invite themselves to governance discussions when not invited.

Funders should accommodate research funding in their support to CSOs to enable evidence-based advocacy.

Efforts should be made to strengthen regional collaborations among CSOs.

Governance bodies should work on better defining the CSO constituency within their structures.

Unresolved Issues

How to address the power imbalance between CSOs and other stakeholders like big tech and governments

Specific mechanisms for improving visa processes and travel support for Global South participants

How to retain talent within CSOs given limited financial resources

Ways to harmonize diverse CSO interests and priorities in governance processes

Suggested Compromises

Adopting hybrid meeting formats to increase accessibility for those facing travel barriers

Leveraging digital tools and technologies to enable broader CSO participation

Balancing support between established CSOs with experience and new entities entering the governance space

CSOs see this as a very much stakeholder platform as compared to ITU, which is matriarchal.

speaker

Kenneth Harry Msiska

reason

This comment highlights a key difference between governance bodies and their openness to civil society participation.

impact

It led to further discussion of the unique challenges and opportunities for CSO engagement in different forums.

How then do you engage, if it’s subject matter experts, if it’s academia, if it’s government, how then do you become a convener? And it’s actually the key skill that becomes a convener that can be trusted, a convener that is able to go several miles ahead in order to build an ecosystem that then creates a flow of information that is useful, right from the grassroots level up to the global level.

speaker

Rosemary Koech-Kimwatu

reason

This insight emphasizes the critical role of CSOs as conveners and bridge-builders between different stakeholders and levels of governance.

impact

It shifted the discussion towards practical strategies for CSOs to enhance their influence and effectiveness.

So within the ICANN structure, if you look at the leadership, there is at least half of the leadership roles are taken up by the private sector, right? So this is a problem, obviously, but not only that, the baseline study that we carried out, the interviews with the experts, the respondents also felt that there are silos within the ICANN structure that is a recurring problem.

speaker

Stephanie Borg Psaila

reason

This comment provides specific data on power imbalances within ICANN and highlights structural issues limiting CSO influence.

impact

It deepened the analysis of barriers to CSO participation and led to discussion of potential reforms.

Is there a space for civil society organizations to unify in requesting for unrestricted funding for the core issues, for research, for upskilling?

speaker

Nana Wachako

reason

This question raises an important point about funding constraints on CSOs and potential strategies to address them.

impact

It sparked discussion about funding models and capacity building needs for CSOs.

I think that one of the problems that I see with civil society participation at these levels is how civil society is defined. If you look at ICANN, there is the government constituencies. Everything is based around constituencies. There is the GAC, which is government constituency. There is the Tegelco constituency in which I participate, the country codes, the generic names organizations, the IP addresses, and so forth. But if you look at the definition of civil society at ICANN level, it’s not there.

speaker

Paolo from Malawi

reason

This comment highlights a fundamental issue with how CSOs are (or aren’t) formally recognized within governance structures.

impact

It led to discussion about the need to better define and formalize CSO roles in Internet governance bodies.

We need to strengthen institutional support, increase funding for them, capacity. If it’s travel, if it’s digital, whatever, which way it goes. Increase capacity building, expand youth-focused initiatives, promote inclusivity, and we leverage on digital tools. But importantly, I’ll challenge back how much investment is happening to build the capacity of the CSOs to respond to the future.

speaker

Rosemary Koech-Kimwatu

reason

This comment synthesizes key recommendations for enhancing CSO participation and influence.

impact

It provided a framework for concrete actions and next steps to address the challenges discussed.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by progressively deepening the analysis of barriers to CSO participation in Internet governance, moving from broad structural issues to specific challenges within governance bodies, funding constraints, and definitional problems. The comments also shifted the conversation towards practical strategies and recommendations for enhancing CSO influence, emphasizing the unique role of CSOs as conveners and bridge-builders. The discussion evolved from identifying problems to proposing solutions, with a particular focus on capacity building, funding models, and formal recognition of CSOs within governance structures.

How can civil society organizations unify in requesting unrestricted funding for core issues, research, and upskilling?

speaker

Nana Wachako

explanation

This is important to address the financial constraints CSOs face in building technical capacity and engaging in research to participate effectively in digital governance processes.

How can the process for CSOs to apply for grants be simplified and made less burdensome?

speaker

Pratishtha

explanation

This is crucial to reduce barriers for CSOs, especially from developing nations, to access funding and support their work.

How can regional collaborations be strengthened to increase voting power and capacity to influence policy on an international level?

speaker

Audience member (unnamed)

explanation

This could help amplify the voices of CSOs from underrepresented regions in global digital governance processes.

How can local knowledge and community-based perspectives be better incorporated into digital governance principles and policies?

speaker

Audience member (unnamed)

explanation

This is important to ensure that policies reflect diverse cultural perspectives, not just Western approaches.

How can civil society be better defined and given a proper constituency within ICANN’s structure?

speaker

Paolo

explanation

This is crucial for improving civil society’s voice and influence within ICANN processes.

What lessons from the CARDI study can be applied to help civil society participate in the Global Digital Compact and WSIS+20 review processes?

speaker

Michael from OHCHR

explanation

This is important for ensuring effective civil society engagement in upcoming major global digital governance initiatives.

How can we build frameworks to continue supporting established CSOs in the face of increasing power imbalances with big tech and governments?

speaker

Rosemary Koech-Kimwatu

explanation

This is crucial for maintaining the role of experienced CSOs in balancing different stakeholder interests in digital governance.

Summary

This Parliamentary Roundtable at IGF 2024 focused on the role of parliaments in shaping global digital governance frameworks. Participants from various countries discussed challenges and opportunities in digital transformation, emphasizing the need for international cooperation and inclusive policies.

Key themes included bridging the digital divide, addressing cybersecurity threats, and balancing innovation with regulation. Speakers highlighted the importance of digital literacy, data privacy, and equitable access to digital resources. Many stressed the need for parliaments to keep pace with rapidly evolving technologies and to foster collaboration between government, private sector, and civil society.

Specific national initiatives were shared, such as Armenia’s focus on digital innovation, Pakistan’s efforts to support its IT industry and freelancers, and Norway’s commitment to an open and secure internet. Challenges like uneven digital adoption, cybersecurity risks, and the need for comprehensive data protection laws were discussed.

Participants agreed on the importance of capacity building for parliamentarians and creating mechanisms for knowledge sharing and collaboration. The multi-stakeholder model of internet governance was emphasized as crucial for addressing global digital challenges.

The discussion concluded with calls for actionable outcomes, including the creation of international parliamentary networks focused on digital governance, youth engagement in policymaking, and the development of regulatory frameworks that prioritize human rights and dignity in technological advancement. The upcoming IGF 2025 in Norway was highlighted as an opportunity to further these goals and strengthen global cooperation in digital governance.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– The role of parliaments in shaping international digital governance frameworks

– Challenges faced by parliaments in contributing to global digital governance, such as cybersecurity threats and the digital divide

– Strategies for fostering collaboration between parliaments, governments, and other stakeholders on digital issues

– The importance of digital infrastructure and connectivity for economic development

– Balancing innovation with regulation and data privacy concerns

The overall purpose of this discussion was to explore how parliaments can effectively contribute to and shape global digital governance frameworks, while addressing challenges and fostering collaboration across borders.

The tone of the discussion was largely constructive and forward-looking. Participants shared insights from their countries’ experiences and emphasized the importance of international cooperation. There was a sense of shared purpose in addressing common challenges, despite differences in national contexts. The tone became more action-oriented towards the end as participants discussed specific steps parliaments could take to strengthen collaboration.

Speakers

– Hakob Arshakyan: Vice President of the National Assembly of the Republic of Armenia, focusing on Armenia’s role in advancing regional digital innovation

– Palwasha Mohammad Zai Khan: Senator from Pakistan, Chairperson of the Standing Committee on Information Technology of the Senate, focusing on South Asia digital governance challenges

– Sigbjørn Gjelsvik: Member of parliament from Norway, emphasizing global data privacy and cybersecurity

– Maria Elago: Member of parliament from Namibia, leader in advancing Africa’s digital transformation strategy

– Pamela Calletti: Member of parliament from Argentina

– Issa Al-Otaibi: Member of the Shura Council from Saudi Arabia, Chairman of the Transportation, Communication, and Information Technology Committee

– Najwa Alghamdi: Moderator

Additional speakers:

– Yusuf: Mentioned but not identified further

Parliamentary Roundtable on Digital Governance at IGF 2024

This Parliamentary Roundtable at the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) 2024 brought together parliamentarians from various countries to discuss the role of parliaments in shaping global digital governance frameworks. The discussion highlighted national initiatives, challenges, and the importance of international cooperation in addressing digital transformation.

Key Themes and Country Perspectives:

1. Armenia (Hakob Arshakyan)

– Emphasized the importance of harmonizing legislation across borders

– Introduced Armenia’s “Crossroads of Peace” initiative to open blocked roads and railways, connecting East with West and North with South

– Highlighted Armenia’s efforts in digitalization, including the creation of digital public services and a unified platform for government agencies

2. Norway (Sigbjørn Gjelsvik)

– Stressed the need for creating inclusive and secure digital policies

– Emphasized Norway’s commitment to an open and accessible internet

– Announced that Norway will host the next Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in June 2025

3. Namibia (Maria Elago)

– Highlighted the need to address the digital divide and infrastructure challenges, particularly in rural areas

– Discussed Namibia’s digital transformation strategy, focusing on improving connectivity and digital literacy

– Emphasized the importance of making digital information accessible and understandable in local languages

4. Saudi Arabia (Issa Al-Otaibi)

– Discussed the importance of balancing innovation with governance

– Highlighted Saudi Arabia’s initiatives in digital governance, including investments in AI and smart cities

– Emphasized the need for capacity building and technical expertise among legislators

5. Argentina (Pamela Calletti)

– Emphasized ensuring human-centered technology regulation

– Discussed Argentina’s perspective on digital governance, focusing on protecting human rights in the digital space

– Highlighted the importance of addressing disinformation and manipulation of information

6. Pakistan (Palwasha Mohammad Zai Khan)

– Focused on empowering youth in digital transformation

– Discussed Pakistan’s cybersecurity challenges and efforts to strengthen digital infrastructure

– Emphasized the need for regional cooperation in addressing digital governance issues

Common Themes and Challenges:

1. International Collaboration: All speakers emphasized the importance of international cooperation in addressing digital governance challenges, including participating in global forums, establishing regional cooperation frameworks, and harmonizing regulations across countries.

2. Digital Divide: Many speakers, particularly from developing countries, highlighted the need to bridge the digital divide and improve infrastructure in rural areas.

3. Cybersecurity and Data Privacy: Speakers discussed the importance of addressing cybersecurity threats and ensuring data privacy in the digital age.

4. Youth Engagement: Several speakers emphasized the crucial role of youth in driving digital transformation and the need to involve them in shaping digital policies.

5. Capacity Building: Participants highlighted the need for technical expertise among legislators and capacity building programs for parliamentarians on digital issues.

6. Balancing Innovation and Regulation: Speakers discussed the challenge of fostering innovation while ensuring appropriate regulation and protection of rights in the digital space.

Conclusion:

The Parliamentary Roundtable at IGF 2024 provided a platform for diverse perspectives on digital governance, highlighting both shared challenges and unique national contexts. The discussion emphasized the critical role of parliaments in shaping the future of digital governance and the importance of international cooperation in addressing global digital challenges. As countries continue to navigate the complexities of digital transformation, collaboration and knowledge-sharing among parliamentarians will be crucial in developing effective and inclusive digital governance frameworks.

Najwa Alghmad: Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to the Parliamentary Roundtable, an essential part of IGF 2024. A powerful collective force for change, and a champion for a prosperous global digital future. It’s the theme for today that resonates as we stand at the crossroad of rapidly evolving digital landscape. transform nearly every aspect of our lives, connecting people, cultures, and economies. However, these advancements also present challenges that transcend borders, such as data privacy, cybersecurity, and equitable access to digital resources. Accessing these requires strong legislative frameworks and international cooperation. Today’s session will explore how parliaments can harmonize efforts to address digitalization challenges and maximize its benefits. We are joined today by distinguished parliamentarians who bring unique perspectives shaped by their regional expertise. Let me introduce our esteemed panelist. His Excellency Hakob Arshakyan, the Vice President of the National Assembly of the Republic of Armenia, focusing on Armenia’s role in advancing regional digital innovation. Mrs. Pulvasa Zeykhan, a senator from Pakistan focusing on South Asia digital governance challenges. She is the Chairperson of the Standing Committee on Information Technology of the Senate. Honorable Mr. Sigbjorn Jelsvik, a member of the parliament from Norway, emphasizing global data privacy and cybersecurity. Honorable Maria Ilago, a member of the parliament from Namibia, a leader in advancing Africa’s digital transformation strategy. Dr. Issa El-Ateibi, a member of the Shura Council from Saudi Arabia. He is the Chairman of the Transportation, Communication, and Information Technology Committee. Last but not least, Mrs. Pamela Calletti , she is a member of the parliament from Argentina. We have many pillars today to discuss, and we will dive deep into the first pillar, that it is basically focusing on how we could use digitalization to expand across borders. We will dive deep into the role that should Parliaments play in shaping the international digital governance frameworks. Starting with you, Yusuf, you have a lot of experience in international digital governance frameworks. Starting with you, your Excellency, Mr. Heikob Arshakian, so Armenia has made advancement in regional digital innovation. How can Armenia’s Parliament leverage its advancement to foster stronger cooperation within its international scope?

