Uncategorized

Summary

This discussion focused on digital cooperation in the Arab region, exploring the intersection of various global initiatives and their impact on regional development. The conversation centered around three main processes: the World Summit on Information Society (WSIS), the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), and the Global Digital Compact (GDC).

Participants emphasized the importance of the Arab Digital Agenda as a framework for regional digital development, aligning with global initiatives while addressing specific regional needs. They discussed the evolution of digital cooperation from WSIS to the current GDC, highlighting how emerging technologies like AI and data governance have become central concerns.

The role of the Arab IGF was examined as a platform for multi-stakeholder dialogue and its potential to influence global discussions. Speakers stressed the need for harmonization of legal structures and positions on international treaties within the Arab region to attract investment and address technological gaps.

A key point of discussion was the complementarity between existing processes like WSIS and IGF with the newer GDC. Participants advocated for strengthening existing mechanisms rather than creating entirely new ones, emphasizing the importance of inclusive multi-stakeholder approaches.

The discussion also touched on the challenges of coordinating multiple governance processes and the need for developing countries to have sufficient capacity to participate effectively. Speakers called for breaking down the perceived dichotomy between multilateralism and multi-stakeholderism in the region.

Overall, the conversation highlighted the complex landscape of digital cooperation and the importance of regional coordination and representation in global digital governance discussions.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– The World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) process and its ongoing review

– The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and Arab IGF initiatives

– The Global Digital Compact (GDC) and its objectives

– How to integrate and create synergies between WSIS, IGF, and GDC processes

– The Arab Digital Agenda and regional digital cooperation efforts

Overall purpose:

The goal of this discussion was to review the various global and regional digital cooperation processes (WSIS, IGF, GDC) and explore how they can be integrated and strengthened to advance digital development in the Arab region.

Tone:

The tone was largely collaborative and constructive. Participants shared insights on the evolution of these processes and offered suggestions for improving coordination. There was a sense of optimism about the potential for greater regional cooperation, balanced with pragmatic acknowledgment of challenges. The tone became more focused and solution-oriented towards the end as participants discussed concrete ways to create synergies between the different initiatives.

Speakers

– Khaled Waly: Director of the Communication and Information Technology Development Department of the League of Arab States

– Charles Sha’ban: Represents business sector and technical organizations, President of the Multi-Stakeholder Program Advisory Committee of Arab Internet Governance Forum

– Qusai AlShatt: Member of the Internet Council, first president of the Multistakeholder Advisory Committee from 2012 to 2014

– Christine Arida: International expert and strategic advisor to the Executive President of the National Telecom Regulatory Authority of Egypt

– Nermine El Saadany: Regional vice president of the Middle East Internet Society

– Chafic Chaya: Regional manager for public policy and infrastructure, champion of the Arab Internet Governance Forum, current president of the Lebanese IGF

– Hussein Badran: Key member of the committee of Arab Mag and Arab Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Committee

– Ayman El-Sherbiny: Moderator

Additional speakers:

– Suha: Expert in the Communication and Information Technology Development Department of the League of Arab States

– Mohammad Rashid: Representative of young business entrepreneurs and leaders

– Dr. Nermin Salim: Secretary General of Creators Union of Arab

– Maher Melhem: From Microsoft

Digital Cooperation in the Arab Region: Integrating Global Initiatives for Regional Development

This discussion explored digital cooperation in the Arab region, focusing on the intersection of global initiatives and their impact on regional development. The conversation centered around three main processes: the World Summit on Information Society (WSIS), the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), and the Global Digital Compact (GDC).

Arab Digital Agenda and WSIS

The Arab Digital Agenda emerged as a central framework for regional digital development, aligning with global initiatives while addressing specific regional needs. Ayman El-Sherbiny highlighted that the agenda addresses digital divides and emerging technologies, featuring a unique measurement system and implementation framework. He emphasized, “This is the only one in the world, except for Europe,” noting its distinctive approach with 170 indicators across seven pillars and 21 objectives.

Suha from the Arab League discussed the increased engagement of Arab countries in WSIS processes and initiatives. She highlighted the importance of the WSIS process in promoting digital development and cooperation in the region. Qusai Al-Shatti pointed out that the digital divide remains a challenge, particularly in internet access and cost. Chafic Chaya emphasized the need for stronger partnerships and collaborations aligned with WSIS principles.

Arab Internet Governance Forum (IGF)

The role of the Arab IGF was examined as a platform for multi-stakeholder dialogue and its potential to influence global discussions. Ayman El-Sherbiny noted that the Arab IGF started in 2012 and has held several iterations across the region. Charles Sha’ban explained that Arab IGF themes consider both regional needs and global IGF themes, advocating for the renewal of the IGF mandate for another decade. He also mentioned that political tensions and military conflicts have sometimes affected the timing of the Arab IGF.

Christine Arida stressed the need for the Arab IGF to be more inclusive of grassroots organizations and youth, suggesting that more effort should be made to engage these groups in the dialogue process. The upcoming Arab IGF 7 in Amman was mentioned as an opportunity to address these concerns and further regional digital cooperation.

Global Digital Compact (GDC)

Qusai Al-Shatti outlined the five main objectives of the GDC, covering digital divides, digital economy, digital space, data governance, and AI. Nermine El Saadany noted that the GDC faced initial challenges in negotiating between multilateral and multi-stakeholder approaches. She suggested that the IGF could serve as a vehicle for implementing the GDC.

Mohammad Rashid highlighted the importance of data sharing and transport for startups and global scaling. Dr. Nermin Salim emphasized the significance of intellectual property rights in the digital context.

Complementarity between WSIS, IGF, and GDC

A key point of discussion was the complementarity between existing processes like WSIS and IGF with the newer GDC. Chafic Chaya advocated for strengthening existing mechanisms rather than creating entirely new ones. Charles Sha’ban stressed the importance of giving stakeholders their respective roles while collaborating.

Ayman El-Sherbiny highlighted the UN’s role as custodian of both multilateral and multi-stakeholder processes. Christine Arida cautioned against the duplication of governance processes and called for breaking down the perceived dichotomy between multilateralism and multi-stakeholderism in the region.

Nermine El Saadany emphasized the need for more consultation with regional groups to understand challenges and opportunities, promoting cross-regional collaboration and alignment in addressing digital challenges. She also noted the importance of streamlining various digital cooperation processes to address capacity constraints in developing countries.

Maher Melhem from Microsoft emphasized the need for harmonized legal structures and treaties in the Arab region to attract investment and foster digital innovation.

In conclusion, the discussion highlighted the complex landscape of digital cooperation and the importance of regional coordination and representation in global digital governance discussions. The conversation demonstrated a shared vision for digital development in the Arab region, with a focus on leveraging existing mechanisms, promoting multi-stakeholder approaches, and addressing the unique challenges faced by developing countries in the digital sphere. The upcoming Arab IGF 7 in Amman was identified as a key opportunity to advance these goals and further refine the region’s approach to digital cooperation.

Ayman El-Sherbiny: So we did it like that. Good morning, Dr. Ayman. Record? Record on? Record on? Your voice is clear, Dr. Ayman. Hello, sir. Record on. Good morning, everyone. Welcome to this session, the 11th Open Forum on Digital Cooperation in the Arab Region. The Arab region’s view of digital cooperation has a methodological background, and has several processes that make up the concept of digital cooperation. Is the audio okay? It’s okay, doctor. We can hear you. Can you hear us? If there are other mics, please shut down the other mics. We’ll just leave the mics with the panelists here. Again, the title of this session, the 11th Open Forum, is in the 10th floor, titled Digital Cooperation in the Arab Region. The concept of digital cooperation is based on the title that was before us, which is related to the process of the World Summit on Information Society, and is also related to all international networks, and the latest one is the Global Digital Compact. Therefore, the founding title is that we are doing a round of consultations, after we did the first round in Dubai, this is the second edition of the Arab Consultative Conference on the WSIS Plus 20 review and the Global Digital Compact process. We’ll talk about the Pact of the Future, Global Digital Compact with Declaration of Future Generations, as it is, the context of this dialogue. At the same time, we’ll try to answer some of the main points in these dialogues. We’ll give time, God willing, on the floor and remotely through Zoom. First of all, I’d like to introduce our guests. We have with us remotely the panelists from the main partner between ESCOA and the Arab Region. We have a direct relationship with all Arab countries, but it is also strengthened through the Arab League. We are supposed to have with us Mr. Khaled Wali, Director of the Communication and Information Technology Development Department of the League of Arab States. In this meeting, Mr. Belqasem and Ms. Suha will represent the medical team. Mr. Belqasem is the Director of the Communication and Information Technology Development Department of the League of Arab States. Ms. Suha is an expert in the Communication and Information Technology Development Department. They will be with us virtually via Zoom. On the right, we have Mr. Charlie Chaaban, who has several hats. He usually represents the stakeholder component related to the business sector in general, as well as the technical organizations specialized in technical academia. He also plays an important role in the multi-stakeholder arrangement in the Arab Internet Governance Forum. He is the President of the Multi-Stakeholder Program Advisory Committee. Mr. Charlie Chaaban is here with us. We also have with us remotely one of the important partners in digital cooperation, Ms. Christine Arida. She was supposed to be with us in a difficult situation, but God willing, things will get better. She preferred to be with us virtually. Her role is essential, and we will explain it during the discussion. She is an international expert and strategic advisor to the Executive President of the National Telecom Regulatory Authority of the Arab Republic of Egypt. She also played an important role for a long time in managing the Artistic Trust Team of the Arab IGF Secretariat. On the left, we have Mr. Qusai Al-Shabti, who is a physically a member of the Internet Council. He was the first president of the Multistakeholder Advisory Committee from 2012 to 2014, which is the founding phase of the Arab IGF. On the right, we have Mr. Shafiq Shaikh, who is the chief RIR in the region and in Europe. He is the regional manager for public policy and infrastructure, one of the champions of the Arab Internet Governance Forum, and the current president of the Lebanese IGF. On the left, we have Mr. Nermin Al-Saadani, who is the regional vice president of the Middle East Internet Society, in addition to her previous roles with the Egyptian administration. We also have Ms. Myrna Barber from the Esquire team in the Digital Cooperation and Development team. She is with us remotely. She will be with us during this session and its broadcasts, as well as the remote inquiries. We also have Ms. Rita Wahby from the Esquire team, and the research support. She will be with us to answer the questions and present the summary at the end of the session. Without further ado, let me quickly tell you how our story will go today. Simply, this hour and a half should be a journey. We will walk together and discuss. and we take opinions about the journey we all embarked on in the Arab region in comparison to the world, starting from 2002, 2003, 2005 and it has a certain significance and it has not ended yet then we point to certain things that appeared in 2006 and continue to this day then new things, other paths, appeared in 2019 and continue to this day so we found that the chronological discourse is the best way to move in the path of what is happening and because all these things are still vibrant and still a place of renewal and development so we will try to divide the questions in a way that is exposed to the older processes then the newer, then the newer, then the newer simply, we will start from the basics and you have heard a lot, for those who are new to this matter that we have 10 months left for the second renewal of the Information Society where it started in 2003, in its first phase in January 2005 in Tunisia and the Tunisian Agenda was issued but it also issued a recognition of major problems that were the biggest and greatest in the area of finance and this is an endless topic, but in the subject of internet governance so in 2003, which started in 1998 in Minneapolis people and stakeholders through the Plenipotentiary in Minneapolis in 1998 decided that it is necessary to enter the ICT world to the world of development and the world of international cooperation and therefore they set a goal to have a global summit and of course I am proud to mention these issues because I have kept all these things live in my career and profession from days before the United Nations when I was still in the industry so 1998 was a moment of a team, not only in WSIS, but also in the formation of ICANN and in the formation of many things around the world so the issues… These matters are still ongoing. The WSIS has been reviewed by the WSIS Plus 5 and the WSIS Plus 10. I would like to mention that Mr. Nermin, in the Egyptian administration at the time, was globally responsible for the WSIS Plus 10 review in 2015. At that time, he looked back 10 years and found that the most important thing was to continue the WSIS to 25. Today, in 2024, in a few days, we will see if we will renew the global WSIS in its form, content, and structure, or if we will change these things. Or if we will cancel it. No one knows, but it will be discussed. This is the process. Today, the WSIS Plus 20 has reached the second stage of renewal. We participated in the first round of this session in Dubai on May 22, and we did the first consultations. We will build on it today because there have been changes from May to today. That is, 7 months of a simple thing in the age of the internet, and also a quick thing in the age of policymaking, which is good news. This is the first context we will talk about. Then, we will talk about the path that resulted from the issue of internet governance. An agenda emerged in Tunisia in the form of an invitation to establish the International Forum on Internet Governance. We will attend the 19th round, and the second time in the Arab region, where the first time was in Sharm El Sheikh in 2009. So, we will ask the second question today about the International IGF, as well as the Arab one that we established in the region in 2011, and its activities began in 2012, based on the initiative of the ISCO in 2009 in Sharm El Sheikh, where the International IGF was present in the region. and arrange our affairs in a year or two, we will have an Arab forum. This will be the second question for the panelists and for you. So, today, we will ask what will happen now. What will happen now is not only a renewal of the WSIS within 10 months, but a renewal of the IGF as well. Will the IGF remain in its form and structure, or will we take opinions and contribute to a new formation? So, the second question is about the process that was born in 2006, and is now being renewed in 2015-2025. So, we are a team at the moment. The third thing is completely different. It’s not a Tunisian agenda, but it was the vision of the UN Secretary General in 2018-2019. The concept of our title is Digital Cooperation. He came up with a new title, because he found that from 2006 to 2018, there are still two camps operating at the same time. The multi-stakeholder camp is operating, and it produces dialogues and messages, but it’s not connected to the multilateral in any way. The multilateral camp, which was expecting more from the Tunisian agenda, was taking a side and fighting important issues, especially the issues of sovereignty and the role of governments. So, when the UN Secretary General read the 2018 agenda under the title of Digital Cooperation, which is not included in the report of the High-Level Panel, he was talking about a very large approach from all the camps, an approach between multilateralism and multi-stakeholderism, which resulted in, three months ago, in the context of the Summit of the Future, the Global Digital Compact and other things. So, this is our third question. It hasn’t been completed for two or three months. Even our colleagues and I are discussing and arranging it. There is nothing new, but this morning Filippo, as you saw in the workshop number 7, said what I was going to say. He said, by the way, we are working. We are quiet, but we are working. I think that was good news for everyone. So, what are we going to discuss? What we will discuss there, we will start discussing with you, which is the stage of implementation, the implementation of global digital content. And finally, not finally, we will talk about how all this puzzle fits together. So, let’s start with the first question, which is about WSIS. Let me just go back a few seconds. The first question will be for the Arab League. But there is a part of the story that I forgot to say, or I deliberately left it for the Arab League, because the first intervention is the one that most people can delve into, but the door is open to all colleagues. Mr. Bilqasem, Ms. Suha, and Mr. Khaled Wali, the Arab League, recently, we have joined many companies, including the Arab Internet Authority, the WSIS 2030 Agenda, the Digital Cooperation and Development Forum, which includes all these concepts. I mentioned the other one in Amman. But more importantly, we have put together the Arab Digital Agenda. It is similar to the Global Digital Compact, but for the Arab region. We have been working on it since 2019, and it was an honor for us to propose it here, near the Ritz-Carlton in 2019, at the Arab Council of Ministers meeting of the 23rd round. And we said that we must do something for the region, like Europe, which has a European Digital Agenda. So, we will organize ourselves and work on the Arab Digital Agenda. We decided in 2019 to put a vision, and ESPO put a vision in 2020. We worked with all the countries, all the international organizations, and the Arab League and other organizations. and we produced it, and today the Arab Digital Agenda is based on the level of the Arab Ministry of Finance, the Arab Economic and Social Establishment, and most importantly, on the level of the leaders and kings of the Arab countries. The Arab Digital Agenda is its presenter, and I think the question now is about WSIS, because this is the first thing we are going to talk about, and the Arab Digital Agenda is directed to the colleagues of the Arab National Security Team, and they are the Secretary-General and a partner in the Arab Digital Agenda and the Arab WSIS forum. We have Sayed Belkasem with us. Zoom, if you can hear us.

Speaker: Good morning. Good morning. I can’t hear you, Belkasem. No, I’m Suha. Suha. Good morning. Can you hear me? I can’t hear you. Good morning, everyone. Can you hear me, Dr. Ayman? Suha, go ahead. I can’t hear you. Can you hear me? Good morning. Can you hear me? Yes, I can hear you. Good morning, Dr. Ayman, colleagues. Good morning, Dr. Christine Areda, my dear colleague. Good morning, Dr. Ayman. how all the processes happen, and the prep-comms, and… At that time, there was no big response from the Arab countries, and there was still a gap, and we were working in an isolated world. But with time, with progress, now there is a lot of activity. The university has participated in many things in the last year. We cooperated with ESCO, as you mentioned, focusing on many initiatives, like the Arab Digital Content Initiative. We started to look at WSIS more broadly. We created the Arab Digital Agenda, which is very important for all the issues related to infrastructure, cyber security, and digital governance. It encouraged us to innovate. There was also a contribution to the development of the international digital platform, in which we participated. Recently, we started from scratch, and we participated with ESCO in many steps. Also, the issue of digital economy emerged very strongly. We didn’t have it in 2005, as all the Arab countries, I’m not talking individually. After that, there was a big development, and the result is that two years ago, there was a digital Arab indicator for the digital economy, for the first time, and this is of course a breakthrough. The Arab Internet Governance Forum, which you mentioned, Dr. Ayman, Of course, the widest field that we have now is the cyber security initiatives, because many countries were exposed to cyber threats, and the response was fast, and it will appear this month at the first Arab summit for cyber security. A cyber security council will be established. We cooperated with ESCO. There was also a big development in the subject of infrastructure, and we were fighting it in WSIS 2005, I think it was the T3, one of the action lines. There was no issue, and we were not interested in it in all sectors. Also, new things emerged, the smart cities, and the improvement of civil affairs and sustainable development. Things started to look good within the framework of WSIS, and this reflects that the countries are very committed to many initiatives. As for the WSIS plus 20 reviews, we made an evaluation of the progress of WSIS since 2005-2003, especially in the field of ICT, and then… The sound is gone. The sound is gone. Did anyone hear it? The sound is gone. Thank you very much, Ms. Suha.

Ayman El-Sherbiny: By the way, I forgot to say that we all want to try to make interventions for two to three minutes. But until we get back to the field and the microphone to the Arab League, we will move on to Mr. Qosay Al-Shatty, especially since he is one of the people who attended the WSIS topics. So, I would like you to give us a glimpse of your vision for the WSIS topic. Let’s not get into GDC right now. The WSIS mainly and the Arab Digital Agenda, because it is based on the WSIS action lines.

Qusai AlShatt: Thank you, Mr. Ayman, and thank you for organizing this workshop. You’re welcome. Is speaking in Arabic appropriate? Okay. We have compared it to the global level of information society. There is a big similarity, especially when it comes to access, or the implementation of internet services, and to the digital infrastructure, and its application to concepts such as data for continents, and the governance of these data, as well as issues related to cyber security, in addition to issues related to the governance of the Arab world. But… Thank you. However, the Arab agenda is more focused on breaking the gap between the Arab countries in these issues. And this is a set of challenges. For example, if we take today the issue of the internet, and despite spending more than 25 years on the Global Summit for the Internet Society, the gap between the Arab countries in the implementation of the internet is huge, in terms of cost, quality, and bandwidth. The issue of wide bandwidth, or… The wide bandwidth is still a big challenge in the Arab region. The existence of exchange points, IXPs, within the Arab world and between some Arab countries or regional countries is a big challenge. ISOC did a good project in the African continent to establish IXPs between the African countries. But at the national level, in order to reduce the Internet, to establish a local IXP between employers or regionals, this is still a big challenge. Therefore, the importance of the digital agenda is that there are no clear projects between the Arab countries, but there are national initiatives that reduce the gap, strengthen the network, solve challenges jointly, and create partnerships between the private sector, civil society and governments to face these challenges jointly, or through investment to solve these challenges, and not relying on public resources only as a means. Therefore, in our view, the digital agenda is an ambitious agenda. We hope that there are indicators to measure it and implement it, and to solve the challenges we are facing today. We still have Arab countries where the Internet usage is less than 50%. There are still Arab countries where Internet usage is costly compared to the income of the citizens. On the other hand, there are Arab countries where the Internet usage is not 100%, but 99%. For example, we are in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia today, and the cost is less. Today, we have entered the international equation. The internet is cheaper and more efficient. We used to say that in the southern countries, the internet efficiency is lower, but the cost is higher. Today, the Arab countries face the same situation. The countries that are technologically advanced or advanced in infrastructure, the cost of the internet is lower. Whereas, the countries that have a simple or weak access, the cost of the internet is higher than those in our advanced countries. Therefore, these are all challenges that the Arabic digital agenda faces, and we hope to solve them.

Ayman El-Sherbiny: Thank you. Thank you very much. Actually, the next intervention is for Mr. Shafiq Shaya. Before the intervention, I would like to comment on the point of the Arabic digital agenda. Indeed, the Arabic digital agenda, when we put it in place, it still faces major problems. It may cause problems in the latest digital divide, whether in the policy divide or in the content, or in issues related to AI. But the beauty of the Arabic digital agenda is that it was built on a system based on measurement. This is the only one in the world, except for Europe. In Europe, we have an intrinsic system of measurement within the concept of the Arabic digital agenda, which is a compass, where we have been and where we want to be for ten years, divided into three stages of time, four years, then three years, and then three years. We have not only a baseline, but we have negotiated targets for each goal. We have 35 goals, divided into five large groups. These 35 goals cover issues related to politics in general, implementation, basic infrastructure, legislative infrastructure, cyber security, as well as issues related to the digital economy, and issues related to companies. emerging technologies, AI, and even cryptocurrencies. I mean, all the issues related to the digital economy, including the use of ICT sectors, which we still have, to create job opportunities and export them. You can also go to the Digital Transformation Department and see our website in the countries and how we improve our international intermediaries related to e-health, e-education, and the future of work, and so on. There is also a chapter on culture and media that deals with social media, conversions, and other issues. But the good news is that we don’t have anyone who thinks they have reached perfection. So, before we finish the first chapter, we agreed to update it within two years. So, during this period, we are also adding new goals and adjusting some things to cover the topics of climate, the planet, agriculture, water, even the peaceful use of outer space, and AI. Last week, we held a big meeting on AI, its technologies, industries, and the rule of AI four or five days ago. Dr. Hussein Badran is with us. I would like to welcome him and his colleagues. It is a living framework of work. It is also nice that, with our love for the GDC, we are still building an implementation framework. But in the Arab Digital Agenda, the implementation framework is built before it is implemented. So, it includes an implementation framework to support implementation, measurement, and implementation and sustainability. So, I am glad to hear that. I would like to go back to the topic of action lines and their intersection with the 2030 Agenda. Mr. Shafiq would like to tell us about his opinion on the important initiatives and actions, especially regarding the extension of WSIS and the role of the different stakeholders related to the Arab Digital Agenda in the coming period. Saeed Shafee, Shaeed Fadl. Thank you, Ayman.

Chafic Chaya: First, thank you for the invitation and thank you for being with us today. These discussions are really very important to share insights from the different stakeholder groups. So, directly to your question, Ayman, I believe that from the technical community and namely from RIPE NCC, to have an inclusive multi-stakeholder and impactful action lines, we need to have strong partnerships and collaborations. These partnerships and collaborations should be in accordance with the WSIS principles and objectives. Let me highlight three main pillars where our activities as RIPE NCC and let’s say technical community intersect with the WSIS action line and GDCs. So, direct to the point, I will go first to the first action line, which is the Internet Infrastructure Resilience, which is action line number two. When we talk about Internet Infrastructure Resilience, we talk about connectivity, we talk about security, we talk about how we can connect people to the Internet in a meaningful way. So, to do this, we had partnerships, we had collaboration with multiple governments and regulators. I believe we achieved a lot during the last two years where we can see now the region is championing in IPv6 and routing security. Another point that I would like to tackle in the infrastructure, from infrastructure perspective, is the IXPs. IXPs are very international. So this is one of the advantages of the Internet Exchange Point, which is very important to keep our data secure. The other advantage of the Internet Exchange Point, these are very important hubs to host local contacts, because one of the challenges is to have our content hosted outside our region. Another advantage of the Internet Exchange Point is to have traffic and we can’t do without them. So this is one of the advantages of the Internet Exchange Point. So I will go to the second pillar, which is the WSIS Action Line No. 4, capacity building and knowledge sharing. This is very important point. Without capacity building, without knowledge, we can do nothing. What we saw in the last years working in this region, we are not able to build a network, we can’t build a network, we can’t build a network. We need to have the knowledge, we need to have the tools. And once again, technical community and RIPE NCC are there to offer these tools, to support members, to support governments with the necessary expertise in infrastructure. So this is very important point. We need to take it into consideration. And the last pillar that I see an important point, which is the collaborative Internet Governance. And this is a good example, we are here today to collaborate. Without collaboration, as we said, we need all the expertise from all the stakeholders to have an impactful actions and to achieve our goals nationally and regionally. And here, last point is, it’s not about only collaboration between IKEA, RIPE, and the EU, it’s collaboration between What are some examples, perhaps insights too, whether any of the the technical community, the UN organization, the Arab state, all the organization regionally and nationally, plus the collaboration between NRIs that we discussed yesterday. We need to have this collaboration at the national and regional level to have these impactful achievements. Thank you Ayman. Thank you Shafi, very interesting and you brought to the table something that

Ayman El-Sherbiny: comes also in the real time to mention it. Part of the Arab digital agenda is what you exactly mentioned, the collaboration and partnership framework and the platform for this collaboration partnership framework and we have with Rita here now some brochures for the collaboration partnership framework. Initiatives as such is not just an idea to be put there in the collaboration partnership framework, sorry Shafi, but it was elevated in the beginning and was put inside the ADA. These are called the key initiatives, not only projects. So this IXP project and the routing project are one of 10 main, let us say fundamental initiatives that were put also under the adoption of the manuscript of the 1.0 edition of the Arab digital agenda. So we have these ideas deeply earmarked and as well put into this CPF, collaboration partnership framework, but we need all your initiatives, we need all your programs and projects so that we combine them together and create regional programs to support the implementation and also to drive funding and investments to the region. Ten seconds, just I forgot that RIPE NCC is a partner with Esquire and the government of state in the ADA. We are working together with them in two areas which is the IPv6 to ensure that we have the good connectivity and on the routing security to ensure we have a secure routing path for our data. Exactly. And the good news, it is part of Action Line 2 of WSIS and part of Cluster 2 of ADA. So, infrastructure is fundamental and we discussed infrastructure of AI last week as well.

Chafic Chaya: So, I know that Nermeen is the best also to talk about the WSIS, but I will save her input to more the relations, the GDC, the IGF and others.

Nermine El Saadany: Unless you want to give a quick comment on the extension of the WSIS before move to the IGF and then the GDC. Thank you so much Ayman. I just want to build quickly on the introduction that you have made and of course the deliberation of my colleagues and highlight. How can we make the Arab voice more impactful when it comes to the review process of the WSIS plus 20 and of course the IGF and the GDC and so on. And my comments will be very very quickly in three main pillars that in my opinion would shape how the Arab in that regard. The first is that we should have an Arab digital agenda and this we are lucky to have the ADA and it was very much promising to have the ADA modality when the ASPA was starting to shape it up as a multi-stakeholder model. So they seek input from all stakeholders to contribute to the document or to the agenda itself. However, we have a slight challenge, how are we going to implement this and this is something maybe we can discuss later, but it’s very very important that we don’t only stop at the drafting of the agenda itself, but rather to look at the modality of how are we going to implement because this will be very impactful that the Arab goes through the process of the review when they have one voice and one solid vision about the different aspects. issues and the different tracks of the WSIS, the GDC, and the IGF even. The other very important component is, sorry, is to be open to consult with regional groups. Yes, we do this, but it’s not very solid in the way we do business. So we need to do more consultation of the regional groups, all groups, so African groups, and so on, and understand the challenges they face and the opportunities that they see, and share with them as well what we see as challenges to our region, and exchange these kinds of views so that we go together aligned. So we don’t go in different boats, but we go aligned in the same boat, more or less. And the final thing is to embrace more thoroughly in our beliefs and in the way we think about multi-stakeholderism as a concept, and I’m not referring here to the normal multi-stakeholderism with the, you know, to be open to the technical community, academia, civil society, and the like, but also actually to include stakeholders from the Arab countries. So for instance, we always discuss, for instance, digital skills gap, okay, and we suggest, for instance, that we need to add curriculum, new curriculum in universities. While we don’t have one single university sitting in the room, listening to our deliberations, and thinking how they can take this and start to implement them in their own arena. So we need to include our own stakeholders, whether they are private sector, whether they are academia, and NGOs, and so on, so that we can embrace the multi-stakeholderism bottom-up from our own communities, as well as to be open, of course, to multi-stakeholder approach or organizations from, you know, the rest of the world. Thank you so much, Ayme. Thank you so much, Nermeen, and now we continue the story. As we go with the story, what started

Ayman El-Sherbiny: in 2003-2005 will continue, because it’s still alive, but we’ll add now the new aspect of newborn IGF end of 2005, and it really took shape in 2006. In Athens, we met, most of us, in the first year of IGF. I remember me and Posey were skeptical but he always told me the process will grow let us see in 2007 and let us see afterwards and the process took shape and now we are in the 15th edition so I said this before but I would like to now mention a little bit the Arab IGF the Arab IGF started as I said with an idea in 2009 and the first edition was in 2012 in Kuwait with the support of the Kuwaiti government and kids and especially our champion Mr. Posey. We had established the AMAG or the MAG of the Arab IGF in the beginning of 2012. We did a open consultation with all stakeholders, RIPE was there at that time, many others like ICANN, like ISOC and operators and so on and so forth so it started there we did several iterations in Algeria. I have Algerian colleagues today with us and then in Lebanon in Egypt we passed by Tunis by Morocco we did many junctions in the way and now the Arab IGF7 will be taking place in Amman as part of the digital cooperation development forum during 23 to 26th of February and we have also a brochure on that which is the orange brochure on the event but while we distribute it I will ask Christine because Christine is not only now going to talk about Arab IGF but she will talk about Arab IGF and how can it influence the global IGF which was part of the idea that we are not doing that to be like elves but we want to make a difference in the world and the question is how can this processes Christine like Arab IGF in which you play the head of the secretariat. representing the NTRA for many years, and I have Faraghi with us who played a substantial role. So Christine, tell us your views now on the second segment of the questions on the IGF, Arab IGF, the relationship, and a little bit on how this moment in history of digital cooperation can help bridge the gap between multilateral and multi-stakeholder. Christine, the floor is yours.

Christine Arida: Hello Ayman, can you hear me? Yes. And can you see me? I can see you, but I don’t know if you can see me or not. Let me check. I can see you, I can see you. So I want to start by thanking ESCO for organizing this discussion. I think it’s timely, important, and well-needed at this stage. I’m also really happy to see this gathering happening in Riyadh, which I think is a milestone in itself. So without further thanks, I think there are many people around the room to thank, but I think what is important at this stage is to look at the role of the Arab IGF among the bigger picture of the IGF role as a whole. And I’ve been listening into discussions and participating in the discussions through Day Zero and until today, and there is so much talk about the importance of the IGF at this stage with the GDC implementation just barely starting and with the WSIS plus 20 coming up very quickly. And I think the Arab IGF, pretty much like the IGF, has done a great job in opening up topics and issues and shaping up discussions. looking through the journey since it started until the last session that we had just a week ago to discuss with the Lebanese IGF and the North African IGF. We’ve been really opening up topics and discussing very important issues to the Arab region. We also had outputs, we had messages coming out, we had partnerships that happened. So I think if we’re going to gauge what we’ve done, we’ve done a good job. But the problem that is at hand is how do we link that to everything that is happening? How do we link the work of the Arab IGF to the other, to discussions among the Arab group in ITU, to discussions among Arab member states in New York? So basically, drawing linkages is, in my view, one of the biggest challenges that we are facing at this stage. And in order to be impactful, we need to remember why we have the Arab IGF, why we have the IGF itself. It’s to have a bottom-up, multi-stakeholder dialogue, and to come out with best practices, ideas, possibly even policy recommendations that was all very broad within the mandate and the Arab IGF was not alien to that. But we really have to take a serious step back and look at the future of the Arab IGF and see how do we want to proceed in that direction? And how do we want to be impactful with other NRIs during the coming year and shaping up also the follow up of the GDC? I will stop here and I hope that I addressed some of your questioning. Okay, sure, Christine. Thank you and stay tuned. We’ll ask you about the other processes as well. And now we move to Mr. Charles Chaban, who is also one of the key players in the Arab IGF role. He was a member of the Global MAG of IGF for some time, Christine as well, and he then joined the machinery of the Arab IGF and he became the head of the multi-stakeholder program advisory committee. So the AMPAC, A-M-P-A-X-T, Arab Multi-Stakeholder Program Advisory Committee, how do you consider the Global IGF themes? And how did we take it into consideration while we were planning the Arab IGF themes for next February, inshallah? And if you would like to shed light on your thoughts on the extension of the Global IGF

Charles Sha’ban: and let us say the also evolution of the Arab IGF. But the floor is yours, you can order as you like. Thank you Ayman, but we have two to three minutes so I will not cover everything, I’ll try to cover whatever I can. Well thanks everyone for that. In fact, important question and how we, I think we can go back to the start when Qusay, my friend, was the head of the Arab MAG, and today it was mentioned IXPs for example. So when we started even we used to know what our region needs and based on that we used to select the subjects we want to present for everyone in the Arab IGF. At the same time, the connection with the Global IGF, we used to always take their themes in consideration, we used to think for example this theme is important for us too so we keep it to be in harmonization with the Global IGF too. But the main issue I think I should stress on is we were always putting our region in specific as the priority and what we need here more. Going to the next one in Amman, based on the Global IGF and the local even, what we need, as I mentioned. We agreed that we will talk about three main themes this February, hope to see everyone in Amman. We will have one first theme about artificial intelligence, ethics and legislation. The second one will be about the trust, especially data privacy and data governance. And the third theme, my colleagues and I, of course, we agreed on one, internet and digital sovereignty. This will cover, by the way, what some people are discussing globally to about internet fragmentation. So these are the main three themes we will consider around. You asked me again about how we see the global IGF even in general evolving. I think we should push even as Arab IGF that we should maybe renew it for another decade. Even, I know you will discuss GDC later, but I think even the GDC seems they were somehow moving towards this and that they know that the IGF was an important body and an important event that everyone is participating on and interested in. So I think I’ll stop here for now to leave time for my friends, thank you. Okay, thank you so much. Now, if we don’t have other interventions on the IGF or Arab IGF, we will move to the GDC. But before that, I would like to give a chance for the floor inside and outside, if they want to ask one or two questions. Now on Oasis, we finished the Oasis and the IGF segment,

Ayman El-Sherbiny: we will move to the GDC, which is another paradigm, and then the linkages between the two paradigms. So if we don’t have any hands raised, I will, okay, Dr. Hussain Sadran, one of the key members of the committee of Arab Mag

Hussein Badran : and later the Arab Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Committee. Thank you, thanks so much, Ahmed. It’s a pleasure to be here. It’s an honor actually to participate in this. Thank you for Saudi Arabia. for hosting us, very much appreciated. Regarding the wishes and contribution of the Arab states, I think having a common agenda for the Arab states is approach number one, and I’m very happy to see that we have the other and we’re looking into refining it. I believe it’s also very valuable that on the national level the community can engage with its own delegate, with its government, to enrich the discussion, to raise the priorities. As we know, ultimately it will be a multilateral negotiation, and every government will have a vote, will have a voice in these negotiations to prepare the government’s representatives with the priorities from a multi-stakeholder perspective, what is important to society, what’s important to the private sector, the businesses, the academia, so that when their representatives go to New York and negotiate, they are armed with this information. Some countries are doing this already, but I hope that in the Arab region we can approach our own governments and make them, and arm them with this kind of information.

Ayman El-Sherbiny: Thank you. Okay, but before you leave, I will not leave you, I’m coming, approaching to you, to ask something that people think it doesn’t relate to WSIS, and they think it doesn’t relate to IGF, but it, from my point of view, does. Do you think that the AI is alien to the WSIS? A WSIS cannot cover the AI with the action lines of Essex infrastructure, cultural media, and all these things, because when we go to the GDC, I would like also to hear your views as we are renewing the WSIS.

Hussein Badran : Yeah, I think technology, particularly emerging technologies have a role to play in all these discussions, in terms of, not only in terms of development and infrastructure, but also in capacity building and businesses. They have an impact on business, they have an impact on the economy, and they have an impact on knowledge. So they have a role to play, and being aware of these concepts and how they impact us and having our voice raised is very critical. They have a role to play, for sure. Very good, thank you so much. So I will leave another version of the replies to every one of the panelists, whenever they want. and to tell us how can the West’s action lines cover emerging technologies. And I’m with the approach of Shafi to snatch the mic. Go ahead. No, because you know that I need to leave in two minutes. So, just to comment on the GDC. I believe the strategic location of the Middle East region and the advancement, the technology advancement that we are witnessing now, plus the openness of the region could be really a leverage for our strength and to show our cases at the global level at the GDC. So, what we need to do is to take success stories, is to take our collaboration that achieved a lot of progress and achievements and to share it at the global level during these global processes like GDC and others. So, I will stop here and I would like to invite you at 1pm workshop, room number seven, we’ll have the Lebanese and the Canadian IGF workshop to show how a developing country as Lebanon and a developed country as Canada, both of them, they are leveraging their own multi-stakeholder approach for IGF.

Ayman El-Sherbiny: Thank you, Eman, for the invitation again and good luck for the end of this workshop. Thank you. Thank you. And once we finish here, we’ll go to this workshop because Esko is also participating in, our colleague Mirna Barba. So, we will go, which room you said, seven? Seven, okay. So, now I’ll move to the GDC and Mr. Qusaysh Shati is one of the international experts who digged deep and made a lot of dives while we were negotiating the GDC, REV1, REV3 and so on, and now the GDC. And can you just tell us what are the five objectives, just to give the audience a glimpse of these five objectives quickly? Until you are ready, I will just give the history of the GDC. The GDC started as an idea… during the report on digital cooperation in 2019, also the idea of tech envoy office, OSET, and then in Esquire we did contribute to regional consultations on this digital cooperation since 2019 in Berlin when we were IJF, and then during the COVID, and then we took it further in 2021 in the first edition of the Arab International Digital Cooperation Development Forum. In our views, we thought this is the way we can be in advance before even it is negotiated, and before it went to the summit of the future and came up. So I asked Kossai on the main objectives of GDC, but let me explain the context. The summit of the future, the pact, had chapter three, some articles related to science, technology, innovation, digital technology, and so on, but the main annex was the global digital compact negotiated text, another annex on the future generations, but the objectives are the core of the core. So Kossai, what are the five objectives of the GDC?

Qusai AlShatt: Thank you, dear Ayman, but let me start from the previous topic, which is can WSIS and IJF accommodate emerging technologies? Okay, go ahead. And that will be the bridge. Paragraph 72 of the Tunis agenda, which said the mandate, the Internet Governance Forum stated that part of the role of the IJF is to accommodate emerging technologies. Emerging technologies 2005, that is AI today, that is the blockchain today, that has been today, this is just an example. So AI can be accommodated based on the fact that emerging technology was always part of the main agenda of the IJF, since it is launched and part of the WSIS too. So moving from there to the GDC. The Global Compact is a positive, proactive evolution of the WSIS Outputs, which is the Geneva Declaration of Principles and the Tunis Agenda. These two documents have been produced in 2005. For more than 10 years, you need to be more current, you need to update the concerns and the objectives of the global community. So the first one, closing all digital divides and accelerating progress across the Sustainable Development Goals. It links the digital divide with the Sustainable Development Goals, and yet it puts the access actually issues under the digital divide. So today, connectivity, digital literacy, skills and capacities, and digital public goods, and digital public infrastructure became part of the digital divide objective within the global. This is not a contradictory, this is an evolution. So we consider the digital divide is not only the human skill, but also the infrastructure and services that are available to him to improve his skills and use it as part of his daily life. The other objective was getting the benefit of the digital economy and making the digital economy inclusive to all. So we need to get all as individuals, as stakeholders, as communities, as countries, as regions, and the global world to get the benefit of the digital economy and making the digital economy inclusive to all. This is to promote entrepreneurship. This is to promote inclusion. This is to promote inclusion. is to promote innovation. This is to make the digital world more linked to our needs and requirements. Three, fostering an inclusive, open, safe, and secure digital space. There is a fact that with the explosion of social networks, social platforms, the daily interaction between us through the digital space created a new issue. So under this objective, human rights as a personal individual right in the digital space, internet governance became part of this objective. The digital trust and safety where I need to have verified, authenticated, validated information available to me as an individual, or as a business, or as a government, or as a public information. And of course, information integrity, referencing information, and having always a differentiation between information that is baseless and baseful information. Objective four, advanced, responsible, equitable, and interoperable data governance approaches. Of course, this is a major issue today where we are talking about data privacy, security, including cybersecurity and security of individual, and what is called the data exchanges and standards. I have a good discussion with my colleague, Mohammad Rashidi, regarding exchanging data and standards in that regards. It is important today with technologies like fintech and the blockchains, for example, to have such standards available and widely adopted. And of course, utilizing data for sustainable development goals and cross-border data flows and interoperable data governance. So moving to transport. their data and governance of data. And the last objective, of course, enhancing international governance of artificial intelligence for the benefit of humanity. So the fact is, AI to serve humanity, not the other way around. This is the global team. I’ll stop here because I took time.

Ayman El-Sherbiny: But very important, like setting the scene for the GDC discussion, as you have seen, divides still the main concern. The digital economy became a more obvious concern. It was not very clear in the WSIS, as well as the inclusion and human rights centricity. And the last two objectives were focusing on the data governance and the AI governance. So anyways, it’s a very important addition. They still can live together with the WSIS and GDC. But now I’d like to ask Nermeen on her views on how can both processes, the one we just closed, the IGF and its renewal, and the GDC during its setting the pace for implementation, how can they synergize with each other? Thank you so much, Ayman. You hear me? Yes.

Nermine El Saadany: Okay. And thank you so much, Kosai, for setting the scene. I was just thinking, shall I start with the explaining the objectives of the GDC? So thank you. And allow me as well to just play a little bit of a devil advocate and say that the GDC has, maybe at the beginning, at its beginning, I mean, faced some challenges in the modality that they were working and the way that they will be negotiating the text, multilateral versus multistakeholderism and so on. And this took us back in ages when we were starting the process of the WSIS and there were this kind of, you know, like heat or cloud over our heads. how should we look at the WSIS and now how should we look at the GDC. The GDC had successfully completed its discussion and I think the lessons that we can learn from this and how can we link it with the IGF and WSIS review process is that we will not, definitely we will agree that we will not want to go back in ages and repeat the same mistakes and we believe as well that the community again with the process of the GDC and the challenges that it faced this by itself emphasized the importance of multi-stakeholderism as a way to communicate and discuss such issues and that there are very much synergies and similarities between the GDC objectives and the WSIS action lines and that takes me actually to how can we integrate all this together and in our opinion at the International Society we believe that the Internet Governance Forum could actually be a kind of a vehicle for the implementation of the GDC so that we don’t repeat or compete with existing models but rather to strengthen what we actually have and extend the mandate as Kossai has rightly mentioned and made us all remember paragraph 72 of the Tunis agenda it encompassed, I mean the mandate of the IGF encompasses emerging technologies so easily with the system and the modality of the MAG and so on we can always incorporate new technologies within the discussions of the IGF and maybe include as well how can we implement the output of the GDC and therefore we integrate the processes together instead of having more than verticals than we can actually accommodate as international community at large. Thank you so much.

Ayman El-Sherbiny: Thanks a lot Nermine. and we are like approaching seamlessly the force by this input and I don’t want to spend a lot of time on the GDC I think the complementarity is very important we are now know the GDC we know the WSIS we started to get a component of this say IGF can be compatible I see that the action lines of the WSIS are all compatible so the complementarity is there and because we have only 20 or less 20 minutes or less to go I’d like to move to this last segment and see how can these all fit together for example first question the object at the what and the mechanism the how the what are the targets the goals and the concerns of the WSIS of the GDC are areas of improvements aspirations and so on they fit together a plus b there is no contradiction a a a plus b or b b b 1 b 2 and so on so there is concatenation super set between more aspirations together so the what is not a problem the the how the modalities we have WSIS forum we have IGF forum we have preparatory process for the IOSIS preparatory process for the forum IGF but not only that but we have STI forum and we have interagency task team in New York for the STI and we have also RCM I see many mechanisms for the STI which is part of the GDC but all of that they have the CSTD and there is a part an article in the section on GDC follow-up mechanisms relates to the CSTD and CSTD is there in the GDC a new suggested modalities which are also worthwhile a scientific committee for on the AI international dialogue of organization on AI. There is also things related to the data governance and so on. But as Mr. Hassan explained it very smoothly, easily a few days ago in our AGM on AI, the scientific community of new nature is invited to play a new role. As the science of AI differs from the science from critical resources that we debated 20 years ago. There is this new mechanisms and existing mechanisms. How can we take from you some wisdom and give it to the kitchen that Filippo talked about in the morning, which I’m proud to be part of it, shaping the modality of implementation of GDC at the UN global level. What would you give me as intake that I can bring to the design phase as Isabella has explained in the morning? I felt you raised hand, but he got the hand first. It’s good to get the hands of the floor. Mohammad Rashid is a good friend and one of the representatives of the young business entrepreneurs and leaders.

Mohammad Rashid: Assalamu alaikum. I would like to emphasize more on brother Qusai objectives that he mentioned under the Global Digital Compact about data sharing and transporting data. How this is impacting the community of the startups. I’m coming from the knowledge economy. We are building startups and supporting startups, especially in deep tech. And this is a very important aspect that will impact three major stakeholders. The first stakeholder is the entrepreneur themselves, the founders, the startups. They would like to optimize, so optimizing their operation by remote workers working on these data, if there is no accessibility to these data to be shared, they cannot utilize the external talents. Building on top of the existing incubators of the clouds that are available anywhere globally with certain skill sets and certain technologies, to access this as an entrepreneur, I cannot have the affordability to have it on-prem or within my jurisdicts. I can via this data sharing and transport of data, I can benefit out of that. Also, I’m going to benefit out from the multilateral partnerships that can be cross-governments or private in a global scale, not within the country. The second aspect, which is very important, is about the investors. Investors today, as an entrepreneur or a startup, I’m always looking for scaling up. And investors are looking for a company that works on a global scale, not only on a local scale. So accessing other markets, if the data accessibility is not there, I cannot branch, I cannot transport, I cannot scale. So today we are working in a global village. This internet is a global village, and it’s a one market, one digital market. And data has become now a bit borderless with the open flow of data, and it became a shared resource, global public good as well. Exactly. So the privacy is going to be only on the credentials. So those credentials, if it’s tokenized and mapped, and this data is going to be available, you can personalize, you can do everything. Then later you can map it to the token to disclose the identity based on a request that is being given ahead to that customer profile to disclose.

Ayman El-Sherbiny: OK, thank you so much. It’s very clear. And he picked on this data governance objective, which is four. It resonates with digital economy objective two. It resonates with AI and many other things. So again, how can the mechanisms work together, Sai? And there is a lady over there. And if there is someone from the remote floor and here also. Fadal, Sai. Shafiq, sorry, Shafiq was before you.

Chafic Chaya: Can we give him the floor and come back to you? We need to focus on the process that is complementary and remove the redundancy. For example, we know for all that the IGF is the most inclusive platform from all these platforms, where all stakeholders on equal footing are coming to an independent platform, talking about all issues, including emerging technologies. So I need to complement the IGF, which is all inclusive, but non-binding, non-output platform with other activities, like the CSTD, like the internet-related governance organization, like the WSIS-related bodies, which is intergovernmental. If we complement each other with a clear process, that will be the positive outcome for all. OK, so if I rephrase what you said, it’s like strengthening some nodes and links in this existing ecosystem, existing network, to make it more ready for the new aspirations. Make it the most inclusive platform. The most inclusive platform exists and operates. OK, so what is operating? What is ticking? Don’t break it, just fix it and make it more stronger. And what is missing? Add it. So that is logical thinking of engineers, of course. that can be brought in a clear message as an outcome. Shafiq? Sorry, Charles. Two Hs. Yeah, thank you. Well, in fact, I’m glad. There are four Shins. Charles, Shaban, Shafiq, Shaya. I have my excuse. Don’t worry, of course. In fact, I’m glad I gave the opportunity to speak before me because I wanted to start that and continue on one other thing. So I can continue what you started, which is mainly, if we go back as I went back to the WSIS, the original definition of the Internet Governance, if you remember, of course, I mean, you were from the beginning, when they defined what is Internet Governance, they said to give each one its own role. I don’t remember the same sentence. In the respective role. So my addition, as I mentioned, is mainly to give each stakeholder and each stakeholder to work on his role more in collaboration with everyone. I think Shafiq, since you mentioned Shafiq when he was here, he said that this is important to collaborate. So we strengthen the idea of multi-stakeholderism while each stakeholder is entrusted the respective role. Exactly. This is exactly what I wanted to say.

Ayman El-Sherbiny: Thank you. I will not stop. And I’m happy that the role of the UN as a custodian of multilateralism has taken its respective role in being the, let us say, the custodian of the GDC, of the WSIS, of the multilateral and multi-stakeholder. So that is a strengthened role, by the way, that the Secretary General wanted to bring to the UN, starting his initiative in 2018. And now everyone knows that it’s not only the government, but the business sector, the civil society, technical community and academia, plus the international organization as equidistant with all the stakeholders as also the enabler and facilitator for them. As an example, in our region, you worked a wonderful role as Esquire with the League of Rural States. when you have the Arab and got everybody all the roles and just a small note since I still have you for one 10 seconds only the Arab IGF when we worked on the program next year since we we started working before to be honest but you know what happened in the region made us delay yes we were planning to do it in November but because of the political tensions and the military conflicts we chose to do it next year yeah and as all my colleagues are here already Christine online Hussein we asked everyone who worked on these themes I mentioned before to review it again based on the GDC outcome so this is I think we to be to make sure that we are having everything together thank you before I give the floor now to Christine there is a question from the gentleman here and the lady before can you just 20 seconds put your question and then the gentleman here then I will give the floor Christine and then we wrap up everyone I’m Dr. Nermin Salim the Secretary General of Creators Union of Arab this organization it concerns with the intellectual property rights and I think and I hope to add the intellectual property part in this mechanism because it’s became

Audience: an important assets in any business what is your first name again? Nermin Salim, Dr. Nermin Salim

Ayman El-Sherbiny: I’m an expert in IP. After the meeting, me, you and Charlotte will have a meeting. It’s my pleasure. And you do a workshop together in our upcoming Arab IGF. Thank you. And now the gentleman here a new workshop I entrusted to you. Hello hi everyone this is Maher, Maher Melhem from

Audience: Microsoft thanks for the informative session and giving us the opportunity a few points attracted my attention first of course the title about the great idea to bring all Arab countries after the umbrella of the IGF and Arab League. A few comments. One, we discussed the digital divide, importance of AI and data governance. And also Hussein mentioned a very important point about how we can introduce ourselves as members of the Arab League in front of international forums as one bloc. I think there is a clear lack of coordination under one legislative umbrella, more like treaties. Similar for what’s happening in Europe, like the GDPR treaty. International companies would love to invest in the region whenever there is a business case. But to be honest, there is a clear gap, divide between some countries in the region who have the resources and others who lack the resources. All of this can happen and attract encouraging international investors to come to the region and address the AI gap, data governance issues by having one treaty among the countries to share data.

Ayman El-Sherbiny: You are right. We have one of the objectives in cluster two of the Arab Digital Agenda pillar four is to harmonize the legal structures and to also harmonize the memberships and positions regarding the international treaties. So that is an important action. We are going to also announce during our event in Amman, what we call programmatic implementation support modalities for the ADA. And part of it will be programs on the infrastructures, programs on the legal harmonization and also digital economy on many other things. So please continue discussion with us. And now we’ll go back to the floor with Christine to give. on the complementarity between IGF WSIS on the one hand with the GDC as a newborn on the other hand and to add whatever she wants regarding the future of Arab IGF. Thank you Ayman.

Christine Arida: So, I think I know I will just mention two points. The first point is what we’ve what we’re seeing right now is inflation and duplication of governance processes and maybe it’s good that this is put on the table because it indicates that there is need. But what we need to do right now is to be aware that we as developing countries, our region is mostly developing countries, you might not have enough capacity to follow and participate in all those duplication of processes. And in that context, I think we need to be very vocal as a region about making synergies and avoiding duplications and you know, as Qusayi was saying, identifying roles, also Nermeen mentioned that, so that we can avoid having to participate in different venues and have just a process here and a process there and then get lost in the middle. In order to do that, we need to, the second point that I want to mention, as a region, we need to change our perception of this false dichotomy between multilateralism and multistakeholderism. We in the region, we tend to believe that there is a strong dichotomy between both. I personally, I don’t think this is the case. I think we just need to understand how processes such as the Arab IGF being multistakeholder, bottom up, how can they support multilateral decisions in different venues in the region and see this complementarily and empower it. And I see in the chat a question about how the Arab IGF, does it involve grassroots? Does it involve youth? I think we need more of that. We need that involvement. We need to be very inclusive. We need maybe to look at the Sao Paulo multi-stakeholder messages and see how multi-stakeholder our processes are and enforce that dimension in our proceeds. Thank you, Ayman.

Ayman El-Sherbiny: Thank you so much. And of course we are involving new stakeholders in the process. Also, it’s a good chance to remind Christine that our work on the parliamentarian session is taking more shape. So please let us give it more momentum together, Inshallah. Also work with youth. We’ll add the youth segment much more in our new activities. And I’d like to also thank my young team members who are working remotely from Beirut. Lara, Abbas, and Mohamed, plus Khadiga. Also, of course, thank Rami and Mirna. Mirna now is moving to the other session at 7. And if there is no final remarks from anyone from the panelists, I think we wrap up. It is exactly now around the clock. And I would like to thank Nibel for being with us today. I’m very happy if the remark and thank my nice young friend, Jamal, who came from Belgium to say hello and be part of this workshop. And everyone here, you want to say something? Final word, 10 seconds. It’s just a recommendation to have the answer from all of you. Localizing IGF in each and every country. Yes, sir. IGF. We are working on it, and we have good news that the Saudi IGF that we advocated last year with the government in Saudi Arabia has taken shape, and we have now in several countries national IGFs, and we are just like the custodian, and everyone has autonomy, but we work together. Inshallah, together we are strong, and I’m happy that you are here, I’m happy that this is our fourth or fifth event in the Arab IGF, in the IGF of Riyadh, and inshallah we’ll continue until the end of the week, but stay tuned, register in the Arab IGF 7, part of the DCDF, and that’s it, thanks, goodbye. Thank you very much, I took your card, and the colleague of my team, Rita, will contact you, and inshallah you will be with us in Amman. I don’t want to take his context, I have the mind of the context reader, but I’m going to take it because I’m sure he’s with me. Omar Sabha. Omar is my son. Really? Yes, really. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Agreement Points

Need for comprehensive digital agenda in Arab region

speakers

Ayman El-Sherbiny

Speaker

Qusai AlShatt

arguments

Arab Digital Agenda addresses digital divide and emerging technologies

Arab countries now more engaged in WSIS processes and initiatives

Digital divide remains a challenge, especially in internet access and cost

summary

Speakers agree on the importance of a comprehensive digital agenda for the Arab region to address digital divides and emerging technologies, while acknowledging progress and remaining challenges.

Importance of multi-stakeholder approach in internet governance

speakers

Chafic Chaya

Charles Sha’ban

Christine Arida

arguments

Need for stronger partnerships and collaborations aligned with WSIS principles

Importance of giving stakeholders their respective roles while collaborating

Importance of bridging false dichotomy between multilateralism and multistakeholderism in the region

summary

Speakers emphasize the need for multi-stakeholder collaboration in internet governance, while recognizing the importance of defined roles and bridging perceived gaps between multilateralism and multi-stakeholderism.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize the importance of leveraging and strengthening existing frameworks and mechanisms rather than creating new ones, to ensure effective implementation and measurement of digital initiatives.

speakers

Ayman El-Sherbiny

Chafic Chaya

arguments

Arab Digital Agenda includes measurement system and implementation framework

Need to strengthen existing mechanisms rather than create new ones

Both speakers suggest utilizing existing forums like the IGF to implement new initiatives like the GDC, avoiding duplication of processes and leveraging established platforms.

speakers

Nermine El Saadany

Christine Arida

arguments

IGF could be a vehicle for implementing GDC

Need to avoid duplication of governance processes

Unexpected Consensus

Integration of emerging technologies in existing frameworks

speakers

Ayman El-Sherbiny

Qusai AlShatt

Nermine El Saadany

arguments

Arab Digital Agenda addresses digital divide and emerging technologies

GDC has five main objectives covering digital divides, digital economy, digital space, data governance and AI

IGF could be a vehicle for implementing GDC

explanation

There was unexpected consensus on the ability to integrate emerging technologies like AI into existing frameworks such as WSIS and IGF, rather than creating entirely new structures. This suggests a more adaptive approach to digital governance than might have been anticipated.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement include the need for a comprehensive digital agenda in the Arab region, the importance of multi-stakeholder approaches in internet governance, and the integration of emerging technologies into existing frameworks. There is also consensus on leveraging and strengthening existing mechanisms rather than creating new ones.

Consensus level

The level of consensus among speakers is relatively high, particularly on broad strategic approaches. This suggests a shared vision for digital development in the Arab region, which could facilitate more coordinated and effective implementation of digital initiatives. However, some differences remain in the specifics of implementation and the balance between regional and global approaches.

Different Viewpoints

Role of IGF in implementing GDC

speakers

Nermine El Saadany

Chafic Chaya

arguments

IGF could be a vehicle for implementing GDC

Need to strengthen existing mechanisms rather than create new ones

summary

While Nermine suggests using IGF to implement GDC, Chafic emphasizes strengthening existing mechanisms without specifically mentioning IGF for GDC implementation.

Unexpected Differences

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement were subtle and centered around the specific roles and implementation strategies for existing and new digital governance mechanisms.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among speakers was relatively low. Most speakers shared similar views on the importance of digital cooperation, the need to address the digital divide, and the value of multi-stakeholder approaches. The minor differences in opinion were primarily about implementation strategies and the specific roles of existing mechanisms. This low level of disagreement suggests a generally unified approach to digital cooperation in the Arab region, which could facilitate more effective implementation of digital agendas and cooperation frameworks.

Partial Agreements

Both speakers agree on avoiding duplication and leveraging existing mechanisms, but Christine focuses on the challenges for developing countries, while Chafic emphasizes complementing existing platforms.

speakers

Christine Arida

Chafic Chaya

arguments

Need to avoid duplication of governance processes

Need to strengthen existing mechanisms rather than create new ones

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize the importance of leveraging and strengthening existing frameworks and mechanisms rather than creating new ones, to ensure effective implementation and measurement of digital initiatives.

speakers

Ayman El-Sherbiny

Chafic Chaya

arguments

Arab Digital Agenda includes measurement system and implementation framework

Need to strengthen existing mechanisms rather than create new ones

Both speakers suggest utilizing existing forums like the IGF to implement new initiatives like the GDC, avoiding duplication of processes and leveraging established platforms.

speakers

Nermine El Saadany

Christine Arida

arguments

IGF could be a vehicle for implementing GDC

Need to avoid duplication of governance processes

Key Takeaways

The Arab Digital Agenda addresses digital divides and emerging technologies, with a built-in measurement system and implementation framework

The Arab Internet Governance Forum (IGF) has evolved since 2012 and aims to balance regional needs with global themes

The Global Digital Compact (GDC) has five main objectives covering digital divides, economy, space, data governance and AI

There is a need for complementarity and synergy between WSIS, IGF and GDC processes to avoid duplication

The region needs to bridge the perceived dichotomy between multilateralism and multistakeholderism

Resolutions and Action Items

Organize the Arab IGF 7 in Amman as part of the Digital Cooperation and Development Forum

Review Arab IGF themes based on GDC outcomes

Work on localizing IGF in each Arab country

Announce programmatic implementation support modalities for the Arab Digital Agenda in Amman

Strengthen the parliamentarian session and youth segment in future Arab IGF activities

Unresolved Issues

How to effectively harmonize legal structures and treaties across the Arab region

Specific mechanisms for implementing the Global Digital Compact

How to ensure sufficient capacity in developing countries to participate in multiple governance processes

Concrete steps to make the Arab IGF more inclusive of grassroots and youth

Suggested Compromises

Use the Internet Governance Forum as a vehicle for implementing the Global Digital Compact

Strengthen existing mechanisms and nodes in the ecosystem rather than creating new ones

Balance stakeholder roles while promoting collaboration in internet governance processes

The Arab digital agenda, when we put it in place, it still faces major problems. It may cause problems in the latest digital divide, whether in the policy divide or in the content, or in issues related to AI. But the beauty of the Arabic digital agenda is that it was built on a system based on measurement. This is the only one in the world, except for Europe.

speaker

Ayman El-Sherbiny

reason

This comment introduces the unique approach of the Arab Digital Agenda, highlighting its measurement-based system and comparing it to global standards.

impact

It shifted the discussion towards a more detailed examination of the Arab Digital Agenda’s structure and goals, prompting further exploration of its implementation and potential impact.

We need to do more consultation of the regional groups, all groups, so African groups, and so on, and understand the challenges they face and the opportunities that they see, and share with them as well what we see as challenges to our region, and exchange these kinds of views so that we go together aligned.

speaker

Nermine El Saadany

reason

This comment emphasizes the importance of cross-regional collaboration and alignment in addressing digital challenges.

impact

It broadened the scope of the discussion from a purely Arab-centric view to a more inclusive, global perspective on digital cooperation.

The Global Compact is a positive, proactive evolution of the WSIS Outputs, which is the Geneva Declaration of Principles and the Tunis Agenda. These two documents have been produced in 2005. For more than 10 years, you need to be more current, you need to update the concerns and the objectives of the global community.

speaker

Qusai AlShatt

reason

This comment provides historical context and frames the Global Digital Compact as an evolution of previous initiatives.

impact

It helped participants understand the continuity and progress in global digital initiatives, leading to a discussion on how to integrate new objectives with existing frameworks.

We believe as well that the community again with the process of the GDC and the challenges that it faced this by itself emphasized the importance of multi-stakeholderism as a way to communicate and discuss such issues and that there are very much synergies and similarities between the GDC objectives and the WSIS action lines

speaker

Nermine El Saadany

reason

This comment highlights the importance of multi-stakeholder approaches and identifies synergies between different digital initiatives.

impact

It prompted a discussion on how to integrate various digital cooperation frameworks and processes, leading to ideas on strengthening existing platforms rather than creating new ones.

What we need to do right now is to be aware that we as developing countries, our region is mostly developing countries, you might not have enough capacity to follow and participate in all those duplication of processes. And in that context, I think we need to be very vocal as a region about making synergies and avoiding duplications

speaker

Christine Arida

reason

This comment raises an important practical concern about the capacity of developing countries to engage in multiple digital governance processes.

impact

It shifted the discussion towards finding ways to streamline and integrate various digital cooperation processes, considering the constraints faced by developing countries.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by moving it from a general overview of digital cooperation initiatives to a more nuanced examination of how these initiatives can be integrated, implemented, and made more inclusive. The discussion evolved to consider practical challenges, particularly for developing countries, and emphasized the need for alignment between global, regional, and national efforts. The comments also highlighted the importance of measurement, multi-stakeholder approaches, and cross-regional collaboration in advancing digital cooperation.

How to implement the Arab Digital Agenda?

speaker

Nermine El Saadany

explanation

Implementation of the Arab Digital Agenda is crucial for regional digital development and cooperation.

How to link the work of the Arab IGF to discussions among Arab groups in ITU and Arab member states in New York?

speaker

Christine Arida

explanation

Drawing linkages between different regional and global forums is important for coherent policy-making and representation.

How can the Internet Governance Forum serve as a vehicle for implementing the Global Digital Compact?

speaker

Nermine El Saadany

explanation

Integrating GDC implementation into existing forums could streamline processes and avoid duplication.

How to harmonize legal structures and memberships regarding international treaties among Arab countries?

speaker

Maher Melhem

explanation

Legal harmonization is important for attracting investment and addressing regional digital divides.

How to make the Arab IGF more inclusive, particularly involving grassroots organizations and youth?

speaker

Christine Arida

explanation

Greater inclusivity is needed to ensure the Arab IGF represents diverse regional perspectives.

How to integrate intellectual property rights into digital cooperation mechanisms?

speaker

Dr. Nermin Salim

explanation

IP rights are becoming increasingly important assets in the digital economy.

How to localize the Internet Governance Forum in each Arab country?

speaker

Audience member (unnamed)

explanation

National-level IGFs could increase engagement and address country-specific issues.

Summary

This session focused on the United Nations’ efforts in digital development and the implementation of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) action lines. Representatives from various UN agencies shared their achievements and ongoing work in promoting digital technologies for sustainable development.

Key themes included bridging the digital divide, enhancing digital skills, promoting e-commerce, and addressing emerging challenges like artificial intelligence and cybersecurity. Agencies such as ITU, UNCTAD, UNDP, and UNESCO highlighted their collaborative efforts in areas like connecting schools to the internet, supporting e-government initiatives, and developing digital economy strategies.

The discussion emphasized the importance of multi-stakeholder partnerships and the need to align digital development efforts with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the Global Digital Compact (GDC). Participants stressed the growing significance of data governance, environmental sustainability in digitalization, and gender equality in the digital sphere.

Several agencies reported on their expanded focus on digital issues, with increased resources and larger-scale projects compared to earlier years. The World Bank, for instance, noted a significant growth in its digital development portfolio and partnerships.

Looking ahead, speakers highlighted the upcoming WSIS+20 review process and the need to address new challenges such as AI governance and data poverty. The importance of coordinating efforts across UN agencies and avoiding duplication was emphasized.

The session concluded with a call for continued collaboration and the integration of digital strategies into broader development frameworks, recognizing the cross-cutting nature of digital technologies in achieving sustainable development goals.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– Achievements and progress in implementing the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) action lines over the past 20 years

– Ongoing challenges and new priorities like artificial intelligence, data governance, and environmental sustainability

– Collaboration between UN agencies and other stakeholders on digital development initiatives

– Implementation of the Global Digital Compact and alignment with WSIS processes

– Gender equality and bridging the digital divide

The overall purpose of the discussion was for representatives from various UN agencies and organizations to highlight their work on digital development, share achievements related to WSIS implementation, and discuss priorities for future collaboration.

The tone of the discussion was positive and collaborative, with speakers emphasizing partnerships and joint efforts. There was a sense of pride in accomplishments but also recognition of ongoing challenges. The tone remained consistent throughout, with participants building on each other’s points and expressing enthusiasm for continued cooperation.

Speakers

– Cedric Wachholz: UNESCO, Chair of UNGIS

РTorbj̦rn Fredriksson: UNCTAD, Head of e-commerce and digital economy branch

– Gitanjali Sah: ITU, Strategy and policy coordinator

– Samia Melhem: World Bank, Lead digital development specialist

– Mactar Sect: UNECA, Chief of technology and innovation section

– Ryszard Frelek: WIPO, Counselor, external relations division

– Yu Ping Cheng: UNDP, Chief Digital Office

– Helene Molinier: UN Women, Advisor on digital cooperation and thematic lead for GF Action Coalition on Innovation and Technology

– Deniz Susar: UNDESA

Additional speakers:

– Cyntia Lesufi: South Africa, Chair of Council Working Group on WSIS and SDG, G20 presidency

– Robert Opp: UNDP, Chief Digital Officer (mentioned but did not speak)

– Delfina: UNEGO (mentioned but did not speak)

Revised Summary of UN Digital Development Discussion at IGF Riyadh

This session at the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in Riyadh brought together representatives from various United Nations agencies to discuss progress, challenges, and future priorities in digital development, with a particular focus on implementing the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) action lines and the Global Digital Compact (GDC).

Key Achievements and Progress

Over the past two decades, UN agencies have made significant strides in digital development across various sectors:

1. Education: The ITU reported success in connecting schools to the internet and promoting digital education initiatives (Gitanjali Sah).

2. Economic Development: UNCTAD highlighted its work in facilitating e-commerce and digital economy initiatives, particularly in developing countries (Torbjörn Fredriksson).

3. Governance: UNDESA shared achievements in conducting e-government surveys and coordinating the Internet Governance Forum (Deniz Susar).

4. Regional Support: UNECA emphasised its role in supporting African countries with digital transformation strategies, including the development of the African Union Digital Transformation Strategy and the African Union Data Governance Framework (Mactar Seck).

5. Accessibility: WIPO reported on providing Technology and Innovation Support Centers (TISCs) and the Accessible Books Consortium (ABC) services (Ryszard Frelek).

6. Scaling Efforts: The World Bank noted a significant growth in its digital development portfolio and partnerships (Samia Melhem).

7. Education and Media Literacy: UNESCO highlighted its work on AI in education, media and information literacy, and guidelines for regulating online platforms.

These achievements demonstrate the UN system’s commitment to leveraging digital technologies for sustainable development and implementing the WSIS action lines.

Emerging Challenges and Future Focus Areas

While progress has been made, speakers identified several emerging challenges and priorities for future work:

1. Environmental Sustainability: UNCTAD highlighted concerns about the environmental footprint of digitalization (Torbjörn Fredriksson).

2. Gender Equality: UN Women stressed the need to bridge digital gender divides and mainstream gender considerations across all digital development efforts (Helene Molinier).

3. Digital Divides: UNCTAD pointed out widening digital and data divides between countries, as well as growing market concentration in the digital economy (Torbjörn Fredriksson).

4. Global Digital Compact Implementation: UNDESA emphasised the importance of implementing the GDC and aligning it with existing WSIS processes (Deniz Susar).

5. Regional Priorities: The G20 presidency (South Africa) highlighted focus areas such as digital public infrastructure, AI capacity building, data protection, and open-source technologies (Cyntia Lesufi).

Collaboration and Coordination

A key theme throughout the discussion was the importance of collaboration and coordination among UN agencies to effectively address digital development challenges:

1. UN Group on Information Society (UNGIS): UNCTAD emphasised leveraging UNGIS for collective efforts (Torbjörn Fredriksson).

2. WSIS+20 Review: UNDESA highlighted the upcoming WSIS+20 review process as an opportunity to assess progress and align future efforts (Deniz Susar).

3. Gender Equality Initiatives: UN Women called for aligning efforts on gender equality in digital development across agencies, including the recent focus on the intersection of digital and gender issues, and the inclusion of the digital gender gap as a cross-cutting topic in the Beijing+30 review (Helene Molinier).

4. Support for Global Initiatives: Multiple agencies expressed commitment to supporting G20 presidency priorities on digital issues (Cyntia Lesufi).

World Bank’s Digital Academy Program

Samia Melhem highlighted the World Bank’s digital academy program, which aims to build digital skills and literacy across various sectors and populations. This initiative represents a significant effort to address the growing demand for digital competencies in the workforce and society at large.

Upcoming Events and Initiatives

Several important events and initiatives were mentioned during the discussion:

1. A conference on AI and digital transformation in the public sector on 4-5 June in Paris as part of the WSIS+20 process.

2. The upcoming UNCTAD ministerial conference in Vietnam.

3. The next Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in Norway in June 2025.

4. South Africa’s G20 presidency priorities related to digital issues, including digital public infrastructure, AI capacity building, data protection, and open-source technologies.

In conclusion, the session demonstrated a strong commitment from UN agencies to advancing digital development and implementing the WSIS action lines. The discussion highlighted significant progress made over the past two decades while also emphasising the need to address emerging challenges and enhance collaboration across the UN system. As the digital landscape continues to evolve rapidly, the UN’s coordinated efforts will be crucial in ensuring that digital technologies contribute positively to sustainable development and leave no one behind.

Cedric Wachholz: you you you you you you you you Is it working? Yes, I see Tobian online. So we’re ready to start. Nice to see you, Tobian. A warm welcome to all of you here present in the room. For this, you need to put on your so how it works, you will need to put on your earphones for us to hear each other. And I can hear myself. So you need to go on channel one, you need to and then channel one. Good. So we have a specific technical setup here, Tobias, as you can see. So a warm welcome to all of you here in the room and all those following online to this session on the UN Digital for Development UN in action. And this will be a really exciting session, and I’m happy and thankful to my co-chair, Gitanjali, who has done a lot of the preparatory work and invited all of you to join. And of course, also to UNDP and UNCTAD and all the other participants and co-chairs of UNDES. So I will briefly make introductions of the panel, just say, you can see Tobian Frederiksen who heads the e-commerce and digital economy branch and UNDES, UNCTAD, sorry, as remote participants, but we see you well. We have we have Gitanjali to my left, who is a strategy and policy coordinator from ITU. And most of you will know from WSIS. To my right, we have Samia Malham, who is the lead digital development specialist of the World Bank. Thanks for joining too. On my left, Wipo, oh no, first, Magda Seck, chief of the technology and innovation section from UNECA, the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa. Thanks for joining too. And also, Mr. Richard Freleck, counselor, external relations division, World Intellectual Property Organization, WIPO. And last but not least, UNDP. Yu-Ping Cheng. Thank you for joining, and perhaps, I don’t know if Robert will come too, but we are very delighted to have you with us. Then, I don’t know if Hélène Moulinier, she’s important for our session, she will be joining online, but she’s also part of this panel. She’s the advisor on digital cooperation and the thematic lead for the GF Action Coalition on Innovation and Technology from UN Women. She’s particularly important for this session. So, we will showcase UN in action today. And as we move closer to the 20 years review of WSIS, we have, of course, the crucial task of driving forward the creation and the continued creation of a more equitable, inclusive, and knowledge-driven world, where technology really serves as a catalyst for human and social and societal development, and, of course, sustainable development. The initial WSIS vision of a people-centered and development-oriented and inclusive information and knowledge society stays very strong and continues to resonate, I think, with all of us and our work. And we have seen over time how this WSIS vision from 2003 and 2005, the Geneva and Tunis Summit, has actually evolved, has been addressing new challenges throughout the time. You know how in the text we didn’t find a notion of mobile phones or any technologies, and I think that made it so lasting. And today, we saw then also in 2015 how we could address with WSIS Action Lines and the work the SDGs and how to link our WSIS work with the SDGs. And so, today, we will hear more about Action Line implementation and what we have achieved concretely over the last 20 years, but also about future action. And I’m delighted to see Hélène now online, too, because this is important for our way forward, too, on our gender equality work across the United Nations. So, an explicit welcome to you again, Hélène. So, I think I will just hand over first for some sharing of highlights of achievements over the last 20 years, and perhaps I will ask Gitanjali to start us off with some of ITU’s work in this domain.

Gitanjali Sah: Thank you so much, Cedric, and to UNESCO for so ably chairing the UNGIS since you took over as the chair. And welcome to all physical and remote participants. Thank you for being here with us. Also, to add to what Cedric said, the UNGIS is exactly UN in action, and we have been contributing the digital aspects to various UN processes. We’ve been having side events, and we have been contributing joint statements to processes like the ECOSOC Partnership Forum, the SIDS, the LLDCs, IGF. We’ve been organizing side events every year. So, it’s a very active group of UN agencies that are members of the CEB and an extended – of course, we have observers as well. And we’ve been very successful in driving the digital agenda within the UN agencies. So, looking at ITU, of course – ITU is the UN’s specialized agency on digital and ICTs. So we have our mandates from our governing bodies, like the plenipotentiary, the council, the council working groups, where we have several resolutions that mandate us by our membership. So not only governments, but sector members. We have academia. We have the technical community and others who give us instructions on what we should be doing to implement the WSIS process. We are the lead facilitator for action line on ICT infrastructure on capacity building C4, cybersecurity C5, and enabling policy environments action line on C6. So to enable all of this, we’ve had various partnerships with UN agencies and others, since WSIS is a multi-stakeholder process. The GIGA initiative with ITU and UNICEF, where our goal is to connect every school worldwide to the internet, addressing the digital divide in education. The e-pools global partnership program that we are doing with UN Women, GSMA, ITC, et cetera, to promote gender equality. I’m pretty sure Helen will talk about it a bit more. The Connect to Recover that we did during COVID, post-COVID disruptions to enhance ICT infrastructure resilience post-COVID. And digital skilling, which is a very important aspect of ITU’s work. We have several programs with UNDP on digital skilling. And DPI, we’ve started a lot of good work around that. I’m pretty sure Yu-Ping will also mention it. The broadband foundation that we co-chair at UNESCO. We’ve been advocating universal broadband access to support economic and social growth through that. Child online protection, another aspect of cybersecurity, Action Line C5, with ITU, with the governments, and the whole private sector, where we are developing tools, guidelines, and strategies. Also, again, training women, girls, children on the dark side of the internet, knowing what could be harmful for them as well. Again, very important point, which probably Denny should also speak about, is the partnership on measuring ICT for development. A very important, but kind of hidden aspect of our work, where statisticians in our organizations are kind of measuring the achievements that we’ve had in these various action lines, and the goals that WSIS had set. Some of the key successes that we feel as the UN system, two main ones have been the WSIS forum that we jointly organized with ITU, UNESCO, UNDP, UNCTAD, and more than 40 UN agencies. All of you are involved. It’s a platform for all UN agencies and stakeholders to get together to advance our Digital for Development agenda. The next one is from the 7th to 11th of July in Geneva. So please mark it on your calendars. And we’re going to do it again in alignment with AI for Good. So the WSIS forum participants will also have access to AI for Good. And the IGF. IGF has been one of the successes of the WSIS process. Many of you have been contributing to the WSIS stocktaking database, the repository. We have more than 13,000 plus initiatives in the stocktaking database. So please do have a look, because they are aligned with the WSIS action lines and SDGs. So if you’re looking for case studies, projects on the ground, you’re more than welcome to please have a look at those. Of course, other examples of collaboration, Be Healthy, Be Mobile, that we do with WHO, the Smart Village, Smart Islands that we are doing with local governments and the private sector. Again, Digital Skills for Jobs campaign with ILO. So Cedric, 20 years is a lot to kind of summarize. But these are some of the real main things, partner to connect, which many of you are involved in, and the regional level. So the regional implementation has been crucial for ITU, working with the regional commissions, the ITU regional offices, UNDP, and various other partners. So we can continue our contributions, but this is kind of what I could summarize.

Cedric Wachholz: Yes, I know and understand it’s very difficult to really summarize in a few minutes only all the work your organization has been doing. Magda, as Gitanjali has just mentioned UNEKA, perhaps you want to take on and continue to highlight a few of your achievements.

Mactar Sect: Thank you very much, Cedric. And UNEKA is pleased to participate at this event. As you know, we start with this since more than almost 20 years, and we have seen a lot of progress in the African continent. In 2005, our access to internet penetration was 2.6%. And today we are at 38%. When you go to the mobile penetration, it was almost 8% in 2005. And today we have almost 60% at the continental level. This is a good progressive of the WSIS implementation at the continental level. And ECA work with all the country to support them in the implementation of the WSIS Action Line. In collaboration with several partners here, ITU, UNCTAD, and other partners. We can highlight some key achievements during the 20 years. First, it is we work together with African Union to have this African AU Digital Transformation Strategy 2020-2030. It will be the blueprint for Africa on digital economy. We already work with AUC to develop this African Union Data Governance Framework. It is a one key achievement on the continental level. Also, we can talk about this Artificial Intelligence AI Strategy we adopted last year, key achievement in the continent. And also we supported more than 40 countries to develop their national strategy at the continental level during these 20 years in line with the WSIS implementation. On digital ID, very important for the continent because we are a continent, we were more than almost 500 million without any legal form of identity. And we work closely with several partners to develop the digital ID at the continental level, World Bank and others. And as you see now, a lot of digital ID have developed at the continental level. Also, on policy cybersecurity, it is a big issue of the continent. Despite this 10% loss in the GDP for cybersecurity, we already work with African Union to develop this Malabo Convention on Cybersecurity. And recently to complete the framework on cybersecurity in the continent, ECA has developed a guideline framework for cybersecurity. It is some key strategic element we have developed at the continental level. Of course, in the C5, C3, all we need to build the capacity of our member state. And ECA has established an African Center of Excellence on Artificial Intelligence in Congo Brazzaville, as well as we are establishing now a STEAM Center in Rwanda and a Center of Cybersecurity in Togo. It is to support the digital skills in the continent. We work also closely with ITU and UNICEF in the GIGA project. And also, we didn’t forget the digital skills for young generation. While we have initiated in collaboration with ITU and UN Women, this initiative called African Girl Recruiting Camp. And now we have developed, we have trained almost more than 40,000 girls across the continent. We have 284 projects developing. Also, we guide a gathering, a lot of initiative at the regional level to take into consideration the import as a priority of Africa in the global GDC. We organize several roundtable across the member state to explain better the GDC to the member state and also to get their view and print and priority for the GDC adopted two months ago. And now we are supporting African country to implement the GDC in line with the WSIS Action Line. As you know, what in 2005, almost the key issue was integrated in the WSIS. And we have seen during this 20 years, two key challenge for the continent. One, it is for all the world, the AI issue as well as the data issue. And that is something we needed to contextualize in the WSIS Plus 20. And we are going to have our WSIS Plus 20 event next year in May in Benin. And also we are going to have African IGF in Tanzania in May. And we think all this outcome will be reported during the WSIS Plus 20 and the global IGF year. You’re welcome. Also, we are a member of all this partnership for Muslim of ICT. There are a lot we can say. We have a lot of progress. We have the support. We work with UNDESA on the e-government survey. I think there are a lot of accomplishments in the continent, in the implementation of the WSIS Action Line. And we thank you all partners supporting ECA on this task. Thank you. Thank you, Makto. This is really most impressive,

Cedric Wachholz: and I know this is just the surface, you know, of all the great work you have been doing. And I wanted to keep it a little bit interactive like that and do a natural link. But I will now go back to the formally correct thing to first our Angus co-chairs. So I will give the floor to UNDP, followed then by ANGSTAT, and then UNDESA, World Bank, WIFO, and I don’t know if there’s enough of you who want to say something. So Yuping, over to you as our co-vice chair.