Hakob Arshakyan: Thank you. First of all, I would like to thank for this invite, and it is great to be here in this excellent, great environment in the country, and of course it is a very beautiful palace. Thanks for the question, it’s very important. I think Armenia has done significant steps in its recent history on growing high-tech sector, which is very much connected to the connectivity and Internet and digital infrastructure. We have got more than 50,000 employees in Armenia, who are making more than 7% of the GDP of the country. Different international companies, local companies, start-ups, some of them are unicorns, more than $1 billion valuation companies, and they are contributing very much to the industry, as well as to the infrastructure and governance system itself and the policy also. Because, for example, we have an Internet Governance Council, which includes Parliament members, includes people from Ministry, it is headed by the Vice-Minister for High-Tech Industry, and there are organizations, telecommunication operators, and different other NGOs, including the regulatory members, who are together influencing the policies of the Internet governance itself. Because sometimes we face the challenge of the lack of knowledge, both in the government or in the Parliament, because of the very rapid growth of the technology itself. So Armenia wants to share its knowledge in different ways. This is one of the ways, of course, in participation of… kind of valuable conferences. Another way is, of course, creating the frameworks that we already have as examples and sharing that with our partners. For example, we have in the IPU, International Parliamentary Union, there is a science and technology working group. I am trying to contribute also in the framework of these working groups, as well as different international organizations. I think the digital excellency and digital agenda is the thing that no only country can survive or have a success, because it’s interconnectivity the first. In cyber security, in artificial intelligence, in blockchain technologies, if we don’t shape our policies, we will become very much localized, which is not bringing to a growth. So we should be more of an internationalized. Of course, there are some other questions that are arising, for example, a digital sovereignty. When we move to that direction, however, there is no other way of having a balance, the right balance, to be open and to be protected and to be integrated and also to have a digital sovereignty. So we are open for cooperation and we are thankful for the other countries and states for sharing their experience. Thank you so much.

Najwa Alghmad: That’s indeed a huge stride, I would say, in digital innovation, Your Excellency. Moving to you, Mrs. Bulbasheh. So given Pakistan’s efforts to implement its digital Pakistan vision and the challenges of regulatory fragmentation. in South Asia, how can Pakistan parliament lead in fostering regional digital cooperation?

Palwasha Mohammad Zai Khan: Thank you very much. I’d once again like to thank IGF and the Shura Council for giving us this opportunity. So see, I personally believe that all of us are sitting here, some are from the developing world and some are from the less developed world. Each of us have our own particular environments and no two environments are the same. Each of us have our own pace in this march towards connectivity and digital revolution and our pace is shaped by our circumstances and when I say circumstances, I mean all of us are politically different, all of us are culturally different, we are economically at different places and so we have our challenges. So we are not going to march at the same pace together but of course, even standing where Pakistan is standing today, I call it a success story because Pakistan is generally a youthful country. More than 60% of the population are below 30s, 30 years of age, so that’s a huge something that helps us go ahead with this revolution and I’d like to praise the young people. I’ve met so many who have come here on their own yesterday and I was surprised to see the number of people, the number of youngsters who have come here on their own and they’re here spending their own money and trying to be a part of this very important conference. So that really surprised me although I am the chairperson of the Senate Standing Committee on Information Technology and I keep hearing but seeing them here at this global forum, now I realize that this is our success story, this 60% of population that is young and open to ideas and very tech-savvy is our future. And I would also like to say that in Pakistan, perhaps the government has not supported the IT industry as it should have because of course we have our economic problems, we have our security problems, we have a host of problems. But this… this revolution has been led by the youth of Pakistan. And they have done it by their own efforts. And the main force in leading this revolution is their own hard work. They’re reaching out to the rest of the world. And by dint of merit and their hard work, they have managed to create a vibrant IT industry in Pakistan where we have a huge number of freelancers who make their living by pursuing different projects worldwide. And that makes me very proud to say that these people have penetrated the global IT industry. There are many who are working everywhere in the world. There are many who are working in Pakistan, but there are many who are a part of the global IT revolution. I’d also like to say that this is purely by dint of merit and determination. And we are very optimistic that we will convert, because a young population is a plus point, is a human resource that we have. And we are going to make the best use of it. And they are the ones who are going to drive this story of prosperity. I’d like to mention that we’re the fourth largest, we have the fourth largest number of freelancers in the world today. And believe me, we have to do more for them. We try and do, the government tries and, you know, they’re trying to do more, make policies, which I’ll come back to later. But they are themselves, you know, the credit goes to the young people of Pakistan. And I think it’s a great success story. This is where the parliament is trying to step in, will step in to ensure that we do whatever we can do to make this, you know, go many steps ahead.

Najwa Alghmad: Wonderful. I just wanted to echo what you’ve said, how youth are really the driving force. And this is what we have seen in Saudi, where youth is the cornerstone of the Vision 2030 transformation in Saudi Arabia. Moving to you, Mr. Yalcific, we’d like to hear more about the role of the parliament in your country in shaping the international digital governance frameworks.

Sigbjon Gjelsvik: Well, Thank you so much, Excellencies and distinguished colleagues, it’s an honour to be here. In our interconnected world, parliaments play a key role in shaping digital governance. We must ensure digital policies are inclusive, secure and beneficial for all. In Norway, we have seen the benefits of strong digital policies. These policies promote inclusivity and security. We aim to create a legislative environment that encourages innovation while protecting rights and privacy. However, the spread of social media and breakthroughs in artificial intelligence have made it possible to spread this information faster and to more people than before. This has increased international security challenges. Norway believes the internet should remain open and accessible. We are committed to supporting the Global Digital Compact, with the goal of connecting all people to the internet. This will require significant investment from governments and stakeholders, especially the private sector. However, we must also ensure that everyone can use the internet meaningfully and safely. The Internet Governance Forum is crucial for maintaining a universal, free and secure internet. It must continue as a bottom-up, multi-stakeholder platform for dialogue on internet policy issues. Promoting diversity in IGF participation is essential, and Norway will encourage broad participation in next year’s IGF. IGF in Norway. We are committed to working against internet shutdowns and protecting the right to information and freedom of speech. Human rights are important to protect and promote both online and in our physical world. We will continue to work with partners and the IGF against all forms of online violence in accordance with international standards and human rights law. Last year I led the Norwegian delegation to IGF in Japan as Norway’s minister for digital policy. We work to promote an open global and free internet, emphasizing the importance of avoiding state regulations that hinders development and innovation. It’s a pleasure to continue my participation here in Riyadh as a member of Parliament this year and I look forward to contributing to next year’s IGF which Norway will host in June 2025. Thank you

Najwa Alghmad: Solange. Wonderful, indeed Norway is providing really an exemplary, I would say it’s an exemplary leader and especially in the data governance, cyber security and data security as well. It’s nice to hear all of these stories. Moving to Maria, so Namibia plays a crucial role in advancing Africa’s digital transformation strategy. How can Namibia Parliament ensure its national ICT goals align with border regional efforts?

Maria Ilago: Thank you very much for the opportunity and I would like to thank the IGF organizers for inviting me. I feel honored to be here. Parliament are more than policymakers, they are the architect of a fair, inclusive and secure digital future. Namibia has already taken impressive steps forward, providing that progress does not always require massive population, it requires clear vision and action. Take Namibia’s access to information at number eight of 2022, it’s a big step forward towards transparency and empowering citizens with the tools to make informed decision. But here, here is the thing. Access alone is not enough. Digital information must be clear, understandable, and available in languages that resonate with people. Otherwise, it is like giving someone the key to a library, but the books are written in a language they don’t speak. Namibia’s digital strategy aligns well with regional and global priorities. Look at Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030, which balances innovation with governance. Namibia is already on this path, focused on expanding information and communication technology. ICT access, creating digital job opportunities, and supporting e-governance. The challenge now is accelerating this momentum through strong policies that make sure no one gets left behind. Most importantly, Namibia must continue to claim its seat on global platforms like the United Nations Digital Forum and the Southern Africa Development Community, SADC. The population size does not define leadership vision. Reforming governance in the digital age isn’t easy. But Namibia is showing that with determination, it is absolutely achievable. I thank you.

Najwa Alghmad: Thank you so much, Honourable Maria. And it’s really great to hear all of these advances. Moving to Dr. Issa. And with Saudi Arabia leadership in digital… digital governance, and global forums like G20. How can the Shura Council support the international efforts to create equitable digital frameworks?

Issa Al-Otaibi: Thank you so much, Dr. Najwa, for moderating this important session, and it’s a pleasure to join this panel, and I would like to extend my warm welcoming to everyone here to be in Saudi Arabia. Now to address your question, actually, Najwa, our Shura Council has a shared responsibility to ensure that digital transformation benefits everyone, not just for a specific region or for specific groups. Therefore, the question becomes, how do we achieve that? Well, the first step is to recognize that digitalization is a global movement. This means that no single nation can manage its opportunities or its challenges alone. Why? Because it has reflected on all of us worldwide. Here in Saudi Arabia, we have been involved in the past couple of years in efforts such as the G20 Digital Economy Working Group, which has been working on issues such as AI, ethics, and digital taxation. Secondly, our Shura Council needs to continue to actively engage in shaping international digital governance framework. And we can harmonize legislation across borders to create compatible data privacy, and data protection, and cybersecurity standards. Another role for our Shura Council could be to ensure more inclusivity. This means providing better access to digital transformation and digital infrastructure in underserved regions within and across different countries. As we lawmakers, we can actually allocate essential resources to better prioritize investment in general. Also, the Shura Council should be better in protecting against the future impact of emerging technology by adopting legislation for that reason. Finally, I would just like to say that in doing so, our Shura Council can continue to serve as a bridge between government, civil society, and private sector and international bodies in the shaping of international digital government framework in the future. Thank you so much.

Najwa Alghmad: Thank you so much, Dr. Issa. And I can also reflect on what you are saying, because we’ve seen it on a daily basis, all these governance kind of activities that we are facing or living in Saudi, including the personal data law, PDBL. There is the NDMO regulations. There is the ethical guidelines for performing AI, which is something that’s been implemented in both private and public sectors. So this is really a reality that we are facing on a daily basis. And thank you so much for your input. Moving to you, Mrs. Kayiti, Argentina’s focus on digital governance and regional collaboration is critical for Latin America. What role should the Argentinian parliament play in strengthening the cross-border digital policies?

Pamela Calletti : Good afternoon. Well, I’m Argentinian, so I’m going to speak in Spanish. So, in a world that we can consider traditional cooperation between regions is inevitable when we talk about the digital world, where the interconnectivity is essentially in the DNA of cooperation. We cannot imagine not having cross-border cooperation, right? But let me clarify that when we talk about the digital world and the real world, definitely there’s only one reality, it’s just the two sides of one coin. And today, virtuality is reality. And this is not a difference that’s just intellectual, but it has factual implications because it indeed implies that the human is the beginning, the end, and the center of every single one of our actions, regardless of which stage of this human life is moving in or the human rights of this person. So, in this way, the world we call traditional or historical interrupts or disrupts technologies. It implies a transition that’s natural in humanity. Let’s consider the scientific revolution like Galileo Galilei, Copernicus, Newton. Imagine the disruption they had in the status quo in the social relationships in the economy and the cultural revolution that the Renaissance implied, for example, where they had an anthropocentric vision where human was the axis of everything that existed. The industrial revolution, imagine the gap that was created when there was Because industrial revolution in gender, in the difference between rural and the urban, the way people related to each other, the revolution now in technology and communication as well, radio, the internet, television, and now we’re talking about the digital revolution. So we mean with this crypto, AI, quantum computing, and we shouldn’t lose sight that all these technologies are tools that should benefit humanity. So what’s the role we can have as parliamentaries? I believe in first place we should reduce the drama in the situation. This is just something normal that humanity has been through so many times, like as I said in the industrial revolution, or any other of these historical moments, and we all came through. So remember the human, the person, it should be always at the center. So let’s lose all prejudice, all fear, and the biased interest in this, and understand that all these challenges are going to be faced in a collaborative manner. The private sector, CSOs, the parliamentaries, and the scientific community, the academia, the technical community, and the citizens. Since we were kids, and let’s say the history of humanity in the traditional way, we learned to be citizens in this traditional world. However, nowadays, all of us beyond our citizenship, regardless if we are Argentinian, Arab, Norwegian, we are digital citizens, inside and outside. So there’s a big role in education, so I believe that parliamentaries, first of all, should lose this prejudice because we are lawmakers, we create regulations, and we have an advantage, which is that we can create new laws that create rights and obligations. The limitation, though, is the territorial aspect, so that’s a challenge for us as lawmakers, the cooperation at local, regional, and international levels. At the end, as lawmakers, we shouldn’t forget that when we create a law or a rule, it has an advantage, it has different possibilities to create public measures, but it also takes time to create these laws, and technologies are advancing so fast that when we are trying to create frameworks and legal environments, we shouldn’t forget that we have to keep in mind the logic of the technologies that we are trying to regulate.

Najwa Alghmad: I really like what you’re saying, that all these regulations need to be human-centered at the end because we are all just a citizen at the end. Moving to the next, so we covered the first pillar, and we really have these great insights by our great panelists. Let’s move to the second pillar, which was we’ll dive deep into the challenges that the parliament face in actively contributing to the global digital governance frameworks. I will start with Your Excellency, Mr. Arkashian. Armenia works to expand and enhance its digital infrastructure environment. What do you think the Armenian plans in supporting the extension of that infrastructure to enable the international connectivity?

Hakob Arshakyan: Thank you. First, I would like to reflect to what my colleague from Argentina just said about drama. I believe every industrial revolution brought drama with it, starting from the engines to the electricity and then to the internet, and now AI. The humanity should grow, and the technology will grow. We want it or not, but we should grow further, and of course, and drama comes with a lack of information or lack of knowledge, but we should not be afraid of being more digitalized or more smart and use more technologies. I think it creates more opportunities for every one of us, and especially for the future generations to have more access to the health, to the information, as my colleague from Norway said, and be more free, have more rights. So, coming to the infrastructure, thanks for the questions. Armenia has been a long time, been at a close border with the neighbor of Azerbaijan and now the neighbor of Turkey. So, now we have a new initiative, the Armenian government, which is called Crossroads of Peace. So, in that concept, our proposal is to open all the roads and the railways that are blocked right now, and also include the connectivity pipelines, if we may say, which will connect east with the west and the north with the south. Right now, there are large infrastructural projects happening in Armenia, and we think that connectivity and infrastructure will bring prosperity, as well as will bring stability and peace among all the countries. Also, it will connect the international capacities with each other, the countries in the larger region, so they will have also their attention to our region. So, this is the new… and large initiatives which I would like to also call our international partners to support and to also contribute, maybe have their businesses there as it is it those are infrastructures that will also bring health and prosperity to the people and to the businesses as well. Another part of the connectivity projects is of course satellite communications and which we already allocated the frequencies and gave the licenses to the private sector so they can organize also satellite communication, internet communication and it was, I very much agree with a friend, colleague from Norway when he said about freedom of speech but I would like to also add the digitization process helps the transparency of the bureaucracy of the countries and it also helps prevention of the corruption and doing business in the indexes rises with also a free internet and the free connectivity and I think when my colleague from Pakistan said that many people are working through the internet and having their money as a freelancer, why do they do that? Because you provide them free internet as well as you give them the public policy that gives them enough transparency and less bureaucracy to make their business in a right way and this direction is also familiar for Armenia, we just adopted a law that gives privilege to the freelancers for just one percent of the revenue fee as a tax and that’s it so it’s very easy, you make your money, you pay one percent to the government and that’s it and with one click and the tax system, taxation system is all digitalized, every business enjoys it and of course the risk prevention is also artificial intelligence based so it also helps the government to be transparent and free of corruption. Thank you.