Yu Ping Cheng: I have to say, Cedric, we were actually okay with interactive, but I also appreciate the ability to speak. I’ll try and keep it short because I think it’s there’s so much amazing work that all of us UN agencies are doing together. So it’d be really great to hear from everyone and then have a chance to also hear from others participating in the room who might want to ask some questions to the UN agencies. I just want to pick up a little bit where Martha’s left off, that we’re really looking towards GDT implementation and how WSIS needs to play a critical role in this. Because over the last 20 years, indeed, we’ve been doing so much amazing work as agencies together collaboratively, really looking at what it means to be implementing this both at the regional level and the country level as well. So going forward, it really has to be that the WSIS action lines and the way we push forward in a multi-stakeholder fashion through the WSIS process is the cornerstone of how we implement the GDT. Indeed, yesterday UNDP was proud to host an open forum with our colleagues from ITU and UNDESA, Southern Voice and Internet Society, on how global digital cooperation really must be implemented at the country level. And so today’s theme of today’s meeting, digital for development, really cuts the heart of what UNDP is doing. We are the UN’s development arm. We are in over 170 countries and territories around the world. We are now currently supporting 120 plus countries in harnessing digital to achieve the SDGs. So really, this is a cornerstone of how we approach development, that digital is indeed an enabler and accelerant of the achievement of the SDGs. And in order for us to realize our mandates across the system and to deliver on all these very important things that our partner countries have entrusted us to do, we need to harness the potential digital technologies. So for instance, the Chief Digital Office, from where I sit, has already been with over 50 to 60 countries conducting digital readiness assessments, working on digital public infrastructure, really fulfilling the ambition that was laid out in the WSIS Action Lines, where UNDP sits as the co-facilitator for C4 on capacity building and C6 on the enabling environment. I think Gitanjali also touched on a lot of the work that we’re doing with the ITU. We’re doing, for instance, the High Impact Digital Public Infrastructure Initiative that was a key outcome of last year’s SDG Summit. We also have the SDG Digital, which actually is a hallmark of the entire system coming together, where we present a lot of the work that various UN agencies are doing in collaborative fashion to really think about how SDGs can be, as I’ve said before, enabled and accelerated by the use of digital technologies, together with the ITU on skills and capacity building through an open source ecosystem enabler that is supported by the European Commission that’s looking at countries such as Trinidad and Tobago and thinking about how we can harness open source through the development of an open source program office in these developing countries, such that we together can actually co-create a more interoperable open source system that achieves digital transformation. I could list a lot more of the collaborations that we’re doing with the other UN agencies. It would take a lot of time. I just want to specifically call out the important area of artificial intelligence, where I think other colleagues will also raise this as something that we really need to look forward to in the update of the WSIS plus 20 reveal and the action line. I think this area of artificial intelligence will be something that is cornerstone to the way the United Nations develops and uses digital technologies. Indeed, it’s something that we’ve all been working on together. With UNESCO, for instance, the UNDC is doing artificial intelligence assessments, with the ITU working on AI skills capacity building. These areas will be critical. The other area that I want to very quickly mention is environmental sustainability, where, again, I think this is something where there is that potential to make sure that the references in the GDC are also reflected in how WSIS pairs this. Particularly important, for instance, from the UNDP is the fact that we co-chair the Coalition on Digital Environmental Sustainability with the ITU and UNEP, as well as the International Science Council, the German Environment Ministry, and other NGOs. This really is a multi-stakeholder coalition that looks at the issue of digital environmental sustainability and thinks about how we collectively can really push forward this global effort towards ensuring that this is part of how we deliver on making sure digital is an empowering force for people, as well as climate as well. I just want to end there. I know I’ve gone over quite a lot. There’s also a lot more that I’ve not gone over, and I look forward to questions from other colleagues.

Cedric Wachholz: Thank you so much, Yueping. This is really impressive, and for highlighting so many areas where we really work well together across the UN on the key topics. I hand over now to

Torbjörn Fredriksson: Torbjörn, who is unmuted, I see, and ready to go. Thank you very much, Cedric. I hope you can hear me. Good morning to all of you from Geneva. I wish I could also be present with you in Riyadh. This time it was not possible, I’m afraid. Let me start by thanking UNESCO as UNGIS Chair and ITU also for having organized this session during the IGF. I think the world is really digitalizing faster than ever before, affecting more and more aspects of life. While this is creating many new opportunities, it’s also clear that it’s raising many new challenges. This is clear, not least in the context of e-commerce and the digital economy, which is the part of digital for development that UNCTAD is particularly concerned with. From the perspective of achieving the sustainable development goals, all of us need to explore every possibility for making use of digital technologies to contribute towards improving progress, because unfortunately we are currently not on track to achieve the SDGs. In the area of digital economy and digital trade, which are at the heart of e-business, we are observing widening digital and data divides, growing market concentration, and an expanding environmental footprint from digitalization. The super fast evolution of the digital economy, where AI and other data-driven applications are increasingly important, is making it ever harder for countries at low levels of digital readiness to keep up, and harder still to catch up. This increases now the risks of wider inequalities, and if we truly endeavor to achieve an inclusive and sustainable digital economy, we need to do better, and this can only be achieved through more effective collaboration, both domestically and internationally, across stakeholders, across policy areas, and across borders. We very much welcome that member states came together to agree on the Global Digital Compact last September, which provides additional impetus for us as UN entities to support collective efforts towards achieving the SDGs. In this journey, the UN Group on the Information Society represents a very valuable mechanism for ensuring that we make full use of the entire UN’s networks and expertise. UNCTAD looks forward to another year of great importance for the perspective of Digital4Development. For example, under the auspices of the GDC, UNCTAD will play its part especially in fostering a more inclusive digital economy, Objective 2, and fostering better data governance under Objective 4. We will continue to build on the E-Trade4All initiative that now has 35 member organizations, including many UN organizations. We also look forward to taking over the baton from UNESCO in 2025 as chair of ANGIS. It’s not going to be easy, you’re doing a great job. And in partnership with the International Trade Center and the Universal Postal Union, we will also keep facilitating the e-business action line in the context of the World Summit on the Information Society, the first 20 years of which will be assessed next year. Last but not least, next year UNCTAD will hold its next ministerial conference. We only have one every four years, and this time it will take place in Vietnam. And that will offer another opportunity to bring the digital dimension of development to the fore at the ministerial level. So with that, thanks a lot for your attention and good luck with the rest of the events in IGF.

Cedric Wachholz: Thank you. Thank you so much, Torbjörn. Can you tell us the dates for the ministerial conference in Vietnam? I will tell you as soon as I can. Okay, thank you. Just curious. Thank you so much. And of course, the digital economy aspect that you’re working with on in UNCTAD has become increasingly important from the beginnings of WSIS till today and the work you’re doing in this field too. Over to you, Ambassador.

Deniz Susar: Thank you so much, Cedric. This is Deniz Susar from UNDESA. UNDESA is very important for us as well to coordinate our internal work. UNDESA is the business action line facilitator for C1 promotion of ICT for development, C7 e-government, and C11 international regional cooperation. Sorry. Related to C1, we’ve been doing a lot of work in country, capacity building workshop. We just recently partnered with ECA in southern Africa, and we have many other capacity building workshops on digital transformation on e-government is happening. Related to C7 e-government, we recently launched the United Nations e-government survey 2024 in September during the G8. The survey is looking at 193 UN member states e-government development, and also together with UNEGO, who is sitting next to me with Delfina’s team. We are expanding the survey’s coverage into the cities, so we are bringing it at the local level, how we can measure e-government development at the local level. And we are also partnering with entities, either non-government or government, to apply our methodology in several countries. And related to C11, IGF, as you know, it’s happening now. We are the institutional home for the IGF, and the next one will be taking place in 23-27 June in Norway. And finally, I just want to talk about WSIS Plus 20 overall review by the UNGA. We are expecting to be the secretariat for the WSIS Plus 20 overall review. We will need all the ANGES agencies, especially the core agencies’ support in this process. We will not be able to undertake this important process without your support. We will make sure that all your input contributions, all your WSIS Plus 20 reviews will be fully reflected. We are expecting that General Assembly will appoint co-facilitators latest by mid-January. Right now, they are just waiting for the ICT4D resolution to be adopted by the GA. It’s already adopted by the second committee. Once we do the modalities resolution, we are expecting to see a roadmap and make sure that the process is multi-stakeholder, and we take all stakeholders’ input transparently and fully in the process. Again, we rely on ANGES’ support on this, and I look at all the agencies here. The view from here is what we have right now, not to create any new structures, use existing WSIS mechanisms to implement the GDC, and we very much appreciate the GDC-SDG matrix that’s put together by ANGES, which we contributed. I think this is an excellent way of mapping how we can implement the GDC implementation. All our existing WSIS processes, IGF is not perfect, but we should continue to work to improving it. For example, IGF had recently had a leadership panel appointed by the SG. We see it as an improvement to the IGF, and we expect to continue to leadership panel. If, as UN agencies, if there is anything jointly we should do to improve to WSIS process, we should be open to that. But again, we should be sensitive to resource constraints within the UN and shy away from creating new mechanisms. And this is the message that we will also reflect in the Riyadh IGF messages, which will go out on Thursday, which our team is compiling right now. Over to you.

Cedric Wachholz: Thank you so much, Denise, for this update. And I really appreciate also that everybody is trying to be short. For those online, we have here a room full of people, and we would like to interact with them, too. It’s a unique opportunity for us as ANGES, and I really am happy about all the interest we have generated here. So we will do a rapid round and then also hand over to the participants who might have any questions for us, and we look forward to that, too. Yeah, yeah, I know. I didn’t want to stop there. And also, Hélène, we haven’t done our round, but I just wanted to highlight, it’s good to be short. We can’t speak about all the achievements of our organizations. Impossible. But the update is very much appreciated now from the World Bank and Samir.

Samia Melhem: Thanks a lot, Cedric. And thanks a lot to all the organizers and partners and host country. I’ll be very brief. Three minutes, okay? Okay. I could spend three days? Three minutes. All right. We’ll go for it. So when that whole process started some almost 20 years ago, we were talking about the next $6 billion. We are talking now about the next $2.6 billion. So kudos on all that have really taken that agenda, taken it forward, and taken it very seriously. I think this is one of the most solid stakeholder processes I have ever witnessed in my career. However, the road is full of new challenges, whereas we talked a couple years ago, a couple, two decades ago, about mobile phones and telecom regulators. These were the new kids on the block we were training. We now have climate change. We have AI. We have data poverty everywhere. And we have a huge digital divide in data caused by all the challenges we know and a huge divide in languages that are so needed for AI, for developing these large language models that we talk about. For us at the World Bank, it’s been a story of growth. I would say if I want to leave you with one message, it’s the World Bank is very serious about digital. Our president has been a big champion of it. When I started, we were a unit of 20 people with a bigger unit with water, with financial service, with transport. We have our own VPU now. Our project size used to be around 10 to 20 million. Our average project size, I give you Rwanda where I work, 10 million to start. It’s now we have projects of 100 million. So the message is really scaling up, both in people capabilities and in partnerships. We partner with all of you around the room. Is it enough? No, it’s not. Sometimes we reinvent things. Sometimes we’re not completely aligned from the very beginning. So that’s something that we can definitely improve, reuse one another’s research, facilities, et cetera. The way that we are looking at it very strategically now for the next couple of years with our new vice presidency is not only are we investing a lot more in digital public infrastructure, but we want to also invest in the human capital and that of policy makers, that of people, youth specifically, and have a lot more participatory approach in digital development, in digital transformation as we call it now. So really this is an ideal table to discuss all this. And I want to leave you with one point on the capabilities. When the World Bank launched its academy program, we will have a digital academy with different chapters around the world. We just piloted a Tokyo chapter a couple weeks ago. We’re looking at the Middle East regional chapter. We’re looking at partnerings with new governments such as Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Japan, other governments that were not typically our traditional partners because of their interest and leadership in the agenda. And we really look forward to collaborating with all of you in the most impactful way. Thank you.

Cedric Wachholz: This is incredible. In three minutes only, three minutes, 15 seconds, you did an incredible job because the World Bank has, of course, numerous projects across, huge projects across the world. Now I hand over to Waipo.

Ryszard Frelek: Good morning, everyone, again. And good afternoon, of course, for those who might be joining online. Thanks very much for the invitation. It’s always great to be here together with our friends and family from the UN system and beyond, connected also through the UNGIS. For those who might not know, the World Intellectual Property Organization, in short, WIPO, is the UN agency that serves the world’s innovators and creators. We are also the forum for addressing cutting-edge IP issues and our IP data and information guide decision makers. And we, of course, have impact-driven projects and technical assistance to ensure IP benefits everyone everywhere. And digitization is also key to our development work, firstly because, of course, essentially all development work has to take into account ICTs. Digital is cross-cutting and it’s an enabler. But secondly, of course, we also have a range of initiatives that specifically focus on digitization and development which contribute to VCs, GDC, and to the implementation of the SDGs. my work here is quite easily cut out for today because we just recently also submitted our report for VCs plus 20 review where we cover all the wide range of activities on digitalization and development because time and we also of course contributed to the matrix which was which was mentioned as well. Because time is always short let me just give you three examples of our action-oriented initiatives. First example are technology and innovation support centers in short TISCs. These are typically located in patent offices, universities, research centers, and science and tech parks and these TISCs enable researchers and inventors to get support in accessing and using technological information for more than 150 million published patent documents and scores and scores of scientific and technical publications. In recent years also TISCs have been picking up new additional activities such as patent analytics, technology transfer, or commercialization and currently 93 countries have established national TISC networks. Second example the accessible book consortium ADC in short. Following the adoption of the Marrakech Treaty which makes the production and international transfer of specially adopted books for people with blindness or visually impaired visual impairments easier, we launched a multi-stakeholder alliance comprised of organizations that represent people with print disabilities and the goal here is to increase the number of books in accessible formats and to distribute these to people who need them around the world. What did we achieve? 138 participating authorities, most in developing and LDCs countries, more than 1 million titles in 80 languages are available for cross-border exchange, three of clearance formalities under the Marrakech Treaty. Third example is supporting ICT applications in IP institutions so we help national and regional IP offices to enhance their efficiency of their IP registrations and adopt their own digital transformation strategies. This includes among others improving their online services, integration into regional and international IP systems and to enable that exchange of data and documents and 91 IP institutions across the world are actively using one or more of our modules included in our digital WIPO IP office suite and we have many many more including of course with all our partners here gathered at the table but just mentioned the usual market WIPO Green, our WIPO Academy where training programs for women in STEM or tools and IP checklists for game and app developers and tomorrow you can actually those interested you can join at 15.45 there’s a we are hosting an event on women in games and apps where we will also be showcasing some of our activities in that area. Being here of course I have to mention that we also have a lot of work on AI through our WIPO conversation on frontier tech we facilitate this open and inclusive discussion and knowledge building among all stakeholders to support well-informed policy choices on IP including also on AI. Over the last five years 9,000 people have participated 100 from 172 countries. Last session took place in November and in focus on IP and AI outputs. We also provide tools also on IP and AI I won’t go into that right now but you can find all that on our websites and in the reports and I know the time is running out so just finishing at WIPO we always look forward to we’re supporting all countries and stakeholders and working together with all our partners from the UN system and beyond that to help to make to ensure that each and every innovator and creator can thrive and looking forward to working through also the UNGIS and hopefully also thanks again for the invitation.

Cedric Wachholz: I hand directly over to Hélène.

Helene Molinier: Thank you Cédric. I hope you can hear me. I’ll also try to be brief. Good morning and good afternoon everyone. On UN Women’s side to flag that I think what we want to report on is that probably the last five years there has been the years where we’ve seen the most conversation at the intersection of digital and gender happening. It was mentioned that the coalition and equals were really incubators for knowledge for ideas and that all this conversation have turned during that period into really concrete and concrete outcomes and commitments. The first of which was last year the CSW, the Commission on the Status of Women and the agreed conclusion on technology and innovation. The first one on this topic that provided us really an important innovative framework to build on and this framework was really helpful last year when we are doing all and this year the advocacy for better integrating gender in the GDC. Thanks to all this work we really can see that the digital divide is now front and centre in many of the discussions and that there’s a I think common agreement that the best way to bridge it is to really have an intersectional approach and reach the hardest to reach which are very often the women living in rural areas, in marginalized groups, in developed countries and regions. The challenge now ahead of us is to make sure that we don’t work in silos on this topic and I really believe that OASIS and UNGIS are a space for collaboration on that. We did an event yesterday specifically on this topic and many voices called indeed for an action on gender as part of the OASIS review process. They also called for a digital track on the Beijing plus 30 review which is also happening this year and actually UN Women has identified digital gender gap as one of the important six cross-cutting topics and areas of acceleration for the work to come this year on Beijing. We also have, and it was mentioned here, the I think colossal task of implementing the GDC and the stakes are high to make sure that gender is not diluted in this implementation or in their invisible but instead to really be mainstream and prioritized across all the chapters. And so for that with ITU and hopefully with many members of the group as well we want to make sure that we bring the conversation in all this work stream together and that we have one cohesive action agenda that is amplified at CSW in March, at OASIS in July and every other important moment that are going to come in 2025 and the years beyond. And again what was said by many participants is that if we want to be impactful on this topic we have to implement it together to be forceful and to have one line of action and so I really hope that these are the collaborations we can create this year on the topic.

Cedric Wachholz: Thank you. Thank you so much Hélène. And for those who don’t know here we have chosen to take gender equality as one of the cross-cutting themes this year together with the environment and some capacity development for civil servants on AI and digital transformation. But this is certainly a topic which all of us are committed to and I am personally also very keen to coordinate and work jointly there. Perhaps we can have another UNGA session online with all the members dedicated to that theme only to really see. We have already to plan for 26 till 29 our outputs indicators and so on and so we are quite concrete planning ahead and I would like to have a session perhaps to also see how we can coordinate our work in this specific topic. But thank you so much for trying to keep a short view on that. Now over perhaps I don’t know Daphne would you like to say something or yes? I know the time is

Audience: too short but I will also be short. Just to say thank you very much for the invitation to be here. We started to join UNGA since March this year and it is really a pleasure and to see the value of this group. It is extremely important that we understand what is happening and who has been contributing to this issue of digital inside the system so that we can align efforts and get achieve all the value that we want. Very quickly basically we have been so this digital is our main business so we just do that. We just look to the digital part and now governments are using digital to transform themselves and to achieve what they want considering all the multiple aspects that have been already mentioned here. We have three main focus we are very focused on policies and regulations at digital level also at the innovation and emerging technologies particularly AI and also people. People at the center of all this digital transformation and here we include many of the things that you have been also working that is related with human rights and all the aspects participation etc. So we have been working with most of you and let me share with you that we work a lot a lot a lot with countries with government agencies spread all over the world and we have been working also with many of you in our activities. With UNEC, for instance, we have initiated, we signed an MOU and we have initiated some collaborations. We are very proud of them. Namely, and it’s very connected, what we have been talking about, collaboration and multi-stakeholders that we launched for different regions, also regions in Africa, that gather representatives from this area of digital governance in multiple countries. We have been also cooperating with UNDES for some time now, since 2018, in what regard is WALSEY, with ITU, also UN-Habitat, so with many of you, particularly also with UNDP. We have some joint projects in all these countries that we have been working. So, regarding the main topics, yes, I need to close. Everything that you mentioned, AI, indeed an important topic that we are also working on, data, but also more traditional aspects that are related with measurement, assessment and monitoring. These are key aspects for countries to be able to achieve what they want. So, thank you very much.

Cedric Wachholz: Thank you for trying to keep it short. When you’re doing interviews, as an interviewer, you’re never supposed to give away the mic, you know, so you can have different control, but here it’s a different setup. And now, is there any UN institution I have overlooked? No. So, yeah, Rob, thank you for joining us, but we had an excellent intervention by Yuping, if it is okay. So, thanks for joining us today, too. Rob is the Chief Digital Officer of UNDP. He could spend three days speaking about UNDP, but we’ll keep it short. So, for UNESCO, we have six action lines and we have eight minutes left. So, I will just say we are covering education, sciences, ethics, access to information, culture and media. And of course, we’re trying to address the key challenges which the world is seeing today. And they are sometimes even going across action lines. So, in education, of course, we have the integration of technologies into education systems, across education systems with pre- and in-service teacher trainings and lately, guidelines and trainings on how to use AI and how to deal with AI as a teacher, you know, which is sometimes a challenging thing. But if we’re speaking, for example, about disinformation, hate speech and so on, another part in education is about media and information literacy, dealing with the information overflow and learning to be able to look at information critically, but also to think before you click and send on, you know, possibly disinformation is an important aspect of this work. And related to that, I just highlight one second thing and then mention a third. It is our guidelines on the regulation of online platforms, which is related to the media work. And it has been done by our section on freedom of expression, to be very clear. So, it is not about censorship online at all. It is the freedom of expression people who dealt with it. And it was a process where over one and a half years, with different versions and 10,000, a little bit more than 10,000 inputs and a big conference of 4,000 people, we developed these guidelines and are implementing them now with regulators and, of course, with private sector companies and so on, as an example of our media and WSIS-related work. Next, as a last thing, on 4th and 5th June, we will have a conference in Paris on AI and digital transformation in the public sector, which will be part of our WSIS plus 20 process. And I could speak longer about that. But we have here a unique opportunity again of having participants. So, I wanted to just give a few minutes to those who want to take the floor and ask any of us any question. And now is the moment.

Audience: Yes. Yes. Also, we acknowledge the presence of our chair from South Africa of the Council Working Group on WSIS and SDG. And she’s also – they also have the presidency of G20. So, Cynthia, we hope that you will also like to take the floor. Cynthia?

Cyntia Lesufi: Thank you very much. And I really have enjoyed the talk in this session. And we appreciate to be here at South Africa. And really, for us at South Africa, taking over the G20 presidency, we are looking forward for the continuation of the great work that is done by the UN agencies in implementing the WSIS. But more than that, we are also looking forward for the WSIS, the IGF to continue in the implementation of the GDC. And there are a number of activities that South Africa as the G20 presidency, they have actually identified as key priorities, not only for South Africa, but for the African continent issues such as the digital public infrastructure, the issue of looking at capacity building around AI, but also the issue of the data protection and the privacy of data, and also the issue of the open source. So, these are the key issues that South Africa is looking at. And we’re looking forward to the support that we’ve received, not only as South Africa, but as Africa, as a continent and other developing countries to ensure that the implementation of the GDC, it is sufficiently done, and it’s done by yourself. And we still rely on you in terms of doing all these key issues in relation to digital transformation.

Cedric Wachholz: Thank you. Thank you, Cynthia. Thank you, Cynthia. And if I would have seen you in the audience, I would have highlighted our AI work. Because that is, I understand also, and you will have, of course, UNESCO, and I’m sure also the other agencies for support on the work streams you’re there advancing on data governance, on AI, and where we have a lot to offer and to share with you, too. Is there anybody else who would like to make a point or raise a question? Well, fantastic. Just to say then, too, on data governance, we are working with the co-chair ITU, co-chair UNDP, co-chair African Union on a data governance toolkit, which we’re also developing with many private sector companies and also governments and building on their experience. So that will be very useful for all of us. Should we take a photo before we – I have several time – the minutes left, and we just take the last minute, perhaps, to go – please stay online, and perhaps all the participants, too, come in front of the screen, and we take a photo, if that’s fine with you, with all of you. Is that good? Thank you. So while everybody goes to the screen, I continue just speaking a little bit, thanking all of the participants, thanking all the panelists, and we look forward to our continued cooperation. And we will have special sessions on environment. We will have special session on the gender equality aspect very soon in the next. So thanks to all of you who joined online and those in the room for your keen interest and for your active participation. Thank you. Thank you.

Agreement Points

Importance of digital development for achieving SDGs

speakers

Gitanjali Sah

Mactar Sect

Torbjörn Fredriksson

Deniz Susar

Samia Melhem

Yu Ping Cheng

arguments

Connecting schools and promoting digital education

Supporting African countries in digital transformation strategies

Facilitating e-commerce and digital economy initiatives

Conducting e-government surveys and coordinating Internet Governance Forum

Scaling up digital development projects and partnerships

Addressing AI, data governance, and environmental sustainability

summary

Multiple speakers emphasized the critical role of digital development in achieving Sustainable Development Goals, highlighting various initiatives and projects in different sectors.

Need for collaboration among UN agencies

speakers

Torbjörn Fredriksson

Deniz Susar

Helene Molinier

arguments

Leveraging UN Group on Information Society for collective efforts

Coordinating WSIS+20 review process

Aligning efforts on gender equality in digital development

summary

Speakers stressed the importance of collaboration and coordination among UN agencies to effectively address digital development challenges and implement initiatives.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the importance of implementing the Global Digital Compact and aligning efforts with global digital development priorities.

speakers

Deniz Susar

Cyntia Lesufi

arguments

Implementing the Global Digital Compact

Supporting G20 presidency priorities on digital issues

Both speakers highlighted the need to address emerging challenges in digital development, particularly focusing on cross-cutting issues like AI, data governance, and gender equality.

speakers

Yu Ping Cheng

Helene Molinier

arguments

Addressing AI, data governance, and environmental sustainability

Bridging digital gender divides and mainstreaming gender in digital initiatives

Unexpected Consensus

Environmental sustainability in digital development

speakers

Yu Ping Cheng

Samia Melhem

arguments

Addressing AI, data governance, and environmental sustainability

Scaling up digital development projects and partnerships

explanation

While environmental sustainability is not traditionally a primary focus in digital development discussions, both speakers highlighted its importance, suggesting a growing consensus on the need to consider environmental impacts in digital initiatives.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The speakers demonstrated strong agreement on the importance of digital development for achieving SDGs, the need for collaboration among UN agencies, and the importance of addressing emerging challenges such as AI, data governance, and gender equality in digital initiatives.

Consensus level

High level of consensus among speakers, indicating a unified approach to digital development within the UN system. This consensus suggests potential for more coordinated and effective implementation of digital development initiatives across various UN agencies and programs.

Different Viewpoints

Unexpected Differences

Overall Assessment

summary

There were no significant disagreements among the speakers. The discussion primarily focused on highlighting achievements and future plans of various UN agencies in digital development.

difference_level

The level of disagreement was minimal. Speakers generally presented complementary views and initiatives, emphasizing collaboration and coordination among UN agencies. This alignment suggests a unified approach to addressing digital development challenges, which is likely to facilitate more effective implementation of shared goals.

Partial Agreements

Both speakers agree on the importance of collaboration among UN agencies for digital development, but they differ in their approach. Deniz Susar emphasizes implementing the Global Digital Compact through existing WSIS mechanisms, while Torbjörn Fredriksson focuses on leveraging the UN Group on Information Society for collective efforts.

speakers

Deniz Susar

Torbjörn Fredriksson

arguments

Implementing the Global Digital Compact

Leveraging UN Group on Information Society for collective efforts

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the importance of implementing the Global Digital Compact and aligning efforts with global digital development priorities.

speakers

Deniz Susar

Cyntia Lesufi

arguments

Implementing the Global Digital Compact

Supporting G20 presidency priorities on digital issues

Both speakers highlighted the need to address emerging challenges in digital development, particularly focusing on cross-cutting issues like AI, data governance, and gender equality.

speakers

Yu Ping Cheng

Helene Molinier

arguments

Addressing AI, data governance, and environmental sustainability

Bridging digital gender divides and mainstreaming gender in digital initiatives

Key Takeaways

UN agencies have made significant progress in digital development initiatives across various sectors like education, e-commerce, and e-government

Emerging challenges include AI, data governance, environmental sustainability, and bridging digital gender divides

There is a strong emphasis on collaboration and coordination among UN agencies to implement the Global Digital Compact and address digital development challenges

The upcoming WSIS+20 review process is seen as an important opportunity to assess progress and align future efforts

Resolutions and Action Items

Conduct a special session on gender equality aspects of digital development

Organize a conference on AI and digital transformation in the public sector on June 4-5 in Paris as part of the WSIS+20 process

Develop a data governance toolkit in collaboration with ITU, UNDP, and African Union

Support implementation of G20 presidency priorities on digital issues, particularly for developing countries

Unresolved Issues

How to effectively mainstream gender across all aspects of digital development initiatives

Specific strategies for bridging widening digital and data divides between countries

Balancing innovation and regulation in emerging technologies like AI

Suggested Compromises

Use existing WSIS mechanisms to implement the Global Digital Compact rather than creating new structures

Adopt an intersectional approach to reach the hardest to reach populations in digital inclusion efforts

We are observing widening digital and data divides, growing market concentration, and an expanding environmental footprint from digitalization. The super fast evolution of the digital economy, where AI and other data-driven applications are increasingly important, is making it ever harder for countries at low levels of digital readiness to keep up, and harder still to catch up.

speaker

Torbjörn Fredriksson

reason

This comment highlights critical challenges in digital development that go beyond just access, pointing to systemic issues of inequality and environmental impact.

impact

It shifted the conversation to consider the negative consequences of digital transformation and the need for more inclusive approaches.

The challenge now ahead of us is to make sure that we don’t work in silos on this topic and I really believe that OASIS and UNGIS are a space for collaboration on that.

speaker

Helene Molinier

reason

This comment emphasizes the importance of collaboration across UN agencies and avoiding fragmented efforts.

impact

It prompted discussion on how to better coordinate efforts across agencies on digital gender issues.

We are expecting that General Assembly will appoint co-facilitators latest by mid-January. Right now, they are just waiting for the ICT4D resolution to be adopted by the GA. Once we do the modalities resolution, we are expecting to see a roadmap and make sure that the process is multi-stakeholder, and we take all stakeholders’ input transparently and fully in the process.

speaker

Deniz Susar

reason

This comment provides concrete next steps for the WSIS+20 review process and emphasizes multi-stakeholder engagement.

impact

It focused the discussion on upcoming milestones and the importance of inclusive processes.

There are a number of activities that South Africa as the G20 presidency, they have actually identified as key priorities, not only for South Africa, but for the African continent issues such as the digital public infrastructure, the issue of looking at capacity building around AI, but also the issue of the data protection and the privacy of data, and also the issue of the open source.

speaker

Cyntia Lesufi

reason

This comment brings in the perspective of a major developing country and highlights specific priority areas for digital development in Africa.

impact

It broadened the discussion to consider regional priorities and how UN agencies can support them.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by highlighting critical challenges in digital development, emphasizing the need for collaboration across agencies, providing concrete next steps for important processes, and bringing in regional perspectives. They moved the conversation beyond reporting on past achievements to grappling with current challenges and planning for future coordinated action. The discussion became more focused on addressing inequalities, environmental impacts, and regional needs in digital development efforts.

How can we improve coordination and alignment among UN agencies on digital development initiatives?

speaker

Samia Melhem (World Bank)

explanation

Samia mentioned that sometimes agencies reinvent things or are not completely aligned from the beginning, suggesting a need for better coordination to maximize impact and efficiency.

How can we ensure gender is mainstreamed and prioritized across all chapters of the Global Digital Compact implementation?

speaker

Helene Molinier (UN Women)

explanation

Helene emphasized the importance of not diluting gender considerations in the GDC implementation and called for a cohesive action agenda across various work streams.

How can we address the widening digital and data divides, growing market concentration, and expanding environmental footprint from digitalization?

speaker

Torbjörn Fredriksson (UNCTAD)

explanation

Torbjörn highlighted these as key challenges in achieving an inclusive and sustainable digital economy, suggesting a need for further research and action in these areas.

How can we improve the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) process?

speaker

Deniz Susar (UNDESA)

explanation

Deniz mentioned that the IGF is not perfect and suggested that UN agencies should be open to jointly improving the WSIS process, including the IGF.

How can we better integrate artificial intelligence considerations into the WSIS+20 review and action lines?

speaker

Yu Ping Cheng (UNDP)

explanation

Yu Ping highlighted AI as a cornerstone area for future UN digital technology development, suggesting it needs to be more prominently addressed in WSIS processes.

How can we ensure effective implementation of the Global Digital Compact at the country level?

speaker

Yu Ping Cheng (UNDP)

explanation

Yu Ping mentioned the importance of implementing global digital cooperation at the country level, suggesting a need for further research on effective implementation strategies.

How can we address the challenges of climate change, AI, data poverty, and language divides in the context of digital development?

speaker

Samia Melhem (World Bank)

explanation

Samia highlighted these as new challenges that have emerged since the inception of WSIS, suggesting a need for further research and action in these areas.

Summary

This panel discussion focused on the evolution of Internet governance since the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) in 2003-2005, examining achievements, challenges, and key principles for the digital future. Participants highlighted the success of the multi-stakeholder model in fostering internet growth, with global internet usage increasing from 16% to 67% since WSIS. They emphasized the importance of preserving this model, which involves governments, civil society, the technical community, and businesses working together.

Key achievements discussed included the development of internationalized domain names, the expansion of internet exchange points, and the IANA stewardship transition. Challenges identified included the risk of internet fragmentation, cybersecurity threats, misinformation, and the persistent digital divide. Participants stressed the need for collaborative efforts to address these issues while maintaining a unified, secure, and resilient internet.

The role of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) was highlighted as crucial in facilitating dialogue and fostering inclusivity. Speakers emphasized the importance of engaging smaller countries and diverse stakeholders in the governance process. The technical community’s role in developing frameworks and technologies to counter risks and build trust was discussed, with examples such as DNSSEC and RPKI mentioned.

Looking ahead to WSIS+20, participants emphasized the need to preserve and strengthen the multi-stakeholder model, ensure inclusivity, and address emerging challenges such as AI governance. They called for continued collaboration, transparency, and accountability among all stakeholders to maintain trust and foster innovation in the digital future.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– The achievements and challenges of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) over the past 20 years

– The importance of preserving the multi-stakeholder model of Internet governance

– The role of the technical community in addressing challenges like cybersecurity and misinformation

– The impact of geopolitics on Internet governance and the technical underpinnings of the Internet

– The future of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and preparations for the WSIS+20 review

The overall purpose of the discussion was to reflect on the evolution of Internet governance since WSIS began in 2003-2005, examine current challenges, and look ahead to how the multi-stakeholder model can be preserved and strengthened for the future.

The tone of the discussion was generally positive and collaborative, with panelists emphasizing the successes of the multi-stakeholder model while acknowledging ongoing challenges. There was a sense of urgency about preserving this model in the face of geopolitical pressures. The tone became slightly more serious when discussing threats to the open Internet, but remained constructive in proposing solutions.

Speakers

– Moderator: Facilitator of the discussion

– Brendan Dowling: Ambassador from Australia

– Kurtis Lindqvist: President and CEO of ICANN

– Raquel Gatto: Head of Legal at NIC.br and VP for ISOC Brazil

– Tripti Sinha: Chair of the ICANN Board

Additional speakers:

– Ian Sheldon: Vice Chair of the GAC (Governmental Advisory Committee) of ICANN

– Alexander: Audience member from an unnamed country

– Wallace: Audience member from the Global Ethics Foundation

Evolution of Internet Governance: Reflections on WSIS and the Path Forward

This panel discussion brought together key figures in internet governance to reflect on the achievements and challenges since the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) in 2003-2005, and to consider the future of internet governance. The conversation centered on the multi-stakeholder model, its successes, and the need to preserve and strengthen it in the face of emerging challenges.

Origins and Evolution of WSIS

The panelists unanimously agreed that WSIS has made significant contributions to internet governance over the past two decades. Kurtis Lindqvist highlighted how WSIS fostered multi-stakeholder collaboration, which has been crucial to the internet’s development. Brendan Dowling emphasized the dramatic expansion of global internet connectivity, with usage increasing from 16% to 67% since WSIS began.

Raquel Gatto provided important context for the evolution of internet governance, discussing three “waves” of IGF development:

1. The initial establishment of the IGF

2. The NetMundial initiative in 2014, which reinforced multi-stakeholder principles

3. The current phase, focusing on concrete outcomes and actionable recommendations

The panel also highlighted the IANA transition as a significant achievement in internet governance, demonstrating the maturity and effectiveness of the multi-stakeholder model.

Achievements and Contributions of WSIS

Tripti Sinha pointed to technical advancements such as internationalised domain names (IDNs) and universal acceptance as key achievements. She emphasized the importance of these initiatives in making the internet more inclusive and accessible to non-English speakers.

The success of the multi-stakeholder model was a recurring theme. Brendan Dowling made a particularly striking comment, stating, “If the multilateral world 20 years ago was tasked with constructing, developing, spreading the internet, there would be no internet.” This statement underscored the unique capabilities of the multi-stakeholder approach in fostering innovation and growth.

Raquel Gatto noted the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee as an early example of a successful multi-stakeholder approach at the national level, highlighting the model’s adaptability to different contexts.

Challenges Facing Internet Governance

Despite the successes, the panel identified several significant challenges facing internet governance today. Tripti Sinha highlighted the risk of internet fragmentation, particularly due to state-driven governance approaches. Kurtis Lindqvist pointed to cybersecurity threats and misinformation as major concerns, while emphasizing the need to balance security measures with maintaining the internet’s openness. Brendan Dowling noted the persistent digital divide and lack of connectivity in some regions as ongoing challenges.

The discussion also touched on emerging challenges, such as AI governance. Tripti Sinha provided insight into the complexities of AI systems, stating, “For AI to be successful, there are essentially three pillars to AI, which is the data that’s fed into the engines, the algorithms that compute the outcomes, and of course the back-end infrastructure. So if the data is bad, so if the data that goes into it is bad, the output is bad.” This comment highlighted the need for robust data governance frameworks within the broader context of internet governance.

Preserving the Multi-stakeholder Model

A significant portion of the discussion focused on the importance of preserving and strengthening the multi-stakeholder model. Brendan Dowling emphasized that this model has been crucial to the internet’s success. Raquel Gatto stressed the need to engage diverse stakeholders at both global and local levels, while Kurtis Lindqvist highlighted the technical community’s role in building trust and security.

The moderator raised the important point of government participation within the multi-stakeholder framework. This led to a nuanced discussion about balancing diverse interests while maintaining the core principles of the multi-stakeholder approach. Brendan Dowling mentioned ICANN’s government engagement team and their network of 540 members from 85 countries as an example of efforts to involve governments in the process.

An audience member provided a thought-provoking perspective, stating, “I come from a country which actually really wants the world to be exactly multilateral, not multi-stakeholder. And in some cases, including our country, keeping multi-stakeholder relations and also technical relations like independent DNS, government independent DNS, is a kind of violation of law.” This comment highlighted the real-world challenges to implementing the multi-stakeholder model in some countries and prompted further discussion on how to address these issues.