Najwa Alghmad: Thank you so much indeed, prosperous infrastructure will definitely boost the digital economy, I will 100% agree with you. Moving to Mrs. Bilbasha, so given Pakistan’s effort to implement its digital Pakistan vision and the challenges in regulatory, apologies I’m just repeating the question but let me rephrase it again, so Pakistan challenges such as an uneven digital adoption and cybersecurity threats. How can the Parliament address these obstacles to strengthen its role in global governance?

Palwasha Mohammad Zai Khan: Thank you, maybe I was not very clear but I still feel what I said in the beginning is a base on which I will now make my argument. Pakistan faces a number of challenges in this digital age and how we embrace them is also it’s quite an effort and it’s a very delicate balance. Some of the important challenges that we are currently facing, I’ll just tell you a few. The top is the cybersecurity threats that we face. Pakistan faces increasing cyber security, cyber attacks targeting critical infrastructure including energy, banking, public services and according to an estimate spyware attacks in Pakistan witnessed an alarming surge in the first quarter of this current year escalating by a staggering 300% just in this year. Compared to the same period in 2023. So there is a signal that there is a growing menace of espionage and data infiltration. So the thing is that most of these about 22% of these detected high severity incidents are recorded in the government sector followed by the IT companies and then closely followed by financial institution and industries and so on and so forth. So our biggest challenge is to counter these cyber security threats and Pakistan has risen to the tier one role modeling rating and is now amongst the top 40 countries in the global cybersecurity index. So we are making progress and this has been issued by the ITU. So it’s a notable improvement from our position which was about 79th position a few years ago. So this advancement reflects that Pakistan is dedicated to strengthening its cybersecurity but and then we also have problems with data privacy and governance. We have had an absence of comprehensive personal data protection and we felt how it left citizens quite vulnerable. So the need pushed the parliament to legislate on it. It is this personal data protection act is an act that we have been working on for the past many months and it is now almost in the final stages of being made an act. It’s going to be passed. We also have surveillance concerns and unregulated data collection that also requires parliamentary intervention. We have a lot of data currently we have regulations regarding data protection. I won’t bore you with the long list but then I’ll come to the other the third greatest challenge we have which is of course the digital divide. There is a digital divide in the world, there is a digital divide within countries. So in case of Pakistan also, all of Pakistan is not digitally connected equally. So there is a great divide and that is of course based on areas that are hard to reach and the political environments that exist in those areas of course, then we also have our legal environments, we have political environments, we have our social issues. So in terms of Pakistan, this is one of the key areas that we are now going to be addressing, that we are addressing. So I will tell you a few things that we are going to be doing currently. We are going to be starting, we are going to start auctioning our 5G spectrum very soon. Our 4G network coverage is now almost 80%, 81% and that has risen to 81% in 2024. Our average broadband connection speed has improved much better than what it was last year and then our exports have now risen to 3.25 billion and this is where we get an idea of how IT can help a staggering economy and this is again where the youth come in because this is, you know, you just, my colleague here was mentioning how, you know, governments create environments for the youth to make this difference but in Pakistan’s case, they have made us realize and they have pushed us to, you know, take a part in active, you know, policy making to help them. So I will not take the credit away from them. Also then the AI, AI needs to be regulated and especially in countries like ours where political environments are quite, can be hostile and we as a nation are very emotional. We do not hesitate to take to the streets in minutes and then we, you know, find out later that the news is fake. So in order to avoid this, we are in the process of, Pakistan is amongst the few countries which are actively working on regulating the use of AI and in this regard, we have tabled a bill titled the Regulation of Artificial Intelligence Bill 2024 which is being introduced and it’s being debated. So we will, inshallah, make our first artificial intelligence policy and we will announce it by early 2025. So these are some of the issues that we face and the others, I mean, the host of issues but the others are, maybe I can, you know, somehow touch upon them.

Najwa Alghmad: But I think there are many great steps have been taken, I think starting with the Data Foundation by doing some sort of regulation and maybe this is a topic if we really have time later on we could touch base on how do you manage between extreme regulation and also innovation because some regulation might impede steps in innovation. But maybe this is in a later discussion. I will need to move to you, Mr. Jelsvik, to talk more about what sort of challenges that you face in Norway and what are the steps that have been taken to face them.

Sigbjon Gjelsvik: Thank you so much. I think we must acknowledge the challenges parliaments face in digital governance. One major challenge is the rapid pace of technological change. Legislators often struggle to keep up, leading to outdated policies. Another challenge is the lack of technical experience. Many parliamentarians do not have background in digital technologies. This can make it hard to understand and also address complex issues. This gap can hinder effective legislation. Balancing national interests with global cooperation is also a challenge. We must protect our citizens and economies while working together to create international frameworks. This requires balance and also compromises. To overcome these challenges, we must invest in capacity building. Parliamentarians need the knowledge and tools to address digital issues. We must foster a culture of continuous learning and collaboration, both within our parliaments and internationally. Norway is committed to ensuring the Internet development sustainably. We believe the IGF should remain a vital platform for open dialogue on Internet governance. We are also committed to working against Internet shutdowns and protecting the right to information and freedom of speech. Our new Electronic Communication Act in Norway strengthens security and consumer rights. This legislation ensures our digital infrastructure is secure and protects consumer rights, reflecting our commitment to a safe and inclusive digital environment. I want to also say, additionally, the Norwegian government is working on a strategy, particularly directed at strengthening the resilience in our population against disinformation. This strategy highlights that fighting disinformation requires working together for a strong democracy where citizens have access to correct and reliable information that promotes freedom and diversity of expression.

Najwa Alghmad: Thank you so much. Honorable Maria, so Namibia faces the challenges of bridging the digital divide, which is something we’ve just touched base with Mrs. Pulvasa. How do you see the parliaments in Namibia basically looking into solving these issues within Namibia?

Maria Ilago: Thank you very much. Namibia, like many other countries, also faces challenges, but we are solving them step by step. Number one, bridging the digital divide. Rural and underserved areas often lack strong connectivity, but Namibia is tackling this through projects like national broadband policy, which aims to ensure that internet access reaches the most remote communities. This is not just about infrastructure, it’s about giving every citizen a fair chance to participate in the digital economy. Number two, staying ahead of emerging technologies. Digital literacy is a key. Technologies like artificial intelligence, software that can think and learn, and blockchain, a secure way of managing digital data, are becoming central to global systems.

Najwa Alghmad:

Maria Ilago: is catching up quickly by prioritizing ICT skills and training programs, ensuring lawmakers and citizens alike understand and embrace these innovations. Number three, representation on global platforms. Namibia may not yet be as loud as others in the global conversation, but our presence is growing. Events like this one allow Namibia to share its success and learn from global leaders. Representation is our strength, and we are providing that we belong at the table. Challenges are not setbacks, they are opportunities to innovate. Namibia is taking steady strides, and our parliament is well positioned to shape governance. Frameworks that are both globally relevant and locally impactful. Thank you.

Najwa Alghmad: Thank you so much. Moving to Dr. Issa, I think the Saudi Arabia Ambitious Vision 2030 aims for digital leadership, but we see cybersecurity and data privacy remain key focuses at the time being. So how do you see the Shura Council will help to manage these priorities?

Issa Al-Otaibi: Thank you Najwa. To address this question, let’s break it down into key points. Firstly, the incredible speed of changing technology has made it harder for legislative bodies to keep pace, especially when addressing issues around technology concepts such as AI or blockchain. Therefore, the Shura Council has already trained on all aspects of digital governance. This way, we are giving equal priority to all three aspects, digital leadership, data privacy, and cybersecurity. Secondly, since global coordination is complex to achieve, and this is one of the main reasons why we are all sitting here today, different countries have different priorities. But by coming together like today, we can figure out and see the best way to balance the priorities of digital leadership, cybersecurity, and data privacy. This is something, actually, Saudi Arabia has already been working on by hosting events such as Global Cybersecurity Forum and also Global Artificial Intelligence Summit, where four years from across the country over the world brought together to discuss the future of emerging technology. Thirdly, one major challenge, as my colleague said, is the lack of coordination between the government and the parliaments. To address this, the Shura Council is still working closely with the government ministries to develop digital policies under Saudi Vision 2030. Actually, we have already created, signed, passed, and implemented 13 regulation laws related to government affluent. We have also implemented a number of technologies related to internet and information technology, such as personal data protection law, anti-cyber crime law, and also telecommunication and information technology law. We have also speed, we have also passed and implemented more than 24 technologies related to internet and information technology. We are proud to say that Saudi Arabia currently ranks 5th globally out of 140 countries for the speed of its internet, and we were number one in the global cybersecurity rank in 2024, finally, Saudi Arabia was ranked as a second in communication and I.T. you. That was for the Social Security program, which we created in 2006, which issued by the ITU in 2024. These some things we are extremely proud of, as we feel it shows our ability to effectively balance the priority of the digital IT at the moment, for hundreds of sevens of visitors per year.

Pamela Calletti : They do not guarantee the availability of access. When it comes to T・mode, people that are in the United States, they are not able to access the T・mode. And it is quite difficult to talk about my colleagues that had such profound participations. But in general, in Argentina, as in many other countries, we are dealing with the T・mode. And it is not a problem. It is a problem for all of us. And it is not a problem for all of us. And it is not a problem for all of us. And it is not a problem for all of us. local challenges, regional challenges, and also international challenges. And I would like to mention five of these ones. But before that, I want to start by saying or mentioning one of them, which is the digital gap that our parliamentary colleagues were mentioning. And I would like to start by giving an example. I come from Argentina, from a province in the north. I don’t come from the capital, but from a quite poor province. And we are next to Bolivia. And we have people in the rural areas that don’t have access to the internet, which is the reality of a lot of people in the global south. So there is a policy from our government, and we recently provided different digital antennas for the connection of these children in rural areas. These cross the river through donkeys to get to different schools. Then we managed to install them, and we managed to watch the World Cup, and luckily, Argentina won. So the children were very happy to be able to watch the World Cup. But it’s very crazy, the fact that an antenna for digital connection should cross a river on a donkey because our children actually go to school by donkey, and this is a reality globally. So which are these challenges? Well, clearly, this information, this information, which actually, when it’s routed, it is very, very dangerous. Let’s think about COVID. Cybersecurity counts on more and more attacks, but they are always more and more precise, and it requires technical abilities of people that are not prepared enough. So obviously, in Latin America and Argentina, this is more. so. Also, the gap among the different employees, the workers, workers that require more abilities, therefore we need clearly more capacity building. Also, the gap of access to technology, first to infrastructure. We need to think that in the world one out of three people are disconnected. And I used to say, when I said earlier that the virtual is real. And one out of three people actually, but moreover, in the case of Latin America and Argentina, it is one out of two people. So, we are six people here. So, if it would be one out of three, I mean only four of us would have access. But most likely, Maria from Namibia and I most probably would have the worst connection, because not only we come from the southern hemisphere, but we are also women. So, one out of three are disconnected, as I said, in my country one out of two. So, you should also look to your left onto your right. So, either one of you would be connected and the other one wouldn’t be, or if they are, wouldn’t be connected or also wouldn’t have the translator to understand, because they don’t have these abilities. This is the issue of the digital gap. We also have the age gap. Seniors 60 plus years old are also disconnected. So, we have many challenges in terms of these digital gaps. So, it is clearly fundamental that we should reduce these. And each revolution that happened in the past generated these gaps. And we didn’t manage to overcome them, but also now they’ve deepened. So, therefore, we clearly need international cooperation. And I also… also want to mention the other challenges, disinformation, also information manipulation, cyber security, because if we don’t have data governance, we don’t have cyber security. In that case, we’re not going to have actual governance, AI governance, sorry. We cannot talk about responsible AI governance if we don’t have data governance. Also the environmental impact, the environmental impact of this digital innovation, this is something that we also need to tackle. And this is a great opportunity because AI allows as well to advance in the reduction of this environmental impact. And then finally, data privacy, it is fundamental as well. And we need to think that citizens, all of us, we give our data, we don’t know whom to of people that monetize this data. And if I told you now that all of us are going to give our phones, our data, our medical data, purchasing data all over to anyone or to the state, what would you say? A lady should say that. Well, it would be crazy. Well, actually, this is actually happening. All the citizens are providing all this data, they’re being monetized, and by a click, because otherwise we would be out of the system. So in this sense, we shouldn’t be scared of regulation. Regulation is not about prohibiting, it’s actually an important condition. So we have a sustainable development that is also inclusive and democratic. Thank you.

Najwa Alghmad: Thank you so much, Maria, and I, Pamela, sorry, so I see really there are many common challenges that have been mentioned across different countries. Just to be cautious of time, I’m going to skip one of the pillars that we wanted to discuss today, and we will move to the great news that Norway will host next IGF in June 2025. So this is a question to you, Mr. Jelsvik. What do you see the actionable outcomes that should emerge? parliament from this IGF?