Future of Internet Governance and Role of the Technical Community

Looking ahead, the panelists discussed several key areas for the future of internet governance. Raquel Gatto emphasized the need to strengthen the IGF’s role and impact. However, she also raised concerns about the IGF’s financial sustainability, stating, “The IGF really needs to have more of this financial support right now at the UN streams and how the fund works it’s really uncertain how it can keep going and to do all it’s done it’s really a miracle that is happening right now and it needs to have more of this resource level commitment.”

Tripti Sinha highlighted the importance of addressing emerging challenges like AI governance, while Kurtis Lindqvist stressed the need to preserve a unified, interoperable internet. Both speakers emphasized the crucial role of the technical community in developing and deploying security frameworks and technologies for trust and verification, such as DNSSEC and RPKI.

Raquel Gatto made an important point about the need to understand that the internet is not just social media or big tech platforms, emphasizing the importance of a holistic view of internet governance.

Conclusion and Future Directions

The discussion concluded with a focus on key takeaways and action items. These included continuing to advocate for and strengthen the multi-stakeholder model, engaging policymakers and diplomats to inform WSIS+20 negotiations, developing and deploying technical frameworks to address security risks, promoting universal acceptance and internationalised domain names, and strengthening the IGF’s role and impact.

Unresolved issues were also identified, including how to balance diverse interests within the multi-stakeholder model, addressing the digital divide, navigating increased regulatory pressures and geopolitical tensions, ensuring data integrity and ethical use of AI technologies, and maintaining a unified, interoperable internet amid fragmentation risks.

The panel discussion provided a comprehensive overview of the current state of internet governance, celebrating the achievements of WSIS while acknowledging the significant challenges ahead. The strong consensus on the value of the multi-stakeholder model suggests a unified direction for future internet governance discussions and negotiations, particularly in preparation for WSIS+20. However, the complexities raised by audience members and the identification of unresolved issues highlight the ongoing work needed to ensure a secure, open, and inclusive internet for all.

Moderator: Welcome, everyone, to the IGF Open Forum WSIS to WSIS++20, Enduring Principle of Internet Governance. We have, I think, you should be able to hear in channel 3. Yeah, it’s, maybe you need a new device. Now you can hear, okay. I can hear myself, so if it’s not working, if hers is not working, she may need another one. We have some good speakers. Ambassador Brendan Dowling from Australia, Curtis Lindquist, ICANN’s President and CEO, Raquel Gatto, Head of Legal and NIC.br, and VP for ISOC Brazil, and Tripti Sinha, our Chair of the ICANN Board. And we are going to explore the evolution of Internet Governance since WSIS in 2003 to 2005, what are the achievements and challenges, and what are the key principles and actions for a transformative digital future. We have people who are participating here live, and we have a Zoom room where people can ask questions. We have an online moderator who can ping us when there is a question. And we will be sharing our perspectives on, you know, what are these achievements and challenges of the WSIS. I understand, Ambassador, that you have to leave after a certain amount of time, but you have somebody else from Australia who will step in. Yes, Ian, the Vice Chair of the GAC of ICANN, the Governmental Advisory Committee. Thank you for taking that role as well. And with that, we’re going to have, so we have three parts. We’re going to start with some questions. We’re going to, and please try to answer within like three minutes so that we can fit as many as the question, as the answers possible. And also we may have some online requests as well. So Curtis, to you is the first question. What do you think have been the most significant WSIS achievements and contributions in the past 20 years? And how do you think they shaped the internet we have today? Not a big question, three minutes. Did I get an entire panel by myself?

Curtis Lindquist: So I think WSIS was created 20 years ago, or 19 years ago this year as a platform for really to bring together the different parts of the multi-stakeholder model but in no particular order, governments, technical community, civil society, business, and and to foster a dialogue around what that means and how do we evolve the internet as such in all of these arenas and building on all the experiences and and mandates that these groups bring to it. And if we go back to 2005 we had 16% of the world population was on the internet and today we are over 67% of the world population is on the internet. So the internet has done a remarkable journey as during this time and obviously part of that is fostered by the the environment, by the outcomes of the multi-stakeholder model that was very much supported, or has been very much supported by the IGF since then and the and the outcomes and the Tunis agenda from WSIS 20 years ago. Very much part of the multi-stakeholder model has also been to actually foster this inclusivity across all these areas, way beyond just the perhaps more limited scope that led to the WSIS discussions 20 years ago. We now cover you know, multilingual domain names, IDNs, multiple script has been brought into the internet. We see a lot of work in this. There is a 151 internationalized domain names in 37 languages and 23 scripts. That wasn’t there 20 years ago, and we have supported all this. And beyond that the WSIS or the multi-stakeholder model has been embodied through the IGF and the WSIS process has gone from supporting exchange points builders around the world into areas that didn’t have exchange points before. It’s championed a lot of collaboration in many of these areas. The Coalition for Digital Africa that have supported these initiatives in Africa, for example, but we also see this in many of the other regions of the world. So I think it’s been actually very successful. It’s delivered a lot of value from the multistakeholder model, that’s a mouthful, and the IGF has really been the embodiment of this, which actually coming together once a year to enable all these groups, stakeholder groups, to have these discussions in a really open forum, transparent forum, to exchange

Moderator: ideas and share the vision from that. Thank you. Thank you, Curtis. Ambassador, the second question goes to you. In how the achievements of the WSIS shape the global environment across political, economical and social dimension, and again, not a very big question. I think it’s an incredible success story. When

Brendan Dowling: you look at the number of users that are connected to the Internet globally, how the Internet has become the most important piece of global infrastructure, possibly in human history. It has expanded along with the governance arrangements. So you’ve seen WSIS grow from, I think, what was seen as a niche technical discussion to a process now which is incredibly expansive, incredibly inclusive. WSIS has found new ways to engage new stakeholders, new countries. We’ve seen 190 regional and national initiatives buy into the process. So I think as connectivity has expanded, so has the processes for Internet governance expanded. When you look at how that has evolved, you don’t have the Internet as we know it today, functioning as we know it today, without that inclusive process. If you set out to design the Internet from scratch with a state-led process, with a multilateral process, there is no way it works. There is no way it gets us to where we are today. I think next year’s an incredible opportunity to review the arrangements, to look at how they’re working, what needs to adjust and evolve for the next 10 years. how we ensure there is that inclusive approach, how we ensure civil society, the technical community, small countries which us who are still on their digital connectivity journey, we need to evolve to make sure they have a voice, that we are inclusive, but I do think we should take time to reflect on the incredible success of how the model has brought us something that is so crucial to all aspects of human life today. Before I go to Tripti, if I may follow up, Australia has been actively involved obviously, but since the beginning, if I remember correctly, what is your stance about the WSIS plus 20, like where is Australia staying? I think our most important priority is twofold, one is to preserve the preeminence of the multi-stakeholder model to ensure there is equal footing for the range of stakeholders through the conversations next year. As I said, it only works when all stakeholders have a voice. I think WSIS is in some ways a unique arrangement where we bring a range of stakeholders on equal footing with an equal voice into those rooms. For us, that is a crucial priority. Our second priority is inclusivity. We are doing a lot of work with countries in our region, particularly in Southeast Asia and the Pacific, to say as connectivity spreads, and we’re strong supporters of digital connectivity in the region through our work on subsea cables and telecommunications access, we want to ensure that they are part of the process. We want to ensure the smallest Pacific island states are represented, are able to present their perspective. So our second priority is, as we preserve that multi-stakeholder process next year, to ensure there is a broader range of voices that are represented. I think we’re well on the way. way to achieving that. I think we do a lot of work in the region, a number of other people who are represented here today including ICANN are really active in ensuring those places have a voice. For me that’s a huge priority for next

Moderator: year. Thank you, that’s really important to have the smaller countries that usually don’t go to these events to be present. Tripti, again not a big question for the three minutes but what have been the most challenging moments in the last two decades since the WSIS started? Well it started more than two decades ago and what do you think are the key lessons that the IGF

Tripti Sinha: community should take away from this experience? Thank you Veni for the question. So I would say there have been many significant events and challenges some that I would classify as achievements and some that are challenges that have occurred recently that we must overcome. So among these challenges a key one that has been percolating in the last several years has been the risk of internet fragmentation at the technical level. So the calls for replacing the multi-stakeholder model of internet governance as we are currently witnessing with the new one which is multilateral oriented highlight the critical need for the technical community including ICANN of course to come together to deliver on our mission. Another event that I would like to highlight is the IANA stewardship transition which I believe is an achievement. It was a pivotal moment that required trust and compromise and careful management and this process proved and underscored the value of collaborative governance and provided a model for addressing some very complex transitions. And in other areas in terms of what I would consider challenges and threats is cybersecurity threats and misinformation and just the misuse of data and the value of data that has been presented to us in the last many years and this value has taken on all kinds of you know key attributes such as privacy has become critical and then the weaponization of data right. And so this can potentially erode public trust on the internet. And another very key thing is that no one I think ever imagined the speed with which information could move and actually impact and influence another part of the world. So balancing security with openness has proven to be difficult yet essential underscoring the need for very robust security measures and greater transparency. At the same time the persistent digital divide leaving close to a third of the global population unconnected. You know, highlights the need for innovative approaches to expand access, particularly in those regions that are not connected. So the key takeaway for the IGF community is, of course, ensuring that the multi-stakeholder collaboration in this model prevails. It involves governments, academia, civil society, the technical community, IGOs, businesses. Coming together, we have shown the resilience and adaptability, enabling all these different voices to come together and tackle problems together. And for example, I think the IANA transition proves as a model for us being able to come together and establish that intergovernmental cooperation, inter-multi-stakeholder cooperation actually works and is very effective. So looking ahead, the IGF community must continue to strengthen this model while advancing digital inclusivity and fostering trust and transparency to safeguard the internet’s future. Thank you, Tripti.

Moderator: You mentioned the IANA transition. Indeed, during the WSIS Plus 10 review process was in 2015, and this was exactly when the IANA transition was happening. And I won’t forget how the representative of China to the UN took the floor and actually supported the IANA transition, which was a very good sign of a major country supporting it. Raquel, last question is to you, and then we’ll open if there are any questions online or in the room for a couple of minutes. What key factor has helped us overcome some of the challenges in those past 20 years, some of those that Tripti mentioned? And how might that knowledge guide the development of a more inclusive, secure, and resilient digital future? And how do you think the IGF has contributed to this outcome? Thank you very much, Veni.

Raquel Gatto: And thank you very much, first, for the invitation for this rich panel. I think we are going to have a lot of discussion. questions on WSIS and this is another opportunity to to do so. So I would like to recall a little bit what was the breakthrough into the two rounds, the first two rounds of the WSIS process of 2003 and 2005. I think a good point has been made on the recognition of the technical community role and in all the internet governance mechanisms. But also a couple of months ago I was invited by LACNIC, one of the regional internet registries location to to make a talk for the tech guys on why it’s important to participate into those discussions. And I think the point that I want to make is not only the mechanisms of the decision-making mechanisms for the WSIS needs to be inclusive and open but also once they are, you need to have the stakeholders engaged. And this is pretty much one of the fatigue problems that you have when there are so many multiple discussions to see the relevance and the importance of participating. So allow me just, I will try to keep short, I know I have two minutes now, but to make it an example on another level. When we think about the breakthrough between the paradigm that you had into the two rounds, the first two rounds, which was the multilateral model for the multistakeholder model, what is the difference there? If you think about, you know, if you go to a restaurant, let me try into a pre-lunch session to use food as an example. If you go to a restaurant and you have a fixed menu, of course you are going to be fed but then you have just this, you know, kind of set choices that you can make. Imagine if you could go to the kitchen and everyone could go there and use your family recipe or if you don’t know how to cook, you can contribute by doing the dish washing or, you know. Everyone has a role there in the kitchen. And then when you are served, you have this diverse plates and experiences and exchange that can be made. And yes, it took more effort, probably more time. But then once you are at the table, you have just richer experience that can be shared among all the participants. So I know examples are tricky. This is not a 100% a good example, but I think it shows the difference between a fixed menu when you have multilateral model and when you have this rich kitchen experience that the IGF can provide when everyone isn’t at the room, everyone can participate and then the outcomes are much more richer and solid. And I think we are going to be talking about results later.

Moderator: Thank you, Veni. Thank you. Are there any questions in the room? Over there, if somebody can bring a microphone. And if there is no microphone, you may have to use one of those.

Audience: Thank you, Veni. Very great panel. I’ve been involved in the WSIS project through the CSTD Working Group on IGF Improvement and Enhanced Cooperation, member of MAG. I’ve been very active in business constituency in ICANN. I followed the IANA transition. And throughout, I’ve seen that ICANN has a unique product and has their unique multi-stakeholder approach. And it played out during the call for the elimination of .RU, okay? And the community said no. So, that is a brilliant model, are we propagating this further, are we strengthening this because of internet shutdown, there are a lot of internet shutdowns around the place, can we project this model so that when it comes to shutting down, maybe we can have a forum to discuss?

Moderator: Who wants to take that question? Because if not, I mean, I have some experience with that because it’s related to how much governments are willing to take the experience of the last 20 years into their building their legislation, regulations, etc. And I come from Bulgaria, so I always give Bulgaria as an example because nobody can get upset about it, but Bulgaria has years ago now, 25 years ago, decided that there will be no regulation of any kind on internet addresses and internet names. Internet numbers, however, were regulated and the result was that with a 6.5 million population at the peak of that boom, there were 2,000 internet service providers in the country, which, you know, I live in New York City with 10 million people, there are two internet service providers, so not much of a choice. So I think one of the ways is what can be adapted from this model and how it can contribute to the intergovernmental and intergovernmental processes. Yes. Can I just add one thing, I mean, I want to come back to what we said about the, back in 2003 and 2005, this was not a given, right? There were other alternatives that we could have come down, right? And if you look at the discussions we, you know, look around us here today, you know, you ask the question, how can we broaden it? We have broadened it.

Curtis Lindquist: We, you know, we have a lot of other topics that has come here exactly because they’re seeking what this model offers, right? They want to have the broad participation, the broad multi-stakeholder model, and I think that that’s really a testament to the strength of what we have achieved, because that was far from certain back in 2003, certainly, maybe more certain in 2005.

Moderator: That was the other comment. Thank you. I’m going to move to the second question I now ask to you, Ambassador, because you have to leave, I know, so a little bit change in the order, but there has been, and it comes into the question actually, there has been a lot of talk in multilateral venues about strengthening multilateralism in the multipolar world. Given the global internet is a network of many networks, is a multilateral approach the answer to deal with some of those complex and transitional challenges? And is there room to preserve the multi-stakeholder approach in this increasingly geopoliticalized world? I think that’s the question that is really critical for 2025. But let’s be real. If the multilateral world 20 years ago was tasked with constructing, developing, spreading the internet, there would be no internet. That is the starkness

Brendan Dowling: of the choice. The multilateral world is not equipped on its own to develop a network of networks in the way that we have that. Now let’s imagine that. Let’s imagine a multilateral driven internet. Firstly, I don’t think it has spread in the way that we know it today. Digital trade, I think, is subject to far more national barriers and borders. We don’t have the globally connected world that we have today. So that is the starkness of the choice that we face. The multi-stakeholder model has worked. It has brought us all the benefits and upsides in a way that the multilateral world would never be capable of organizing. So we need to preserve what works with the multi-stakeholder model. We need to remember that multi-stakeholder means governments are in the room. Governments are a key part of the process. Governments have a strong role in shaping the future of the internet. So this is not a one or the other proposition. The multi-stakeholder model gives everyone a voice, gives everyone the ability to shape the future. Multilateral institutions are a core part of that. They are part of the process, they are part of the discussion. So yes we need to use next year and the WSIS processes as a way to evolve, to look at what the future arrangements should be, but let’s be in no doubt if we try to replace the multi-stakeholder model with a pure multilateral state-governed model, goodbye to the internet. That would be a catastrophe for us all, it would be a catastrophe for global development, it would be a catastrophe for meeting the sustainable development goals. We’re all invested in preserving the multi-stakeholder model and governments are a key part of that. Thank you, I guess you have to leave and

Moderator: be able to ask follow-up questions because I’m sure there will be. So Ian you can exchange seats, Curtis I’m gonna go to you and sorry for the change of order but I wanted the ambassador to have the answer this question. So there are a lot of challenges that we hear here talking about misinformation, disinformation, cyber security risk, regulatory pressures, how do you see the role of the technical community in addressing those challenges? Sir, I mean

Curtis Lindquist: without a doubt there is a issue of misinformation and well cyber security risks is a quite a wide topic ranging from true security risks to resilience and I mean there’s many topics under the umbrella and these are leading to increased regulatory pressure and I think we need to, from the technical community, we need to make sure that we have the frameworks and the technologies to counter the risks and I think they will also take some pressure of the regulatory need because if we can safeguard this through technology you might have less need for regulation but I mean there has been a lot of in the level throughout the last a few years, last 10, 20 years, maybe even, these risks has increased, and there are all kind of actors and drivers of trying to exploit these weaknesses. The technical community have very much tried to address these. We have on the DNS side, the domain name side, we have the DNSSEC, which is the technology and framework for ensuring trust in the identified resolution of namespace. That’s developed by the ITF and ICANN, very much are active in trying to get this deployed as far as possible, as wide as possible by all actors in the name resolution chain. And this, by building capacity and furthering this. And the same goes for the number space, so the IP address space, to ensure validity in this between RPKI and MANRS and other initiatives where we can validate that the authenticity and the trust in the system is maintained. And that is what we are doing as technical community

Moderator: to counter some of these threats. Thank you. Tripti, to continue from Curtis’ answer, governments have been paying close attention to those challenges as well. And so, in your view, in your observations, how does the geopolitical environment affect the technical underpinnings of the internet and the challenges that Curtis was talking about?

Tripti Sinha: So, I couldn’t agree more with what Curtis just said, that geopolitical and political movements do impact the technical underpinnings of the internet, and particularly the areas of regulatory complexities and cybersecurity events and risks and misinformation, the propagation of misinformation. And fragmentation risks have grown as some nations push for state-driven governance and infrastructure, including DNS resolvers. So these measures challenge the internet’s unified and interoperable nature, creating barriers that could disrupt its global functionality. And I think we need to recognize that as we’re promoting a multi-stakeholder model, this interconnected world, but I think the value that comes with such an interconnected world needs to be understood. So as the question that was asked earlier about countries turning off internet access, they only hurt themselves, because we are such an interconnected world that transactions will simply. start to fail, and I think many of us, many entities in the world don’t understand how things happen in the world today, whether it be economic transactions and communication transactions. So, you know, it’s really a situation of, you know, cutting your nose to spite your face. Coming to cyber security threats further compound the challenges, as geopolitical tensions escalate, state-sponsored cyber attacks, disinformation campaigns, and misuse of digital platforms increasingly undermine the trust on the internet. And this erosion of trust, you know, highlights the urgent need for collaborative measures to strengthen the internet security and stability. The multi-stakeholder model continues to remain critical in addressing these challenges. It brings together all the different, you know, constituents, the different stakeholders, governments, the private sector, civil society, technical community, so that we can produce a craft, and craft a balanced solution, an inclusive solution. So ICANN’s ongoing commitment to this model, particularly through its work in promoting, you know, UA, universal acceptance, and IDNs, international domain names, you know, help bridge this linguistic divide and create a multilingual internet, which is essentially speaking to inclusivity. And so to safeguard the global internet’s integrity, and the stakeholders must collaborate on all regulatory frameworks that address security and content-related concerns without fragmenting the internet. Through dialogue, cooperation, the IGF community can help maintain a unified, secure, and resilient internet in this increasingly polarized world.

Moderator: Thanks, Steve. I’m looking at my watch, but we have one more question, and then we’ll open for some, to Raquel, and then we’ll open for some questions, and there is an online question, which we will also address. So Raquel, some critics argue that the multi-stakeholder model. is struggling to balance diverse interests and achieve concrete results. How would you respond to those critics and what changes or improvements if any

Raquel Gatto: might be needed? Thank you very much again Veni and well the burden of being the last one in the session is that you can subscribe to the other ones but then you have a challenge to bring something new and I will keep just a short answer into two points. So one is regarding the processes and the second more of the substance of the discussion. Regarding the processes I think it’s important also to remember that you can bring this multi-stakeholder approach also to the local level it’s not only a global discussion and I come from .br which has the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee which was set into a multi-stakeholder committee from 1995 so even before this was done even before ICANN and it was really a natural decision when you realize that to take on the big task of thinking the internet evolution and recommendations for the internet use at the local level one actor one stakeholder is not going to bring the solution so everyone come together to the table and make those recommendations so that’s the let’s say the inception of the multi-stakeholder at the local level and it’s not about only keeping the internet open of course and safe but also resilient and regarding the question on the on the shutdowns I mean of course you need to keep it on but you cannot avoid some of the decisions but you can make sure that you were bring back faster as you can and so this resilience is also very important not only on the infrastructure level but also on the political level and I’m going to talk a little bit about that but also at the global level when I’m still on the processes part CGI has undertook together with lots of the partners a huge effort on net mondial on making this global discussions realizing that you have those challenges so back in 2014 when you had these know the revelations on massive and pervasive vigilance you had this moment where internet governance principles were internet governance and the patient of the internet itself was at risk And bringing NetMundial, this global discussion, into a multi-stakeholder fashion was really important to reinforce our way ahead. And we were back to this moment this year, so the beginning of this year, there was NetMundial Plus 10, which also took the realization that we had new uses and new challenges for the Internet, and we need to be back together as a community to reinforce our principles, but also to look ahead how those processes can be improved in order to bring the solutions that we need and that don’t break the Internet. So that’s one of the points. And very shortly, in terms of the substance, I think our biggest challenge right now is to make the understanding what the Internet is, and in different levels, right? It’s not only for the governments, for the judiciary, for the Congress. I mean, it’s really hard not to bring what is more visible in terms of social media and the big techs and the platforms, and make sure they understand that the Internet is not only social media. Make sure that AI is a great breakthrough in terms of new technology, but the Internet still holds it together as a foundation. And that’s what I think it’s the cross-cutting substance that we need also to bring into those processes.

Moderator: Thank you very much. Thank you. We have a couple of minutes for questions after this session, at this part of the session. Anyone in the room? Well, it’s either everything is crystal clear or nothing is clear. Yes. Sorry, maybe a question will be a little related to the previous part.

Audience: But I come from a country which actually really wants the world to be exactly multilateral, not multi-stakeholder. And in some cases, including our country, keeping multi-stakeholder relations and also technical relations like independent DNS, government independent DNS, is a kind of violation of law. So we are slowly moving from light discussions, not decision-making activities, to activities which might be slightly illegal or in some cases very illegal. And this issue is not addressed anyhow. So ambassador from a free country may say good words. I can’t word and president can say good words. But how issue of lack of multi-stakeholder possibilities in non-free countries may be addressed by technical community and other stakeholders? Thank you.

Curtis Lindquist: I mean, it’s a complicated question. I’m going to offer observation. So the ambassador said that if the multilateral model were to design the internet, it would never have happened. Now, I’m a technologist from beginning and I’ve been around for a very long time and a bit of a nerd. Those of us who have been around long enough will remember that actually multilateralism tried to develop the internet. And in its place, we got the current internet. That was a successful model, was the multilateral model that actually out-competed the multilateral, well, competing technologies. It’s not exactly an answer to Alexander, but I think that the reality is that you need, in the end of the day, you need to have a working solution for it to catch on. And if you break it, it becomes unusable. The market forces in any country will act right. I mean, I think that’s the best that the technical community can do. community can do is prove that we have something that works.

Moderator: Thank you. And there was a couple of online questions. One of them actually related to the UN policies, which is not really our expertise. But the other one was asking whether ICANN can deprive a country, or I assume it can be expanded, not only ICANN, but the technical organizations like the RIOs, or ICANN can take off a country domain name or country IP addresses of the internet. And I think this was addressed actually almost three years ago now. There was a request coming from Ukraine to ICANN and RIPE, the European Internet Registry, about taking down the Russian top level domain IP addresses that were given to Russia. And the response that came from both organizations was that we cannot do that. That’s not in our powers. So that’s the situation there. Alexander, this answers your question, right? Is there another question? Yes, please. Thank you.

Audience: Thank you very much, Wallace. I’m from the Global Ethics Foundation. I have a question about the content of internet. I understand you touched upon many open, free, and multilateral framework. But it seems that, particularly in AI-driven age, how to ensure the information integrity, and we use that term that used in Global Digital Compact, how this governance framework, how the multistakeholders can ensure the integrity of information on the internet. Thank you. So this goes back to the topic of data governance. This is a big topic right now with the percolation of AI and the capabilities that are coming with AI.

Tripti Sinha: So for AI to be successful, there are essentially three pillars to AI, which is the data that’s fed into the engines, the algorithms that compute the outcomes. and of course the back-end infrastructure. So if the data is bad, so if the data that goes into it is bad, the output is bad. So it’s very critical that as AI governance models are being discussed, the data is appropriately tagged and labeled and fed into its repositories before it’s used. So there needs to be a data validation process, ensuring the veracity of the data, and the ethical tagging of the data. So this is, in my opinion, a very steep hill to climb, but it’s a hill that we must climb if we want to be successful in the use of all these emerging technologies that will be so impactful in our future. So I hope that answers your question to a certain extent.

Moderator: Thank you, Tripti. We’re gonna change the order now. Raquel, you complained that you’re the last. No, I’m joking. You did not complain. But now you’re gonna be first, and we’re gonna put the diplomat to answer last. So Raquel, the question to you is, how do you see the role of the IGF in transforming the digital future? What changes or evolution do you think is necessary to make the IGF more impactful? And what have we learned in the past 20 years? And maybe there will be another WSIS Review in another 20 years, who knows?

Raquel Gatto: Thank you very much, Veni, and for changing the order. I’m sure the diplomat is much more skilled to be the last one. And I’m going to use this as, it’s a very complex question for a one-minute answer. But then I think first, the IGF has proven to be the successful experience, but it is not one solution, right? And it’s not a one IGF that we are talking about. The first point I want to make is, the IGF is not only the event, but it’s the process that you do all year round. that matters. And I used to say that the IGF has, at least for now, three waves that were pretty much important. So the first wave, till about 2013-2014, for those revelations that I was mentioning, the IGF really consolidated into this global dialogue space, into a bottom-up process, into an eco-footing, and into changing and breaking this paradigm of the multilateral that was known so far. And it’s not only for the Internet, right? All other collective goods and rights, like the environment, are also taking on this model, because it’s really important to consolidate that it can be done, and it can achieve results, even though they are not the results we are used to. So that’s the first wave for the IGF. The second wave for the IGF has been precisely to bring more into the tangible results, and how it’s changed the intersessional work, how it makes sure to bring all the thematic relevance that was needed, but also to integrate into the other mechanisms. So looking for, let’s say, G20, ITU, and all the and even ICANN processes. So how we can make this coordination and cooperation really something that is tangible at the end, looking for the best practices. And now it’s the third wave, right? It has reached the kind of the highest level at the UN, and in order to be to be continued, right, and to think about the next 10 years, 20 years, or the IGF forever, as it was called into the one of the high-level sessions, I will bring some of the points also that was that are in the NetMundial plus 10a statement. The IGF really needs to have more of this financial support right now at the the UN streams and and and how the fund works it’s really uncertain how it can keep going and and to do all it’s done it’s really a miracle that is happening right now and it needs to have more of this resource level commitment but also in order I mean to make sure that it keeps going on being more inclusive and more open and it foster more of the national and regional discussions and you have a retrofit from those of course we have different challenges in each of our countries even in in some countries you have localities with different challenges and so on but make sure that this rise to the global discussions but also the global discussions keep having local actions and I think because of the time I’m

Moderator: going to keep that short thank you very much and I hope the IGF is renewed for those that are have the the decision powers thank you thank you Raquel but by the way you never know I may still ask you the last question Curtis what about your vision for you know digital future beyond 2025 and what can the technical community do to continue building the trust and maintaining the global internet I mean amidst it’s increasingly geopolitical polarised world so I think there’s a few things the unified global internet we have today that is is you know interoperable seamless is really the

Curtis Lindquist: foundation of all the value creation the internet has enabled right that is the fundamental aspect of the internet and as you say there is a question of trust in this model going forward that we need to ensure that that trust remains and by doing that we need to address some of the challenges that we have just talked about in the panel now, from security to verification, and also enabling that openness there, because that’s very much part of that value creation. And I think the technical community, like the ITF, who sets all the standards, ISOC, who does a lot of the work with business, civil society, ICANN, who the constituents we have in names and numbering, and all the other ICANN groups, GAC, etc. We really need to identify and understand these concerns, and what could possibly erode that trust, and how do we create a technical framework that meets that. Going forward, and I mean some of this work is done, as I said, we have MANRS for routing, as I said, BNSSEC before, and there’s a lot of other programs, so MANRS is a program for bringing RPKI and routing security to the world’s ISPs, and certify, and have a standardized way for doing it. KIND DNS for DNS is similar, so building on these frameworks to ensure that this gets globally deployed, because there’s also the other thing is that we might have the technologies, but we need to deploy them as well. We need to have them actually validated, and in the world, so we can actually provide that trust. One thing is to have the tools, the other one is to actually ensure the trust exists. And so to continue building that, so that we really have this trusted system, trusted ecosystem, and collaborate around all these efforts with all these stakeholders, both in identifying the challenges, but also delivering the solutions to them. And I think, again, that’s the multi-stakeholder approach. That’s how we work. We work together, and the technical community’s role in this is to ensure that the technical aspects provide resilience, security, and trust of the network that we want. And the other part that we haven’t talked so much about here, but there is another aspect of trust, is of course also the inclusivity. You know, trust is the technical trust, but they’re also feeling included, provides that trust, and that includes internationalized domain names, scripts, etc. that we work on so that people actually can use this and make sure we have the capacity building as well. So like the programs I talked about, so you feel included in that sense because that’s really where we start seeing value. Then people don’t feel, can actually trust beyond the technical trust, but also having trust in the system, trust in participation, trust in use. Thanks a lot.

Moderator: Tripti, the second to last question and not Sherian and Raquel. But what actions can the technical community, including ICANN and other key stakeholders take to ensure that the outcomes of the WSIS Plus 20 review preserve and strengthen the multi-stakeholder governance model? Thank you, Veni.

Tripti Sinha: There’s a lot that can be done. So to ensure the WSIS Plus 20 review strengthens this model, the multi-stakeholder governance model, the technical community, including ICANN, of course, and other key stakeholders, we must act with a shared vision and come together in collaboration and be determined to maintain this model. And it’s been said over and over again this morning, as we’ve talked, this model works and let’s not break it. And it’s been central to the internet success. The ambassador mentioned it, Curtis just highlighted it, we’re all highlighting it, that this has fostered inclusivity, transparency, collaboration, and innovation. Let’s not forget. I mean, this was built upon an open environment when you look at the early days of the internet. I mean, vibrant minds came together and said, let’s do something exciting. And why on earth would you want to break that and take that away? So let’s learn from our successful past and preserve the good of the past. And the technical community, we must advocate for the multi-stakeholder model by showcasing how effective we’ve been in addressing challenges. And the current prevailing challenges are security, inclusion, and all the other challenges that are coming with AI. AI is introducing many challenges. We’ve got to have standards. We’ve got to ensure that the data that’s being fed into engines is good. And that is not in turn used in the wrong way. So we’ve got to come together as a community, as a technical community, and be part of the solution. So that’s something that I would say is critical. Technical expertise must inform diplomats who will be negotiating the WSIS plus 20. So organizations like ours, ICANN, must share our technical expertise to ensure that people who negotiate WSIS plus 20 understand how the internet works and what the role is of each stakeholder. Because it’s not clear that there’s a common understanding of the different layers of the internet and how things interoperate. Can you hear me? Because I’m cutting in and out myself. I think I’ve lost. You can hear me? Okay. And so some other examples of how we can come together and inform diplomats is universal acceptance and IDNs, which actually these key elements of future services speak to inclusivity and preserving, making a multilingual Internet. And one thing that I’d like to mention is that I’m particularly tied or married to multilingual Internet because the language of science and technology has become English, which has helped us all come together and create new technologies. However, there’s some collateral damage that comes with it, which is we potentially are going to forget our languages and forget our culture because we have started to speak this common language, which is great. It’s producing some positive outcomes. But let’s not forget our rich cultural heritage, and we’ve got to preserve that. So for that reason alone, I think it’s very important that we make the Internet multilingual. And the other thing that’s very important is engaging policymakers. That’s equally important. Active participation in the UN consultations and global forums help shape these discussions, build understanding. Can you hear me? Because I’m interesting because I’m cutting out. I can’t hear myself. And it’s all right. I’m almost done. So this includes advocating for the continuation and strengthening of the Internet Governance Forum as this critical platform for dialogue and capacity building. And so it’s a pivotal moment for all the stakeholders to renew our commitment to the WSIS principles. So we’ve got to prioritize trust, security, and inclusivity. And the technical community can effectively contribute to an Internet Governance Framework that supports innovation, fosters resilience, and promotes inclusivity. in this digital world. So thank you Vinny. Thank you and sorry for the technical

Moderator: difficulties it was breaking here but I realized it’s only our two devices that were breaking. So the last question was for your ambassador so you only have no just kidding no from a government’s point of view though what do you think the government stakeholders or the government’s can do to preserve the trust while building upon the success of the digital transformation we’ve witnessed in the last 20 years. Thanks the question and thanks for letting me

Brendan Dowling: sub in for my cyber ambassador. Quite simply I think it’s it’s governments should allow ourselves to continue to benefit from the multi-stakeholder process. Multi-stakeholderism means we’re in this together. The internet only flourishes if the community as a whole works together. This requires trust. Trust requires two things transparency and accountability and for that to be a two-way street. This means that governments and all other parts of the multi-stakeholder community must ensure that there is clear communication between each groups and we all need to be accountable for each other’s roles and that we play in the internet successes. So the internet success don’t work if we if governments if only governments are committed to upholding the WSIS and similarly it doesn’t work if either governments feel WSIS doesn’t address their needs or if the multi-stakeholder approach is no longer at its at its core. Australia’s approach to our WSIS plus 20 preparations is a great example of this of this in action and we we committed to taking a multi-stakeholder approach to our preparations not simply and not just based on principle but because we genuinely believes it produces good outcomes and outcomes that we can take with us into the negotiating room. So our approach is guided by a number of core principles which are key to building trust with the multi-stakeholder community. It means being multi-stakeholder openness and transparency. and building on the perspectives and voices of all, taking a holistic evidence-based approach to outcomes and achieving long-term agreement. So certainly if you are interested in learning about the approach we’re taking to WSIS, please come by our booth, grab a Tim Tam, grab a koala, and we’d love to continue leveraging the deep expertise that the multistakeholder community has to offer as we approach the WSIS Plus 20 negotiations. Thank you. We also were able to take pictures yesterday.

Moderator: I think there was a… Thank you. We are wrapping up the discussion. So I think one of the references that I could give also is the government engagement team and we have a dedicated webpage. You can go to ICANN.org and government engagement and you can find the information that we share. We’ve created a network, can you hear me or no? We created a network of about 540 members right now from 85 countries. We exchange information which people find useful and we organize webinars every once in a while. We were very active during the Global Digital Compact negotiations, discussing every draft that was published. We’ll continue doing that in the WSIS process. So please sign up, read our papers that we are producing. Any last comments or words from you guys or else I’ll turn to Raquel. Thank you very much. I just want to say and appreciate the work you’re doing. It really helps us even at the local level, those materials we can spread. And I think that’s also the message here because I preached the importance of the IGF. For those in the room, it’s easy. It’s much harder when you go back home or back to your constituencies and then. you need to convince those of the importance and so having this background materials are really really important. Thank you Veni and Kurt and everyone for the work done. Thanks a lot, any last comments? No? Well thanks a lot, we finished actually three minutes before the end of time, which the local host will be very thankful we’re giving them time to rearrange the stage. Thank you.

Agreement Points

Importance of multi-stakeholder model

Kurtis Lindqvist

Brendan Dowling

Raquel Gatto

Tripti Sinha

Fostered multi-stakeholder collaboration

Multi-stakeholder model crucial for internet’s success

Promoted inclusive internet governance processes

Advocating for multi-stakeholder model

All speakers emphasized the crucial role of the multi-stakeholder model in the success and development of the internet, highlighting its importance for inclusive and effective internet governance.

Achievements of WSIS in expanding internet access

Kurtis Lindqvist

Brendan Dowling

Fostered multi-stakeholder collaboration

Expanded internet connectivity globally

Both speakers highlighted the significant increase in global internet connectivity as a major achievement of WSIS over the past 20 years.

Need to address emerging challenges

Kurtis Lindqvist

Tripti Sinha

Developing frameworks to counter security risks

Addressing emerging challenges like AI governance

Both speakers emphasized the need for the technical community to develop frameworks and technologies to address emerging challenges, including cybersecurity risks and AI governance.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the importance of inclusive decision-making processes in internet governance, highlighting the success of the multi-stakeholder approach at both global and local levels.

Brendan Dowling

Raquel Gatto

Multi-stakeholder model crucial for internet’s success

Promoted inclusive internet governance processes

Both speakers stressed the importance of the technical community’s role in developing security frameworks and informing policymakers about technical aspects of internet governance.

Kurtis Lindqvist

Tripti Sinha

Developing frameworks to counter security risks

Informing policymakers on technical aspects

Unexpected Consensus

Importance of multilingualism in internet governance

Kurtis Lindqvist

Tripti Sinha

Enabled technical advancements like internationalized domain names

Fostered multi-stakeholder collaboration

While not a primary focus of the discussion, both speakers highlighted the importance of multilingualism and internationalized domain names as key achievements of WSIS, showing unexpected consensus on the significance of linguistic inclusivity in internet governance.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement among speakers included the importance of the multi-stakeholder model, the achievements of WSIS in expanding internet access, and the need to address emerging challenges in internet governance. There was also consensus on the significance of inclusive decision-making processes and the role of the technical community in developing frameworks and informing policymakers.

Consensus level

The level of consensus among the speakers was high, particularly regarding the value of the multi-stakeholder model and the achievements of WSIS. This strong consensus implies a shared vision for the future of internet governance, emphasizing the need to preserve and strengthen the multi-stakeholder approach while addressing new challenges. The high level of agreement suggests a unified direction for future internet governance discussions and negotiations, particularly in preparation for WSIS Plus 20.

Different Viewpoints

Approach to internet governance

Brendan Dowling

Kurtis Lindqvist

Multi-stakeholder model crucial for internet’s success

Developing frameworks to counter security risks

While both speakers support the multi-stakeholder model, Dowling emphasizes its crucial role in the internet’s success, whereas Lindquist focuses more on the technical community’s role in developing security frameworks.

Unexpected Differences

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement revolve around the specific approaches to maintaining the multi-stakeholder model and addressing emerging challenges in internet governance.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among the speakers is relatively low. Most speakers agree on the importance of the multi-stakeholder model and the need to address emerging challenges. The differences lie mainly in the emphasis placed on various aspects of internet governance and the specific approaches to tackle these issues. This low level of disagreement suggests a generally unified vision for the future of internet governance, which could facilitate more effective collaboration in addressing challenges and implementing solutions.

Partial Agreements

Both speakers agree on the need to address challenges in internet governance, but Sinha focuses on the risk of fragmentation due to state-driven governance, while Gatto emphasizes the need to strengthen the IGF’s role and impact.

Tripti Sinha

Raquel Gatto

Risk of internet fragmentation

Strengthening IGF’s role and impact

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the importance of inclusive decision-making processes in internet governance, highlighting the success of the multi-stakeholder approach at both global and local levels.

Brendan Dowling

Raquel Gatto

Multi-stakeholder model crucial for internet’s success

Promoted inclusive internet governance processes

Both speakers stressed the importance of the technical community’s role in developing security frameworks and informing policymakers about technical aspects of internet governance.

Kurtis Lindqvist

Tripti Sinha

Developing frameworks to counter security risks

Informing policymakers on technical aspects

Key Takeaways

The multi-stakeholder model has been crucial to the internet’s success and should be preserved

WSIS has fostered global internet connectivity and inclusive governance over the past 20 years

Emerging challenges include cybersecurity threats, misinformation, and potential internet fragmentation

The technical community plays a key role in building trust and security for the internet

Government participation within the multi-stakeholder framework remains important

Resolutions and Action Items

Continue advocating for and strengthening the multi-stakeholder model in internet governance

Engage policymakers and diplomats to inform WSIS+20 negotiations

Develop and deploy technical frameworks to address security risks and build trust

Promote universal acceptance and internationalized domain names for a more inclusive internet

Strengthen the Internet Governance Forum’s role and impact

Unresolved Issues

How to balance diverse interests and achieve concrete results within the multi-stakeholder model

Addressing the digital divide and lack of connectivity in some regions

Navigating increased regulatory pressures and geopolitical tensions

Ensuring data integrity and ethical use of AI technologies

Maintaining a unified, interoperable internet amid fragmentation risks

Suggested Compromises

Governments should participate in multi-stakeholder processes while preserving the model’s core principles

Balance security measures with maintaining the internet’s openness and innovation

Develop technical solutions to address concerns while avoiding excessive regulation

Foster both global coordination and local/regional internet governance initiatives

If the multilateral world 20 years ago was tasked with constructing, developing, spreading the internet, there would be no internet. That is the starkness of the choice. The multilateral world is not equipped on its own to develop a network of networks in the way that we have that.

speaker

Brendan Dowling

reason

This comment starkly contrasts the multi-stakeholder and multilateral approaches, emphasizing the unique capabilities of the multi-stakeholder model in developing the internet.

impact

It set a strong tone for defending the multi-stakeholder model and prompted further discussion on the merits of this approach versus a purely governmental one.

The IGF really needs to have more of this financial support right now at the UN streams and how the fund works it’s really uncertain how it can keep going and to do all it’s done it’s really a miracle that is happening right now and it needs to have more of this resource level commitment

speaker

Raquel Gatto

reason

This comment highlights a critical practical challenge facing the IGF, bringing attention to the often-overlooked issue of funding and sustainability.

impact

It shifted the conversation from theoretical benefits of the multi-stakeholder model to practical considerations for its continuation, prompting thoughts on how to ensure the IGF’s longevity.

I come from a country which actually really wants the world to be exactly multilateral, not multi-stakeholder. And in some cases, including our country, keeping multi-stakeholder relations and also technical relations like independent DNS, government independent DNS, is a kind of violation of law.

speaker

Audience member

reason

This comment from the audience introduced a critical perspective from countries resistant to the multi-stakeholder model, highlighting real-world challenges to its implementation.

impact

It prompted the panel to address how the multi-stakeholder model can be promoted or maintained in countries that are resistant to it, adding complexity to the discussion.

For AI to be successful, there are essentially three pillars to AI, which is the data that’s fed into the engines, the algorithms that compute the outcomes, and of course the back-end infrastructure. So if the data is bad, so if the data that goes into it is bad, the output is bad.

speaker

Tripti Sinha

reason

This comment succinctly explains the critical components of AI systems and highlights the importance of data quality, connecting the discussion to emerging technological challenges.

impact

It broadened the conversation to include considerations of AI and data governance within the context of internet governance, prompting thoughts on how these new technologies interact with existing governance structures.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by reinforcing the importance of the multi-stakeholder model while also highlighting its challenges. They broadened the conversation from a focus on past achievements to include considerations of future challenges, particularly around funding, resistance from some nations, and emerging technologies like AI. The discussion evolved from a celebration of the multi-stakeholder model’s successes to a more nuanced exploration of how to maintain and adapt this model in the face of geopolitical, financial, and technological challenges.

How can the multi-stakeholder model be propagated further to address issues like internet shutdowns?

speaker

Audience member

explanation

This is important to explore how successful governance models like ICANN’s can be applied to other internet-related challenges.

How can the issue of lack of multi-stakeholder possibilities in non-free countries be addressed by the technical community and other stakeholders?

speaker

Alexander (audience member)

explanation

This highlights the need to consider how to implement multi-stakeholder approaches in countries with restrictive governance.

How can the multi-stakeholder governance framework ensure information integrity in the AI-driven age?

speaker

Audience member from Global Ethics Foundation

explanation

This is crucial to address emerging challenges related to AI and data governance within the existing internet governance framework.

What changes or evolution are necessary to make the IGF more impactful?

speaker

Moderator (to Raquel)

explanation

This is important to consider how to improve the effectiveness of the Internet Governance Forum in shaping future internet policies.

How can the technical community continue building trust and maintaining the global internet amidst an increasingly geopolitically polarized world?

speaker

Moderator (to Kurtis)

explanation

This is crucial to address the challenges of maintaining a unified internet in the face of growing geopolitical tensions.

What actions can the technical community and other key stakeholders take to ensure that the outcomes of the WSIS Plus 20 review preserve and strengthen the multi-stakeholder governance model?

speaker

Moderator (to Tripti)

explanation

This is important to consider strategies for maintaining the multi-stakeholder approach in future internet governance frameworks.

Summary

This transcript covers a book launch event for a report on the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) 2023 held in Kyoto, Japan. The report, published by the SEEC Digital Research Institute Internet Governance Research Group, aims to document the event and raise awareness about IGF in Japan.

Junko Kawauchi presented the report’s contents, which include an introduction to IGF, details about the Kyoto event, and summaries of various sessions and activities. The 219-page, full-color report is available in Japanese as both a hard copy and a PDF download. It features pictures from the event and contributions from Japanese organizers.

Keisuke Kamimura explained that this unofficial report serves to encourage local Japanese community engagement in internet governance discussions. It provides a detailed record of the UN conference to help people understand IGF and internet governance better. The report also demonstrates multi-stakeholder collaboration in Japan’s internet governance context.

The presenters emphasized the report’s potential use as a reference for future IGF hosts and as an educational tool for young people through planned School on Internet Governance webinars. They highlighted the significant effort involved in creating the report, including collecting session summaries from various presenters and moderators.

Audience members praised the report’s usefulness for understanding IGF and suggested making it more widely accessible, potentially through the UN IGF website. The discussion concluded by encouraging future host countries to produce similar records of their IGF events to share knowledge and connect different stakeholder groups within the internet governance community.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– Introduction of a report booklet about IGF 2023 held in Kyoto, Japan

– Detailed overview of the report’s contents, including IGF history, conference details, and various sessions

– The purpose of creating the report to increase awareness about IGF in Japan

– The voluntary nature of the report and its role in encouraging local Japanese community engagement in internet governance

– The potential use of the report as a reference for future IGF host countries

Overall purpose:

The main goal of this discussion was to launch and present a comprehensive report about the IGF 2023 event held in Kyoto, Japan. The speakers aimed to highlight the importance of documenting such events to increase awareness, encourage local participation, and provide a valuable resource for future IGF hosts.

Tone:

The overall tone of the discussion was informative and enthusiastic. The speakers were eager to share details about the report and its potential impact. The tone remained consistent throughout the conversation, with a focus on presenting information and encouraging similar efforts in the future. There was also a sense of pride in the work accomplished and its potential benefits for the internet governance community.

Speakers

Speakers from the provided list:

– Keisuke Kamimura, Professor at Daito Bunkai University, Tokyo, Japan

Expertise: Member of the SEEC Digital Research Institute Internet Governance Research Group

– Junko Kawauchi, Secretariat for the research group

Additional speakers:

– Tanaka, Attendee from Tokyo, Japan

– Unnamed attendee, Asked about the effort spent on preparing the report

The book launch event for the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) 2023 report, held in Kyoto, Japan, featured a comprehensive discussion on the importance of documenting and sharing knowledge about internet governance. The primary speakers, Junko Kawauchi and Keisuke Kamimura, presented a detailed overview of the report’s contents and its significance for raising awareness about IGF in Japan.

Report Contents and Purpose

Junko Kawauchi, the Secretariat for the research group, introduced the 219-page, full-colour, A4-size report published by the SEEC Digital Research Institute Internet Governance Research Group. The report, available in Japanese as both a hard copy (700 printed) and a PDF download, includes:

1. History of IGF

2. Domestic activities related to IGF and NRIs

3. Detailed outline of IGF 2023 sessions (opening ceremony, high-level leaders meeting, main sessions, NRIs, policy networks, etc.)

4. Reports from Japanese organizers about their sessions

5. Youth sessions, open mic, taking stock, and closing ceremony

6. Pictures from the event, including cultural elements like fireworks, music night, kimono costumes, and tea ceremony

Keisuke Kamimura, a Professor at Daito Bunkai University and member of the research group, emphasised that this unofficial report serves multiple purposes:

1. Encouraging local Japanese community engagement in internet governance discussions

2. Providing a detailed record of the UN conference

3. Helping people understand IGF and internet governance better

4. Demonstrating multi-stakeholder collaboration in Japan’s internet governance context

While not an official document from the Ministry of Information Affairs, the report includes introductory messages from them. The speakers highlighted its potential use as a reference for future IGF hosts and as an educational tool for young people through planned School on Internet Governance webinars.

Collaborative Nature and Effort

Both Kawauchi and Kamimura stressed the collaborative nature of the report, involving various stakeholders including government, civil society, and industry. They highlighted the considerable effort involved in producing the report, with Kamimura noting it took “thousands of human work hours,” including collecting session summaries from various presenters and moderators.

Distribution and Accessibility

The report’s distribution plans were discussed, with Kawauchi mentioning that free copies would be available at various events, including the Japanese IGF. The PDF version will be accessible for download on the SEEC website.

An attendee named Tanaka suggested making the report more widely accessible, potentially through the UN IGF website. This proposal was seen as a way to amplify the report’s impact and usefulness on a global scale, particularly for future host countries researching IGF best practices. Tanaka also noted that while the report is currently only in Japanese, translation engines could help make it accessible to non-Japanese speakers, broadening its potential impact.

Connecting Stakeholders

Kamimura highlighted an additional benefit of creating the report: fostering connections within the local internet governance community. He noted that the report helps connect different groups who had sessions at the IGF, preventing them from becoming disconnected or isolated.

Future Implications

The discussion concluded with encouragement for future host countries to produce similar records of their IGF events. Kamimura specifically emphasized the importance of keeping such records, seeing it as a way to share knowledge and connect different stakeholder groups within the internet governance community globally.

Overall, the speakers demonstrated a high level of consensus regarding the purpose and value of the report. The discussion was primarily informative, focusing on presenting the IGF 2023 report booklet and its potential impact on raising awareness about internet governance in Japan and beyond.

Keisuke Kamimura: event. This is a book launch event. We prepared a report booklet from the IGF 2023 last year in Kyoto. So this session is meant to present you with the guidelines of this booklet and the activity that we had behind the publication. My name is Keisuke Kamimura. I’m a professor at Daito Bunkai University based in Tokyo, Japan. But today, I am speaking in the capacity of one of the members of the SEEC, Digital Research Institute Internet Governance Research Group. SEEC stands for the Center for International Cooperation. At the end of the session, we have some free copies of this booklet. So if you are interested, please take one for yourself. I will be joined by Ms. Kawauchi. She is the secretariat for the research group and she will give us a detailed outline of this booklet. Kawauchi-san, please.

Junko Kawauchi: Hello. Can you hear me? Okay. So, yeah. Okay. I will explain about the report. As you know, Japan hosted the IGF 2023 in Kyoto last year in October. And actually, it was the maybe we won’t host for many years in the future, so it was a very important event for us. So, we decided to make a report. And actually, in Japan, not many people know about the IGF. So, we want many Japanese people know about the IGF because IGF is very important for the digital society. So, that is the objective of this report. Actually, this report is a hard copy. It’s A4 size and full color. You see the full color with the pictures and 219 pages. And we published, actually, it takes a bit of time and we published it in September this year. And I will go to the next. Okay. And this is the table of the content. Actually, the report is only in Japanese. So, but I put the translation here. The first is the introduction and the next is about the IGF because many people don’t know about the IGF itself. So, we explained about IGF, the history, and the visas in 2005 and 2006 in Tunisia and Geneva. And also, we explained about the domestic activities related to IGF and the NRIs and something like that. Also, we have 5, 6 members of this IGF research group members. So, we asked them to write about the IGF. And the third one is about the IGF 2023 in Kyoto. The overall outline is the conference details and the outline of the sessions and also the like opening ceremony, high-level leaders meeting, or the main sessions, NRIs, policy networks, and overview by sub-teams, and day zero workshops, town halls, open forums, and something like that. And also, the parliamentary track and leadership panel, best practice forum, and dynamic coalitions, and something. We made a brief introduction of those sessions. And also, it was held in Japan, so many Japanese organizers’ sessions in 2023. So, we asked those Japanese organizers to write a report about their sessions. Also, the youth sessions or the open mic taking stock and closing ceremony. So, that is the table of contents. Actually, this is the details of the contents, so I will skip it. And this is some pictures from the Kyoto 2023 IGFs. Maybe if you attended the Kyoto IGF, you maybe remember some of the pictures. Yeah, we had the fireworks or the music night, and yeah, something like that. Another picture is the kimono costumes, or the tea ceremony in Japanese, and something like that. So, we We made a hard copy, 700 hard copies printed. There are some here also, I don’t know where is it. And also it is available in the PDA format. You can find it, you can download it free from the website here. Actually, this is only in Japanese, so please note. And also we utilized this report for the School on Internet Governance webinar. We are planning to organize a SIG webinar and use this report as a reference book so that the many, especially the young people, university students, college students know about the IGF in Japan. It is important activity, we think. So this is the last. Actually, we organized the Japanese IGF in November in Tokyo. And we distributed the hard copies there. Actually, the red circle, it is very small, but in the red circle we put the free copies there and many people took it, take it back if they like. So we utilized this report and we are thinking to utilize this report as much as possible so that the IGF’s importance, we want many Japanese people to know about the importance of IGF. Yeah, that’s it. Thank you very much. Any questions?

Keisuke Kamimura: Thank you, Ms. Kawaguchi. Thank you, Kawaguchi-san. Did you hear? Hello? Okay. Thank you, Kawaguchi-san. Let me add some comment to her presentation. This is not an official report by the Ministry of Information Affairs in Japan. This is more of a voluntary or unofficial report. Why did we do this? Hello? Okay. Why did we do this? Because we always have a problem when we try to encourage local Japanese community to be engaged in internet governance or local internet governance forum in Japan. And we are always asked what the internet governance forum is or what internet governance is about. So we try to keep the recording of the UN conference as detailed as possible so that when we try to encourage local Japanese community to be engaged in the internet governance dialogue, they will have a better understanding or a better idea of what the IGF is or what internet governance is about. So that’s one thing. And we also wanted other host countries to produce their version of reporting of the IGF that will be held locally so that will be a good thing. So that’s the reason why we did this. I mentioned that we tried to be as precise as possible, but we did not mean to be fully precise. Because if you go to the IGF website, you have a comprehensive recording of the meetings in the IGF. So we tried to highlight what was discussed or what was important in the IGF 2023. So that’s the concept behind. And as I mentioned, this is not an official report, but we have some opening or introductory messages from the Ministry of Information Affairs. So in a way, this report demonstrates the collaboration or combination between the civil society, business, the industry, and the government. Multi-stakeholder collaboration that is taking place in Japan’s internet governance context. So this is my additional comment on this booklet. So if you have any comments or questions, please feel free to do so. Can you give the audience the microphone? Thank you for the presentation. Can you hear me? So I’m Tanaka, also from Tokyo, Japan. I joined Kyoto IGF 2023, so it’s a very impressive event. So I think that in this event, there should be somebody thinking about introducing or inviting IGF to their country. So in this sense, this book is very useful to understand what is IGF. And also, so many pictures made me very helpful to understand the event mood. So while it’s only in Japanese, but at this time, the translation engine can help to translate each country’s language. So my comment and question is, there is a link to this PDF file in your CFIEC website, right? How about, I’m not sure the organization of IGF itself, maybe IGF headquarter website should have a link to this PDF. So because potential in future hosting country may be research. what is the IGF, what is the key success factor of this event at that time. I believe this book is very helpful to understand and encourage so many affiliated people to join a future IGF, I think. This is my comment. Thank you. Thank you very much. At this point of time, we don’t have a link to this report from the UN IGF website, no. Thank you very much anyway. Any other comments? Yes, please. Could you tell how much time was spent on preparing this report? What was an effort? To create this astonishing book? Well, actually quite a lot. Well, maybe there is thousands of human work hours or something like that. Maybe she’s the lady behind the whole work, so she will be probably better positioned to answer your question. Actually, it took quite a time, actually. Sorry. So, I spent no time to take this book, but I heard the key is a short report after each session. So, she runs all sessions at Kyoto, so some write a very good report, but some are absent, no report of that session. So, very important thing is that each presenter or facilitator, moderator should leave some report, what happened, what is the future like that. So, it’s very helpful to make this report. Sorry, I had no job, but I heard from her that comment. Thank you. Another point of beauty that we have this report is that we can connect each group who had a session at the IGF. Otherwise, session groups are disconnected or isolated. So, having this booklet or having this effort to produce this booklet will be one of the opportunities for the Japanese local community to get together and to see or understand what other stakeholder or other group is doing during and before the IGF. Yes, that’s the point. So, as I mentioned, this session is more of a book launch, and we encourage that other stakeholders in the future host countries will do some way or the other, try some way or the other, keep the recording of the conference that you will have so that we can share the knowledge afterwards. So, if you don’t have further questions or comments, thank you very much. Thank you for coming, and thank you for joining this launch event. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Agreement Points

Importance of the IGF 2023 Report Booklet

Junko Kawauchi

Keisuke Kamimura

Purpose of the report

Contents of the report

Unofficial nature and collaborative effort

Both speakers agree on the significance of creating a comprehensive report about IGF 2023 to raise awareness and encourage engagement in internet governance discussions in Japan.

Raising awareness about IGF in Japan

Junko Kawauchi

Keisuke Kamimura

Raising awareness in Japan

Encouraging local engagement

The speakers emphasize the importance of informing Japanese people, especially young people, about IGF and internet governance to increase local engagement.

Similar Viewpoints

The report serves as a valuable resource for understanding IGF and its importance, both for the Japanese community and potential future host countries.

Junko Kawauchi

Keisuke Kamimura

Masanobu Katoh

Contents of the report

Encouraging local engagement

Usefulness for future host countries

Unexpected Consensus

Collaborative nature of the report

Keisuke Kamimura

Junko Kawauchi

Unofficial nature and collaborative effort

Publication process and format

Despite being an unofficial report, there is an unexpected consensus on its collaborative nature, involving various stakeholders including government, civil society, and industry. This demonstrates a multi-stakeholder approach to internet governance in Japan.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement revolve around the importance of the IGF 2023 Report Booklet in raising awareness about internet governance in Japan, encouraging local engagement, and serving as a resource for future host countries.

Consensus level

There is a high level of consensus among the speakers regarding the purpose and value of the report. This strong agreement implies a unified approach to promoting internet governance understanding in Japan and potentially influencing future IGF events globally.

Different Viewpoints

Unexpected Differences

Overall Assessment

summary

No significant areas of disagreement were identified in the discussion.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among speakers appears to be minimal to non-existent. The discussion was primarily informative, focusing on presenting the IGF 2023 report booklet and its purpose. This lack of disagreement suggests a unified approach to raising awareness about IGF in Japan and potentially encouraging other countries to create similar reports for future IGF events.

Partial Agreements

Similar Viewpoints

The report serves as a valuable resource for understanding IGF and its importance, both for the Japanese community and potential future host countries.

Junko Kawauchi

Keisuke Kamimura

Masanobu Katoh

Contents of the report

Encouraging local engagement

Usefulness for future host countries

Key Takeaways

A comprehensive report booklet on IGF 2023 in Kyoto was created and published in Japanese

The report aims to raise awareness about IGF and internet governance in Japan

The booklet is a collaborative effort between civil society, business, and government

The report serves as a valuable resource for future IGF host countries

Creating such reports can help connect different groups involved in IGF sessions

Resolutions and Action Items

Distribute free copies of the report booklet at various events

Make the PDF version of the report available for download on the SEEC website

Use the report as a reference book for School on Internet Governance webinars

Encourage future IGF host countries to produce similar reports

Unresolved Issues

Potential inclusion of a link to the PDF report on the official IGF website

Possibility of translating the report into other languages

Suggested Compromises

None identified

This is not an official report by the Ministry of Information Affairs in Japan. This is more of a voluntary or unofficial report.

speaker

Keisuke Kamimura

reason

This comment is insightful because it clarifies the nature of the report, highlighting that it’s a grassroots effort rather than a government-mandated document. This distinction is important for understanding the report’s context and purpose.

impact

This comment shifted the perspective on the report, emphasizing its community-driven nature and potentially increasing its perceived value as a genuine reflection of the IGF experience.

We try to keep the recording of the UN conference as detailed as possible so that when we try to encourage local Japanese community to be engaged in the internet governance dialogue, they will have a better understanding or a better idea of what the IGF is or what internet governance is about.

speaker

Keisuke Kamimura

reason

This comment provides crucial insight into the purpose and intended impact of the report. It reveals a strategic approach to increasing local engagement in internet governance.

impact

This explanation deepened the conversation by highlighting the educational and outreach goals of the report, potentially inspiring others to consider similar approaches in their countries.

So while it’s only in Japanese, but at this time, the translation engine can help to translate each country’s language.

speaker

Tanaka

reason

This comment introduces a practical solution to the language barrier, suggesting that the report’s usefulness extends beyond Japanese-speaking audiences.

impact

This observation broadened the perceived accessibility and potential impact of the report, potentially encouraging its wider distribution and use.

How about, I’m not sure the organization of IGF itself, maybe IGF headquarter website should have a link to this PDF. So because potential in future hosting country may be research what is the IGF, what is the key success factor of this event at that time.

speaker

Tanaka

reason

This suggestion is insightful as it proposes a way to amplify the report’s impact and usefulness on a global scale.

impact

This comment shifted the discussion towards considering broader dissemination strategies and the potential for the report to serve as a model for future IGF hosts.

Another point of beauty that we have this report is that we can connect each group who had a session at the IGF. Otherwise, session groups are disconnected or isolated.

speaker

Keisuke Kamimura

reason

This comment reveals an additional, perhaps unintended, benefit of creating the report – fostering connections within the local internet governance community.

impact

This observation deepened the conversation by highlighting the report’s role in community building, beyond its informational content.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by progressively revealing the multifaceted value of the IGF 2023 report. The conversation evolved from a simple presentation of the report’s contents to a rich exploration of its purpose, potential impact, and broader implications for community engagement in internet governance. The comments highlighted the report’s role in education, outreach, community building, and as a potential model for future IGF hosts. This discussion underscored the importance of documenting and sharing experiences from international forums to foster local engagement and global understanding.

How can other host countries be encouraged to produce their own version of reporting on the IGF?

speaker

Keisuke Kamimura

explanation

This is important to create a comprehensive record of IGF events across different host countries and to share knowledge and experiences.

How can the IGF report be made accessible to non-Japanese speakers?

speaker

Tanaka

explanation

While the report is currently only in Japanese, making it accessible to a wider audience could help potential future host countries understand and prepare for hosting an IGF event.

Should the UN IGF website include a link to this report and similar reports from other host countries?

speaker

Tanaka

explanation

This could provide valuable resources for future host countries and researchers interested in understanding the key success factors of IGF events.

How can the process of collecting session reports be improved to ensure comprehensive coverage of all sessions?

speaker

Junko Kawauchi (indirectly, through another participant’s comment)

explanation

Ensuring that all presenters, facilitators, and moderators provide reports on their sessions would improve the completeness and value of the overall IGF report.

How can the creation of such reports be used to better connect different groups who had sessions at the IGF?

speaker

Keisuke Kamimura

explanation

This is important for fostering collaboration and understanding between different stakeholders in the local internet governance community.

Summary

This discussion focused on countering the use of information and communication technologies (ICT) for terrorist purposes. Representatives from various organizations, including the UN Counter-Terrorism Committee Executive Directorate (CTED), the Parliamentary Assembly of the Mediterranean (PAM), the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), Tech Against Terrorism, and the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism (GIFCT), shared their perspectives and initiatives.

The speakers highlighted the evolving nature of terrorist threats in the digital space, including the exploitation of social media, video games, and emerging technologies like artificial intelligence. They emphasized the need for a multi-stakeholder approach involving governments, tech companies, civil society, and academia to address these challenges effectively.

Key initiatives discussed included CTED’s work on developing guiding principles for member states, PAM’s efforts to promote dialogue and legislation on AI regulation, UNODC’s Global Initiative on Handling Electronic Evidence, Tech Against Terrorism’s focus on disrupting terrorist use of the internet, and GIFCT’s cross-platform solutions for tech companies.

The speakers stressed the importance of balancing counter-terrorism efforts with respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. They also highlighted the need for improved international cooperation, capacity building for law enforcement and judicial systems, and the development of legal frameworks to address crimes committed through or by AI.

The discussion underscored the critical role of public-private partnerships in countering terrorist use of the internet. Speakers emphasized the need for continued collaboration, knowledge sharing, and adaptation to emerging threats in the rapidly evolving digital landscape.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– The increasing use of the internet and emerging technologies by terrorist groups for recruitment, radicalization, and strategic communications

– Challenges faced by governments and tech companies in countering terrorist use of the internet, including legal/jurisdictional issues and capacity gaps

– The importance of public-private partnerships and multi-stakeholder collaboration in addressing these challenges

– The need for improved detection and analysis capabilities, including potential benefits of AI for content moderation

– Concerns about terrorist-operated websites and infrastructure

Overall purpose:

The goal of this discussion was to examine current trends, challenges and collaborative efforts to counter terrorist use of the internet and emerging technologies from the perspectives of various stakeholders including the UN, governments, tech companies and NGOs.

Tone:

The overall tone was serious and focused, reflecting the gravity of the topic. Speakers maintained a professional, analytical approach while emphasizing the urgency of addressing these issues. There was also an underlying tone of cautious optimism about the potential for improved collaboration and technological solutions to make progress in this area.

Speakers

– Jennifer Bramlette: Executive Director of the Counterterrorism Committee Executive Directorate (CTED)

– Pedro Roque: Vice President of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Mediterranean (PAM)

– Arianna Lepore: Terrorism Prevention Branch of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC)

– Adam Hadley: Executive Director and Founder of Tech Against Terrorism

– Dr. Erin Saltman: Membership and Programme Director from the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism (GIFCT)

Additional speakers:

– Natalia Gherman: Executive Director of the Counterterrorism Committee Executive Directorate (mentioned but did not speak)

Countering Terrorist Use of Information and Communication Technologies: A Multi-Stakeholder Approach

This discussion brought together representatives from various organisations to address the critical issue of countering terrorist use of information and communication technologies (ICT). The speakers, representing the UN Counter-Terrorism Committee Executive Directorate (CTED), the Parliamentary Assembly of the Mediterranean (PAM), the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), Tech Against Terrorism, and the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism (GIFCT), shared their perspectives on current challenges, initiatives, and collaborative efforts in this domain.

Evolving Threat Landscape

The speakers unanimously highlighted the evolving nature of terrorist threats in the digital space. Adam Hadley from Tech Against Terrorism emphasised a paradigm shift in how we view terrorist use of the internet, framing it as a strategic rather than merely tactical tool. This perspective broadens the scope of the discussion, encompassing not only recruitment and radicalisation but also strategic communications and infrastructure concerns.

Jennifer Bramlette from CTED noted the increasing exploitation of social media, video games, and emerging technologies like artificial intelligence by terrorist groups. The speakers agreed that terrorists are becoming increasingly entrepreneurial and imaginative in their use of technologies, adapting their techniques to evade detection and removal from major platforms.

Challenges in Countering Terrorist Use of ICT

Several key challenges were identified during the discussion:

1. Varying technological capabilities: Jennifer Bramlette highlighted the stark contrast between member states with advanced technological capabilities and those struggling with basic infrastructure, such as providing electricity to police stations. Many states face challenges in incorporating ICT into their counterterrorism systems effectively.

2. Legal and regulatory gaps: Both Jennifer Bramlette and Pedro Roque emphasised the urgent need for updated counter-terrorism laws and regulatory frameworks. Bramlette pointed out that most states lack laws to deal with crimes committed through or by artificial intelligence, raising questions about how to “arrest a chatbot” or “prosecute an AI”.

3. Jurisdictional complexities: The speakers noted the challenges posed by the borderless nature of cyberspace, emphasising the need for cross-border consensus building and clearer international frameworks.

4. Content moderation complexities: Dr. Erin Saltman from GIFCT illustrated the difficulties in content moderation, using the example of distinguishing between a foreign terrorist fighter and “literally just a man in the back of a Toyota”.

5. Balancing security and human rights: The speakers stressed the importance of respecting human rights and fundamental freedoms while implementing counter-terrorism measures online.

Collaborative Initiatives and Approaches

The discussion underscored the critical importance of multi-stakeholder collaboration in addressing these challenges:

1. CTED’s inclusive approach: Jennifer Bramlette described CTED’s efforts to bring together member states, international organisations, the private sector, civil society, and academia. CTED is working on developing non-binding guiding principles for member states on countering terrorist use of ICT and maintains a Global Research Network to foster knowledge exchange.

2. PAM’s legislative efforts: Pedro Roque highlighted PAM’s commitment to fostering dialogue and cooperation towards the regulation of AI and emerging technologies. PAM has created the Permanent Global Parliamentary Observatory on AI and ICT and publishes daily and weekly digests on AI and emerging technologies to keep parliamentarians informed.

3. UNODC’s capacity-building initiatives: Arianna Lepore discussed UNODC’s Global Initiative on Handling Electronic Evidence, which supports criminal justice practitioners. UNODC plans to expand its Practical Guide on Handling Electronic Evidence to include FinTech providers and is developing customized guides for specific countries. Additionally, UNODC is working on updating model legislation on mutual legal assistance to include provisions on handling electronic evidence.

4. Tech Against Terrorism’s technological solutions: Adam Hadley described their Terrorist Content Analytics Platform (TCAP) for identifying and verifying terrorist content online. The organisation maintains a 24/7 capability to respond to major terrorist attacks and focuses on addressing terrorist-operated websites, including challenges related to domain names and hosting. Their threat intelligence team also provides hacking services and technical support to platforms.

5. GIFCT’s cross-platform solutions: Dr. Erin Saltman outlined GIFCT’s efforts to provide tech companies with tools and frameworks for countering terrorist content online. GIFCT maintains a hash-sharing database and an incident response framework. The organization has specific membership criteria and working groups, and plans to host regional workshops for knowledge exchange on local extremist trends. GIFCT also supports academic research through its Global Network on Extremism and Technology and a micro-grants program.

Emerging Technologies: Risks and Opportunities

The speakers discussed the dual nature of emerging technologies, particularly artificial intelligence:

1. Potential risks: Jennifer Bramlette noted that AI could exacerbate online harms and real-world damages.

2. Opportunities for counter-terrorism: Adam Hadley expressed hope that generative AI could improve the accuracy and volume of content moderation decisions.

3. Challenges in incident response: Dr. Erin Saltman raised concerns about the potential for AI-generated fake incident response content, emphasising the need for improved verification processes.

UNODC’s Work on the UN Convention Against Cybercrime

Arianna Lepore highlighted UNODC’s involvement in developing the new UN Convention Against Cybercrime, which aims to address the global challenges posed by cybercrime and provide a framework for international cooperation in this area.

Unresolved Issues and Future Directions

Several key issues remain unresolved and require further attention:

1. Regulation of terrorist-operated websites and domain names

2. Addressing jurisdictional complexities in cyberspace

3. Developing laws to deal with crimes committed through or by artificial intelligence

4. Balancing content moderation and free speech concerns

5. Verifying information during incident response in the age of AI-generated content

The speakers suggested potential compromises, such as using both list-based and behaviour-based approaches to identify terrorist content online, balancing technological solutions with human input and context for content moderation, and considering both risks and opportunities of emerging technologies in counter-terrorism efforts.

Conclusion

This discussion highlighted the complex and evolving nature of terrorist use of ICT and the need for a comprehensive, collaborative approach to address these challenges. The speakers emphasised the importance of public-private partnerships, international cooperation, and adaptive strategies to keep pace with technological advancements. As the digital landscape continues to evolve, ongoing dialogue, knowledge sharing, and collaborative efforts among diverse stakeholders will be crucial in effectively countering terrorist use of the internet and emerging technologies.

Jennifer Bramlette: Just doing a mic check. Good afternoon. It’s working. Excellent. Yes. Mic check. Mic check. Everybody can hear. Excellent. Distinguished colleagues, good afternoon and welcome to all here in the room and joining us virtually for this IGF Open Forum on Countering the Use of Information and Communication Technologies, or ICT for Terrorist Purposes. I welcome you on behalf of the Executive Director of the Counterterrorism Committee, Executive Directorate, Assistant Secretary General Natalia Garibay. It is a great pleasure to hold CTED’s first session at an IGF event here in Riyadh. And it’s an honor to be here today with some of CTED’s close operational partners, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Mediterranean, or PAM, the Terrorism Prevention Branch of the United Nations Office on Crime, or UNODC, Tech Against Terrorism, joining us virtually, and the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism, or GIFTT, also joining us virtually. I would like to begin this session by explaining the work of CTED. As a special political mission supporting the Security Council’s Counterterrorism Committee, CTED is mandated to conduct assessments of member states’ implementations of United Nations Security Council resolutions on counterterrorism on behalf of the Counterterrorism Committee. In this work, CTED identifies good practice and also gaps in implementation for which CTED works with partner organizations and states to facilitate technical assistance. CTED is additionally mandated to identify emerging trends and evolving terrorism threats, including through collaboration with the members of CTED’s global research network. Terrorist groups and their supporters continue to exploit the internet, social media, video games, and other online spaces, as well as emerging technologies, to engage in a wide range of terrorist-related activities. Developments in artificial intelligence and quantum technologies have the potential to exacerbate the risks for online harms and real-world damages. Yet, these valuable technologies offer immense benefits to society, and when used in a manner consistent with international law, they can be most useful tools for preventing and countering terrorism. When it comes to countering terrorism and violent extremism conducive to terrorism, the United Nations Security Council has developed a robust framework of resolutions and policy documents. The Council has adopted 16 counter-terrorism-related resolutions and five policy documents over the past 23 years that specifically address ICT and now emerging technologies. Through these, the Council has mandated CTED to work on a growing list of increasingly complex and technologically advanced issues relating to countering the use of ICT and other emerging technologies for terrorist purposes. As such, CTED has mainstreamed ICT-related issues, including now AI and other emerging technologies, into its workstreams. In our capacity to identify new trends and emerging threats, CTED draws attention to how exponential leaps in the development and applicability of digital tools and emerging technologies could enhance terrorist capabilities. CTED also identifies what legal, policy, and operational measures UN member states could implement and how they could use new technologies to increase the effectiveness of their counter-terrorism efforts. For example, the 2022 Delhi Declaration tasked CTED to develop non-binding guiding principles for member states to counter the use of Unmanned Aircraft Systems, or UAS, new financial technologies, and ICT for terrorist purposes. The Abu Dhabi Guiding Principles on threats posed by the use of Unmanned Aircraft Systems for terrorist purposes were adopted in December, 2023. The committee is currently negotiating the guiding principles on new financial technologies and will turn its attention to the ones for ICT. In carrying out its various activities, CTED holds two main principles at the forefront. Firstly, we draw particular attention to respect for human rights, fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law in the use of ICT and new technologies by states when countering terrorism. We also promote whole-of-society, whole-of-government, and gender-sensitive approaches as essential components for successful counterterrorism efforts. Secondly, we consistently emphasize the need for cooperation, collaboration, and partnerships. CTED follows an inclusive approach that brings together member states, international, sub-regional, and regional organizations, the private sector, civil society, and academia. This is an essential component of a multi-stakeholder digital environment. It is also necessary for member states to develop holistic, effective, and technologically advanced counterterrorism regimes. I will further detail CTED’s work on ICT in the technical panel, but now it is my great pleasure to welcome the Honorable Mr. Pedro Roque, the Vice President of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Mediterranean and one of our longstanding partners in the fight against terrorism to take the floor. Sir, I yield the floor to you.

Pedro Roque : No, you can hear me now. I think now it’s fine. Thank you so much. So, ladies and gentlemen, dear friends, it is an honour and a pleasure to address the opening of this event. PAM, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Mediterranean, values the most the fruitful cooperation with CTED, which resulted in the invitation to PAM in order to join the CTED Global Research Network, as well as a few other significant outcomes that I will mention during this intervention. I wish to thank also the colleagues of UNODC, the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism, and the Tech Against Terrorism for all the work you do with AI and ICT. PAM is an international organisation which gathers 34 members of the European Parliament. PAM is an international organisation which gathers 34 member and associate national parliaments from the Euro-Mediterranean and Gulf regions. At present, PAM members are fully committed to fostering dialogue, cooperation and joint initiatives towards the regulation of AI and emerging technologies, thus supporting the efforts of the United Nations and the international community in this regard. If not properly regulated in a timely and effective way, The rapid advancement of AI and emerging technologies could severely harm democratic systems, disrupt societal structures, and pose significant risks to security and stability. Concrete actions and legislative frameworks for regulating AI and ICT should build on a multi-stakeholder collaboration while ensuring compliance with international human rights law and the protection of individuals’ fundamental freedoms. At the request of the UN Secretary General, PAM actively participated and contributed to the preparations of the UN Summit of the Future, held in New York last September. In conjunction with the summit, PAM also organized a high-level side event on parliamentary support in re-establishing trust and reputation in multilateral governance. This event was held in cooperation with the CTED and the permanent missions of Morocco and Italy to the UN and the Inter-Parliamentary Union. To achieve this objective, PAM parliaments committed to implementing the actions outlined in the Pact for the Future, particularly in its annex, the Global Digital Compact. This includes promoting a scientific understanding of AI and emerging technologies through evidence-based impact assessments, as well as evaluating their immediate and long-term risks and opportunities. Dear friends, through 2024, PAM experts, supported by our Center for Global Studies, CGS, and in partnership with CTED, devoted a major part of their work on monitoring, analyzing the developments of AI. and emerging technologies, as well as they abused by terrorists and criminal organizations. PAM-CGS has produced and recently released a report entitled The Malicious Use of AI and Emerging Technologies by Terrorists and Criminal Groups Impact on Security, Legislation and Governance. This comprehensive research project, drafted in partnership with CTED, not only benefited from first-hand insights by PAM member parliaments, but also went through a rigorous peer-review process conducted by several PAM strategic partners, including, among others, Amazon, Interpol, Média Duemila, a network of national international media organizations, NATO, the Policy Center for the New South and UNOCT. The main outcomes of the reports are, in first, the creation of the PAM Permanent Global Parliamentary Observatory on AI and ICT, designated as a platform to monitor, analyze, promote and advocate for effective legislation, principles and criteria. The observatory is located in the Republic of Samarino and is supported by PAM-CGS. In second, the publication of a daily and weekly digest, compiled from open sources, providing PAM parliaments and stakeholders with up-to-date news and analysis on trends in AI and emerging technologies. The digest covers key areas of interest, including governance, security, legislation, defense, intelligence and warfare. In conclusion, I would like to highlight two important resolutions that PAM parliaments adopted during the 18th PAM plenary session held in Braga, Portugal in May 2024. One resolution focused on digitalization, emphasizing the need to bridge the digital divide and promote equal access to digital technologies both across and within PAM countries. It also acknowledges the role of digital transformation in advancing the achievements of the UN Sustainable Development Goals. The second resolution addresses artificial intelligence, urging the allocation of resources to advance AI research and development, with an emphasis on fostering innovation while safeguarding human rights, fundamental freedoms, privacy protection and non-discrimination. PAM will further explore these issues at its 19th plenary session scheduled for February 2025 in Rome and during its new tenure as the Presidency of the Coordination Mechanism of Parliamentary Assemblies on Counterterrorism, including its political dialogue pillar. Additionally, I would like to inform you that PAM-CGS is currently working on two new reports. One focuses on the resilience of democratic systems in relation to the misuse of AI and new technologies and another, at the request of CTED, on the use of spyware and its legislative regulation. PAM will continue to collaborate with the United Nations, the Internet Governance Forum, its Member States and all stakeholders to shape a safer and more equitable digital world. I thank you for your attention.