Sigbjon Gjelsvik: Thank you so much. As Norway prepares to host the next IGF in June 2025, I envision actionable outcomes that empowers parliaments. We need capacity building programs for parliamentarians. These programs should enhance digital literacy, understanding of emerging technologies and skills to address digital challenges. We should establish a global network of parliamentarians dedicated to digital governance. This network would facilitate continuous dialogue, knowledge sharing and collaboration. By working together, we can harmonize legislation, address common challenges and promote best practices. We should focus on creating actionable policy recommendations. These should address key issues like cyber security, data privacy, digital inclusion and the ethical use of technology. I hope the next IGF will foster stronger partnership between parliaments and other stakeholders. These partnerships are essential for a cohesive and inclusive digital future. Norway will work to uphold freedom of expression, equality, media diversity and resilience against disinformation. We also aim to promote an international legal order in the digital space. Let us ensure that the next IGF builds on our progress and drives meaningful change. Our new Electronic Communication Act in Norway includes provisions for broadband access for all. This legislation ensures everyone in Norway has access to a functional internet, and that our digital infrastructure is robust and secure. The recent adoption of the landmark resolution on the impact of AI on democracy, human rights and the rule of law at the EPU Assembly in Geneva highlights the importance of a responsible AI governance. The resolution calls for transparency, accountability and the protection of human rights in AI development. It emphasises the need to address AI-driven misinformation, gender-based violence and economic inequalities. These principles should guide our efforts as we move forward. 2025 is a special year for the Internet Governance Forum. It marks the 20th anniversary of the IGF, and this year the UN will review the forum’s mandate. The event in Norway will celebrate the global multi-stakeholder model of Internet Governance and set the course for its future organisation. I am pleased that the UN has awarded Norway the hosting of the IGF in 2025, showing trust in our ability to bring together the global community for important discussions about the Internet’s future role. Open discussions about Internet Governance and close international cooperation are crucial to ensuring the Internet remains open, safe and free for everyone. As the host country, Norway will facilitate… and inclusive forum, where governments, the private sector, civil society, academia, technical experts, and international and intergovernmental organizations can exchange knowledge and viewpoints. Together we will address the challenges we face. This multi-stakeholder model is the cornerstone of the IGF and the global Internet governance. Today the Internet is one of the world’s most important infrastructures, and it’s governed through a multi-stakeholder model where all relevant parties collectively handle its challenges and governance. Norway wants this governance model to be preserved and strengthened in the United Nations. Having participated in the IGF last year in Japan, and now here in Riyadh this year, I also look forward to contribute to next year’s IGF, which Norway will host in June 2025, and I will welcome you warmly to Norway next June. Thank you so much.

Najwa Alghmad: Wonderful. I look forward to IGF 2025 in Norway. Now it’s time for a reflection session, so I was going to ask all our great parliaments who are with us today to give us a one actionable step that you think your parliament can take to strengthen the global digital governance, starting with you, Your Excellency.

Hakob Arshakyan: Thank you. It’s difficult, after this very fruitful discussion, to come up with one action item. I think, as my colleague just announced, IGF 2025 in Norway, we are going to participate to that with the delegation from the parliament, and we’ll do contributions to that. I think this is first that comes to my mind. Thank you.

Najwa Alghmad: Thank you so much. Mrs. Bhavasha? Could you kindly repeat? So, basically, if there is any actionable outcome, one actionable outcome, that you think, from the discussion that we have today, that you think your parliament can take to strengthen the global digital governance.

Palwasha Mohammad Zai Khan: I feel my esteemed colleague from Norway has made a very, it’s a point you need to ponder upon. If you can just raise the microphone. Maybe we should have a collaboration between all the parliaments and have a global. forum for enhancement of in facilitating global digital governance and enact laws that go hand-in-hand together and foster collaboration contributing to international dialogue towards that goal. I feel such a forum would be very productive and it would go a long way in removing most of the hurdles that we have when we communicate with each other’s parliaments which we do like Pakistan is part of many legal and legislative initiatives for alignment with global standards but if such a forum comes into being I think many things will be streamlined.

Najwa Alghmad: Great, thanks so much. What about you? What do you think the one actionable outcome that you wanted or steps that your parliament can take?

Sigbjon Gjelsvik: I just want to add one thing I think it’s very important to have cooperation between different partners and keep this multi-stakeholder model and of course it’s important to have partnership with private sector, technical community, civil society and also international organization but I want to add one more thing that haven’t been said so long. One successful initiative for us is our collaboration with youth leaders and engaging with young people in the digital sphere has provided valuable insights so this ensure our policies reflect their needs and aspirations so I hope also for the next year IGF that we will engage and collaborate a lot with the youth leaders.

Najwa Alghmad: Thank you. Wonderful. Honorable Maria, is there any thoughts you would like to share?

Maria Ilago: Thank you very much. We are learning from global examples and we are going to adopting strategies that make sense for us whether it is expanding ICT infrastructure, supporting start-up or empowering rural communities. Namibia is providing some, that small nation can dream it. If we can have a budget for digital training it will be good for us in Namibia.

Issa Al-Otaibi: I can take a reaction to the two previous speakers and then I think we just need to start considering what we want to indicate to the Arab world to improve then, and we will try to solution it. From wherever we breathe, we have to dig deeper to make it even more bearable and sensible than enemies. Thank you for a number of comments on the results of this very important Youth Standard Control Advisory Group created, and I would like to p크urik to change this dialogue mechanism. Let me give you one example of that. We can create National Digital Transformation Councils which would bring together parliamentarians and parliamentarians, and I would like to change this dialogue mechanism so that we don’t have to do it again. Thank you very much.

Najwa Alghmad: ≫ Thank you very much. Mrs. Kaliti, your thoughts?

Pamela Calletti : ≫ To conclude, I would like to convey a very simple message, but very direct as well, that is based on four principles, and I would like to conclude by saying that we have to create a framework, a general framework, regulatory one, for technologies that can respect the logic of these technologies but that puts humanity in the centre. The how, as my colleagues mentioned, through collaboration in regional and international levels, the IGF is a clear example of a global framework. It’s a frame workgan Oi fraction in Canada and around the world, where all the voices from different sectors are combined to achieve solutions. Thank you very much. I also want to highlight the great work from the parliamentary track has been doing and the team that has coordinated this, that has allowed parliamentaries to have a conversation, share good practices, regulations so that we can strengthen our capabilities to face these challenges. Also, who? All the people involved, of course, private sector, academia, technical personnel, public sector. Parliamentaries are one example. That’s why the parliamentary track is a good way to do this. The CSOs and citizens in general. And finally, what for, which is, I think, the most important. It’s the beginning of the end of all these conversations is that all technologies, no matter which ones, are used in the benefit of humanity where human, their rights and their dignity are the lighthouse for every decision we make. Thank you.

Najwa Alghmad: Thank you so much. I noticed that most of you have been actually highlighting the world collaboration. So, in a few minutes, if you can, just dive deep into how do you have or how do you implement strategies that could foster collaboration through the parliament? Starting with you, your excellency, as we see that Armenia has a growing digital ecosystem. If you could just quickly highlight how do you encourage such a partnership and collaboration?

Hakob Arshakyan: I think we have two main collaborative bodies in Armenia. One is the Science and Technology Development Advisory Council to the Prime Minister, the head of the government. And we have, I am the leader of the executive committee in that body. I am a parliamentarian. I mean, we basically, the thing is that there is also a gap between the government and the parliament. Of course, we work in the same country even. However, the ministries, for example, the Ministry of High Tech Industries, all the full job is technology and digitization. In the parliament, it’s a legislative work. It’s in general. And that’s it. We might lack of knowledge. We might lack of information. We might lack of different kind of things, which creates some gaps between these two bodies. And we created this advisory council that engaged two parliamentarians. One is the vice speaker, and another one, the head of the commission. The second one is, and also we have their scientists, entrepreneurs, different kind of technology company leaders who are also bringing in their experience. Which is the strategic future of the country, like the government programs that will be implemented. It’s strategic. And the second one is, of course, digitization and the Internet, where we have Internet Governance Council, where it is also created by the prime minister. And the parliamentarians, the industry experts, everyone is there. And the regulatory and also the ministry is also there. And these are the two main bodies. One is science and technology. Another one is connectivity and Internet governance. So, these are the two bodies who are giving us a look to the future and a strategic point of view. Thank you.

Najwa Alghmad: Great. Thank you so much. What about you, Mrs. Bilbasa?

Palwasha Mohammad Zai Khan: If you could highlight the, how do you foster the collaboration between government and the parliament? You see, we are already adopting global frameworks, as I said. We are also into regional collaboration. For example, the SAARC country, South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation. We participate in SAARC initiatives to harmonize our trade, environmental, and technology laws. Similarly, I’ll give you an example. We are also part of China’s Belt and Road Initiative. And Pakistan ensures legal compatibility in areas such as digital trade and investment protection. Furthermore, we also collaborate with our regional partners to address challenges related to cross-border data flow. We also ensure our participation in international forums such as the Center for the United Nations and the World Economic Forum. Also the very important Financial Action Task Force. We also have extradition treaties. That’s very interesting for the extradition of cybercriminals. We have mutual legal assistance agreements. We have our training programs for capacity building. In the Pakistani parliament, we have a tradition of having caucuses and friendship groups. For example, other than my responsibilities as a legislator, I also head the friendship group for Argentina. So all of us have a friendship group. Similarly, if there is an initiative, we could perhaps form a caucus for collaborating on digital issues with the rest of the world. Let’s say we are already, it’s a tested experiment as far as SARC is concerned, which is quite an important big body. We have many important huge countries of the South Asian region. So we could expand it. And so could others. And we could have mutual agreements with other parliaments. And that’s not very difficult. My colleague from Armenia knows it’s fairly easy for the speaker or the chairman of a senate or a parliament to initiate this. And then when it gets initiated, it’s fairly above bureaucratic controls. Parliament is above bureaucratic controls and parliament can take an initiative without going through the lengthy procedures. So my, and I would go back and advise my own chairman of the senate to try and form such a forum and then reach out to all the countries that are represented in Pakistan.

Najwa Alghmad: Thank you for sharing that. Mr. Jelsvik, how does parliament manage the partnership, the collaboration between the private and the public sector in your country?

Sigbjon Gjelsvik: Yeah, thank you. I think it’s a very important question and it’s very essential that we could have a greater collaboration between parliaments and the stakeholders. I think also that we must establish some formal mechanisms for dialogue and cooperation. For example, some regular meeting points, or working groups, and perhaps also some collaborative projects that can bring together parliamentarians, industry experts, and civil society in common projects. These platforms allow us to share knowledge, discuss challenges, and develop solutions together. So I think that it’s very important, the question here at the end, to discuss how we can develop this kind of cooperation. And like my colleague from Pakistan just mentioned, regional cooperation is also very important. And the Nordic countries have a long tradition in our region to have working together on digital issues. And the regional approach can serve as a model for other parts of the world as well. And not just only the Nordic countries, but we also have a lot of cooperation with the Baltic countries. So in our region, it’s very important to have this kind of cooperation. But also, of course, on the international level. And we also take part in European cooperation, and also follow the discussions inside the European Union about new legislation, and also adopt it in Norway. And finally, Norway is, of course, very dedicated, as I’ve always pointed out, to improve the multi-stakeholder model. And the internet is crucial for businesses, and we aim to promote the Norwegian industry also into this cooperation. So keep to the multi-stakeholder model. But I think it’s very important to have some tools, and also have some cooperation, some working group that makes some progress between these forums. That is very important every year. Thank you.

Najwa Alghmad: 100% agree. To you, Arnold-Marie, we haven’t touched base on the entrepreneurship. So how do you do this in your parliament? How do you manage to foster the collaboration between the private sector inventors and entrepreneurship, just to boost the digital entrepreneurship?

Maria Ilago: Thank you. Here’s the good news. Namibia already has some of the building blocks in place, like, number one, public-private partnership. Namibia’s start-up ecosystem is growing, driven by young, innovative entrepreneurs. We can strengthen this by creating policies that support digital businesses like tax incentives, grants, and easier regulatory pathways. Like in South Africa, innovation hubs have shown how public-private collaboration can create jobs and solutions. Namibia can take this approach even further. 2. Inclusive policymaking Strong digital governance comes from listening to everyone. Every citizen, business, and civil society. Namibia’s Access to Information Act lays the groundwork for inclusive decision-making. Imagine town halls or digital consultations where people even in remote regions can voice their concerns and ideas. Investing in digital education, Namibia has already prioritized ICT in schools. But we can go further by fostering partnerships with global organizations like the AU or the UNESCO Digital Literacy Program. Ensuring young Namibians understand tools like AI and cybersecurity doesn’t just prepare them for jobs, it prepares them to lead. Lastly, we must remember that governance creates trust. Innovation is exciting, but it can be risky. Strong laws and collaborative efforts ensure that digital tools save people, not exploiting them. Thank you.

Najwa Alghmad: Thank you so much. I think we have only one minute left in this session. We’d like to quickly hear your thoughts, Dr. Issa, about the international collaboration that the Shura could do, that can foster the collaboration with international organizations for the digital frameworks.

Issa Al-Otaibi: Thank you so much. We can continue to create new strategies, actually, and I would say that most important one would be to build on the foundation of current and new trust-based partnerships. Actually, here in Saudi Arabia, under our digital government strategies, we have a dubbed collaboration between the private sector and the public institutions to develop more effective smart services. And moving to a global level, we can help parliaments talk about their priorities in forms such as the United Nations Global Digital Compact, which we are already a part of it. Also, we actually would like to learn more from frameworks for emerging challenges, such as the European Union General Data Protection, the GDP regulation, and also the African Union Digital Transformation Strategy, and last but not least, from the Asian Pacific Economic Cooperation Digital Economy. All of these initiatives actually involve input from business, government, and technical communities, and will ensure a more balanced and inclusive approach as we go forward.

Najwa Alghmad: Thank you so much. Thank you so much. A final thought, Mrs. Calleti, before we wrap up. A final thought on what would be the role of the parliaments to foster the collaboration with governments and locals.

Pamela Calletti : I think definitely the collaborative framework in the case of Argentina, we have a lot of domestic work because we have different states and we should harmonize our judicial system so that we can compare our regulations with the region and then see the friendship groups that we have. Like my Pakistan colleague, this year in Argentina there was a parliamentary track where parliamentaries discussed all the good practices and regulations and in the framework of the IGF and the parliamentary track is this environment where we all can meet and talk about all these policies and develop capabilities and capacities for these challenges and have a forum like the IGF where everybody is represented, academia, private sector, scientists, technical community, parliamentaries and the CSOs as well as citizens in general.

Najwa Alghmad: I think it was a discussion or a session that is full of very insightful discussions, thoughts and ideas. It’s wonderful to hear and see what’s going on in every country. It’s very nice to see there are many common, I would say, steps across these different countries. But again, this is the time to close. So as we close, I extend my heartfelt thanks to our panelists for their thoughtful contribution and for our audience for your engagement. So today we’ve discussed the critical role of parliaments in shaping a secure and inclusive digital future, the challenges they face and the strategy. for collaboration. On behalf of the IGF 2024, thank you once again for your dedication to shaping a better digital future. We look forward to seeing you, the progress that we will achieve, inshallah, together. Thank you so much, and thank you for the audience. Thank you. Thank you.