Jennifer Bramlette: and context about the fight against terrorism and the malicious use of artificial intelligence, both from a cross-regional perspective and from the perspective of key government actors and partners, namely parliamentarians. And I don’t know if anybody in the room has been able to sit in on any of the parliamentarian track that’s happening way down at the end of the far corner, but the speakers there are phenomenal, the parliamentarians present are so engaged and it is essential to have all of government on board, including the elected officials. So as I, wearing the hat of the CTED executive director mentioned, I’d like to come back to the technical aspects of CTED’s ICT mandate as given by Security Council resolutions. And perhaps would somebody be kind enough to shut the door? Not that it’ll block the microphone from the other events that much, but that’s great. Thank you so much. So some of our mandates, I mean it’s a very widespread mandate that we have for ICT. The specifics of it include preventing the use of ICTs for terrorist purposes, including for recruitment and incitement to commit terrorist acts, as well as for the financing, planning, and preparation of their activities. We have mandate for countering terrorist narratives online and offline, gathering, processing, and sharing digital data and evidence, cyber security, but only in relation to the protection of critical infrastructure, and countering the financing of terrorism via new financial technologies and payment methods like crowdfunding. CTED is additionally looking at new trends and evolving threats in terrorist use of ICT to include threats and risks relating to advances in AI, the role of algorithmic amplification in promoting harmful and violent content, the misuse of video gaming platforms and related spaces, and risks associated with terrorist exploitation of dual-use technologies like 3D printing. and advanced robotics. As part of its work on human rights and fundamental freedoms, CTED addresses areas related to the programming behind AI and algorithm-based systems to ensure that it does not include bias, for example. We also look at privacy, data protection, and the lawful collection, handling, and sharing of data, and transparency and accountability for governments and the tech sector when it comes to content removal practices and data requests. Through its many assessment visits, CTED has noted that member states face a range of challenges when it comes to countering the use of ICT for terrorist purposes. Many of these stem from the sheer numbers and diversification of users across a multitude of decentralized online spaces and using a myriad of digital tools. So the rapid increase, availability, and technological capabilities of AI and other emerging technical tools, and of course the continued social, economic, and political drivers of violence, extremism, and terrorism. The three together make a perfect storm for terrorists being able to operate with sometimes seeming impunity with many of the challenges that member states are facing. And where some of these challenges really come to bear is how they’re incorporating ICT into their own counterterrorism systems, both in consideration of their existing resources and capabilities and in respect to compliance with their obligations under domestic and international human rights law. So for example, there are member states who are extremely technologically advanced who have no trouble bringing new tech in and onboarding it using virtual reality and alternate reality or augmented reality systems to test strategies, to work through contingency plans for training in the event a terrorist attack does happen, whereas other member states have trouble getting electricity to their police stations. So, as technology increases, this gap is widening. One of the biggest capacity gaps we note from our dialogue with member states is a shortage of tech talent and cutting-edge equipment in government entities. Issues of how to build that tech talent and then attract it into government positions and then retain it when the private sector and other avenues offer greater financial rewards are pressing questions, and there are no simple or inexpensive solutions. Another common shortfall observed in many states is that the criminal justice systems, especially in traditional criminal justice systems, they’re just not designed to address crimes committed in online spaces or through cyber means. So where you have countries who are still meeting in courtrooms without video cameras, without screens, without a capacity to handle electronic evidence or do video interviews, it’s almost impossible for them to prosecute crimes that are committed online where you are entirely reliant on the admission of electronic evidence and other digital tools and digital forensics to build a case and for a judge to try it effectively. Also, most states don’t even have on their books laws to deal with crimes committed through or by artificial intelligence. We’ve even been asked by authorities, like, how can we arrest a chatbot? How can we prosecute an AI? And those are really good questions, and there are no templated answers. Perhaps Ari can talk about if there are any plans for UNODC or any other entity to build a model law. There are also jurisdictional complexities in cyberspace. For example, gray area content could be illegal in one country, but not in the countries bordering it. And so like the examples outlined by Pam, many states are working together to build a cross-border consensus and to implement multilateral legal and operational frameworks to deal with these and many other ICT related challenges. CTED, the Counterterrorism Committee and the UN Security Council are also working through their international frameworks and multi-stakeholder processes to help states address these challenges. In developing the non-binding guiding principles for member states on ICT, CTED collaborated with over 100 partner agencies, including law enforcement and security services, legal and criminal justice sectors, capacity building entities, the private sector, technological companies, academia and civil society organizations to gather good practices and effective operational measures for ICT and emerging tech. Some of the areas addressed by the draft guiding principles include the conduct of regular risk and readiness assessments. This is something that has been identified as good practice but not nearly enough member states do it. They might do it once, they might not do it at all, but very few conduct regular risk and readiness assessments. And by readiness assessments, I mean a state looking at its own capacities, its own resources, and it’s a future look as to whether or not what it has ordered through its procurement processes, is going to be useful when it finally gets delivered at three years down the road. Other areas of the guiding principles include the need for updating counter-terrorism laws and regulatory frameworks, obviously. The development of guidelines for strategic communications and counter messaging algorithms. This is both for states and for the tech companies. The creation of content moderation and cross platform reporting mechanisms and recommendations for online investigations and how to more effectively and lawfully handle digital evidence. CTED cataloged these effective practices. and noted a number of other ones relating to safety by design, ethical programming, and the conduct of security and human rights impact assessments for AI and algorithm-driven systems. We also captured the positive impact already demonstrated by investment in digital and AI literacy programs for all levels of society. We further developed the guiding principles to ameliorate a range of concerns about the serious adverse effects on human rights that the use of new technologies by states without proper regulation, oversight, and accountability is having. I’d like to conclude by highlighting that many Security Council resolutions and the Delhi Declaration stress the importance of partnerships, in particular, public-private partnerships. CTED actively cooperates with Tech Against Terrorism, the Christchurch Call, and with the industry-led Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism, two of which are up next in our panel. And I’d like to now turn the floor to Ariana Lepore from the Terrorism Prevention Branch of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, another close operating partner and dear friend, to discuss the work of the TPB on ICT and electronic evidence. Thank you.

Arianna Lepore: Thanks very much, Jennifer. Thanks for inviting us, UNODC, here. We have a long-standing partnership with CTED, as well with Pam and colleagues Irene and Adam. So it’s great to pick up from where you left it the importance of partnership. And we hope that also here in this forum we are able to establish contacts and continue our dialogue together. The work of UNODC blends naturally with the work of CTED in the sense that normally the case is that our colleagues in CTED inform our work in the sense that thanks to their assessment and thanks to the mandate that UNODC has, which is to provide technical assistance to member states in the fight against terrorism, UNODC, and in particular its terrorism prevention branch, where I belong, put together programs, projects, in order to support and build capacity of criminal justice officials in fighting terrorism. UNODC operates under Security Council resolutions, the 19 Conventions, the Secretary-General Action Plan on CVE, so we have a mandate which is very stringent, and since a few years now, we have been working very much, sparing no efforts on the issue of ICT, and as we go forward, we are expanding and delineating new strategy on how to deal with emerging technology. It was back seven years ago, in 2017, in the aftermath of the adoption of Resolution 2322 that was devoted and requested member states to increase the level of international cooperation, in particular in handling of electronic evidence, was back then that UNODC launched what we call the Global Initiative on Handling Electronic Evidence, which I coordinate. The Global Initiative on Handling Electronic Evidence was conceptualized with colleagues at CEDED and with the International Association of Prosecutors, and now it’s a flagship project of UNODC. The Terrorism Prevention Branch sits in Vienna, but UNODC has regional offices, country offices, including here in Saudi Arabia, and my colleague is the head of the office here, so we have the capacity to reach out at the ground level and create very close relationship with the practitioners we work with. So the Global Initiative was launched seven years ago. The purpose was exactly that. First of all, to foster public-private partnership, and it was thanks also to the efforts of CEDED and our efforts to work closely with the private sector that the initiative… is a fully-fledged project that has a holistic approach, so involves the private sector, involves the experts, involves the practitioners, the academia, and we developed different streams of work. The goal is to support law enforcement, prosecutors, judges, central authorities, competent authority for international cooperation in the preservation and production of electronic evidence for criminal cases. How did we do that? Through the development of tools, which is our bread and butter, including the development of model legislations, of course. Now, I’d like to focus our attention to which is the one that is the main tool of this global initiative, which is the Practical Guide on Handling Electronic Evidence. It has been an extensive work done with colleagues at CEDED, with colleagues that represented the tech industry, and it’s a guide, technically a guide, a manual, that step-by-step informs criminal justice practitioners on how to request for preservation of electronic evidence, emergency disclosure, voluntary disclosure, and where, depending on the data that is requested, direct requests are not possible, how to begin a formal mutual legal assistance process. It contains a mapping of now more than 100 service providers. At the moment, ICT service providers. Nevertheless, just last week in Vienna, we conducted the very first Esper Group meeting in order to include the FinTech providers, and so to create the link between also electronic evidence, but also financial electronic evidence, because we heard from practitioners that this is more and more an emerging need to connect the two. So very soon, we will have an annex to the guide that will also contain a mapping of VASPs, FinTech providers, and how to approach them, request for preservation. preservation, disclosure, and so forth, and all the procedures that entails. The guide also contains model forms on how to request the private sector those informations because back then, we were hearing the, and see that in particular, the complaints of the criminal justice officials, they would send requests to the private sector, requests were never answered, but then we spoke with the private sector, and they say the type of requests they would receive were impossible to be answered, tetra and tetra byte of material, 10 years of evidence being requested, impossible. So we tried to seed them all around the table, and we developed forms which contains diligently all the elements that would enable the private sector, the providers to respond. So the guide is the main tool around which all the capacity building support that UNODC offers is constructed. Now, the guide is global in nature, but more and more advancing in our program, we have customized the guide, tailored it to specific member states that they have requested. So we have a customized guide for Pakistan, for India, for the Maldives, and we keep counting. So member states will come to us, and then we will do a thorough research on the procedural law, the legislation, and then instead of quoting worldwide legislation, we would design a guide specific for that country. And this is one of the priority of UNODC, to make our work sustainable, we also develop train-the-trainer modules on the practical guide, so that we could embed this guide within training institutes so that the transmission of knowledge is up and running. The issue of the model legislation that was mentioned by Jennifer is fundamental. UNODC does that in the context of its work in all crime types, but in specific, it was in 2021, we have updated the UNODC model legislation on mutual legal assistance, which now contains provision on handling, receiving, and transmitting electronic evidence. So when countries are up to updating their MLA law, they can go. to us, request assistance and see what type of provisions we have put together. All of these, all those tools are available on our platform. We have created an electronic evidence hub, but we have not stopped there. There are two last points which I’d like to make and the first one is that, as Jennifer will say and colleagues would probably also, introduces the fact that technology is advancing. Jennifer mentioned some of the challenges that we will face. We are already facing them, artificial intelligence and all those emerging technologies. So UNODC is also expanding a strategy, how to go about this. So to counter the misuse of technology, but also to utilize technology to counter terrorists. So there is this dual challenge that UNODC will try to address and you will hear more about our interventions. And last but not least, a word on the new convention on cybercrime. It’s known to everyone in the next few days, possibly for sure the text of the United Nations Convention Against Cybercrime will be adopted by the UN General Assembly. Now it’s a convention on cybercrime, nevertheless there is an important segment in it, in the draft as it is now, that speaks about electronic evidence. So obviously that will also inform the work that we are doing and we will monitor closely how the adoption goes and what will be then the next steps, when it will be ratified, the protocols and so forth. So Jennifer, I would stop here and I thank you for this opportunity.

Jennifer Bramlette: Thank you very much, Arianna. I would now like to turn the floor to… Mr. Adam Hadley, CBE, who is the Executive Director and Founder of Tech Against Terrorism. Adam, the floor is yours.

Adam Hadley : Jennifer, thank you very much. Can you hear me well from there? Yep, great. Wonderful. Well, thank you very much for having us today to present about the work of Tech Against Terrorism and some of our concerns at the IGF. We certainly consider the IGF to be a vital forum to discuss important matters such as the terrorist use of the internet. I’d like to frame our discussion around a paradigm shift in how we view the terrorist use of the internet. Historically, the terrorist use of the internet has been seen as a tactical tool for recruitment and radicalization, but increasingly our concern is that the internet is becoming a strategic battleground for terrorists and hostile nation states, but mainly for terrorists. So as well as sharing three critical challenges that we see at Tech Against Terrorism, I’ll outline one positive potential for generative AI, and then suggest a need to focus on countering the terrorist use of the internet infrastructure, in particular terrorist-operated websites. So who are we at Tech Against Terrorism? What’s our mission? Well, our mission is to save lives by disrupting the terrorist use of the internet, and we’re proud to have been established by UNCTED way back in 2017 as a public-private partnership focused on bridging the divide between the private sector and the public sector. Accordingly, we’ve been recognized by a number of Security Council resolutions, and as Jennifer mentioned, the Delhi Declaration. Most recently, we’ve been referenced in a Security Council resolution 2713, encouraging Tech Against Terrorism to support government of Somalia in countering the use of the internet by Al-Shabaab. We were established, as I said, to improve connections between companies and governments. We’re a small, independent NGO based in London and we work across the entire digital ecosystem. Effectively, we aim to understand where the terrorists are using the internet and what practically can be done about this. We’re global in approach and we have 24-7 hour coverage. I’d also like to recognise the great efforts by many other organisations, of course, as well as UNC TED, there’s the EU Internet Forum, there’s the Christchurch Call to Action, there’s our partner initiative called Tech Against Terrorism Europe, TATE, funded by the EU, there’s the Extremism and Gaming Research Network, Institute of Strategic Dialogue and, of course, the GIFT-CT. I’m delighted that Erin is able to join us from the GIFT-CT in a few moments. At Tech Against Terrorism, we focus on the most egregious examples of terrorist use of the internet. It’s a very important thing to stress that we predominantly focus on those terrorist organisations that have been designated by the UN, the US, the EU and other international bodies. This doesn’t mean that we don’t focus on the broader range of activity that terrorists conduct online, but rather that we believe it’s important to focus where there’s consensus, recognising that it is in that focus where we will be able to have the most impact. In terms of the teams at Tech Against Terrorism, we have our own threat intelligence team, Open Source Intelligence, we work with governments and platforms to build capacity, and we also develop technology to speed up the ability of our analysts and others to detect the terrorist use of the internet. In doing all of this, we aim to share resources cost-free in a collaborative way, and we have a number of resources that are available to platforms and governments, such as the knowledge sharing platform. We also provide hacking services and other technical support services to platforms, including a trusted flagger portal. Now, in terms of the current landscape, What we’d argue is that currently we’re seeing some of the most egregious examples of terrorist-suited internet in the last decade. Of course, platforms and governments face many threats. The geopolitical instability now is the highest it has been for many decades. And therefore, understandably, platforms and governments have many concerns to focus on. But what is certain is that counterterrorism is no longer the primary concern of many of these stakeholders. And arguably, it should be. Since October 2023, we’ve seen terrorist content online reach unprecedented levels. From terrorist organisations such as the Islamic State, al-Qaeda, also the Houthis, Hamas, Hezbollah, al-Shabaab. Quite frankly, the terrorist use of the internet now is at such high levels that we’re really not sure what to do about it alone. And therefore, we call for improved action from the tech sector, from governments and from others, to ensure that the correct and appropriate level of resources are being brought to bear to tackle this. In our view, this threat is manifest, of course, offline more than anything else. We know that terrorist groups are regrouping. We know that attacks in Africa are very high. We know the risks from coming from Central Asia with regards to ISKP. And their use of the internet is commensurate with this increased threat. The question is what to do about it. So at Tech Against Terrorism, we have some technology, mainly the terrorist content analytics platform, the TCAP, which seeks to identify and verify terrorist content online. But we can’t do this on our own, which is why we commend the continued efforts of the GIFCT to share its resources, capabilities and know-how with the broader community. It’s great that there are industry-led initiatives like the GIFCT investing so much in this space. And we encourage the GIFCT to continue to do this in the future. and for the GIFT-CT to be continued to be funded by the tech sector. At Tech Against Terrorism, we currently alert more than 140 platforms and we work with a range of stakeholders, governments and tech companies and that’s how we’re funded, in quite an independent and transparent fashion. So we see there are three key challenges. The first, as alluded to by Jennifer at UNCTED just now, is around strategic communications. Historically, the terrorist use of the internet has been considered in quite a tactical way. What this means is that the terrorist use of the internet has been considered purely in terms of radicalisation and countering this, but we’d also argue that terrorist groups use the internet for strategic communications purposes and most terrorist organisations are looking to have a political effect. They’re looking to promote their domestic popularity or to project international standing and therefore we think it’s paramount to ensure that the way we counter the terrorist use of the internet doesn’t just think about radicalisation and recruitment and incitement but also the political value of that speech. If terrorists are able to share their messages on social media, messaging out on their own websites, this is worth a lot to them strategically and therefore in the context of hybrid warfare, countering terrorist strategic communications is of vital importance. The second challenge is around infrastructure. Quite rightly we talk about the tech sector and the tech sector has done an enormous amount over the years as supported by the GIFT-CT, but we mustn’t forget other sources of terrorist activity online. Terrorists now can create their own websites, their own apps, their own technologies. This presents a number of jurisdictional challenges, in particular at the governance level of the internet. Can terrorists and should terrorists be allowed to run their own websites? Should ISIS or Al-Qaeda have the right to buy their own domain name? If not, what should we do about it? Unfortunately, this is not a theoretical issue. We are seeing hundreds of these websites being set up and often it’s extremely difficult working with internet providers because of ambiguities around jurisdiction. What we are finding is that terrorists are increasingly entrepreneurial and imaginative in how they use technologies. In many cases, they’re also going back onto the major platforms and are proving quite difficult to dislodge in a number of ways as they adapt their techniques. They potentially hide their content and become better at evading automated responses. This is not a criticism of the tech sector at all. I’m merely highlighting the formidable challenge that platforms have in keeping ahead of an extremely sophisticated adversary. But the infrastructure is something that I wanted to bring to the attention of the IGF because surely more needs to be done to establish international frameworks where we have designated terrorist organisations buying domain names and buying hosting for their websites. The third challenge is about detection and analysis of terrorist content. There is a very large amount of terrorist content online. It somewhat paradoxically is hardest to analyse this on large platforms. The reason being, for data privacy reasons and other perfectly reasonable explanations, very large platforms are not easy to analyse at scale. What this means is that analysis of small platforms is easier. Analysis of larger platforms is more difficult. Therefore, we ask for improvements in data access, but we recognise some of the challenges in terms of data privacy where that’s concerned. We commend platforms for doing what they can. to share more about their activities in very often comprehensive transparency reports. So moving to the end of my intervention here, I certainly recognise the expert opinion that’s being shared about the risks associated with AI and generative AI. We would argue, however, that generative AI also provides a significant opportunity to improve the accuracy and volume of content moderation decisions online to ensure that terrorist content can be detected at scale accurately. The accuracy is very important because in everything we do at Tech Against Terrorism and UNCTED, and I believe the GIF-CT, of course we have to counter the terrorist use of the internet, but we have to ensure that fundamental freedoms and human rights are upheld. I remain hopeful that generative AI will provide capability to ensure more accurate content moderation decisions can be made and certainly encourage improved investment in generative AI to detect obvious examples of content emanating from designated terrorist organisations. So looking towards 2025, underlying threats are increasing. They’re increasing internationally and domestically. Internationally we have IS, we have al-Qaeda, we have al-Shabaab, we have many other terrorist organisations committing acts of violence in person, offline. We’re also seeing in a number of countries increased youth involvement in terrorist activities for reasons not fully understood, and we’re seeing terrorists get better at exploiting grievances regarding geopolitical instability and state failure, and the role of the internet is only becoming more and more important in this. But yet, geopolitically, there is a risk that consensus about jurisdiction, where the internet is concerned, is going to reduce over time. There is a very real risk that the very time we need increased consensus globally about internet governance, that this may be more difficult to achieve because of geopolitical tensions. Our work at Tech Against Terrorism will continue. We’re a small NGO of around 10 people. We are hoping that our 24-7-hour capability will help in responding to major terrorist attacks. We’ll be launching our TrustSMART and a number of other services in support of the tech sector and governments. Concluding my remarks, I would like to emphasise that it’s also important to talk about the infrastructure there, and in particular terrorist-operated websites. How can it be right for designated terrorist organisations to have the right to create top-level domain names? In fighting this, we would ask for improved clarity about jurisdiction and standardisation of responses. We commend the Somali government for doing such good work in this space and would encourage others to follow the model that the Somali government is doing in taking down content and activity by al-Shabaab. So the Internet’s role in global security has never been more critical. As we face the challenges of the next year, we believe that responding to the terrorist use of the Internet will be vital to ensure global stability. The question is not whether we can stop terrorists using the Internet, but what we can do together in a collaborative way, upholding fundamental freedoms to push back against terrorist content and activity online. Thank you very much for your attention to these critical matters. And I will yield the floor to UNCTED. Thank you very much.

Jennifer Bramlette: Adam, thank you very much. As with the intervention from TPB, I’m not even going to try to summarise what you said. And in the interest of time, I want to make sure that Dr. Saltman has a full measure to talk about the work of GIF-CT. So Dr. Saltman, the membership and programme director from the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism, you now have the floor.

Dr. Erin Saltman: Thank you so much. And it’s always a pleasure to go last, to not have to repeat any of the wonderful and very timely points that my colleagues have made. But many thanks to UNCTED as well as the IGF for hosting a session on this topic and for allowing us to dial in virtually for those of us that couldn’t attend in person. We have a bit of FOMO. We wish we were in the room with you. I want to talk a little bit about what GiveCT does, who we are for those that don’t know us very well, and try to leave some room for questions too. If you don’t know about the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism, it was mentioned we’re a little bit of a unique NGO. We are a non-profit, but we were in fact founded by tech companies to help tech companies counter terrorism and violent extremism, but with multi-stakeholderism built into our governance and our programmatic efforts. Just like terrorism has always been a transnational effort, it is also a very cross-platform effort, and I’ll bet very few people in the room have just one app on their phone, so we should be educating ourselves and looking at normative behaviors online and realizing that bad actors, terrorists, and violent extremists are also very cross-platform, as Adam mentioned, in many of their efforts. With that, we realized we needed a safe space for tech to work together. Our efforts are broken down into roughly four buckets. One really is cross-platform tech solutions. I’ll speak briefly to that. One is about incident response, where increasingly there are offline, real-world attacks and events taking place where the perpetrators and accomplices are using online aspects or assets to further the harm of their terrorism. We also want to further research and knowledge sharing, as well as information exchange and capacity building, and that includes work with governments and civil society so that knowledge exchange is really holistic, because the signals that a tech company is seeing are distinctly different to how law enforcement might be approaching it or, on the ground, how civil society is experiencing it. Because we share such sensitive information and provide a platform for information sharing around such time-insensitive issues, we do have a membership criteria, which is also a little bit unique. You can’t just come in the door and work with us. You have to meet a threshold, and this was built out in consultation with our independent advisory committee that includes UNC-TED, among other government and non-governmental officials and experts. and this includes making sure that tech companies that work with us have things like an annual transparency report, have a public commitment to UNDP-related and guiding principles around human rights, make sure that they have clear terms of service, make sure that they have the ability to report something like terrorist content, and we take for granted on social media largely that you can report and flag content, but obviously in other platforms like terrorist-operated websites, perhaps to Adam’s point, or certain gameplay spaces, it might not be intuitive how you would flag to a platform or to authorities a terrorist or violent extremist signal that you’re seeing. So once you become a member of GIF-CT, things around cross-platform tech solutions do include a scaled hash-sharing database where GIF-CT and our member companies can ingest hashed content of terrorist and violent extremist material when it fits our criteria. And there were some questions in the chat here around defining terrorism, which again a million PhDs and a million more are needed on this topic. There is not conclusive agreement, but when we talk to tech companies that were members, and we have 30-plus member companies, which include your largest ones like your Microsofts, your Amazons, your Metas, your Googles, but also smaller or medium-sized companies like JustPasted or Discord and Twitch or Zoom, companies that never thought they’d have to come to the table and talk about terrorism as a topic until they realized exploitation was happening. And so when we talk about hashing terrorist content, we began with a list-based approach. Companies do have consensus where they look to the UN designation lists around terrorism and look at terrorist individuals and groups and can find common ground there. But we realized very quickly, and in consultation with human rights experts and civil society organizations, there is an Islamist-extremist bias in most lists in a post-9-11 framework. and we wanted to get at some of the neo-Nazi and white supremacy attacks that we know are taking place in different parts of the world. And so we also started building in behavior-based buckets. When you look at online content, a list doesn’t always cut it. It’s not always clear a group affiliation or a card-carrying membership for how terrorism, and especially lone actor terrorism, takes place. So our behavior-based buckets include things like hashing attacker manifestos, where that content in and of itself is justifying a terrorist attack, or things like branded terrorist and violent extremist content that gets not only at some of these Islamist publications, but at some of these white supremacy and neo-Nazi related and otherwise other forms of violent extremist publications online. And every year we have an incident response and a hash-sharing form of working group that is multi-stakeholder to constantly evaluate and say, where can we go further? Should we expand this taxonomy? If we expand inclusion, would that impede on free speech and other human rights concerns? And so this is an iterative and evolving process over time. Hashing content also evolves in form. When we think content, we often think image or video, but in fact, at a managed t-cap, that’s for flagging urls. Or when we see a terrorist attacker manifesto, that’s usually in pdf form. So the forms of content that can be hashed have also had to evolve over time. On top of this cross-platform tooling, incident response, particularly as a critical point after the Christchurch attacks in New Zealand, meant that tech companies really wanted to work together to stop the viral spread or the perpetrator-related content in and around an attack. Not every single event will have a live stream, but we have seen since the Christchurch event that there are a number of lone actor or otherwise planned attacks that do have these online aspects at play, such as a live stream, such as the publishing of a manifesto, or even in Halle, Germany in 2019, the pdf publishing of a how to 3d print a gun so again these are all assets in and around and we want to be able to hash and share that and so our incident response framework allows us to increase knowledge sharing make communication with affected governments and law enforcement where appropriate and share communication and verified information we’ve mentioned generative ai in the last few comments and it’s also a concern of what might happen when you start getting fake incident response content in and around something that might or might not have even happened how do we quickly verify and share information to stop viral spread of misinformed or actually misleading incident content and so this sort of verification process will be key to future incident response efforts when we think of adaptation this is where knowledge exchange and active learning and training and capacity building between sectors is really critical we do fund an academic wing of our work the global network on extremism and technology and while this is accessible to everyone the insights coming out of there are allowed to support with micro grants academics and experts around the world that have their finger on the pulse of extremist trends this could be anything from again ai generated content an entire insight series on that 3d printing and some of the concerns about how that is assisting and aiding terrorism and violent extremism gaming and gaming adjacent platforms what those signals look like when it is in fact the modification of characters whether it’s just should or you have a policy that allows you to name a player adolf hitler or not these are things that tech companies are asking and looking for policy guidance around across these sectors and so when it comes to knowledge exchange the smallest little trends being shared can really have an amplifier effect for tech companies to understand what harm and threat might look like on their platforms along with this we really want to understand different parts of the world and how violent extremism and terrorism is manifesting There are some very broad stroke global trends, but when we look at how extremists and terrorists use coded language, this is very colloquial specific when we see how memes and icons and imagery is used to evade detection, this is very local context specific. So on top of the technology, which helps us get to scale and speed, we really do need the context that sits around what you might surface and see as a moderator. Even a standard agreed upon entity like Islamic State, if I were to have you surface an image and it’s a guy in the back of a Toyota, it’s really hard to know if that is foreign terrorist fighter imagery or if that is literally just a man in the back of a Toyota. And the same goes with a lot of different forms of violent extremist trends. And so when we sit alongside the technological solutions, we will still need that human input, we will still need that cross-sector knowledge sharing. We’ve been very grateful, even in our own fundamental advancing of how we think of what terrorist content means and looks like, having CTED and others at the table to consult with and ensure we’re always communicating what we’re trying to aim for and how we don’t overstep in counterterrorism efforts to abuse other forms of human rights, including freedom of expression. We’ve also ensured that we have to be on the ground. Not everything can be done over Zoom. Fortunately or unfortunately, we do host workshops in different parts of the world, and we have made sure that we are working with ground-based partners and governments in order to have nuanced dialogues, not just imparting the knowledge we have about trends online, but gaining valuable feedback on what these trends look like in specific regions. Earlier this year, we hosted workshops in Brazil for Latin America, as well as most recently in Sweden at the Nordic Democracy Forum. And next year, we’ll be working with the IIJ in Malta to convene around sub-Saharan Africa. And so if anyone wants to follow up and work with us and see where we can come and bring a two-way knowledge exchange, and make sure that the lessons are learned on both sides. I’d really love to further that as we go. And lastly, each group, we pick three to five questions that we know no one government or tech company can answer on their own around topics of counterterrorism and we form working groups. And this means that people apply to join a working group. They meet a few times in a year and we fund the development of outputs that create best practices, that evolve our own incident response, that evolve frameworks for understanding terrorist content. In the last couple of years, we’ve had things around our own hash sharing taxonomy as mentioned, but also things like red teaming around looking at the harms of AI generative content, but also blue teaming, looking at the positives around positive interventions and how this amazing new technology can help with intervention work, counter narratives, redirecting, getting at translation in language areas that a lot of moderators are blind to. And so there are risks and opportunities as we advance this conversation. With that, I would love to open it up to more questions. There’s so many rabbit holes, both technically, both philosophically, existentially, when we think of how to advance countering terrorism and violent extremism, but it is only through these multi-stakeholder collaborative efforts that we can really get at the 360 degree threat and opportunity and where to take the next steps. And with that, I yield back to Jennifer and UNC Ted. Thank you.

Jennifer Bramlette: Thank you very much, Erin. I really appreciate it. Every time I sit with you and with Adam, I learn something. We genuinely appreciate the time that you’ve taken to be here with us today. And I’d like to thank everybody who’s here in the room today as well. I know there are many other opportunities for things to do, and apparently at six o’clock, everything closes. So unfortunately, I will not be able to open this floor up for questions, but I think some of us will be willing to stand out in the hallway and chat out there to answer any questions that you may have. And in closing, I do wish to thank you for being here and choosing to spend the last hour of a very busy day with us. It was an honor to have all of the speakers here, and really, the final word on partnerships, it’s really through our partnerships and our collaborations, through leveraging our shared knowledge and our lessons learned and our good practices, that we shall be able to proactively overcome these challenges. And CTED will continue to pursue our work and assist with the work of our partners as we move forward with the IGF and counter more terrorism. Thank you very much for being here today.

Agreement Points

Importance of multi-stakeholder collaboration

Jennifer Bramlette

Pedro Roque

Arianna Lepore

Adam Hadley

Dr. Erin Saltman

CTED follows an inclusive approach that brings together member states, international, sub-regional, and regional organizations, the private sector, civil society, and academia. This is an essential component of a multi-stakeholder digital environment.

PAM will continue to collaborate with the United Nations, the Internet Governance Forum, its Member States and all stakeholders to shape a safer and more equitable digital world.

The work of UNODC blends naturally with the work of CTED in the sense that normally the case is that our colleagues in CTED inform our work in the sense that thanks to their assessment and thanks to the mandate that UNODC has, which is to provide technical assistance to member states in the fight against terrorism, UNODC, and in particular its terrorism prevention branch, where I belong, put together programs, projects, in order to support and build capacity of criminal justice officials in fighting terrorism.

At Tech Against Terrorism, we have some technology, mainly the terrorist content analytics platform, the TCAP, which seeks to identify and verify terrorist content online. But we can’t do this on our own, which is why we commend the continued efforts of the GIFCT to share its resources, capabilities and know-how with the broader community.

We’ve been very grateful, even in our own fundamental advancing of how we think of what terrorist content means and looks like, having CTED and others at the table to consult with and ensure we’re always communicating what we’re trying to aim for and how we don’t overstep in counterterrorism efforts to abuse other forms of human rights, including freedom of expression.

All speakers emphasized the critical importance of collaboration between various stakeholders, including governments, international organizations, private sector, civil society, and academia in addressing the challenges of terrorist use of ICT.

Challenges in addressing terrorist use of ICT

Jennifer Bramlette

Adam Hadley

There are member states who are extremely technologically advanced who have no trouble bringing new tech in and onboarding it using virtual reality and alternate reality or augmented reality systems to test strategies, to work through contingency plans for training in the event a terrorist attack does happen, whereas other member states have trouble getting electricity to their police stations.

What we are finding is that terrorists are increasingly entrepreneurial and imaginative in how they use technologies. In many cases, they’re also going back onto the major platforms and are proving quite difficult to dislodge in a number of ways as they adapt their techniques.

Both speakers highlighted the challenges in addressing terrorist use of ICT, including the varying technological capabilities of different states and the adaptability of terrorist groups in using new technologies.

Similar Viewpoints

All three speakers acknowledge both the potential risks and benefits of AI and emerging technologies in countering terrorist use of ICT. They emphasize the need for responsible use and development of these technologies to maximize their benefits while mitigating potential harms.

Jennifer Bramlette

Adam Hadley

Dr. Erin Saltman

Developments in artificial intelligence and quantum technologies have the potential to exacerbate the risks for online harms and real-world damages. Yet, these valuable technologies offer immense benefits to society, and when used in a manner consistent with international law, they can be most useful tools for preventing and countering terrorism.

I remain hopeful that generative AI will provide capability to ensure more accurate content moderation decisions can be made and certainly encourage improved investment in generative AI to detect obvious examples of content emanating from designated terrorist organisations.

We’ve mentioned generative ai in the last few comments and it’s also a concern of what might happen when you start getting fake incident response content in and around something that might or might not have even happened how do we quickly verify and share information to stop viral spread of misinformed or actually misleading incident content and so this sort of verification process will be key to future incident response efforts

Unexpected Consensus

Need for updated legal frameworks

Jennifer Bramlette

Pedro Roque

Most states don’t even have on their books laws to deal with crimes committed through or by artificial intelligence. We’ve even been asked by authorities, like, how can we arrest a chatbot? How can we prosecute an AI?

PAM members are fully committed to fostering dialogue, cooperation and joint initiatives towards the regulation of AI and emerging technologies, thus supporting the efforts of the United Nations and the international community in this regard.

Despite coming from different perspectives (CTED and parliamentary assembly), both speakers strongly emphasized the urgent need for updated legal frameworks to address crimes committed through or by AI and emerging technologies. This unexpected consensus highlights the critical nature of this issue across different sectors.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement among the speakers include the importance of multi-stakeholder collaboration, the challenges in addressing terrorist use of ICT, the dual nature of emerging technologies as both potential risks and tools for counterterrorism, and the need for updated legal frameworks.

Consensus level

There is a high level of consensus among the speakers on the core issues discussed. This strong agreement implies a shared understanding of the complex challenges in countering terrorist use of ICT and the need for collaborative, multi-faceted approaches. The consensus also suggests that future efforts in this area are likely to focus on strengthening partnerships, developing adaptive strategies to keep pace with technological advancements, and updating legal and regulatory frameworks to address emerging challenges.

Different Viewpoints

Approach to regulating AI and emerging technologies

Pedro Roque

Adam Hadley

PAM members are fully committed to fostering dialogue, cooperation and joint initiatives towards the regulation of AI and emerging technologies, thus supporting the efforts of the United Nations and the international community in this regard.

I remain hopeful that generative AI will provide capability to ensure more accurate content moderation decisions can be made and certainly encourage improved investment in generative AI to detect obvious examples of content emanating from designated terrorist organisations.

While Pedro Roque emphasizes regulation of AI and emerging technologies, Adam Hadley focuses more on the potential benefits of AI for content moderation and detection of terrorist content.

Unexpected Differences

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement revolve around the specific approaches to regulating and utilizing AI and emerging technologies in counterterrorism efforts.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among the speakers is relatively low. Most speakers agree on the importance of multi-stakeholder collaboration and the need to address the challenges posed by terrorist use of ICT. The differences mainly lie in the emphasis placed on various aspects of the issue, such as regulation, technological solutions, and human rights considerations. These differences do not significantly impede the overall goal of countering terrorist use of ICT, but rather highlight the complexity of the issue and the need for a comprehensive approach.

Partial Agreements

All speakers agree on the importance of multi-stakeholder collaboration in countering terrorist use of ICT, but they emphasize different aspects: CTED focuses on inclusive approach, Tech Against Terrorism highlights technological solutions, and GIFCT stresses the balance between counterterrorism efforts and human rights.

Jennifer Bramlette

Adam Hadley

Dr. Erin Saltman

CTED follows an inclusive approach that brings together member states, international, sub-regional, and regional organizations, the private sector, civil society, and academia. This is an essential component of a multi-stakeholder digital environment.

At Tech Against Terrorism, we have some technology, mainly the terrorist content analytics platform, the TCAP, which seeks to identify and verify terrorist content online. But we can’t do this on our own, which is why we commend the continued efforts of the GIFCT to share its resources, capabilities and know-how with the broader community.

We’ve been very grateful, even in our own fundamental advancing of how we think of what terrorist content means and looks like, having CTED and others at the table to consult with and ensure we’re always communicating what we’re trying to aim for and how we don’t overstep in counterterrorism efforts to abuse other forms of human rights, including freedom of expression.

Similar Viewpoints

All three speakers acknowledge both the potential risks and benefits of AI and emerging technologies in countering terrorist use of ICT. They emphasize the need for responsible use and development of these technologies to maximize their benefits while mitigating potential harms.

Jennifer Bramlette

Adam Hadley

Dr. Erin Saltman

Developments in artificial intelligence and quantum technologies have the potential to exacerbate the risks for online harms and real-world damages. Yet, these valuable technologies offer immense benefits to society, and when used in a manner consistent with international law, they can be most useful tools for preventing and countering terrorism.

I remain hopeful that generative AI will provide capability to ensure more accurate content moderation decisions can be made and certainly encourage improved investment in generative AI to detect obvious examples of content emanating from designated terrorist organisations.

We’ve mentioned generative ai in the last few comments and it’s also a concern of what might happen when you start getting fake incident response content in and around something that might or might not have even happened how do we quickly verify and share information to stop viral spread of misinformed or actually misleading incident content and so this sort of verification process will be key to future incident response efforts

Key Takeaways

Terrorist use of ICT and emerging technologies poses a growing threat that requires coordinated multi-stakeholder efforts to address

There is a need for updated laws, regulatory frameworks, and improved technological capabilities to counter terrorist use of ICT

Public-private partnerships and cross-sector collaboration are essential for effective counterterrorism efforts online

Emerging technologies like AI present both risks and opportunities for counterterrorism efforts

Balancing security measures with human rights and fundamental freedoms remains a key challenge

Resolutions and Action Items

CTED to develop non-binding guiding principles for member states on countering terrorist use of ICT

UNODC to expand its Practical Guide on Handling Electronic Evidence to include FinTech providers

Tech Against Terrorism to continue 24/7 capability to respond to major terrorist attacks

GIFCT to host regional workshops for knowledge exchange on local extremist trends

Unresolved Issues

How to effectively regulate terrorist-operated websites and domain names

Addressing jurisdictional complexities in cyberspace

Developing laws to deal with crimes committed through or by artificial intelligence

Balancing content moderation and free speech concerns

Verifying information during incident response in the age of AI-generated content

Suggested Compromises

Using both list-based and behavior-based approaches to identify terrorist content online

Balancing technological solutions with human input and context for content moderation

Considering both risks and opportunities of emerging technologies like AI in counterterrorism efforts

Historically, the terrorist use of the internet has been seen as a tactical tool for recruitment and radicalization, but increasingly our concern is that the internet is becoming a strategic battleground for terrorists and hostile nation states, but mainly for terrorists.

speaker

Adam Hadley

reason

This comment introduces a paradigm shift in how we view terrorist use of the internet, framing it as a strategic rather than merely tactical tool. This perspective challenges existing assumptions and broadens the scope of the discussion.

impact

It set the tone for a more comprehensive examination of terrorist activities online, leading to discussions about infrastructure, strategic communications, and the need for a more holistic approach to countering terrorist use of the internet.

Can terrorists and should terrorists be allowed to run their own websites? Should ISIS or Al-Qaeda have the right to buy their own domain name? If not, what should we do about it?

speaker

Adam Hadley

reason

These questions highlight a critical gap in current internet governance and counterterrorism efforts. They force consideration of complex issues around freedom of speech, internet regulation, and the practical challenges of countering terrorist infrastructure online.

impact

This comment shifted the discussion towards the need for clearer international frameworks and jurisdictional agreements to address terrorist-operated websites, emphasizing a gap in current counterterrorism efforts.

We realized very quickly, and in consultation with human rights experts and civil society organizations, there is an Islamist-extremist bias in most lists in a post-9-11 framework, and we wanted to get at some of the neo-Nazi and white supremacy attacks that we know are taking place in different parts of the world.

speaker

Dr. Erin Saltman

reason

This insight reveals a critical bias in existing counterterrorism frameworks and demonstrates a commitment to a more comprehensive and equitable approach to identifying terrorist content.

impact

It led to a discussion about the evolution of GIFCT’s approach, including the development of behavior-based buckets for identifying terrorist content, showing how the field is adapting to address a wider range of extremist threats.