Agreement Points

Importance of international collaboration in digital governance

Hakob Arshakyan

Palwasha Mohammad Zai Khan

Sigbjørn Gjelsvik

Maria Elago

Issa Al-Otaibi

Pamela Calletti

Harmonizing legislation across borders

Strengthening cybersecurity measures

Hosting inclusive multi-stakeholder dialogues

Adopting global best practices in digital policies

Creating partnerships between public and private sectors

Harmonizing regulations across countries

All speakers emphasized the need for international cooperation and collaboration in addressing digital governance challenges and shaping policies.

Addressing the digital divide

Palwasha Mohammad Zai Khan

Maria Elago

Issa Al-Otaibi

Empowering youth in digital transformation

Addressing digital divide and infrastructure challenges

Ensuring equitable access to digital resources

Multiple speakers highlighted the importance of bridging the digital divide and ensuring equitable access to digital resources for all citizens.

Balancing innovation with security and privacy

Sigbjørn Gjelsvik

Issa Al-Otaibi

Creating inclusive and secure digital policies

Balancing innovation with governance

Both speakers stressed the need to balance digital innovation with effective governance, ensuring security and privacy while promoting technological advancement.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the importance of supporting and empowering young people in driving digital innovation and entrepreneurship.

Hakob Arshakyan

Palwasha Mohammad Zai Khan

Supporting digital entrepreneurship and innovation

Empowering youth in digital transformation

Both speakers stressed the importance of human-centered approaches to technology regulation, particularly in the context of AI governance.

Sigbjørn Gjelsvik

Pamela Calletti

Promoting responsible AI governance

Ensuring human-centered technology regulation

Unexpected Consensus

Importance of youth in digital transformation

Palwasha Mohammad Zai Khan

Maria Elago

Empowering youth in digital transformation

Investing in digital education and literacy

Despite representing different regions (South Asia and Africa), both speakers strongly emphasized the crucial role of youth in driving digital transformation, which might not have been expected given their diverse backgrounds.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement included the importance of international collaboration, addressing the digital divide, balancing innovation with security, and empowering youth in digital transformation.

Consensus level

There was a high level of consensus among the speakers on the need for international cooperation and inclusive digital policies. This consensus suggests a shared understanding of the global nature of digital challenges and the potential for collaborative solutions, which could facilitate more coordinated efforts in shaping international digital governance frameworks.

Different Viewpoints

Approach to digital governance

Hakob Arshakyan

Palwasha Mohammad Zai Khan

Harmonizing legislation across borders

Empowering youth in digital transformation

Arshakyan emphasizes international cooperation and harmonizing legislation, while Khan focuses on empowering youth and leveraging their efforts in driving digital transformation.

Priority in addressing digital challenges

Palwasha Mohammad Zai Khan

Maria Elago

Cybersecurity threats and data privacy concerns

Addressing digital divide and infrastructure challenges

Khan prioritizes addressing cybersecurity threats and data privacy concerns, while Ilago emphasizes bridging the digital divide and improving infrastructure in rural areas.

Unexpected Differences

Role of youth in digital transformation

Palwasha Mohammad Zai Khan

Sigbjørn Gjelsvik

Empowering youth in digital transformation

Rapid pace of technological change

While Khan emphasizes the crucial role of youth in driving digital transformation, Gjelsvik focuses on the challenges faced by legislators in keeping up with technological change, unexpectedly not mentioning youth involvement.

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement revolve around prioritizing different aspects of digital governance, such as international cooperation, youth empowerment, cybersecurity, and infrastructure development.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among speakers is moderate. While there are differences in approach and priorities, there is a general consensus on the importance of effective digital governance. These differences reflect the varied challenges and contexts faced by different countries, which could lead to diverse strategies in addressing global digital governance issues.

Partial Agreements

Both speakers agree on the need for effective digital governance, but Gjelsvik emphasizes inclusivity and security, while Al-Otaibi focuses on balancing innovation with governance.

Sigbjørn Gjelsvik

Issa Al-Otaibi

Creating inclusive and secure digital policies

Balancing innovation with governance

Both speakers agree on the importance of aligning digital policies internationally, but Elago focuses on adopting best practices, while Calletti emphasizes harmonizing regulations across countries.

Maria Ilago

Pamela Calletti

Adopting global best practices in digital policies

Harmonizing regulations across countries

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the importance of supporting and empowering young people in driving digital innovation and entrepreneurship.

Hakob Arshakyan

Palwasha Mohammad Zai Khan

Supporting digital entrepreneurship and innovation

Empowering youth in digital transformation

Both speakers stressed the importance of human-centered approaches to technology regulation, particularly in the context of AI governance.

Sigbjørn Gjelsvik

Pamela Calletti

Promoting responsible AI governance

Ensuring human-centered technology regulation

Key Takeaways

Parliaments play a crucial role in shaping digital governance frameworks and policies

There are common challenges across countries in digital governance, including cybersecurity threats, digital divides, and keeping pace with technological change

International collaboration and multi-stakeholder approaches are essential for effective digital governance

Digital policies should be human-centered and protect rights while fostering innovation

Youth engagement and digital literacy are important for successful digital transformation

Resolutions and Action Items

Norway to host the next Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in June 2025

Create capacity building programs for parliamentarians on digital issues

Establish a global network of parliamentarians dedicated to digital governance

Develop actionable policy recommendations on key digital issues like cybersecurity and data privacy

Foster stronger partnerships between parliaments and other stakeholders in digital governance

Unresolved Issues

How to balance national digital sovereignty with international cooperation

Specific mechanisms for harmonizing digital legislation across borders

How to effectively regulate emerging technologies like AI while fostering innovation

Addressing the digital divide in rural and underserved areas globally

Suggested Compromises

Balancing open internet access with necessary cybersecurity measures

Finding the right level of regulation that protects rights without impeding innovation

Combining global digital governance frameworks with localized implementation approaches

Armenia has been a long time, been at a close border with the neighbor of Azerbaijan and now the neighbor of Turkey. So, now we have a new initiative, the Armenian government, which is called Crossroads of Peace. So, in that concept, our proposal is to open all the roads and the railways that are blocked right now, and also include the connectivity pipelines, if we may say, which will connect east with the west and the north with the south.

speaker

Hakob Arshakyan

reason

This comment introduces a novel geopolitical initiative that aims to use digital infrastructure as a means of fostering regional peace and cooperation.

impact

It shifted the discussion to consider how digital initiatives can have broader geopolitical impacts beyond just technological advancement. It prompted other speakers to consider regional cooperation in their own contexts.

Pakistan faces a number of challenges in this digital age and how we embrace them is also it’s quite an effort and it’s a very delicate balance. Some of the important challenges that we are currently facing, I’ll just tell you a few. The top is the cybersecurity threats that we face.

speaker

Palwasha Mohammad Zai Khan

reason

This comment brought attention to the real-world challenges faced by developing countries in implementing digital governance, particularly in cybersecurity.

impact

It grounded the discussion in practical realities and challenges, prompting other speakers to address specific issues rather than just broad concepts. It led to a more nuanced discussion of the balance between innovation and security.

Norway believes the internet should remain open and accessible. We are committed to supporting the Global Digital Compact, with the goal of connecting all people to the internet. This will require significant investment from governments and stakeholders, especially the private sector.

speaker

Sigbjørn Gjelsvik

reason

This comment emphasizes the importance of maintaining an open internet while acknowledging the need for significant investment and cooperation.

impact

It refocused the discussion on the fundamental principles of internet governance and the need for global cooperation. It prompted other speakers to consider how their countries could contribute to global digital initiatives.

Access alone is not enough. Digital information must be clear, understandable, and available in languages that resonate with people. Otherwise, it is like giving someone the key to a library, but the books are written in a language they don’t speak.

speaker

Maria Elago

reason

This metaphor effectively illustrates the importance of not just providing access to digital resources, but ensuring they are truly accessible and useful.

impact

It deepened the conversation about digital inclusion, moving beyond just infrastructure to consider content and usability. It prompted other speakers to consider the qualitative aspects of digital access in their countries.

Since we were kids, and let’s say the history of humanity in the traditional way, we learned to be citizens in this traditional world. However, nowadays, all of us beyond our citizenship, regardless if we are Argentinian, Arab, Norwegian, we are digital citizens, inside and outside.

speaker

Pamela Calletti

reason

This comment introduces the concept of global digital citizenship, transcending traditional national boundaries.

impact

It broadened the scope of the discussion to consider the global nature of digital governance and the need for international cooperation. It prompted other speakers to consider how their national policies fit into a global context.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by moving it from abstract concepts to practical challenges and solutions. They broadened the scope from national to regional and global considerations, emphasized the importance of inclusivity and accessibility in digital governance, and highlighted the need for international cooperation. The discussion evolved from focusing on technological infrastructure to considering the broader societal, economic, and geopolitical impacts of digital transformation.

How to balance regulation and innovation in data governance?

speaker

Najwa Alghmad

explanation

This was suggested as an important topic for future discussion, as some regulations might impede steps in innovation.

How can parliaments create a global forum for enhancing and facilitating global digital governance?

speaker

Palwasha Mohammad Zai Khan

explanation

This was proposed as a way to foster collaboration and enact laws that align across countries, potentially removing hurdles in inter-parliamentary communication.

How can youth leaders be more effectively engaged in shaping digital policies?

speaker

Sigbjørn Gjelsvik

explanation

Collaboration with youth leaders was highlighted as a successful initiative that provides valuable insights and ensures policies reflect their needs and aspirations.

What strategies can be implemented to foster collaboration between parliaments and various stakeholders?

speaker

Najwa Alghmad

explanation

This was raised as a key point for discussion, focusing on how to implement strategies that could foster collaboration through parliaments.

How can regional cooperation models, like those in the Nordic countries, be adapted for other parts of the world?

speaker

Sigbjørn Gjelsvik

explanation

Regional cooperation was highlighted as an important approach that could serve as a model for other parts of the world.

How can parliaments effectively balance national interests with global cooperation in digital governance?

speaker

Sigbjørn Gjelsvik

explanation

This was identified as a challenge that requires balance and compromises to protect citizens and economies while working on international frameworks.

What mechanisms can be established for regular dialogue and cooperation between parliaments and stakeholders?

speaker

Sigbjørn Gjelsvik

explanation

The need for formal mechanisms like regular meeting points or working groups was emphasized to bring together parliamentarians, industry experts, and civil society.

Summary

This discussion introduced the Technical Community Coalition for Multi-Stakeholderism (TCCM), a newly formed group of internet technical operators. The coalition was created in response to upcoming internet governance events, particularly the WSIS+20 review in 2025. TCCM aims to provide a unified voice for the technical community in internet governance discussions, emphasizing the importance of the multi-stakeholder model.

The presenters explained that TCCM is an informal, opt-in coalition open to technical operators managing critical internet resources. Its primary goals are to defend and strengthen the multi-stakeholder approach, ensure the technical community has an equal voice in internet governance discussions, and maintain an open, secure, and interoperable internet. The coalition has grown rapidly since its formation, with over 28 members including registries, registrars, and regional organizations.

TCCM’s activities in 2024 included participating in the Global Digital Compact process and preparing for the WSIS+20 review. The coalition plans to focus on championing resources for the WSIS+20 review in 2025, aiming to influence the agenda early in the process. The presenters stressed the importance of acting quickly to have a meaningful impact on the discussions.

The Q&A session addressed concerns about potential fragmentation within the internet governance community, with the presenters emphasizing that TCCM aims to strengthen, not divide, participation. They also clarified the coalition’s stance on equal footing with governments in certain forums while acknowledging the different roles and responsibilities of stakeholders. The discussion concluded by highlighting TCCM’s flexible, lightweight structure and its goal of providing resources and coordination for the technical community in internet governance processes.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– Formation and purpose of the Technical Community Coalition for Multi-Stakeholderism (TCCM)

– TCCM’s activities and plans related to the WSIS+20 review process

– Membership structure and requirements for joining TCCM

– TCCM’s role in advocating for the technical community in internet governance forums

– Potential impacts and concerns about TCCM’s formation

Overall purpose/goal:

The discussion aimed to introduce and explain the newly formed TCCM to the audience, outlining its purpose, activities, and plans for engaging in upcoming internet governance processes, particularly the WSIS+20 review.

Tone:

The overall tone was informative and collaborative. The speakers were enthusiastic about the coalition and its potential impact. During the Q&A, the tone became slightly more defensive as speakers addressed concerns about fragmentation and legitimacy, but remained generally positive and open to feedback.

Speakers

– Jordan Carter: Moderator

– Jennifer Chung: From DotAsia organisation, part of the TCCM Secretariat

– Nick Wenban-Smith: From Nominet (UK country domain operator), part of the TCCM Secretariat

Additional speakers:

– Everton Rodrigues: From NIC.br (Brazilian CCTLD)

– Israel Rosas: From the Internet Society

– Yik Wei: From GraphiLab (decentralized physical infrastructure network company)

– Sandra Hoferichter: From the European IGF EuroDIG

– Ian Brown: Independent consultant

– Mark Nottingham (mentioned in chat)

Introduction of the Technical Community Coalition for Multi-Stakeholderism (TCCM)

This discussion introduced the Technical Community Coalition for Multi-Stakeholderism (TCCM), a group of internet technical operators formed in 2024 in response to upcoming internet governance events, particularly the WSIS+20 review in 2025. The presenters, Jennifer Chung from DotAsia and Nick Wenban-Smith from Nominet, both part of the TCCM Secretariat, explained the coalition’s purpose, structure, and activities.

Formation and Purpose of TCCM

The TCCM was formed to coordinate technical community input on internet governance and defend the multi-stakeholder approach. As Nick Wenban-Smith explained, the coalition aims to provide a unified voice for the technical community in internet governance discussions. Jennifer Chung emphasised that TCCM seeks to strengthen the multi-stakeholder model and ensure the technical community has an equal voice in these discussions.

Jordan Carter, the moderator, described TCCM as a lightweight, opt-in model for technical operators to collaborate. This structure allows for flexibility and easy participation. Everton Rodrigues highlighted that TCCM is particularly beneficial for smaller organisations that may struggle to engage in complex governance processes.

Membership and Structure

TCCM is open to technical operators that provide internet infrastructure. Nick Wenban-Smith clarified that to join, organisations must sign a statement of purpose. The coalition allows multiple contacts per member organisation, enhancing engagement opportunities. Jordan Carter noted that TCCM also offers a supporter category for those interested but not ready to fully join, which is not limited to technical infrastructure operators.

Since its formation, TCCM has grown rapidly, with over 28 members including registries, registrars, and regional organisations. This growth demonstrates the technical community’s interest in coordinated participation in internet governance. It’s important to note that TCCM is not a formal association or legal entity, but rather an informal coalition.

Activities and Plans

Throughout 2024, TCCM has been actively engaged in the Global Digital Compact process, as highlighted by Jennifer Chung. The coalition has made submissions to the CWG internet and issued a statement on the GDC adoption. TCCM uses various communication channels, including mailing lists and chat groups, to keep members informed.

Looking ahead, Nick Wenban-Smith stressed that the coalition’s primary focus for 2025 is the WSIS+20 review. TCCM aims to influence the agenda early, before formal processes begin, to have a meaningful impact on the discussions. The coalition held a day zero meeting before the ICANN meeting in Istanbul, where members discussed strategies and plans for upcoming governance events.

TCCM is also working to improve Internet Governance Forum (IGF) processes, with plans to develop a specific agenda for this in early 2025. This focus on the IGF demonstrates TCCM’s commitment to enhancing existing multi-stakeholder platforms.

Role of the Technical Community in Internet Governance

A key aspect of TCCM’s mission is to ensure the technical community has an equal footing with other stakeholders in internet governance discussions. Jennifer Chung emphasised this point, while Jordan Carter acknowledged the specific role of governments in formal decision-making processes. This nuanced approach recognises the importance of balanced participation while respecting established governance structures.

The legitimacy of the technical community’s participation was addressed during the Q&A session. An audience member argued that the technical community’s legitimacy stems from its role in operating critical internet infrastructure. Mark Nottingham added the concept of “output legitimacy,” highlighting the technical community’s contributions to the internet’s functionality. Nick Wenban-Smith emphasised that TCCM aims to provide technical expertise to inform policy decisions, highlighting the unique value the coalition brings to governance discussions.

Challenges and Considerations

The discussion also touched on potential challenges facing TCCM and the broader internet governance landscape. Nick Wenban-Smith provided a balanced perspective on the progress of internet governance and multi-stakeholderism over the past two decades. He acknowledged significant advancements in technology and connectivity but also noted increased polarisation as economies have become more digitalised.

Concerns were raised about potential fragmentation within the internet governance community. The presenters emphasised that TCCM aims to strengthen, not divide, participation. They clarified that the coalition’s structure allows members to opt-in to statements, providing flexibility when there are differences of opinion.

While Web 3.0 technologies were mentioned as a potential area of interest, the presenters noted that TCCM hasn’t specifically addressed this topic yet but is open to exploring it if members express interest.

Conclusion

The discussion concluded by reiterating TCCM’s flexible, lightweight structure and its goal of providing resources and coordination for the technical community in internet governance processes. The presenters stressed the importance of acting quickly to have a meaningful impact on upcoming discussions, particularly the WSIS+20 review.

Overall, the formation of TCCM represents a significant development in the internet governance landscape. By providing a unified platform for technical operators, the coalition aims to enhance the multi-stakeholder model and ensure that critical technical expertise informs policy decisions. As TCCM continues to grow and engage in key processes, its impact on shaping the future of internet governance will likely become increasingly apparent.

For more information about TCCM, interested parties can visit the coalition’s website at tccm.global.

Jordan Carter: All right, good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, and those of you in the village, paying attention to this launch event. We appreciate your company. On behalf of the Technical Community Coalition for Multi-Stakeholderism, we’re glad to have your attention for this briefing today. My name is Jordan Carter. My role is to be a very light-touch moderator of this session. All of the interesting things will be said by my colleagues on the stage and some who will pop up from time to time. There are three phases to today’s brief one-hour session. Nick and Jen, who I’ll introduce in a moment, will give you a presentation on the coalition, what it is, why it exists, what it’s for, what it’s working on. Then there’ll be a bit of a time for Q&A from them. Then the last part of the session will just mix and mingle, have a chat, and so on. That’s going to be the substance of it. When you two want me to swap slides, just say so. Our two panellists, Jennifer Chung, is from the DotAsia organisation, an Asia-Pac region organisation that operates the DotAsia domain. Nick Gwen Van Smith is from Nominet, a UK country domain operator. They are both part of the Secretariat at the TCCM. Later on, we’ll have a contribution from another colleague who’s in the process of joining to explain why they thought about joining the coalition. So without any further ado, I’m handing to Nick for the first slide. Thank you, Nick.

Nick Wenban-Smith: Thanks, Jordan, and welcome everybody. It’s great to see people here and thanks for giving us the opportunity to talk you through a little bit about this technical community coalition for multistakeholderism. So I think my reflection on the context is that there are a group of us loosely affiliated through the technical community. We see each other at ICANN meetings, we see each other at regional meetings, we see each other at IGF meetings, and we largely have a common agenda. And dare I say it, we’re all good friends. But when it came to the WSIS plus 20, which has been in anticipation now for at least since the WSIS plus 10, but more urgently in the last couple of years, I felt, the core group of us felt, that there was a lack of urgency and coordination around the technical community’s input to this multistakeholder issue. And each of us individually tend to be national or regionally based. But we’re all, frankly, in the global context, quite small operators. So it’s a very big topic area for us each individually to deal with. But collectively, we could divide up the work, put our thinking resources together, create common resources where it’s helpful for input to consultations or discussions with our respective governmental colleagues, and to build credibility to have a consistent drumbeat. So we realized, obviously, that 2025 was the WSIS Plus 20. We didn’t know much about it, but we knew inevitably as the months go on that it’s coming closer and closer. The GDC, if I’m honest, came on as a bit of a surprise, but we had to deal with that and we had to respond to the challenges of the GDC throughout 2024. And I think, if I’m honest, we treated it as a bit of a hors d’oeuvre, a bit of a warm-up for the WSIS Plus 20 next year. So we could see these were key years coming. I think when it came to the WSIS Plus 10, there wasn’t too much controversy that the mandate was going to be extended. It was much less clear to us what the future lay post the 20-year review. There was a degree of, one of my favourite multi-stakeholder words is un-clarity. There was a degree of un-clarity and we felt that we needed to mobilise the technical community to engage and to try to positively influence things. So we tried to provide everybody in the technical community with the same types of information because, as I think we’ve heard many times this week, the processes with the New York running of the tech envoy of the GDC has not been super easy. The deadlines have changed, the websites are out of date, there’s no clear opportunity for multi-stakeholder engagement. We needed to force our way to the table. And I think, if I’m not going to be pointing fingers at people, I think we felt that there was a lack of leadership in other parts of the technical community. We wanted to be on the front foot and to positively engage. Hence, to set up a small group of us initially and then build up and try to get a bit of momentum to help people with the things. So here we have formed the coalition. And by the way, I think it So, I’m a lawyer by background, so I’m very keen on the right pronoun. And we are a technical community coalition. We don’t profess to be the whole technical community. That would be a distinct overreach. So, it’s a technical coordination group. And I’ve put down on this last bullet point in this slide that I think the technical community needed to acknowledge that although we are huge advocates, as the name says, the technical community for multistakeholderism, we have to acknowledge that the experiment has not been 100% successful if you look at achievement towards the SDGs. Yes, of course, there have been massive strides in technology in the last 20 years, massive strides in connectivity, a degree of equalization. But in the same way, you have to acknowledge there’s been a degree of polarization as economies have become a little bit more digitized. So, I think we wanted to basically be upfront about that because I think our responses are positive but needed to acknowledge some of the shortcomings over the processes of the past few years. Because I don’t think although we are advocates for multistakeholderism, that it can’t be done better.

Jennifer Chung: Thanks, Nick. I think Nick gave us a really comprehensive background of how TCCTM came to be. We are a coalition, not the coalition. And really, you know, a group of technical operators from all over the globe welcomed this initiative that was started. And what you see right now on the screen is just an abbreviation really of the key points of the statement of purpose that you can actually read a little further on if you go on our website, tccm.global. Really, the three key things that we want to bring the message quite clearly, both to the technical community itself and also the other stakeholders of the Internet Governance Forum, and also the Internet Governance, I guess, community at large as well, is that there seems to be a rowing in the same direction. There is alignment that we want to keep defending, and having this multi-stakeholder approach evolve, and we want it strengthened as well. We also want the technical community to be on equal terms and equal footing when we’re talking about discussing all of the Internet Governance issues, the digital process issues that we’ve been discussing through this past year, through the GDT process, and looking forward to doing that in the coming year when we’re looking into the WSIS Plus 20 review, so on equal terms. We are, at the heart of it, we are operators that manage critical Internet resources. This is actually just a very small slice of what maybe a layperson might understand to be technical community, but this is also very important. We’re the ones who keep the Internet running. I like to say, when we do our good work, you shouldn’t actually notice it. You only notice it if we don’t do our work. When you cannot connect, you’ll be like, okay, what’s going on? With a growing number of members, we want to keep the Internet open, free, global, secure, resilient, interoperable. That’s the word I really, really like very much. I’ll add the word robust because I think Jordan really likes that word too, and available to all. I think we also looked at it in terms of this year, and previously, we did see a blog come out from ICANN, ARIN, and I think it was APNIC as well, calling attention to the global stakeholder the groups, the community, the IG community, that technical community is really important. We are the ones who keep the internet on. And I’ll stop again. Again, when we do our work, you shouldn’t notice. It should be like breathing. It should be seamless. It’s when you don’t have the connection, then you realize, oh, there’s this group of operators and all these people who control and manage the critical resources of the internet. They are the ones who really keep things going. Everything else is, there’s the ability to talk about it because we keep these things going.

Nick Wenban-Smith: Yeah, thank you. So what started out as a sort of a small, informal group. As a small IGON, in fact, this slide is out of date already because there are more members who have actually joined the coalition and are in the process of joining. You can see 28 members, which was accurate at the beginning of the week when we did the slide. It’s now out of date already, but you can see there’s a mixture of registries and that’s country code registries, but also GTLD registries. There’s a mixture of regional organizations and there’s also a mixture of registrars. So there’s a whole sector, broad sector, approach, different industries, some non-profit, some for-profit, some dealing directly with consumers, some dealing more on a regional basis, completely different cluster of technical operators, but providers fundamentally of the technical layer upon which everything else that is being discussed this week whether it’s AI or information or platforms or education or the impacts on the environment, none of this stuff really works without a stable underpinning of the technical layer, which is really what we’re here to advocate.

Jennifer Chung: So currently we have mailing lists that we have not only just TCCM members who have signed on to our statement of purpose that I talked about a little earlier, but it’s really for information exchange. It is for opportunities to input, well, previously this year into the GDC and then looking forward to all the different consultations that will feed into the WSIS Plus 20 review. We also have chat groups that are on different chat platforms to be able to quite quickly and informally notify these members of what is going on. Some of us are here on the ground in Riyadh, others are joining remotely online, looking at all of the different happenings at IGF. It’s a good way, a good informal way to keep our members actually informed with what’s going on. There is a greater group of technical community who actually are considering joining and have said to us, this is actually really useful information that I’m getting from the TCCM network and from the coalition that I’ll bring back to my own organization, my leadership to see if we can take this further or if there are actually positions that TCCM puts out on the website or actually develop through the mailing list and with members as well that they might be able to adopt and take on some of the key points. I think a lot of it is the messaging that would come from different parts of the technical community and if we have all of these voices coming from different parts of the technical community that do say fundamentally the same things, that perhaps global community will take note and understand, okay, well, there is many different voices talking about this and it’s from technical community and this is really what they care about. I think looking forward into 2025 as well. TCCM is looking to leverage our membership and leverage the wider community who are interested in TCCM work to help us draft positions, especially going into WSIS 20 review and also on topics that are near and dear to the community’s heart.

Jordan Carter: Just to add one thing with the moderators prerogative, this is not an association. This is not trying to create a big, heavy structure that tries to speak on behalf of its members. It’s meant to be a rallying point, an exchange of views, a way to learn from each other, perhaps shape each other’s views through that learning, and to test where consensus exists and where it doesn’t in this slice of the technical community. And so it’s a very opt-in process. If a statement is developed, you choose whether to sign on. The coalition doesn’t speak for all its members. It’s designed to be as easy and simple and low-key to be a part of as possible, designed not to create any complicated terrors for people about being signed up to someone else’s agenda, which I know is a real challenge in parts of the internet technical community, where people are very clear about their mandate, where membership communities are often very suspicious of outside organizations. So that’s something I’ve really kept in mind about how the coalition works. There’s my interruption. We need to pick up the pace a little bit. Lovely speakers.

Nick Wenban-Smith: Yeah, thanks, Jordan. And those are important points. To be honest, when we were setting up, most time we spent was on the statement of purpose. And once the statement of purpose has been signed up to, people can have access to everything. And as Jordan said, we don’t craft statements which need to be agreed. We don’t craft statements which people sign up to if they want to, but they don’t have to. So just a quick recap of our activities in 2024. 2024 has gone in the blink of an eye, it seems, from a discussion to… test the idea in March at the ICANN Puerto Rico meeting. Secretaria developed its ways of working, the email list and WhatsApp groups and other ways to share information, whether it’s a consultation date changing or some new input requiring some thought or just general chat or exchanges of useful blogs and information that’s all been done with the statement of purpose. There are now six, seven of us on the call Secretariat and Jen mentioned it earlier, but we have a website, the tccm.global website, thanks to my friends at CIRA who help out. There’s a lot of places there for a centralized resource and to publicize our work more broadly.

Jennifer Chung: I will listen to our lovely moderator and try to be really quick with this. Really, this is just showing that TCCM has been involved quite deeply in day one with the global digital compact process. We did a lot of blogs and statements and inputs. We did spoken statements. We did written inputs as well. I mentioned earlier our statement of purpose, which we publicized on our website in June. In September, we had a submission to the CWG internet on the development aspects to strengthen the internet. I think there was, finally, when the GDC was adopted in October, that was two months ago, we had a statement regarding what we thought about the entire process. November, right before the ICANN meeting in Istanbul, we had a full day zero meeting, which actually first part was strategizing how the secretariat wants to organize the work so it makes it easier and lightweight for members to be able to input and sign on to statements, as Jordan has mentioned which is the high-level plans for 2025.