Even a standard agreed upon entity like Islamic State, if I were to have you surface an image and it’s a guy in the back of a Toyota, it’s really hard to know if that is foreign terrorist fighter imagery or if that is literally just a man in the back of a Toyota.

speaker

Dr. Erin Saltman

reason

This example vividly illustrates the complexities involved in content moderation and the limitations of purely technological solutions in identifying terrorist content.

impact

It underscored the need for human input and cross-sector knowledge sharing in counterterrorism efforts, leading to a discussion about the importance of local context and nuanced understanding in content moderation.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by broadening the perspective on terrorist use of the internet from tactical to strategic, highlighting critical gaps in current approaches, addressing biases in existing frameworks, and emphasizing the complexities involved in identifying and moderating terrorist content. They collectively pushed the conversation towards more nuanced, comprehensive, and collaborative approaches to countering terrorist use of the internet, while also highlighting the ongoing challenges and the need for continued evolution in this field.

How can we arrest a chatbot or prosecute an AI?

speaker

Jennifer Bramlette

explanation

This highlights the legal challenges in addressing crimes committed through or by artificial intelligence, which many states are unprepared for.

Are there any plans for UNODC or any other entity to build a model law for crimes committed through or by artificial intelligence?

speaker

Jennifer Bramlette

explanation

This suggests a need for international guidance on legislating AI-related crimes.

How can we address the jurisdictional complexities in cyberspace, particularly regarding content that may be illegal in one country but not in others?

speaker

Jennifer Bramlette

explanation

This highlights the need for international cooperation and standardization in addressing online terrorist content.

How can we improve data access for analyzing terrorist content on large platforms while respecting data privacy concerns?

speaker

Adam Hadley

explanation

This addresses the challenge of effectively monitoring large platforms for terrorist content while balancing privacy concerns.

Should terrorists and designated terrorist organizations be allowed to run their own websites or buy domain names? If not, what should be done about it?

speaker

Adam Hadley

explanation

This raises important questions about internet governance and the limits of online freedoms for designated terrorist groups.

How can we improve clarity about jurisdiction and standardization of responses regarding terrorist-operated websites?

speaker

Adam Hadley

explanation

This suggests a need for international cooperation in addressing terrorist use of internet infrastructure.

How can we quickly verify and share information to stop viral spread of misinformed or misleading incident content, particularly in the context of generative AI?

speaker

Dr. Erin Saltman

explanation

This addresses the challenge of combating misinformation during terrorist incidents, especially with the rise of AI-generated content.

How can we further develop and implement positive interventions using AI technology for counter-narratives, redirecting, and translation in areas where moderators are blind?

speaker

Dr. Erin Saltman

explanation

This explores the potential positive applications of AI in countering terrorism and violent extremism online.

Summary

This panel discussion focused on the concept of Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI) and its implications for global digital development. The panelists explored various definitions and applications of DPI, with a particular emphasis on its role in emerging economies. They discussed how DPI, such as digital identity systems and payment infrastructures, can promote financial inclusion and economic growth, citing examples from India and Brazil.

The conversation highlighted the tension between viewing DPI as a tool for digital sovereignty and concerns about potential fragmentation of the internet. Panelists debated the role of governments versus markets in developing DPI, with some arguing for a minimum viable infrastructure approach to protect free markets and democracy. The discussion also touched on the importance of interoperability, open standards, and multi-stakeholder cooperation in DPI development.

A key point of contention was the definition of DPI itself, with some panelists advocating for a narrower, value-driven definition to avoid confusion and potential misuse of the term. The panel explored the differences in DPI approaches between the Global North and South, with some arguing that DPI discussions are more prevalent in the Global South due to infrastructure gaps and a desire to address digital colonization.

The discussion concluded with reflections on the need for context-specific DPI solutions, the importance of transparency and accountability in DPI development, and the potential for DPI to address digital inequalities. Panelists emphasized the need for careful consideration of trade-offs and long-term impacts when implementing DPI initiatives.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– Defining digital public infrastructure (DPI) and its scope

– The role of government vs. private sector in developing DPI

– Concerns about digital sovereignty and fragmentation

– Challenges and opportunities for DPI in developing countries

– Interoperability and open standards for DPI

The overall purpose of the discussion was to explore the concept of digital public infrastructure, examining different perspectives on its definition, implementation, and implications across various national contexts. The panelists aimed to identify key issues and potential action items for the global community regarding DPI development.

The tone of the discussion was largely analytical and academic, with panelists offering nuanced views based on their experiences and research. There were moments of disagreement, particularly around the role of markets versus government in infrastructure development. The tone became more passionate when discussing issues of digital colonialism and inequality between the Global North and South. Overall, the conversation maintained a constructive and collaborative spirit despite differing viewpoints.

Speakers

– Milton Mueller: Director of the Internet Governance Project at Georgia Institute of Technology

– Luca Belli: Professor at FGV Law School, Director of the Center for Technology and Society at FGV

– Henri Verdier: Ambassador from the French Ministry for Europe and Foreign Affairs

– David Magård: Works for the Swedish Public Registration Office, coordinator of EWC (European Wallet Consortium)

– Jyoti Panday: Regional Director for the Internet Governance Project

– Anriette Esterhuysen: Former chair of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group

Additional speakers:

– Kashfi Inua: From Nigeria (audience member)

Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI) Panel Discussion Summary

This panel discussion brought together experts from various fields to explore the concept of Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI) and its implications for global digital development. The conversation covered a wide range of topics, including definitions of DPI, its potential benefits and risks, implementation challenges, and the differing perspectives between the Global North and South.

Defining Digital Public Infrastructure

One of the central themes of the discussion was the lack of consensus on a clear definition of DPI. Several panelists offered their perspectives:

– Henri Verdier described DPI as the “minimum necessary infrastructure to protect free internet, market and democracy”.

– Luca Belli defined it as “digital systems built on open standards that are interoperable and secure to provide services”.

– Jyoti Panday characterized DPI as an “approach for building large-scale networks, platforms and services essential for digital economy”.

– David Magarde noted that DPI is not a commonly used term in the EU, where the focus is instead on interoperability.

The diversity of these definitions highlighted the need for a more precise and value-driven conceptualization of DPI. Anriette Esterhuysen, in particular, emphasized the importance of narrowing the definition to avoid confusion and potential misuse of the term.

Benefits and Risks of DPI

The panelists discussed both the potential advantages and drawbacks of DPI implementation:

Benefits:

– Breaking monopolies and increasing competition, as exemplified by the PIX payments system in Brazil

– Facilitating multi-stakeholder cooperation and intergovernmental collaboration

– Cost-effectiveness, as highlighted by Henri Verdier, who noted that DPI can be significantly cheaper than traditional infrastructure

Risks:

– Centralization and compromise of digital security

– Potential for control rather than public benefit, depending on the context

– Risk of fragmentation if pursued with a sovereignty-based approach

– Potential for creating new forms of monopolies or oligopolies

Luca Belli provided a detailed comparison between Brazil’s PIX system and India’s UPI, highlighting how these DPI initiatives have increased financial inclusion and competition in the payments sector.

Implementation and Governance

The panel explored various approaches to DPI implementation and governance:

– Luca Belli advocated for a bottom-up approach with stakeholder engagement based on local realities.

– David Magarde discussed the EU’s approach to digital identity wallets, emphasizing the need for regulation and openness in DPI development.

– Jyoti Panday highlighted the importance of institutional frameworks and oversight mechanisms.

– Henri Verdier emphasized that DPI should be developed through multi-stakeholder processes.

There was general agreement on the need for proper institutional frameworks, oversight mechanisms, and regulation to ensure openness and protect democratic values. The importance of open standards and interoperability in DPI development was stressed by multiple panelists.

The role of government versus market forces in DPI development was a key point of contention. Some panelists expressed concerns about DPI leading to fragmentation if pursued with a sovereignty-based approach, while others emphasized the need for government intervention to protect public interests.

Global Perspectives on DPI

The discussion revealed significant differences in how DPI is perceived and approached in different parts of the world:

– Anriette Esterhuysen noted that DPI is more frequently discussed in the Global South due to the lack of existing infrastructure.

– Luca Belli observed that the Global North is now studying Global South approaches to digital sovereignty.

– Henri Verdier pointed out the differences in DPI needs between the Global North and South.

– Milton Mueller highlighted institutional barriers to infrastructure development in some countries.

An audience member from Nigeria raised an important point about the need to consider “leapfrog regions” lacking infrastructure in the Global North as well, challenging the traditional North-South divide in digital development discussions.

Challenges and Future Considerations

The panel identified several key challenges and areas for future consideration:

1. Funding: The discussion touched on the potential role of taxation of big tech companies in funding DPI initiatives.

2. Interoperability: The need for open standards and cross-border compatibility was emphasized by several speakers.

3. Balancing sovereignty and global cooperation: The discussion highlighted the tension between national approaches to DPI and the need for international collaboration.

4. Transparency and accountability: Ensuring these principles in DPI development was seen as crucial for building trust and enabling proper oversight.

5. Digital divide: Addressing gaps in connectivity alongside DPI development was identified as a critical concern, with Luca Belli emphasizing the importance of meaningful connectivity for the success of DPI initiatives.

6. Role of AI: The potential impact of artificial intelligence on DPI was briefly mentioned at the beginning of the discussion.

7. Central banks and cryptocurrencies: The panel touched on the role of central banks in relation to cryptocurrencies and DPI.

Conclusion

The discussion concluded with reflections on the need for context-specific DPI solutions, the importance of transparency and accountability in DPI development, and the potential for DPI to address digital inequalities. Panelists emphasized the need for careful consideration of trade-offs and long-term impacts when implementing DPI initiatives.

While there was moderate consensus on the importance of DPI and the need for proper governance, significant differences remained in perspectives on its implementation, funding, and potential impacts. This suggests that further dialogue and research are needed to develop a more unified approach to DPI development and implementation globally.

The panel discussion successfully highlighted the complex, multifaceted nature of DPI, moving beyond technical definitions to consider historical context, geopolitical factors, governance implications, and potential pitfalls. It revealed DPI as a concept with significant implications for digital governance, economic development, and global power dynamics in the digital age.

Milton Mueller: Well, I’m going to introduce the topic, and then I’m going to introduce the panelists. We had a last-minute cancellation, so we’re lacking perspective from India, but we’re talking today about digital public infrastructure. This has become a fashionable term. Somebody just told me that we should have called it AI digital public infrastructure because that’s even more fashionable, but in fact that is not a very scientific or accurate way of going about this. AI is a digital technology, and the infrastructure supporting digital services and applications, particularly payments, are something where we are bringing together new services in ways that raise policy issues regarding security, trust, competition in the digital economy, and the role of government in the private sector. So we are going to first examine what we mean by DPI. Is this just another buzzword? Is it something real? We’re going to talk about the institutional frameworks for collaboration between states and markets, oversight mechanisms, and the role of multi-stakeholder cooperation in fostering DPI production and governance. So what we’re going to do is spend about 30 minutes in this discussion, including our online audience and the local audience, fully aware of the fact that our online audience will be probably having better sound than we have here. So, let me introduce the panelists now. We have hovering above me on the screen is Ms. Jyoti Pandey. She’s a regional director for the Internet Governance Project. I guess I should introduce myself. I’m Milton Mueller. I’m with the Internet Governance Project, too. I’m the director, and we’re located at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Situated, going from my right to my left, is Luca Belli, and he’s from Brazil. I can’t remember the name of your institute. Yes, the well-known Center for Technology and Society, which goes by the acronym FGV, which nobody relates to technology. FGV is the acronym of the foundation. The foundation, right. From the South to the Vargas. So, it’s the Center for Technology and Society at FGV. And then we have Ambassador Henri Verdier, who is from the French Ministry for Europe and Foreign Affairs. Thanks for joining us. And we have online, we have David Magarde, who’s with the EU, there he is, Digital Identity Wallet Consortium, and the Open Wallet Forum at the ITU. Welcome, David. And last but not least, we have Henriette Esterhausen, a stalwart of civil society participation in these processes. And also, the chair, or the former chair, of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group. Are you still the chair? No, no. OK. So, let’s get started. Let’s begin with definitions and why you think this concept of digital public infrastructure has taken off and become such a buzzword. Let’s begin with Jyoti.

Jyoti Panday: Good morning, everyone. As Professor Muller introduced me, I’m Jyoti Pandey, I work with him at the Internet Governance Project and welcome to Emerging Norms for Digital Public Infrastructure. So the term digital public infrastructure or DPI, as it’s commonly referred to, is an approach or strategy for building large scale networks, platforms and services to mediate key processes or functionality that is essential for operating in the digital economy. So whether it’s digital identity, paying for transactions, it encompasses the underlying design, the institutional frameworks, resources that enable the development and use of these large scale system. DPIs, as we know, are transforming the global economy, they’re impacting business practices, they have altered relations between state, market and citizens. The emergence of DPIs like identity and authentication or interoperable payment systems have blurred the difference between public and private sector, traditional and new economies, tradable and non-tradable products and between goods and services. They’ve also created avenues for development of norms and standards for cybersecurity, privacy, data protection and competition. Approaches such as domestic and cross-border flows of data, intellectual property rights, consumer and data protection, digital security are significantly impacted by the emergence of DPIs and internet governance policies are also being shaped and advanced through DPIs. So as we know, this is a really important topic that everyone wants to weigh in on. But the fundamental issue is that even though we see forums like G20 and bilateral negotiations indicating that the adoption of DPIs are at a tipping point, they are being advanced globally, the lack of definition of consensus around what should be labelled as DPI and what doesn’t fall within that label is missing at the moment. moment. So our aim at this workshop is to have various folks who are part of stakeholder groups who are working and engaging with these processes to kind of shine some light and you know bring to our understanding to increase and expand our understanding of how they are approaching building DPI’s, how they are going about defining the values and infrastructure development and the design of these DPI’s. The advancement of DPI’s is happening even as legitimate concerns about their impact on trust, security and competition on in the digital economy remains unexplored or under addressed. There is a centralization of digital identity and online payments that is happening through under the DPI label and this can lead to policy problems like exclusion, fraud or even compromise of digital security. The rapid development and deployment also has profound implications in terms of disrupting traditional sectors and businesses. Another risk raised by DPI’s which are rooted in digital sovereignty or the claim that states have the stake in running the internet and digital services and should have the maximum say in how they are to be taken forward is that it could lead to fragmentation. So a sovereignty based approach to building and developing DPI’s could lead to fragmentation and we want to kind of explore this tension between fragmentation and cooperation that DPI’s enable. Control of these institutional arrangements and the technical architecture of DPI’s and its usage is creating discrete spaces of data and transactions which can encourage and enable governments to pursue a sovereignty based agenda. Delays in reform and rise in protectionism could hinder the adoption and expansion of DPI’s if embraced elsewhere. Given the stakes and the economic, political, social impact of DPI’s it is important to think through their development. create avenues for oversight. The prevailing discourse is exclusively focusing on legislative and regulatory measures, however interventions such as audits and assessments could also play a vital role. So like Professor Mueller kind of directed that you know we will delve into these other issues as we go by in this discussion, but on definition itself we do have certain global forums that are trying to create the platform and bring together diverse stakeholders to come towards a common definition, but again because of this sovereignty-based approach to developing DPIs the consensus has not been easy to come by and that’s what we are hoping to kind of delve into more over here. I’m happy to like jump in and talk more about it but I want to hear from my panelists. Thank you.

Milton Mueller: Thank you, Jyoti. So why don’t we go next to David. The ITU has played a classical role in basic telecommunications infrastructure coordination. I have never really built infrastructure. Okay, you have to turn it on. Somehow it got turned off. So yes, let’s turn to David and can you give us a brief overview, five minutes or so, of what your perspective is particularly focusing on the definitional issues at this stage?

David Magarde: I can give it a try. So thank you everyone for inviting me to this panel. I sit in a kind of cold Sweden and now I work for the Swedish Public Registration Office under the Ministry of Economic Affairs in Sweden. And also, I am the coordinator of EWC, the wallet consortia. We pilot digital identity wallets for Europe. This is a collaborative effort, 86 organizations from private and public sector, done over two years, 20 million euros, rather big. And I guess in some sense, a digital public infrastructure, although this is not really my area of expertise, so I’m coming with a kind of perspective from what I don’t understand of the public infrastructures and see if that can add to the discussion. When it comes to digital public infrastructures and what we see from, at least what I see, and I’ve been working with the Swedish government, within the Swedish government, for about ten years with digitalization, and of course in the EU as well, part of several expert groups and also the Open Wallet Forum, and some other OECD groups and so on, before. Digital public infrastructures kind of come in, in my view, in the last three years. I wouldn’t say that this is a big discussion in the EU. I haven’t really used it at all, to be honest, in the work that we’ve done. And it’s not something that is really looked at from my perspective when it comes to digital identity ecosystem in the EU. So I think this is interesting for the discussion, because then it seems like we have different kind of angles to it and different understandings. And also, of course, that makes it difficult to come with a kind of cohesive understanding of the public infrastructure and what we should do with it. From my perspective, also speaking about EU and also about Sweden, this is my personal understanding, but digital sovereignty is a core focus of the EU in our digital strategies. I wouldn’t say that it necessarily hinders cooperation with the private sector or other countries, but there is an understanding that we need to some degree have control of some of the key fundamental infrastructures when it comes to digitization, such as digital identity. Although we have a lot of good experience with public infrastructure.

Milton Mueller: We have a lot of ambient noise.

David Magarde: Should I stop?

Milton Mueller: You can go on, but we have a lot of ambient noise here.

David Magarde: Okay. And yes, to finish up, I think what’s mostly interesting, what I can assert is the interoperability between identity systems and interoperability of course on the technological infrastructure layers, but also of course the semantics, legal semantics and definitions and so on. So I’m curious on the interoperability questions in the digital public infrastructure framework, which as far as I’ve seen, it’s not that prominent in the discussion papers and so on that I’ve browsed through the last years.

Milton Mueller: Good. Thank you. I think it’s interesting then that from the perspective of, from David’s perspective, the term is not commonly used and the, whatever concern he has is in fact with interoperability, which as Jyoti flagged, may be an issue if you start taking a sovereigntist approach to DPI. So let’s go on to Ambassador Verdier. Let us, I think you are more involved with this topic.

Henri Verdier: Yeah, I am. So first, let’s say that I’m a veteran of the internet revolution. I started my first company in 1995 and then I became an ambassador. And I say this because that’s always the same thing. The reality is vibrant, evolving, diverse, complex, and we look for words, but the reality doesn’t obey to our words. I say this because DPI movement is one new world for various approaches. And you can connect it to infrastructures, to public service, to sometimes digital commons, to platform strategies. And for example, personally, I discovered probably this kind of ideas. 15 years ago, I was writing a book on platform strategies and I tried to explain, I was trying to explain the success and the strength of the big platforms like Google or Facebook or Apple itself. And suddenly I discovered that some people were speaking about government as a platform. And I was very interested by this approach. And when I became the French head of the French IT department for the government, I tried to develop some building blocks for a government as a platform strategy. And we did develop France Connect or some important APIs. And it was on a certain perspective, a kind of prototype of… what we call now DPI. And I’ve discovered at this time, the Estonian X-Road, for example, that is another kind of ancestor of the DPI approach. And then I discovered what was happening in India. So Pramod is not with us today, but we can here observe a massive impact. Because in less than three years, they did develop a digital ID for more than one billion people and 25% of them didn’t even have a legal existence. And then they had a legal existence plus an ID. Then they did develop a very smart payment interface. That is just, you know, just a set of API. They just decide that the banks has to be able to receive payment orders through this format. And they have a duty to agree to execute payments through this format. That’s all, plus independent body to regulate, to be sure that the banks are correctly implementing the system. And thanks to this approach, a good definition of a set of API, they did manage to let the market conceive 600 payment systems. So of course, Alipay and Google Pay are the biggest, but there is a huge diversity of payment system. You can pay with a QR code or with WhatsApp. It depends on your service. So I mentioned this to say that a lot of people are, a lot of countries or organizations are trying to build this kind of small layer of something, a kind of platformization between the free internet and the market and the society. And that’s very important because as I said, usually in the digital world, platform strategies are very efficient. A platform strategy is a strategy that compacts and distributes some resources for users. Most often they try to take the part of the added value of the user, so they take the platforms, the private platforms. They take data or they try to capture you or they ask for revenue sharing you. But that’s efficient. Very simple and obvious platform strategy is a smartphone itself. If you are a service developer, you are very grateful to Apple or Google to propose to you a connected computer with a camera and a connection and a lot of sensors and a lot of tools plus a good SDK. So you are very grateful and you agree to share 30% of your revenues because they did allow you to innovate and create and try to access to the market. So that’s efficient and that can be dangerous, that was said, because of course the platform is controlling everything. But to conclude this introduction, from my perspective, the most important reason to speak about this here in the IGF is that if we want and we want, if we want to protect a free, open, decentralized, neutral and unified Internet. And if we want to avoid the capture of this Internet by strong companies that are built on the Internet and that try to capture the customer. And if we want to remain free democracies, so we have a fundamental right, for example, we are in Europe, we are very attached to privacy. We have a fundamental right to say we want to protect privacy or we are not democracies anymore. So we have to impose some views to the companies that are. built on the internet. So if you want to manage all of this to protect the free and open and decentralized internet, to avoid the capture by strong actors, to build a democratic feedback, probably the design of this small layer of public services to be the interface between all those principles is a very, very good and efficient approach. But of course, and it will be said, I think, you can also have a public infrastructure that is dangerous. You can have a public infrastructure that is too much owned or controlled by the government itself, that is not transparent enough, that is, or that make mistakes with a security breach, or I don’t know. So we have to design it carefully in a multi-stakeholder way with enough transparency, if enough democratic feedback. But I don’t see any other approach than this layer of public service. If we don’t want the internet to become a kind of new far West. So that’s my view to launch the conversation.

Milton Mueller: Very good. So you have introduced something that I think is the best definition of DPI that I’ve heard, which is a set of APIs that is serving as an intermediary for a platform for many different, particularly as an interface between government services and the broader public. Let’s turn to Luca, who has, I think, some very strong perspectives on DPI based on your experience in Brazil.

Luca Belli: Not very strong. I would not say strong, but so just to provide a little bit of context. So I’m a professor at the FGV Law School, and besides directing the Center for Technology and Society at FGV, as Milton eloquently was announcing, I also direct a project called Cyber Bricks that maps and compares the digital policies of the bricks grouping. So over the past five years, we have. we discussed a lot of issues, and one of them is also amongst data governance and digital transformation AI governance, an overlapping issue is digital sovereignty. So we have a book that should already be available in open access on the Cambridge University Press websites on digital sovereignty in the BRICS. And some of the case studies we have analyzed from India or Brazil are precisely about DPIs and how they can be considered as an example of good digital sovereignty in some cases. Again, I also want to introduce a little bit of caution because DPI as digital sovereignty as pretty much anything we can speak in life, it may be a label. So to understand if it is good or bad, we have to understand what is the content behind the label, right? So DPIs as a definition, the only agreed international definition we have DPIs has been put forward by the G20 last year under the Indian presidency and has been taken off by the UN. For instance, if you look at the reports recent on DPI safeguards done by the DPI and UNDP, you will see that they quote the same definition of the G20 last year under the Indian presidency. And again, the Indians have been very successful because the DPIs for them is a key of their digital transformation strategy that endured more than 10 years under the India stack program. So let’s say that the cherry on top of their strategy was to put this into the G20. So everyone now is speaking about DPIs, which is a very successful strategy and very few countries have been this strategy and this agenda for G20 in my opinion. And so this definition is considering DPIs as digital systems that should be secure and interoperable. And they’re used to provide access to public or private services and deliver therefore not only… public services, although they are mainly used for public services, but if you look at India, there is a very good example of the ONDC, the Open Network for Digital Commerce, which is a protocol for a great bazaar where any private service can be delivered. It’s not only about public services. Usually, we categorize DPIs as digital identities, online payments, and personal data constant managers. These could fit into the public services, especially the first two, but they are not only public services. They can be used for private services. Another good example, also to stress that this does not only happen at the federal level, at the national level. In the city where I live, Rio de Janeiro, there is a very good competitor of Uber called TaxiRio. It’s a DPI made by the local municipality that allows you to take taxis without using Uber and is entirely developed by the local administration. So it’s a very good example of how DPIs can also be local. And also, why we speak about digital sovereignty not only as something that is state-driven, but can be driven by local communities, local municipalities, even local individuals. And why I argue that DPIs like PIX, our national digital payment infrastructure, is a good example of digital sovereignty because it allows, in this case, the individuals and the government to understand how the technology works, develop it, and regulate it effectively, which is how we define digital sovereignty in the book, in its various nuances. It’s all about understanding, developing, and regulating effectively technology. And so before PIX, our national payment infrastructure, was developed, the only exclusive way to process digital payments in Brazil was through Visa and MasterCard. The only way was using two foreign companies that not only charge extortionary fees between 3% and 5% in all the global South, but also they become… over the past 10 years, they became big data companies. Most of their revenues is not the 3% to 5% of the fee, it’s the intelligence and profiling. They elaborate on data collection of every single consumer that uses. People don’t understand it when they use their credit card. They are, in fact, not only paying with money, they are paying with data. And the only ones that were reaping these benefits were Visa and MasterCard before PIX in Brazil or UPI in India. So this is a very good example, in my opinion, of how BPI can be leveraged for good digital sovereignty because it broke the monopoly, actually the duopoly of Visa and MasterCard. The antitrust and competition authorities could have cried and adopted any kind of remedy, they would have never broken this monopoly, never. This has created an alternative that has reverted automatically 3% to 5% of what consumers pay in their pocket. So enormous advancement in terms of competition and consumer benefit. An enormous advancement in terms of informational self-determination or data protection. People now understand that their data are collected and who is collecting them because the online banking intermediaries, they have terms of service and precisely state what they do. When you use a credit card, you don’t even know that your data are collected. So that is an enormous advancement in terms of informational self-determination. And also, to conclude, this has also provided a very good example of how multi-stakeholder cooperation is not only about speaking in nice fora, but it also can be very outcome-oriented and very effective. The Brazilian Central Bank, which is one of the few institutions in Brazil that works very well, has leveraged a lot of public consultation with stakeholders to build PIX, is still working with all financial intermediaries to implement it, and created something called PIX Forum, which is not a nice event, but is a process to collect continuous feedback from those who are implementing the technology to understand how to improve it and what are the pitfalls of the technology. So I think that there are a lot of very good examples here. I would also provide, do I have a last minute? One more minute, yes, please. Meaningful connectivity, this has also explained the value of meaningful connectivity. In India, UPI, the Uniform Payment Infrastructure from which Pixy inspired, was a success only because India in 2016 adopted net neutrality rules that prohibited zero rating. So if you have meaningful connectivity, you can use DPIs. If you, as in all the global south, only access the internet through a meta family of apps, primarily WhatsApp, and in some cases, Facebook and Instagram, you cannot use, have access to DPIs because you pay for them. You pay for access to connectivity. So let me, the reason why India is experiencing a belly pop of innovation is because they prohibited zero rating in 2016, but that’s for the same reason, but it’s actually paradoxically the same reason why Pixy has been a success in Brazil, because when it was going to entry in force in 2020, one month before, WhatsApp was introducing WhatsApp Payment, and the Brazilian central bank know very well that if WhatsApp Payment during the pandemic had been introduced before Pix, no one here would be celebrating Pix as a success stories, but everyone in Brazil would be using WhatsApp Payment. So they suspended the entrance in force of WhatsApp Payment until Pix was also in force for consumer. Let me just explain that to be exact. In Brazil, only because the Brazilian central bank in 2020 understood that if they had allowed WhatsApp Payment to enter in force before Pix, Pix would have been absolutely useless. So before, I think this is a very cautionary tale for all governments willing to do DPIs, think systemically about everything, because if you spend a lot of money to do the best possible DPI, but at the end of the day, everyone only access WhatsApp and Facebook. it’s useless to put your investment in DPIs.

Milton Mueller: Okay, so now you understand why I said Luca had strong opinions about DPI. Let’s go on to Annelies.

Luca Belli: DPI is on many things. Just before, if I can add one word to make it even more simple. One day I was discussing with Ramod Varma, who was supposed to be there today, and he told me this very simple idea. He told me, you, in Europe, you did build your strength and prosperity, and maybe sovereignty, thanks to public infrastructure. Roads, trains, bridges. And you became very prosperous. And then suddenly you did stop. And today, in the current economy, you need ID, payment, geolocalization. Those are the infrastructures of the 21st century.

Annelies: Thanks, Sam. And Milton, do I also have strong feelings? Actually, I do. I think that DPI is a really important opportunity for us to fill gaps that date back. I mean, I see the ancestors of DPI, and I’m speaking very much from an African perspective. I’m in South Africa, but I work across the continent. Firstly, open government. One of those grand ideas and grand coalitions from about 20 years ago, which still exists, but it’s lost its glamour. It’s lost its attraction. And then the World Summit on the Information Society, where you had action lines on e-government, e-health, e-education, and enabling environment for innovation. All of those elements that were part of, and of course, connectivity infrastructure. And what we have as a result of that 20 years later is a landscape that’s completely characterized by digital inequality, which means that any initiative, be it a health initiative, or of an education initiative, or a government initiative, actually in most cases just increases that inequality. Because if there isn’t connectivity across the board, if people don’t have devices, if people in rural areas cannot afford the cost of mobile broadband, then any investment in any kind of digital public service, or in fact even in other services, commercial services, tends to just increase the gap between those who have and who can benefit and those who don’t. I think I’m not surprised that David hasn’t heard much about digital public infrastructure in Sweden, because you have digital public infrastructure in Sweden, you don’t need to talk about it. But we need to talk about it, and we need to talk about it very seriously. And I don’t think, Milton, it’s a set of APIs. It’s much, much more than that. And I think that the G20 definition, or looking at these four elements of broadband infrastructure, absolutely critical in Africa. I’m not sure how many people are aware that internet penetration in Africa is actually lower now than it was a few years ago. It’s now below 40 percent. It was around 40. It’s now more in the upper 30s. Even access to electricity is reducing in parts of Africa where dependency on hydro is affected by drought. And digital identity systems, again, even identity systems are a challenge in many African countries. And then, of course, the challenge of moving to digital identity when the data governance and the data protection frameworks and the public administration and rights protection frameworks are also insufficient in many cases. Another challenge, finance payments. How do Africans, most Africans, have financial inclusion or any semblance of it? It’s through Safaricom, it’s through mobile operators facilitating quite expensive financial services for the poor. Very few countries in Africa, outside of Nigeria and South Africa, for example, have banking. Banking that actually makes accessible, is accessible to the poor.

Milton Mueller: So let me just be clear here, Anrette, you are broadening the concept of infrastructure to everything, electricity, telecoms, banking, the whole shmear.

Annelies: Well, the G20 definition of digital public infrastructure looks at data, finance, broadband infrastructure and identity. And I think for all of those aspects to be able to be implemented and operate, operated and to become a platform for developing public services, you do need, you need not just the broadband, you also need the electricity infrastructure. Why I think it’s important and why DPI is such a good opportunity is because I think it, I mean, look, I talked a lot about how it can facilitate multi-stakeholder cooperation. That’s absolutely true. But I think even at a national level, it can facilitate intergovernmental collaboration. It can facilitate initiatives such as building, laying out broadband backbone, which is often done by the Ministry of Communications with the Ministry of Finance, Department of Finance is trying to deal with financial inclusion with home affairs. That’s trying to deal with digital identity systems. A country like South Africa, for example, pays social grants. In fact, the only reason people in South Africa don’t starve is because they get grants from the government. Administering that has been a massive challenge because there is no infrastructure to do that easily. It has been done in collaboration of the private sector, but it is extremely complex.

Milton Mueller: And I just think that I think I need to keep us a bit more focused here, because if you’re talking about the development of. telecommunications or broadband infrastructure, right? There is a completely different set of institutions and processes that have facilitated the growth of that. For example, all of these countries that had state-owned telecom monopolies had abysmal levels of penetration before liberalization and competition was introduced in the 90s or 2000s, right? You have to admit that there was public infrastructure and whether it’s power or especially telecoms, these countries that relied entirely on the state to be the developer or on international grants are simply never going to catch up with what was happening in the world where there was commercial development.

Annelies: What I’m saying is that DPI is an opportunity for countries where that gap exists to fill it. But with what capital?

Milton Mueller: With what investment? Where does the money come from?

Annelies: That is why it’s an important discussion and that’s why it’s important that we discuss it in the context of the IGF and WSIS because financing that investment and having private and public partnerships and having the kind of rights protections that need to be built into that is something that we can try and achieve through the WSIS, through the South African chairing of the G20. So I know that Jyoti wants to speak about it. The fact that it’s public infrastructure doesn’t mean that it has to be developed and owned and controlled by the state. It means that it has to be developed and controlled and regulated in the public interest. I’m not suggesting the statist approach.

Milton Mueller: Let me look at Jyoti again and then she’s been jumping up.

Jyoti Panday: These are really interesting perspectives, but I just want to, as the token representative of India and living through this great digital public infrastructure revolution, I feel like I have to chime in. A little bit going back into the history of how did the label DPI come about, and Riyad is very correct that the roots of this lie in the e-governance, the digitization initiatives that have kind of evolved with time and investment and stakeholder priorities. So it is running along the same trajectory, but for example, digital identity is rooted in the notion of national security, and therefore the state has way more say in running digital identity within the India stack than it has in matters of UPI, which has been developed by banks coming together to compete against MasterCard and Visa. So even within this whole label of India stack, which later got reformulated as DPI as they wanted to export it to other countries, the idea of digital identity is coming from a different perspective. Digital payments and wallets are coming from a different priority and perspective, and digital sovereignty seems to be the thread that ties these two different efforts and neatly brings them together under a common label, and therefore facilitates adoption, etc. I want to throw in a couple of questions here for everyone’s consideration. I like what Ambassador talked about, where he’s like, you know, your intention versus your experience, there can be a huge gap between that. So for example, when we talk about DPI and digital identity in India, one of the most common refrains I hear from everyone is that look at the scale, and look at how many people have digital identity, and these were people, large parts of the population were lacking any form of legal identity. Firstly, that claim is very, very contested, or there were various forms of identity available to the population. But of course, the state apparatus was backing this digital identity project. And therefore, one of the rationales to push it forward was to make the claim that people lack identity and therefore need a digital version of that identity to upgrade the population and bring them into the modern world into this revolution, right? But also I want to ask that after the digital identity got built, it got integrated into welfare not because this was strategic from day one, because the government and the players who were developing digital identity realized that the swiftest way of ensuring adoption and achieving that scale would be to integrate it with welfare schemes because the state has greater control over it and therefore would be able to push and apply its might behind the adoption of these services. So again, the intention, how has it reached that scale and is the scale the only parameter of success? And I think this is what Andrea is referring to when she talks about that we can’t only look at the scale and then reach and let’s talk about roads, like right, people, all countries have roads, but in some countries, the roads are excellent and talked about globally, but in other countries, they’re not that well developed. Some villages and towns in India still have dirt tracks that are referred to as roads, right? Who is responsible for building roads? It can happen both through public funding, it can happen through public-private cooperation, or private sector can be contracted to build roads. But it’s not just building roads once, roads require maintenance, roads will have to be upgraded as traffic piles up, different aspects need to be considered as the use of the road evolves. And I feel in a lot of these discussions about DPI, we get stuck at pointing to the success in India and not delving deep into that fine, no matter what the justification as to why this label has become really popular, but what are the impacts of DPI on the ground? What is the reality of the people who are actually engaging and interacting with these public infrastructure and how public are they? So, for example, the UPI API is owned by the consortium of Indian banks. And they did defer, they developed the API before, and they actually kind of didn’t allow WhatsApp to launch its payment or delayed, you know, WhatsApp adopting the protocol that was developed for interoperable payments in India. So if the idea of digital public infrastructure is that it is an alternative to big tech, monopolistic structures that are very prevalent in the digital ecosystem currently, are we replacing one monopoly with another kind of monopoly? And I would really want to hear more about these themes from our panelists.

Milton Mueller: Okay.

Annelies: I want to react to your tea, please, Milton. I agree 100% with you. And this workshop is about norms. And I think I’ve looked at quite a lot of DPI norms, the UNDP, safety guidelines, whatever they’re called. And I think none of them mention what you’ve just talked about is, how do you maintain these roads? How do you assess whether they’re getting to the people that need them most? And whether those people are actually able to find buses that they can ride on on those roads to get where they need to. I haven’t seen that level of practical looking at the sustainability and the impact of DPI initiatives. And in fact, I think if we don’t reframe how we talk about DPI, it’s just going to become another opportunity for vendor-driven pseudo-public investment, taken advantage of by corporations that are set up to do that, as has been the case with e-education, the WSIS Action Line.

AUDIENCE: I want to connect some dots. First, your former question. I think that’s of the utmost importance to understand what must be mutualized. And the difference between the, you said sometimes the public telecommunication did not reach out so much. The growing consensus within the community of DPI builders is that. we must find what has to be done by with this kind of public service approach and what must be led to the markets. So most of the DPI’s architects, they are looking for the minimum necessary infrastructure, if I may. And for example, in India, they don’t make, UPI doesn’t make the payment systems. They have more than 600 private payment systems. But built on a common infrastructure. So that’s much more efficient. Same for roads. So the importance is to have an interoperable road systems. I cannot change my car because I’m entering on another private road. So I need to be able to drive everywhere. If some of those roads are highway and I have to pay because this is a very expensive highway and others are communal small streets, it doesn’t matter. The importance is to have one unified system. And that’s the beauty of the DPI movement. We are looking for, yes, what must be done as a common and clear infrastructure for the market. Right. I think this is a well-known, although not frequently acknowledged, we tend to have this polarity, more government, more market. The fact of the matter is that markets function well when they have the right commons in which all the market players can interact. And maybe just one last thing. For most Europeans, when you say public services, you call lawyers too, because there is a long tradition of juridical definition of what must be a public service. A big service has to be neutral, equal access. You have the duty to maintain it. You cannot change your mind and say, oh, sorry, I stopped this project. There are very clear and strong definitions of public service. It can be done through private sector or not, it can be free or not, but there are some specific duties. And public service, at least in Europe, it might be public, it can be state-owned, but public servants are not governments and they have for example the right to contest the authorities because they obey to the definition of their public service.

Milton Mueller: In some countries, that is true. Luca, are you trying to get in here?

Luca Belli: Yeah, I wanted to first to attract everyone’s attention to a rare moment of agreement between me and Milton because I concur with Milton in the fact that I think it is better to keep separate the distinction between digital public infrastructure and classic infrastructure because when we speak about DPIs, it’s about digital systems built on open standards that are interoperable and secure to provide service. We might include into this telecom infrastructure, but I think it’s an overstretch. I would keep it to software rather than getting into hardware. Having said that, as I was mentioning at the very beginning of my remarks, I think one really has not only to think that DPI, although there is this nice internationally agreed definition, there are very different implementations of the concept and it’s essential to study the details. Of course, in this panel we can only have a superficial discussion about it, but let me provide some key examples between India and Brazil on the very same type of digital public infrastructure for payments to illustrate how this can be radically different. I think that the Brazilian experiment with PIX has been an evolution of what has been copied de facto from the UPI in India and actually maybe the Indians will not disclose that they have copied this from Russia because Russia introduced his system MIR after the invasion of Crimea in in 2014, when it was sanctioned immediately the day after by the US with the prohibition of Visa and MasterCard. So from night to day, Russians could not pay anything with their cards. So they had to come up with a new system, and a domestic one, MIR, like the space station, MIR. But it was a very old system based on cards, so a physical system. Now they have copied Brazil and India, and they also have a digital public infrastructure, a software one. But the origin were the Russians that developed this for an existential reasons. From night to day, you don’t have an online payment, so you have to come up with a solution. And the Indians were thinking about this, and were like, you know what? At the same time, they have disrupted Visa and MasterCard duopoly, so let’s do it. But the way in which the Indian did it, as Jyoti was mentioning, was to create a not-for-profit corporation, probably because they were skeptical about bureaucrats being able to do this. So they created the Reserve Bank of India, together with the main financial intermediary, created this National Payment Corporation of India. It’s like an icon for payments. And they did the digital public infrastructure. They created the UPI. But the reason why I argue that, actually, the Brazilian experiment went farther, because it, in my opinion, is much more transparent and accountable, is that the Brazilian experiment was directed by the Brazilian Central Bank. It’s a public institution. So if I file a request of access to information to the Brazilian Central Bank, and I ask them, tell me which data you have about me, tell me with whom you share them, tell me which are the cybersecurity standards that you adopted, they are obliged to reply to me. And if they don’t reply to me, I sue them. If I file this same kind of request for access to information to the National Payment Corporation of India, they reply to me, I’m sorry. We are not a public institution. We have no duty to reply to you. And we can keep everything totally opaque as much as we want, because this is not a public institution. So of course this could be changed in India if the National Payment Corporation of India became a public institution and so they would be obliged to be more accountable. Not in data protection terms because those who know the Digital Data Protection, Personal Data Protection Act of India know very well that all public institutions are exempted from respecting the data protection law of India. So even if it was a public institution would not be bound by respecting the protection law because data protection law in India has carved out an enormous exception for all public institutions. But that is the reason why I argue that we really should look at the details of these things because calling something digital public infrastructure doesn’t make it good or bad. We have now Bill Gates blogging about digital public infrastructure because of course this is a fashionable concept that’s been co-opted by Microsoft as usually happens with all nice concepts. Last year at IGF we were speaking about AI sovereignty. We released a book last year about this and two months after NVIDIA and Oracle started to blog about how their product were excellent for AI sovereignty which I think it’s a little bit of overstretch of the concept because of course they argue that you can be AI sovereign if you buy their tools which is again a little bit of overstretch of the concept. But again, we really have not only to look at the label but what is behind the label to understand if we can form our opinion and to understand if it’s good or bad.