Nick Wenban-Smith: Thank you. So the high-level plan for 2025 is essentially to champion our resources for the WSIS plus 20 review. We anticipate it’s going to be a rewrite essentially of the GDC processes, so we’ve already had a bit of a practice on it, but that’s really clearly the key area of focus, although some of this is in anticipation of and what happens after the WSIS 20 review.

Jennifer Chung: And on the screen you see actually the results of our day zero activity with the members. We did a series of roundtables, we had very good interaction and input with current TCCM members about how we can look into some input and written input, either goals we want to reach for the WSIS plus 20 review, you can see that on the screen, to secure of course the multi-stakeholder process and ensure the implementation of GDC doesn’t cut across the WSIS plus 20 review process as well. And certain goals also for the technical community would be to ensure that the WSIS action lines, really the ones that concentrate more on technical aspects of the internet are preserved in a way that benefits the current operations of the internet as well as the multi-stakeholder model as well. And then the fifth one is of course always in a controversial run about enhanced cooperation, how we can look at it in the GDC text and how we can look at it going into the WSIS plus 20 process.

Nick Wenban-Smith: So what tangible opportunities have we got to contribute to these multilateral UN processes? And I think if there’s one call to action that I want to get across today is no good waiting until the co-facilitators are appointed and the zero drafts in circulation. That’s too late. So any hope of positively influencing the agenda and to make across our advocacy needs to be done now, maybe before now. The train is leaving the station and if we leave it too long, we’ll miss it. And we will just be spectators in this process, not contributors. So that’s the one call to action to remember. And if you look forward here, we could see there’s a degree of certainty for things which are in the relatively near future and a degree of uncertainty as you go further into the future, but it’ll become a clearer, I guess, like a waterfall, the closer you get to it. But we know there’s, for example, the ITU consultation on the WSIS action lines, that’s already due by the 31st of January. There are other forums and consultations, which you can see here on the things through the first quarter of 2025. I think these are absolutely key positioning points and is what we are thinking of in terms of our thought evolution about how to put forward our advocacy in a way that does not look self-interested, which way is as a positive agenda, recognizing the shortfalls and essentially leaning in and giving a commitment to the future on behalf of the technical community towards a safe and secure underlying technical layer of the internet.

Jennifer Chung: And this is the, well, second half of the year pretty much. And I think we should definitely cross the opportunities that Nick mentioned really earlier on in the year where we’re able to have some effect to the process, especially when we know that, I think they’re hoping to have the co-facilitators appointed before May, 2025. We don’t know for sure right now if that’s going to be possible, but certainly a lot of the work needs to be done. closer to the beginning of the year in 2025 than the later ones. You already see there that the middle of the year is jam-packed with many events that many of you will be at. Perhaps not everyone will be at them as well, but by that time it might be a little bit closer to a place where maybe we can’t really pull the train back from the station if the train is going somewhere that we’re not quite sure. So I’ll hand this back to our moderator to open up for, I think, our Q&A.

Jordan Carter: Just before we do do a Q&A, to give you another couple of minutes, up on the stage we were part of the secretariat, but there are some people who have been looking at joining, and I’m going to invite Everton Rodrigues from NIC.br, Brazilian CCTLD, to just give us a minute or two about why it is that you’re considering joining. You can use the lectern or you can grab my mic.

Audience: Definitely. Thank you very much. Thank you, Jordan. Thank you, Jennifer. Thank you, NIC. Hello, all. Well, NIC.br is considering to join the Technical Community Coalition for Multistakeholderism because of the great importance and momentum of the Internet governance-related issues that we see not only from the standpoint of a political perspective in which CGI.br already deals with most of the issues, but also for the outcomes of those decisions and discussions which may have great impact for the technical community, which at times hasn’t been as united in one single coalition as we have seen this one or in any other place. So discussions should happen somewhere, and everyone stay looking at each other, saying when will it happen, where will it happen, and TCCM became the place to discuss that for the purposes that we have. We have all seen, as you mentioned, the timelines and the deadlines are happening, the discussions are happening elsewhere. So why elsewhere and not here when it also concerns the operations that we have, the services and initiatives that we undertake as well. So that’s one of the reasons why we’re considering that. Thank you again for the invitations. Congratulations for the talk. And I just would like also to say that it’s important to say that TCCM is open also for those who are looking for, are still not sure if they are joining or not. So you have many initiatives, many approaches to other members of the community. I’m here speaking on my own behalf as we have been approached by TCCM members to put more people, more institutions actually, on the group. And this has been a great difference that we see from other initiatives in which some at times they stay so close. And TCCM is approaching to so many people, as you saw, 28 and counting members hopefully will be joining you soon. Thank you very much.

Jordan Carter: Thank you. Thanks. Thanks, Everton. So that’s just a bit of a flavor of someone who’s considering. We have 10 or 15 minutes for any questions that anyone has. See a couple of hands up and Charles in the front row is our microphone. Oh, we have a microphone. So I’ll do three. I’ll do you and then Lito and then you.

Audience: Okay, I will be quick. Israel Rosas from the Internet Society. First of all, congratulations. I think that you are doing a great collaboration in the community. Among your objectives, you are mentioning that you… discussed some potential improvements to the IEF, could you share a little bit more about what the group has discussed, like, how are you seeing that the IEF could evolve?

Nick Wenban-Smith: I’ll save you on that one. So we know that we need an agenda to improve the IGF, I almost said the IETF, I would have been crucified if I’d said that, so I said the IEF. And we want, that’s going to be one of the first pieces of work that members do together at the start of next year to define that agenda. I’d imagine it would be things about more sustainable resourcing, about improved participation, but we haven’t had that dialogue yet, so at the moment it’s just a headline, there’s no secret plan as yet, and it will be worked out between and among the members in the first quarter of next year.

Audience: Thank you. I also think it’s a great initiative. And I would like to ask, what are the requisites for an organization in the technical community to join? I mean, do we need just one contact name? What is the level of granularity? I mean, it can be an association of CCTLDs be part, but also a CCTLD individually, likewise for ISPs or IX. So what is the scope of the membership that you are expecting? Thank you.

Nick Wenban-Smith: Thanks for the question. We’ve had this issue discussed a number of times. We have a degree of informality in the sense there’s not a legal constitution or a legal body that we’ve set up. It is an informal coalition and is designed to be inclusive and diverse and very… participatory, and as we’ve discussed, sort of opt-in. But we do require you to be essentially a technical operator. But all of the examples that you gave seem to be exactly what we’re looking for in terms of technical operators. You could see the types of members that we have so far. So it’s those folks who provide the technical air operation as their primary focus. And we’re looking for organizations rather than interested individuals. But particularly, if you’re part of that group of technical operators, you are extremely welcome. The only hard requirement is that we ask you to sign up to the statement of purpose, which I think is not a difficult task because it’s essentially, if you are a supporter of the multi-stakeholder model of internet governance, this should be like motherhood and apple pie. It should resonate very strongly. If you had any questions about it, you should obviously ask. But really, we ask for you to sign up. If you provide a name, then we will put them on the WhatsApp group as part of the group. And then they’ll receive coalition information, updates, announcements. And we will have coalition meetings. But they’re voluntary. Obviously, our membership is very geographically diverse. So we don’t expect people to turn up. It’s supposed to be an opt-in resource model so that people can find out for themselves more quickly than they could do individually. I think we all appreciate the big task which is ahead. And it’s easier to do that together as a group of like-minded people with sharing information rather than each having to go away and do it all for ourselves. So it’s supposed to be a common resource really for the technical community. So you’d be extremely welcome on that basis. And just one more thing. There’s no limit like one contact per organization. So some have one, some have two, some have three people signed up. So it’s designed to be flexible. Thanks, Lito.

Jordan Carter: Can we pass the microphone to this gentleman at the back? And then I’ll come to Sandra at the front.

Audience: Hello, thank you for your presentation. I’m Yik Wei from Malaysia. I’m with GraphiLab, decentralized physical infrastructure network company. I’m just curious from a Web 3.0 perspective, as we are one, what is the stance and position of TCCM on dealing with Web 3.0, and have there been any efforts to bridge the gap between Web 2.0 and Web 3.0 within the technical community? And what I see now from Web 3.0 is that they have their own conferences, they have their own infrastructure ecosystem. It works independently from Web 2.0 to a large extent. Have there been efforts to bridge this fragmentation from your side, or what is the strategy to move forward if you would like to share? Yeah, thank you.

Jordan Carter: Thanks for the question. I think Jen’s got a brief response to some of your questions. Brief responses.

Jennifer Chung: I think the internet governance community itself is already welcoming Web 3.0 discussions. I know that there’s not that many workshop topics and materials right now that you see here on the ground in Riyadh. Or perhaps if you were in the Kyoto meeting last year, there could have been some topics that touched on that. But as a whole, TCCM is pretty brand new. As you can see, we just formed this year. And because it was formed in response to this kind of inflection point of internet governance, looking at the WSIS plus 20 review coming up in 2025. So it was really a very quick, lightweight, informal group in response to something. Now, your question about looking into how to bring Web 2.0, 2.3 together, I think that could be topics that, if the TCCM membership would love to explore. more, I wouldn’t close the door on that at all. I think it’s really important to get all different parts of technical communities, with the plural, at the end together. Because I think, like I said earlier, we’re all rowing in the same direction. We want to support the multi-stakeholder model because that allows us a seat at the table. Without that, we won’t be even at the table.

Jordan Carter: Thank you. And the interaction between those two environments is something that is capturing attention in the ICANN and traditional community as well, because none of us wants to see confusion between these two at the user level. So it’s an important issue to follow on. Thank you. Sandra at the front.

Audience: Thank you very much. Sandra Hoferichter from the European IJF EuroDIG. I pretty much welcome this initiative and I can fully understand that there was a desire as a technical community to stand together, in particular when there at least was the risk that the technical community is not recognized in these processes as a separate stakeholder group. So I fully understand that. But I would like to ask, is there a risk that we are now separating or fragmenting multi-stakeholder for us? Speaking for national or for regional IJF, I must say the participation of the technical community in our forums is not huge. And I would fear a little bit that now that you’re forming your own group, this might even throw away more of the participation on the – and I’m not only speaking about EuroDIG, but also about the national and the global IJF, which is sometimes seen critical by the technical community. So I can hear that because topics are not relevant enough and so on and so forth. So is there a risk or what are you doing against that this will happen in terms of that the technical community is not fading away? from the IGF and IGF-led initiatives that are existing already. Thank you.

Nick Wenban-Smith: Thanks, Sandra, for the question. And I guess I can appreciate the concern. I think my answer is completely the opposite, which is this should lead to a more integrated approach from the technical community, firstly as regards the WSIS review, because we should try to have a more consistent message amongst the technical community, which would be more credible and should help to actually reinforce the IGF outcomes in terms of the WSIS review. And I think if you look at the three of us on the stage, we are all very integrated with our own national and regional IGFs. And I don’t think any of us have got any plans to discontinue that. If anything, it should make it stronger and more integrated and more credible as a thing. This is a mobilising point, not a fragmentation point.

Jordan Carter: Thank you. Just one other point to follow up the earlier question from Lito about what categories of membership. We’ve also got a supporters category. So if you think you might want to be a member, but you’re not sure, what that does is lets you join the email list, see some of the discussions, join some of the meetings. So that’s another option that’s available. If that is something you want to do, come and talk to one of us afterwards. You still need to be a technical operator, though. I’ll need to follow that up. I read it very quickly on my WhatsApp group. And we’ve got one more question in the front from Everton. Or maybe it’s a comment.

Audience: Hello. Yes. Just a brief comment regarding the point by Sandra, is that at times, some members or some interested parties are already looking to join. left out of the discussions. They just can’t follow because they are small and they don’t have the resources to follow up many other discussions. So many discussions which are taking place. So this is one of the advantages of having a TCCM which becomes one of the focal points for discussion with common peers. So I would say that this would be a win for those smaller organizations which are not able to reach out to their governments with so many useful resources shared already by many members of the community. So I see that more as a reinforcement of existing structures rather than a separation, so to say, of them. So just a brief comment. Thank you.

Jordan Carter: Thank you, Everton. And one, yes.

Audience: Ian Brown, I’m an independent consultant. Jumping up to a much higher level because this is IGF after all. From one of your earlier slides you said the technical community, as you defined it, should participate in internet governance. I forget the precise three Ds, but debate, discourse, and decision-making, I think it said, on an equal basis with governments. And I wondered what governments think of that. I wondered where your legitimacy comes from compared to democratic governments or authoritarian governments.

Jordan Carter: I think that probably depends on the forum. So in a forum like the IGF, in a forum like the IGF, as an example, we’re all here on an equal footing. If we were talking about an aspect of regulatory policy that needed to be implemented through law, I don’t think any of us would claim that we think we’re on an equal footing with states. Or if there was the negotiation of an international treaty, we’re not decision-makers in a decision like that. So it’s more saying that. as it’s the general formulation of the technical community saying in the forums that are either broadly dialogue based or the ones where we do the work that we do through ICANN, for example, stakeholders have their roles and responsibilities, but there are a lot of forums and processes where people genuinely are on an equal footing, which is distinctive from lots of other governance processes where that just isn’t the case. This is a UN meeting where everyone is here on an equal footing for the discussion. So that is absolutely integral to the DNA of the Internet Governance Forum.

Nick Wenban-Smith: I need to go back to the original Tunis formulation because it does talk about the different stakeholder groups and according to their respective roles and responsibilities, so no one is trying to step into the shoes of governments, it’s just that I think all of us believe that better policy making, decision making and discussion happens through a degree of transparency and openness and accessibility to participate in the discussions. At the end of the day, I don’t expect governments necessarily to do what I tell them to do, in fact I’d be horrified if they did, but I feel that an open line of communication so that at least, especially in areas of technical policy where they are going to intervene or regulate or legislate, they’re doing it essentially with their eyes open as to the perspectives of everybody else before they break something more important.

Jordan Carter: Yes, there’s another question here.

Audience: I’m sorry, my background is political science and IR, so maybe this question is concerned with more political stuff. So two questions, but very briefly. One is, how would you resolve conflictual opinions within yourself? Now you presume that you’re a community. But, you know, traditionally what I understand is in the technical community often conflicts are resolved based on the technical rationality. So one that is superior to the inferior ones wins, right? But it’s given the nature of the technical community, it’s more or less concerned with political stuff. So how are you planning to resolve such conflicts? That’s one. And the other one is, so how are you planning to influence policymakers? So are you going to just talk about, so what are the, so let’s say measures, like policy measures, do you, are you planning to, are you considering to wield?

Jordan Carter: Who wants to take that? Jen?

Jennifer Chung: Really good questions. I think, well, I think we mentioned that we had a full day of meetings, especially just actually last month, on how we wanted to take this coalition forward. It’s a coalition, not the coalition, of course. And we wanted this to be the most lightweight opt-in model that would be able to get the best information for input, opportunities for input for different members. So I think we haven’t got to the stage where there is a difference of opinion, then simply the member doesn’t have to opt in any kind of statement. It’s an opt-in method in that aspect. If you’re talking about creating some kind of conflict resolution mechanism, I think we are going to make the mechanism of the coalition a little more complicated, a little more clunky. I think it is important for you to bring this up. We haven’t gotten to the level where, you know, it’s more a reaction when this coalition was formed. In the future, if the TCCM members think that there are certain things that we need to look into that members would like to work on, both topically and subject-wise, and we feel that collectively that there is a need to create such kind of mechanism. systems that may help or hinder, I think that’s a point where we might be able to consider looking into that.

Nick Wenban-Smith: And I was going to say, today we haven’t really had any conflicts, and that’s because we don’t require people to sign up. And in fact, if there was a TCM statement which a member liked some of it and not all of it, we would, like an open source free resource, take the bits you like, change it, and use that, that’s completely fine. We provide these resources as a help and assistance, not to create conflict. And if there are bits of it you are less happy with, or you don’t think that’s within your remit or role because of the technical operation that you form, or for whatever reason in terms of your domestic or regional area, completely fine. That is absolutely fine, and we encourage you to cannibalize the good bits and discard the bits that you don’t like. It was supposed to be helpful rather than constraining or creating points of tension within the community.

Jordan Carter: There’s one more aspect that it’s worth pointing out. Because there is the orienting and political statement of purpose at the start, that does mean that people come in with some alignment before they’re part of the community, which helps mitigate people being completely at odds with each other. It isn’t like a situation where you were managing a resource, and you have to include all voices, and people might have radical conflicts of direction or interest, so that helps as well. I also have to correct something I said earlier about the supporters category. It isn’t only open to technical infrastructure operators. There’s some dear friends who are sort of associated within parts of the technical community that don’t operate infrastructure that are also supporters, so I’m not going to single anyone out. But I just needed to correct my mistake from earlier.

Jennifer Chung: Not forgetting your second question, because you had a second question, and one really good thing is a lot of the, well, all four of the founding members… members are CCTLDs and to many different degrees that they do have a lot of interaction with their national governments, so that is already a starting point. Of course, the group now consists of not just the CCTLDs, there’s also the generics, which .Asia is one of the generics, and it encourages you to talk to like-minded governments and your national governments that you’re already tied to, but not only that, we’re looking into coordinating, cooperating with other stakeholders, loose informal coalitions too. So there’s a lot of collaboration going on and of course we know certain views are expounded more in certain quarters when you’re able to get the ear of your national governments, but I think right now the TCCM is quite well positioned to be able to expand and amplify that voice.

Jordan Carter: Thanks Jen, and there was one comment I’m just going to offer from the chat because here in the room we find it a little bit difficult to see the chat, I think I’m right in saying, but it was a comment from Mark Nottingham, I think on your point about democratic legitimacy, he said the technical community doesn’t have democratic legitimacy and doesn’t pretend to, it has output legitimacy through making the internet work. So that’s another perspective to add. Look, I think we’ve achieved the purpose of today in one sense, which was to introduce the coalition to you, hopefully for some of the audience it was a new thing to find out and learn a bit about. Thank you very much for the questions and discussion that have come. I’ve been asking that and there aren’t at the moment, there’s just that comment that I’ve just read out. So yes, thank you for asking that question before I get fully into wrap-up mode. If you do want to find out any more information about the work the coalition has done, the statement of purpose and so on, you can find that on the website at tccm.global. We will organise to put a copy of this slide pack on the website as well. So if you want to get some of that information, whether it’s the dates or what we see ourselves as doing, you’re welcome to do that. And some of the members of the audience are members of the coalition. If you are a member of the coalition and you’re comfortable to just want to like wave your hand in the air or stand up or something. So you might want to talk to those people or to those of us on the front if you want to find out more. But for now, it’s pretty much time for us to evacuate the stage. So on behalf of Nick, Jen, myself, the TCM team, thank you for your attention. And I hope you have a lovely remaining one day in two hours of IGF 2024 here in Riyadh.

Agreement Points

Formation and purpose of TCCM

Nick Wenban-Smith

Jennifer Chung

Jordan Carter

Coalition formed to coordinate technical community input on internet governance

Aims to defend and strengthen multi-stakeholder approach

Provides lightweight, opt-in model for technical operators to collaborate

The speakers agree that TCCM was formed to coordinate the technical community’s input on internet governance issues, defend the multi-stakeholder approach, and provide a flexible collaboration model for technical operators.

Focus on WSIS+20 review

Nick Wenban-Smith

Jennifer Chung

Focusing on WSIS+20 review as key priority for 2025

Engaged in Global Digital Compact process throughout 2024

Both speakers emphasize the importance of the WSIS+20 review and the Global Digital Compact process as key priorities for TCCM’s activities.

Equal participation in internet governance discussions

Jennifer Chung

Jordan Carter

Seeks equal footing with other stakeholders in discussions

Acknowledges governments’ role in formal decision-making

The speakers agree on the importance of equal participation for the technical community in internet governance discussions, while recognizing the specific roles of different stakeholders in formal decision-making processes.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize the importance of early engagement and proactive participation in internet governance processes to effectively influence the agenda and outcomes.

Nick Wenban-Smith

Jennifer Chung

Aiming to influence agenda early before formal processes begin

Engaged in Global Digital Compact process throughout 2024

Both speakers highlight the inclusive nature of TCCM membership, emphasizing flexibility in participation options for technical operators and interested parties.

Nick Wenban-Smith

Jordan Carter

Open to technical operators that provide infrastructure

Offers supporter category for those interested but not ready to join

Unexpected Consensus

Legitimacy of technical community in governance discussions

Jordan Carter

Audience

Acknowledges governments’ role in formal decision-making

Claims legitimacy through operating critical internet infrastructure

There is an unexpected consensus between Jordan Carter and an audience member on the legitimacy of the technical community in internet governance discussions. While acknowledging the formal role of governments, they agree that the technical community’s legitimacy stems from its operational role in maintaining critical internet infrastructure.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement include the purpose and structure of TCCM, the focus on the WSIS+20 review and Global Digital Compact process, and the importance of equal participation in internet governance discussions while recognizing different stakeholder roles.

Consensus level

There is a high level of consensus among the speakers on the core objectives and operational approach of TCCM. This strong agreement suggests that TCCM has a clear direction and unified purpose, which could enhance its effectiveness in representing the technical community in internet governance discussions. However, the specific strategies for influencing policy and the exact nature of the technical community’s role in decision-making processes may require further clarification and consensus-building as the coalition develops.

Different Viewpoints

No significant disagreements identified

The transcript and arguments do not reveal any clear disagreements among the speakers. The discussion primarily focuses on explaining the purpose, structure, and activities of the Technical Community Coalition for Multi-Stakeholderism (TCCM).

Unexpected Differences

Overall Assessment

summary

No significant areas of disagreement were identified among the speakers

difference_level

The level of disagreement among the speakers appears to be minimal to non-existent based on the provided information. The speakers primarily focused on presenting a unified message about the TCCM’s purpose, structure, and activities. This lack of disagreement suggests a cohesive approach within the coalition, which may be beneficial for its effectiveness in engaging with internet governance processes. However, it’s worth noting that this unified front might also limit the diversity of perspectives within the coalition.

Partial Agreements

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize the importance of early engagement and proactive participation in internet governance processes to effectively influence the agenda and outcomes.

Nick Wenban-Smith

Jennifer Chung

Aiming to influence agenda early before formal processes begin

Engaged in Global Digital Compact process throughout 2024

Both speakers highlight the inclusive nature of TCCM membership, emphasizing flexibility in participation options for technical operators and interested parties.

Nick Wenban-Smith

Jordan Carter

Open to technical operators that provide infrastructure

Offers supporter category for those interested but not ready to join

Key Takeaways

The Technical Community Coalition for Multi-Stakeholderism (TCCM) was formed to coordinate technical community input on internet governance, particularly for the WSIS+20 review in 2025.

TCCM aims to defend and strengthen the multi-stakeholder approach to internet governance.

The coalition provides a lightweight, opt-in model for technical operators to collaborate and share information.

TCCM has been actively engaged in the Global Digital Compact process throughout 2024 and is focusing on the WSIS+20 review as a key priority for 2025.

Membership is open to technical operators that provide internet infrastructure, with a supporter category for those interested but not ready to fully join.

The coalition seeks equal footing with other stakeholders in internet governance discussions while acknowledging governments’ role in formal decision-making.

Resolutions and Action Items

TCCM plans to develop an agenda to improve IGF processes in early 2025

The coalition aims to influence the WSIS+20 review agenda early, before formal processes begin

TCCM will continue to expand its membership and collaborate with other stakeholders

Unresolved Issues

How TCCM will resolve potential conflicts of opinion among its members

The specific measures or strategies TCCM will use to influence policymakers

The role of Web 3.0 technologies and how to bridge the gap with traditional internet governance structures

How to ensure TCCM’s formation doesn’t lead to fragmentation or reduced participation in existing IGF processes

Suggested Compromises

TCCM allows members to opt-in to statements, allowing for flexibility when there are differences of opinion

The coalition encourages members to use parts of TCCM resources they agree with and discard others, promoting a flexible approach to collaboration

We have to acknowledge that the experiment has not been 100% successful if you look at achievement towards the SDGs. Yes, of course, there have been massive strides in technology in the last 20 years, massive strides in connectivity, a degree of equalization. But in the same way, you have to acknowledge there’s been a degree of polarization as economies have become a little bit more digitized.

speaker

Nick Wenban-Smith

reason

This comment shows a nuanced and balanced perspective on the progress of internet governance and multistakeholderism, acknowledging both successes and shortcomings.

impact

It set a tone of critical self-reflection for the discussion, encouraging a more honest assessment of the current state of internet governance.

We are operators that manage critical Internet resources. This is actually just a very small slice of what maybe a layperson might understand to be technical community, but this is also very important. We’re the ones who keep the Internet running. I like to say, when we do our good work, you shouldn’t actually notice it. You only notice it if we don’t do our work.

speaker

Jennifer Chung

reason

This comment clearly articulates the unique role and importance of the technical community in maintaining the internet’s infrastructure.

impact

It helped clarify the specific niche and value proposition of the TCCM within the broader internet governance ecosystem.

This is not an association. This is not trying to create a big, heavy structure that tries to speak on behalf of its members. It’s meant to be a rallying point, an exchange of views, a way to learn from each other, perhaps shape each other’s views through that learning, and to test where consensus exists and where it doesn’t in this slice of the technical community.

speaker

Jordan Carter

reason

This comment provides crucial context about the nature and purpose of the TCCM, emphasizing its lightweight and flexible structure.

impact

It addressed potential concerns about the TCCM’s role and helped frame subsequent discussion about its operations and goals.

From one of your earlier slides you said the technical community, as you defined it, should participate in internet governance. I forget the precise three Ds, but debate, discourse, and decision-making, I think it said, on an equal basis with governments. And I wondered what governments think of that. I wondered where your legitimacy comes from compared to democratic governments or authoritarian governments.

speaker

Ian Brown

reason

This question raises important issues about the legitimacy and role of the technical community in relation to governments in internet governance.

impact

It prompted a discussion about the nature of multistakeholder participation and the specific role of the technical community, leading to clarifications about the TCCM’s position.

How would you resolve conflictual opinions within yourself? Now you presume that you’re a community. But, you know, traditionally what I understand is in the technical community often conflicts are resolved based on the technical rationality. So one that is superior to the inferior ones wins, right? But it’s given the nature of the technical community, it’s more or less concerned with political stuff. So how are you planning to resolve such conflicts?

speaker

Unnamed audience member

reason

This question raises important points about potential internal conflicts within the TCCM and how they might be resolved, especially given the political nature of some discussions.

impact

It led to clarifications about the TCCM’s decision-making process and its opt-in nature, highlighting the coalition’s flexibility in dealing with potential disagreements.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by prompting clarifications about the TCCM’s role, structure, and decision-making processes. They encouraged a nuanced examination of the technical community’s place in internet governance, balancing optimism about its potential with realistic acknowledgment of challenges. The discussion moved from introducing the TCCM to critically examining its purpose and operations, ultimately providing a clearer picture of how this new coalition fits into the broader internet governance landscape.

How could the IGF be improved?

speaker

Nick Wenban-Smith

explanation

The coalition plans to develop an agenda for improving the IGF, which is important for enhancing multi-stakeholder participation and effectiveness.

How can the technical community bridge the gap between Web 2.0 and Web 3.0?

speaker

Yik Wei

explanation

This is important to address potential fragmentation in the internet ecosystem and ensure cohesive development of internet technologies.

How will TCCM ensure the technical community doesn’t fade away from existing IGF and IGF-led initiatives?

speaker

Sandra Hoferichter

explanation

This is crucial to maintain the technical community’s engagement in broader internet governance discussions and prevent siloing.

How would TCCM resolve conflicting opinions within itself?

speaker

Unnamed audience member

explanation

This is important for understanding how the coalition will handle internal disagreements and maintain cohesion.

What specific policy measures is TCCM planning to use to influence policymakers?

speaker

Unnamed audience member

explanation

This is crucial for understanding the coalition’s strategy for engaging with and impacting internet governance processes.

How can TCCM leverage its membership to draft positions for the WSIS+20 review?

speaker

Jennifer Chung

explanation

This is important for preparing the coalition’s input into a major upcoming internet governance process.