Milton Mueller: Good, I need to get in here. So I really appreciated your story about the competition issue related to Visa and MasterCard in Brazil. I would tell you that within the US this is recognized as a competition issue but you need to understand how deeply embedded the dominance of those two payment networks is in our system of banking regulation. In other words, in some ways the regulatory system has created conditions which lead to an oligopoly. One of the concerns I have with this notion of sovereignty when it comes to DPI is that you could very easily recreate that situation in which local actors within a state essentially, if the DPI is not open and not standardized in a way that is facilitating competition, it can very easily lead to recreation of national oligopolies or national monopolies. One of the big competitors to a new form, emerging form of DPI, i.e. cryptocurrency, are of course the central banks. This is a very clear contradiction or clash between a sovereignty-based payment system and monetary system and a globalized one facilitated by the Internet. The other point I’d like to make here is that when we talk about interoperability and commons versus market, it seems that we’re not fully recognizing the revolutionary impact of the Internet itself. What is the Internet? It’s a set of non-proprietary protocols, right? Non-proprietary protocols that made all of this connectivity possible and it essentially facilitated a digitally networked economy, right? It wasn’t like the government said, we’re going to create a globally integrated economy and that’s why we’re funding this protocol. It was simply, the protocol was created through computer scientists and researchers and then it was, because it was non-proprietary, which is a good part about the fact that the government funded it, but it was non-proprietary so neither the US government nor any private actor controlled the use and development of the infrastructure around the Internet and one of the things we can even talk about digital payments now coming down to our phones is because of this. commons, this digital commons created by the internet protocols?

Henri Verdier: It’s real. So you’re right. Internet is based on open standards and we have to protect it. But we have also to recognize that the internet is captured because of through ID, payment and some things like this. So DPI could be an answer, but you’re right too. Maybe we should start thinking about a kind of ITU for DPI’s because interoperability, free exchange. I should be able to use my European digital wallet in India. That should be the goal. I should be able to travel, to exchange, coming from my DPI and negotiating with others.

Luca Belli: Just to complement your point because there is already an ITU for DPI which is the ITU because it has already released two years ago the GOVSTAC which is a set of open protocols for DPI’s. But what is the problem with the ITU? The ITU is an intergovernmental organization that sets norms. The reasoning behind the DPI is building the infrastructure. I honestly use this in class with students as an example of what Lessig called 25 years ago regulation by architecture because you are not regulating the market by imposing a sanction or by defining a norm. You are regulating the market by creating an infrastructure, an architecture that competes with what exists. And you’re perfectly right. I mean both of you are right. You are right because the internet is based on, it’s probably the only part of the internet that is public, is the protocols. Public, exactly. But you are right, but on that public infrastructure leading U.S. big tech has concentrated dominance and so the need for DPI is now is to revert. this concentration, it is evident, it’s quite blatant. And that is why I think that DPIs are, they could be seen, again, once again, word of caution, DPI is not always good or not always bad, but some of the examples could be seen as very good examples to reclaim digital sovereignty. So to reclaim the capability to understand how the technology functions, develop it and regulate it effectively, which is something that we have, pretty much everyone has lost over the past 20 decades because how the internet is now regulated is not through our nice laws. I say this with enormous frustration as a lawyer. The way in which the internet is regulated is not the law that I teach to school, at school, to students. I tell them, this is one vector of regulation. Reed Lessig, he was mentioning this 25 years ago, is one of the vector, is much more effective through you, through regulate, through infrastructure, what Lessig called architecture, but it de facto is what Susan Strange called structural power 30 years ago, or through marketing incentives, through subsidies and taxation. Why do we, everyone uses WhatsApp for all communications in the global South? Because it’s considered as free. It’s a marketing incentive. If WhatsApp had to be paid $100 per month, no one would use it in the global South. But the way we communicate is regulated by a subsidy that…

Milton Mueller: Like most of the infrastructure is actually created. I mean, the telecom infrastructure, the power infrastructure, that’s all. Let me get David in here, see if he has anything to say at this point. We’ve kind of left him in the dust.

David Magarde: No, no, thank you. Thank you for inviting me. So I have two things that I would like to just put on the table. So one may be interesting fact is from Sweden. So we have… We’re using BankID, which is an identity made by the corporation of the big banks in Sweden. It’s used by 99.7% of the Swedish adult population, so that is 18 to 67. So it’s of course very successful when it comes to usage and adoption. But now, the last three years, we have started work for a government-issued identity, because we’ve kind of seen that giving away all of the control of the digital identity also creates some issues. Those could be kind of on the kind of security, but also inclusion, and also the development actually of the infrastructures, because then we are from the public side and in the hands of BankID, which is sometimes good, because we have a good corporation, but sometimes it also stifles us a bit. So in my mind, that says that every situation is different, so it’s not possible to kind of have a framework that you can adopt to one country. It will differ. That’s very interesting. So I would like to hear more about this BankID offline. I also want to say the second part is that what we’re doing in EU now with the wallets is that we actually regulate open source, open standards for digital identity. And I think that the digital infrastructures, the public infrastructure, if you want to call them that, the trigger is really when you kind of make it cross-border, because then you need the interoperability, you need the kind of guardrails and the railroads and all of these things kind of working. And it’s really, really hard to do that even with standardization. We can see that with different standards and so on. But what we’re seeing now in the EU is the regulation of it. And it comes from an open source kind of idea. So I think that is very promising for making these things that you’re speaking about, being the kind of digital commons and the possibility for everyone to kind of have the same set of infrastructure and standards and so on. Yeah.

Milton Mueller: I think we’re supposed to end at 1045. So I’m going to ask now for all of you, starting with Jyoti, to provide some wrap up comments. And I want you to focus in particular on what action items you think the global community should take with respect to this issue. What can we do globally? And Amrita, I will not allow you to say that we should suddenly magically appear with $7 trillion to build broadband infrastructure everywhere. I’m going to have to ask you where that money comes from. But in terms of real feasible action items, what should we do next? Let’s start with Jyoti.

Jyoti Panday: So before I come into the action items, just briefly, one big takeaway for me from this conversation, and it’s also a question, is that which digital services qualify for the label of digital public infrastructure? Is social media DPI? Is digital identity DPI? What are the values that actually translate into something being labeled as DPI? Does it have to be open standard? Does it have to be public funded for the public part of the public infrastructure to hold? Also, I think another big point of confusion here is that the term infrastructure or architecture, as Luka helpfully referred to, has a certain notion that there is a common ground around. these ideas, right? What is happening in the case of India’s tax specifically, and maybe DPI more broadly, is that software and applications are being relabeled as infrastructure. And this is a very problematic pathway in my view, because, you know, as your digitization and your growth of your digital economy goals keep shifting, you can’t keep relabeling things that are agreed upon to suit your strategy and your convenience and to propel you into the global conversation on regulating the internet and digital services. It is a very effective strategy, but it causes confusion and it will lead to exactly this kind of fragmentation where everybody in various jurisdictions, stakeholders that have a stake or are behind certain projects, see the benefit of labeling their projects as DPI to attract more funding, to attract more mileage, to attract more attention. And we need to be wary of that. In terms of action points that we really need to focus on, I think, you know, unpacking these terms, are all digital services DPI? What constitutes, what values constitute as public of the DPI label? And what can applications and software become infrastructure? What are the infrastructural dimensions? So can you make a digital identity, the Indian digital identity, Aadhaar, mandatory for me to engage or access services on the internet? Right now in India, Aadhaar is used by the Supreme Court intervention has been restricted to services that have been paid for by the public fund of India, so our taxpayers money. But even though that decision is being completely flouted by stakeholders in both private sector and public sector in India, because they see the benefit of pushing digital identity adoption to achieve that scale. So I think drawing the guardrails and working closer to a more narrow. value-driven, precise definition is going to take this in a much more productive direction than the confusion that is currently in, you know, informing our discussions everywhere. Thank you.

Milton Mueller: Thank you, Jyoti. Let’s start with Anirudh and then just go around the circle, ending with David.

AUDIENCE: Thanks, Milton. I agree very much with Anirudh. I think digital infrastructure, my understanding, what I think we can do with digital public infrastructure is to look at it as an infrastructure that can be used to enable digitally powered public services and benefit. And I do think a value-based and narrower definition is a good way of looking at it. And, Milton, maybe those millions and millions of dollars can, and trillions can come from all that enhanced economic growth you’re going to get from your protectionist economic policies in the U.S. for years. But I absolutely am not going to take physical infrastructure off the table, because unless there is internet infrastructure, internet-enabled digital public infrastructure cannot exist. And I just, the other point I want to make is that DPI is not neutral. DPI and how it’s rolled out, how people experience it, will be shaped by the context. An authoritarian regime is going to use DPI to enhance control. And a revenue-focused, revenue-connection-focused regime is going to use it to enhance collection. And a public services, public benefit-oriented regime is going to use it to create more inclusion. And I think we cannot take that out of it. In other words, DPI is not neutral. It’s going to rise and fall in how much inclusion there is, how much oversight there is, and how much public engagement there is. But I do think it’s an opportunity to come back to looking at what we mean by internet and digital-enabled public services. To go back to all those very fragmented initiatives that emerged from open government, from WSIS, which are not connecting at all. And which are in most cases not actually creating more digital equality or digital inclusion. And I think we can use DPI to bring that conversation back to how do we collaborate? How do we integrate to achieve actual benefit for people?

Milton Mueller: Thank you, Andrea. A few ideas. First, regarding the cost, you did mention the cost. I think that Luca was right to say there is a difference between physical infrastructure and digital public infrastructure. The difference is that basically, first approximation, digital infrastructure are non-rival goods. You can have a lot of uses without scaling the cost. Of course, you have to pay the servers. I was impressed in India because basically the cost of Aadhaar is $1 per person. The cost of the French and most European digital IDs is $100 per person. So, that’s not so expensive. And the cost of UPI. So, UPI did allow more electronic transactions on US plus China together. And that’s basically a set of APIs plus a governance body. That’s such inexpensive. So, the question you did ask, what should be done now? First, like Luca too, I’m not sure we have a very precise, unified definition for everything. We have various national approaches. But probably what we should look for should be the minimum viable infrastructure that protects the free Internet, the free market. democracy. And just thinking like this, you can find some answers. And for example, you did ask, should social network be a DPI? I don’t think so. But I think that curation algorithm should, we should impose a market as a diversity of curation algorithms. We should not let 3 billion people access to information through one algorithm designed by Mark Zuckerberg, because that’s not democratic. So we should use API movements to impose a variety, to de-group, to impose a variety of algorithm. Thanks to one app store for algorithm, that social network should have to agree to accept. And we should start learning to think like this, what should be the minimum infrastructure to protect the free internet, to unleash a free market, and to protect democratic feedback. And when you start thinking like this, you find sometimes some, maybe not answers, but propositions of answers. Thank you, Ambassador. We’ll go to Loka next. And again, action items, if you can.

Luca Belli: So again, I think that there are drawing conclusions from what we have discussed. And from what I was trying to convey, there are multiple layers that we should consider in this quite complex situation. First, we should not think that DPI is bad or good, but analyze how it is proposed, and how I’m speaking about the how, how it emerges as a discussion, because I’m very concerned, for instance, that now, IMF is imposing digital identity as a counterpart for having loans, because this is an imposition, is not something that is emerging as a bottom up process from the country that wants to develop it and knows how to develop it, but is being imposed and likely adopting another type of technology that does not necessarily fit the specific reality. So you were speaking about Visa and MasterCard being part of the U.S. let’s say ecosystem that may work very well in the U.S., but we have also to acknowledge that, I don’t know, I’m not an expert in the U.S. I am needed and it is not a country I studied too much, but every country is very specific. So there is no, first, there is no silver bullet. So if we cannot impose, that is probably the reason why the ITU GovStack doesn’t work very well, because we cannot impose or hope that everyone will magically adopt a fantastic solution. It’s much better to bet on the fact that those who are ready and want to do this might be able to develop it. And here, my second point, institutions that drive this process are very important. The Brazilian example, I want to stress this, is very special example driven by an institution that, although it is in an emerging developing economy, it’s very well resourced, has very good command and control capabilities, and understands systemically how to do this. And they show that the PIX system is a success because they’ve understood all the layers of complexity, starting from the access, meaningful connectivity, or the lack of meaningful connectivity in Brazil. Because the reason why they postponed WhatsApp payment is because they are well aware that Brazil is not meaningfully connected. 22% of the population has meaningful connectivity, 78% of the population is connected only through WhatsApp and Facebook. So that is a very important point, because if we are investing a lot of money in a digital public infrastructure and everyone will only use Facebook and WhatsApp, we are wasting our money. So we have to think systemically. And last but not least, I think that this also gives a lot of hope to those who have been over, like some of us, for 15 or 20 years about speaking about multi-stakeholderism. It’s a very good example of how multi-stakeholderism… and can go beyond nice chats in exotic places and being very outcome-oriented and effective when it is well orchestrated.

Milton Mueller: So more bottom-up where it’s ready, no top-down.

Luca Belli: Understanding the local realities and engaging the stakeholder in the most effective way.

Milton Mueller: And good, but recognizing that when things evolve in that way, they tend to be, could be fragmented, right?

Luca Belli: Yes, but in this, they could be fragmented, but if we cannot think that to fight against fragmentation, we impose concentration and accumulation of wealth by only three or four enormous tech companies that actually are not even taxed as they would be. So if you want to find the money to buy all this, start to tax Google, Facebook, Amazon, that have reaped enormous benefits since the pandemic, but have never been taxed properly. I mean, there are enormous reports about only Brazil, India, and Indonesia lose $4 billion per year in tax evasion. So if you want to find the money, let me tell you, my friend, you can find it.

Milton Mueller: Four billion might finance the broadband in what, two cities, but anyway. But David-

Luca Belli: I’m not speaking about broadband, I’m speaking about software, much cheaper, as Henry was saying.

David Magarde: Yeah, sure. I think a bottom-up approach will give the, I mean, there are already key players here that kind of control most of the environment, so they will effectively control more of the environment if it’s only bottom-up. So I think regulation needs to be there, some institutions, but also with, I know that ITU libraries and so on may not be fully used as was hoped by some, but I really do like the idea that we have libraries with open standards. source code and so on that can be used because that’s also drives innovation and ensures that the civil society but also the private companies can look into what’s happening at the public sector side so that the government can don’t take control of all of the relevant infrastructures because I think to develop an inclusive digital infrastructure needs to be cooperative between the public private sector but also needs to be transparent and ensure that everyone can kind of everyone with skills can go in there and look what’s actually happening and also I was surprised that India have excluded their public sector from the data protection side because that is one thing that I think is working quite well in EU when it comes to ensuring kind of transparency and openness on what of the data which is of course what’s the most core to the people their data or data about them. So I would say regulation and kind of openness and providing like tech stacks for everyone to use and then we will have some players or some areas or nations that will go before the other ones and hopefully they will do a good job so that the other ones can kind of jump into that train on that train and then we can see kind of interoperable basic infrastructures that people can build up using their kind of natural context to that and that in itself I hope would enable people to travel more freely both digital and physical using their kind of uncontrolled digital identity which is the key enabler for most of these things.

Milton Mueller: Okay so I just realized that I’ve totally excluded the audience from the discussion it’s because so much vigorous stuff was going on here but it was hard to to get in, and I’m sure we’d be talking for another hour if I didn’t rein them all in. So, I would encourage you that if you’re here to approach the speakers, take off your headphones and talk to people about some of their ideas. I think we have about five minutes. Two minutes. We have eight minutes? Seven. Seven minutes. Let’s unleash the audience. All right. Here, we’ve got somebody. You’ll have to give him a microphone.

Kashfi Inua: Thank you very much. My name is Kashfi Inua from Nigeria. Quite insightful and interesting conversation. But my question is, why is it it’s only in the global south we talk about DPI? In the global north, nobody talks about DPI. And looking at how they evolve in terms of building the infrastructure, I am slightly lost to what is happening in the enterprises. By having a backbone. And through that backbone, they are connecting everyone. So, sometimes I just get confused. Let’s talk about DPI, global south. Thank you.

AUDIENCE: So, first, I don’t think there is such thing as a global south. There is a huge diversity in the south and in the north. But I work on this question for a long time. Your question, because the truth is, as it was said, we have most ancient and complex systems that is working a bit like a DPI. For example, in France, you can buy a baguette with your credit card without paying any fee to anyone. So, you don’t really need UPI because you have this system. But our system is very ancient. with a strong legacy, very expansive, but the need to change is not the same. But as I said, you have X-Road in Estonia, you have France Connect in France, you have pieces of DPI, but they were designed before the DPI movement.

Milton Mueller: Luca?

Luca Belli: Just a quick comment on this, because I think that the Global South has realized that there is a problem. We have been digitally colonized, and I think that the only thing that is in common in the Global South, or the global majority, they are extraordinarily diverse countries, but the only thing they have in common, they have been colonies. So they understand that they are colonized again. The Global North is used to be the colonizer, and they are not being used to be colonized, now they are realizing it now. Let me tell you, I was invited, I was at the European Parliament in September to present the research on digital sovereignty in the BRICS, because now the Global North is studying the Global South, because there are a lot of things to be learned from India, Brazil, China, South Africa, in terms of how to react to this kind of digital colonialism that is, of course, ongoing, and from which very few countries, I would say only one, is benefiting, and the others are not benefiting at all. So the others have a problem and need to find a solution.

Milton Mueller: I would want to challenge-

Annelies: Simply, you are right. We speak about it in the Global South because we don’t have infrastructure. You don’t speak about it as much in the Global North because you have infrastructure. You know what it feels like to go to the Netherlands and they complain that their trains are late, when in South Africa, getting a bus is impossible. It’s a vast difference, and I think that the sad thing is that these conversations replicate. During the structural adjustment era, when we were trying to invest in public education and public health, we were told by the international financial institutions and the Global North, don’t, no, don’t, let the market do it. When we talked about building broadband capacity, we’re told by Milton and other people, let the market do it. The market fails to do that. I’m not saying the market is to blame for that. I think there are a whole set of complex factors. But so that’s why we keep having these conversations. And I think the challenge is, are our governments having them in the right way, in the most effective way? Are financial institutions responding in the most effective way? But I think that’s very clear why we have this conversations. I think we just need to use these conversations better, be more action oriented and more context oriented in how we actually try and redress these gaps in infrastructure that we are talking about.

Milton Mueller: I don’t think any of you actually answered his question, which was like, I mean, partly you did. You’re saying, yeah, we don’t have infrastructure. None of you have dealt with the question of why they don’t. Now, part of it is the legacy of colonialism. And by that, I mean real colonialism, not this fake thing called digital colonialism in which you’re simply talking about the advancement of technological capabilities and their extension from the leading countries. But a lot of it is also the fact that your institutions have not allowed for the market development that is possible in other countries, right? You have telecom monopolies still in many African countries still stayed on telecom monopolies. You have, you know, it’s illegal to have voice over IP in many of these countries for a very long time. All the forms of competition and innovation that were enabled by digital technology have frequently been stifled by extremely authoritarian or protectionist governments that will not allow the infrastructure to develop.

AUDIENCE: I just like to jump in here. I think Yoti has something to say, but I was also gonna direct my next question to you. And it builds off of this, if you’d like to just take that. I think what he is trying to say and what you were trying to say about the global South differences, I think what we actually have to acknowledge and what we publish in our own research is that these are places called leapfrog regions and that they exist in the global North. You can look at Flint, Michigan. You can look at different parts of Atlanta, New York. there are regions that when COVID hit, we saw that there was not digital public infrastructure in the North as well. And so we need to acknowledge that digital public infrastructure does go across both sides. And so my question would be, I think, when you talk about authoritarian governments and monopolistic telecoms companies, I think what we feel in the Global South is that those companies and that structure is not structured by our governments, it’s structured by outside forces. And so what can we do as parties in the Global South, like I come from Northern Ethiopia, he comes from Nigeria, I’m not sure where you come from, but I think what I’m curious about to hear, and Jyoti, I’d love to hear you start off, is how do the youth from these places, how do we decide to, like, we’d like to take control of our own infrastructure, and how do we leapfrog past what we see in front of us, because it’s highly, highly unfair.

Jyoti Panday: Yeah, thank you for these amazing questions from the audience. And I have a very skeptical view of this. To the first gentleman’s question as to why we hear this label more from Global South and not so much in Global North, is because the label has actually been developed in the Global South. And, you know, these advanced nations with their advanced technological capabilities are, you know, very of adopting terms that they have not been involved in directly, right from the outset, been dictating terms of their development. So it’s like, it’s a little bit coming from geopolitical competition around tech policy, but also, you know, people are wanting to see how this label evolves, what is the impact, and then when they see it is a great success. So to Luca’s point, why Gates Foundation or the IMF are now suddenly using these labels, once they become, once they pick up, once they become popular, and they see the benefits of these labels, they will start using it more. In terms of how do we leapfrog, I want to give an example from India on broadband, actually.

Milton Mueller: Jyoti, we’re about to get kicked out of the room. It’s 11 o’clock.

Jyoti Panday: So Reliance brought the data rates completely low in India, and everybody clapped and said this is wonderful. But now, 10 years down the lane, we see that the investment in actual internet infrastructure has dwindled down because we have, there’s a monopoly or the, you know, there are only two telecom operators in India. So we have to take these decisions carefully. There are always trade-offs involved. And it’s, I can, I’m happy to discuss this offline. I don’t want to hold anyone in the room. But thank you again for the questions and for all your inputs and for making the time to all the panellists and the speakers. Thank you. Thank you again very much for being a part of this.

Milton Mueller: Thank you.

Agreement Points

Need for a clearer definition of DPI

Jyoti Panday

Luca Belli

Annelies

DPI as approach for building large-scale networks, platforms and services essential for digital economy

DPI as digital systems built on open standards that are interoperable and secure to provide services

Need for narrower, value-driven definition of DPI

The speakers agree that there is a need for a more precise and value-driven definition of DPI, focusing on its role in building essential digital infrastructure and services.

Importance of institutional frameworks and governance

Jyoti Panday

David Magarde

Henri Verdier

Importance of institutional frameworks and oversight mechanisms

Need for regulation and openness in DPI development

DPI as minimum necessary infrastructure to protect free internet, market and democracy

The speakers emphasize the need for proper institutional frameworks, oversight mechanisms, and regulation in the development and implementation of DPI to ensure openness and protect democratic values.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers view DPI as a tool to promote competition and protect democratic values in the digital economy.

Luca Belli

Henri Verdier

DPI can break monopolies and increase competition, as with payments in Brazil

DPI as minimum necessary infrastructure to protect free internet, market and democracy

Both speakers highlight the potential risks of DPI, emphasizing that its implementation can lead to centralization or be used for control depending on the context.

Jyoti Panday

Annelies

DPI can lead to centralization and compromise digital security

DPI is not neutral and can be used for control or public benefit depending on context

Unexpected Consensus

Global South leading in DPI development and discourse

Luca Belli

Jyoti Panday

Annelies

Global North studying Global South approaches to digital sovereignty

DPI more discussed in Global South due to lack of existing infrastructure

There is an unexpected consensus that the Global South is leading in DPI development and discourse, with the Global North now studying and learning from these approaches. This represents a shift in the traditional flow of knowledge and policy ideas.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement include the need for a clearer definition of DPI, the importance of institutional frameworks and governance, and recognition of both the potential benefits and risks of DPI implementation. There is also consensus on the growing importance of Global South approaches to DPI.

Consensus level

Moderate consensus with some diverging views. While there is agreement on the importance of DPI and the need for proper governance, there are differing perspectives on its implementation, funding, and potential impacts. This suggests that further dialogue and research are needed to develop a more unified approach to DPI development and implementation globally.

Different Viewpoints

Definition and scope of Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI)

Henri Verdier

Luca Belli

Jyoti Panday

David Magarde

DPI as minimum necessary infrastructure to protect free internet, market and democracy

DPI as digital systems built on open standards that are interoperable and secure to provide services

DPI as approach for building large-scale networks, platforms and services essential for digital economy

DPI not commonly used term in EU, focus instead on interoperability

Speakers had different perspectives on what constitutes DPI, ranging from a minimal infrastructure approach to a broader definition encompassing various digital systems and services.

Role of government and market in DPI development

Milton Mueller

Luca Belli

Henri Verdier

Risk of DPI leading to fragmentation if pursued with sovereignty-based approach

Bottom-up approach needed, with stakeholder engagement based on local realities

DPI as minimum necessary infrastructure to protect free internet, market and democracy

Speakers disagreed on the extent of government involvement in DPI development, with some advocating for a more market-driven approach and others emphasizing the need for government intervention.

Unexpected Differences

Global North-South divide in DPI discussions

Luca Belli

Milton Mueller

Unknown speaker

Global North studying Global South approaches to digital sovereignty

Institutional barriers to infrastructure development in some countries

Need to consider “leapfrog regions” lacking infrastructure in Global North as well

While most speakers focused on the Global South’s need for DPI, an unexpected perspective emerged highlighting similar infrastructure gaps in parts of the Global North, challenging the traditional North-South divide in digital development discussions.

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement centered around the definition and scope of DPI, the role of government versus market forces in its development, and the global perspective on DPI needs.

difference_level

The level of disagreement was moderate to high, with significant implications for how DPI might be conceptualized, implemented, and governed globally. These differences suggest that achieving a unified approach to DPI development and implementation may be challenging, potentially leading to varied strategies across different regions or countries.

Partial Agreements

These speakers agreed on the need for stakeholder engagement and oversight in DPI development, but differed on the balance between bottom-up approaches and regulation.

Luca Belli

David Magarde

Jyoti Panday

Bottom-up approach needed, with stakeholder engagement based on local realities

Need for regulation and openness in DPI development

Importance of institutional frameworks and oversight mechanisms

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers view DPI as a tool to promote competition and protect democratic values in the digital economy.

Luca Belli

Henri Verdier

DPI can break monopolies and increase competition, as with payments in Brazil

DPI as minimum necessary infrastructure to protect free internet, market and democracy

Both speakers highlight the potential risks of DPI, emphasizing that its implementation can lead to centralization or be used for control depending on the context.

Jyoti Panday

Annelies

DPI can lead to centralization and compromise digital security

DPI is not neutral and can be used for control or public benefit depending on context

Key Takeaways

There is no clear consensus on the definition and scope of Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI)

DPI can potentially break monopolies and increase competition, but also carries risks of centralization and compromising digital security

The implementation and governance of DPI should involve multi-stakeholder processes and consider local contexts

There are differing perspectives on DPI between the Global North and South, partly due to existing infrastructure gaps

Funding and institutional frameworks remain key challenges for DPI development in many countries

Resolutions and Action Items

Work towards a narrower, value-driven definition of DPI

Analyze how DPI is proposed and implemented rather than labeling it as inherently good or bad

Pursue more bottom-up approaches to DPI development where countries are ready

Develop open standards and libraries for DPI that can be used by different stakeholders

Study successful DPI implementations in countries like India and Brazil to learn lessons

Unresolved Issues

How to define which digital services qualify as DPI

How to balance sovereignty-based approaches with the need for global interoperability

Where funding will come from for DPI development in resource-constrained countries

How to address institutional barriers to infrastructure development in some countries

How to ensure DPI promotes inclusion and public benefit rather than control or surveillance

Suggested Compromises

Focus on developing the ‘minimum viable infrastructure’ that protects free internet, markets and democracy

Combine regulation with openness and transparency in DPI development

Balance country-specific DPI approaches with efforts towards cross-border interoperability

Consider both software-based DPI and physical infrastructure needs in developing countries

DPI movement is one new world for various approaches. And you can connect it to infrastructures, to public service, to sometimes digital commons, to platform strategies.

speaker

Henri Verdier

reason

This comment highlights the broad and evolving nature of DPI, showing it’s not a single defined concept but encompasses multiple approaches and ideas.

impact

It set the stage for a nuanced discussion about what exactly constitutes DPI and how it manifests in different contexts.

The Brazilian experiment with PIX has been an evolution of what has been copied de facto from the UPI in India and actually maybe the Indians will not disclose that they have copied this from Russia because Russia introduced his system MIR after the invasion of Crimea in 2014, when it was sanctioned immediately the day after by the US with the prohibition of Visa and MasterCard.

speaker

Luca Belli

reason

This comment provides important historical context and shows how DPI initiatives have evolved and spread globally, often in response to geopolitical pressures.

impact

It broadened the discussion beyond just technical aspects to consider geopolitical and historical factors shaping DPI development.

DPI is not neutral. DPI and how it’s rolled out, how people experience it, will be shaped by the context. An authoritarian regime is going to use DPI to enhance control. And a revenue-focused, revenue-connection-focused regime is going to use it to enhance collection. And a public services, public benefit-oriented regime is going to use it to create more inclusion.

speaker

Annelies

reason

This insight highlights that the impacts of DPI depend heavily on the motivations and governance structures implementing it.

impact

It shifted the conversation to consider the critical importance of governance frameworks and oversight in DPI implementation.

We have now Bill Gates blogging about digital public infrastructure because of course this is a fashionable concept that’s been co-opted by Microsoft as usually happens with all nice concepts.

speaker

Luca Belli

reason

This comment raises important questions about the co-opting of DPI concepts by large tech companies.

impact

It prompted discussion about potential conflicts between public interest goals of DPI and commercial interests.

One of the concerns I have with this notion of sovereignty when it comes to DPI is that you could very easily recreate that situation in which local actors within a state essentially, if the DPI is not open and not standardized in a way that is facilitating competition, it can very easily lead to recreation of national oligopolies or national monopolies.

speaker

Milton Mueller

reason

This comment highlights a key tension between national sovereignty and open, competitive systems in DPI development.

impact

It sparked debate about how to balance national control with openness and competition in DPI.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by highlighting the complex, multifaceted nature of DPI. They moved the conversation beyond technical definitions to consider historical context, geopolitical factors, governance implications, and potential pitfalls. The discussion evolved to grapple with tensions between national sovereignty and global interoperability, public interest and commercial motivations, and the need for both government involvement and market competition in DPI development. This nuanced exploration revealed DPI as a concept with significant implications for digital governance, economic development, and global power dynamics in the digital age.

Which digital services qualify for the label of digital public infrastructure?

speaker

Jyoti Panday

explanation

This is important to clarify the scope and definition of DPI, as there is currently a lack of consensus on what should be included under this label.

What values should translate into something being labeled as DPI?

speaker

Jyoti Panday

explanation

Understanding the core values and principles that define DPI is crucial for developing consistent frameworks and policies.

How can we ensure interoperability between different DPI systems across countries?

speaker

Henri Verdier

explanation

Interoperability is key for enabling cross-border use of DPI and preventing fragmentation.

How can we balance the need for digital sovereignty with international cooperation in developing DPI?

speaker

Luca Belli

explanation

This tension needs to be addressed to prevent fragmentation while allowing countries to develop context-appropriate solutions.

How can we ensure transparency and accountability in DPI systems?

speaker

Luca Belli

explanation

Transparency is crucial for building trust and enabling proper oversight of DPI systems.

What role should regulation play in the development and governance of DPI?

speaker

David Magarde

explanation

Understanding the appropriate balance between regulation and market-driven approaches is important for effective DPI development.

How can we address the digital divide and ensure meaningful connectivity alongside DPI development?

speaker

Luca Belli

explanation

Ensuring widespread access to connectivity is crucial for the success and equitable impact of DPI initiatives.

How can developing countries take control of their own digital infrastructure development?

speaker

Audience member

explanation

This is important for addressing concerns about external influence and enabling context-appropriate solutions in the Global South.

Summary

This discussion focused on the role of AI in promoting multilingual inclusion and expanding internet access to diverse language communities. Participants explored challenges in developing AI systems for less common languages and strategies to address these issues.

Key points included the importance of data collection and documentation of local languages to train AI models effectively. Speakers emphasized that communities should actively create and share content in their native languages online to build robust datasets. The need for improved internet connectivity in underserved areas was highlighted as a crucial step in enabling diverse language representation online.

The discussion touched on efforts by organizations like the Internet Society and Pan-African Youth Ambassadors on Internet Governance to promote multilingualism through training programs and community networks. Speakers noted the importance of innovation and local solutions in developing AI tools tailored to specific language needs.

Challenges discussed included the dominance of major languages in AI development, the potential loss of minority languages, and the need for greater representation in tech fields. The conversation emphasized the role of governments, academia, and industry in collaborating to advance multilingual AI development.

Participants stressed the urgency of preserving and promoting linguistic diversity online, calling for active engagement from communities to document and digitize their languages. The discussion concluded by highlighting the power of individuals and communities in shaping the future of the internet and ensuring linguistic inclusivity in the digital age.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– The importance of developing AI models and tools in multiple languages beyond just English

– The need for more data and content in diverse languages to train AI systems

– The role of governments, academia, industry and communities in promoting multilingual AI development

– Challenges in preserving minority languages and including them in AI/technology

– The connection between language, culture, and digital inclusion

Overall purpose/goal:

The discussion aimed to explore how AI can be leveraged to promote multilingual inclusion and expand internet access/content in diverse languages, especially for underserved linguistic communities.

Tone:

The tone was largely informative and collaborative, with speakers sharing insights and experiences from different perspectives. There was an underlying sense of urgency about the need to act to preserve linguistic diversity in the digital age. The tone became more action-oriented towards the end, with calls for participants to actively document and promote their languages online.

Speakers

– Jesse Nathan Kalange: Moderator

– Athanase Bahizire: Internet Society alumni, facilitator of Pan-African Youth Ambassador on Internet Governance, engineer

– Claire van Zwieten: Alumni specialist at Internet Society

– Ida Padikuor Na-Tei: From East African region (did not speak in the transcript)

Additional speakers:

– Alejandra (no surname available): Mentioned as able to provide information about Internet Society empowerment programs

– Miriam (no surname available): From Kenya, ambassador in PAYAG Swahili cohort

– Abdul Rehman: From Lahore, Pakistan

– Grace Ngijoi: From Cameroon

– Kenli Kosa: From Mozambique

– Abineth Sentayo: From Ethiopia

– Vlad Ivanets: Youth Ambassador of Internet Society

Expanded Summary of Discussion on AI and Multilingual Inclusion

Introduction

This discussion focused on the role of artificial intelligence (AI) in promoting multilingual inclusion and expanding internet access to diverse language communities. Participants, including Internet Society alumni and youth ambassadors, explored challenges in developing AI systems for less common languages and strategies to address these issues. The conversation featured key insights from Athanase Bahizire and Claire van Zwieten, with moderation by Jesse Nathan Kalange.

Key Themes and Arguments

1. AI Development and Multilingual Inclusion

The discussion emphasized the critical need for developing AI models and tools in multiple languages beyond English. Athanase Bahizire highlighted that AI models require diverse language data to be truly inclusive. He explained, “For us to have AI models, we need to have data. It’s just like a human being, for you to start speaking, you need to listen. After listening, okay, you understand, you learn, then you can speak, then you can deliver. It’s the same with AI, it has to learn from the data and then deliver.”

Claire van Zwieten noted that the Internet Society promotes multilingualism in its programmes, recognizing the importance of linguistic diversity in AI development. The Internet Society works in four main languages (Arabic, Spanish, French, and English) for their official trainings, while their chapters work in many more languages locally.

Audience members pointed out specific challenges with current AI tools, such as difficulties with Swahili greetings and a Punjabi resume-building project, underscoring the need for improvement in this area.

2. Data Collection and Language Documentation

A crucial point of agreement among speakers was the importance of data collection and documentation of local languages to train AI models effectively. Athanase Bahizire stressed that documenting local languages and content is vital for AI development and cultural preservation. Claire van Zwieten concurred, noting that AI can help preserve endangered languages if properly developed.

Claire provided a concrete example of the Navajo tribe’s efforts to preserve their language using AI, which inspired further discussion about practical applications of AI in preserving minority languages and cultural heritage.

3. Connectivity and Content Creation

Athanase Bahizire highlighted the crucial role of connectivity in enabling diverse language representation online and AI development. He emphasized the importance of community networks in improving connectivity and enabling content creation in local languages.

4. Challenges in Multilingual AI Development

Several challenges were identified in developing AI systems for multiple languages:

– Lack of quality data in many languages

– Technical challenges in accommodating non-Latin scripts

– Limited representation of diverse languages in AI development

These challenges underscore the need for innovation and local solutions, as emphasized by Athanase Bahizire.

5. Promoting Language Equity and Inclusion

The discussion touched on several strategies to promote language equity and inclusion:

– Encouraging learning and use of multiple languages

– Ensuring public services support multiple languages

– Increasing diversity in language representation

– Supporting local chapters working in their languages

– Documenting cultural heritage and traditional knowledge

– Leveraging grants and funding for language preservation projects

6. Collaboration for Multilingual AI Development

Jesse Nathan Kalange highlighted the need for a multi-stakeholder approach involving government, industry, and academia to advance multilingual AI development. Claire van Zwieten discussed the Internet Society’s role in connecting the unconnected, while Athanase Bahizire stressed the importance of local initiatives and innovation.

Claire van Zwieten also emphasized the need for more women in ICT and the importance of mentorship. She highlighted the Internet Society’s efforts in empowering youth to become future internet leaders, including the Pan-African Youth Ambassadors on Internet Governance program, which Athanase Bahizire described in detail.

Thought-Provoking Comments and Their Impact

Several comments sparked deeper discussions:

1. Athanase Bahizire provided historical context about AI, noting, “AI is something that is just coming now, but we have been having AI systems from long ago, and they are still developing.”

2. Claire van Zwieten highlighted a critical paradox in AI development, stating, “AI is great for the digital divide because it helps bring some people up but it also very deepens it.”

3. Athanase Bahizire emphasized the importance of local innovation, stating, “We need to build our own systems.”

Conclusion and Future Directions

The discussion concluded by highlighting the power of individuals and communities in shaping the future of the internet and ensuring linguistic inclusivity in the digital age. Athanase Bahizire’s closing remarks stressed the importance of innovation and being part of the solution.

Several follow-up questions were raised, indicating areas for future exploration:

1. How to encourage local communities to produce better quality text content in their languages

2. Ways to empower local communities to use AI systems in their own languages without fear

3. Methods for tailoring AI to support underserved or minority-language speakers

4. Concrete strategies for documenting languages

These questions underscore the ongoing challenges and opportunities in developing multilingual AI systems and promoting linguistic diversity in the digital realm.

The session concluded with the announcement of gifts for participants, highlighting the collaborative and engaging nature of the discussion.

Jesse Nathan Kalange: you you you you Can they hear me? Yes, can you? I think so Can you hear me? Yes, I can I can hear you and you can hear me. Perfect We’re here. Great Thank you for being a little bit late But, you know, technical issues. Okay, hello. We can kick off this. You have your mic. You’re going to be leading this session. I don’t think you need that if you’re talking. Yeah. Just try. Try. Hello. Hello. Perfect. Hello. Yeah. Okay, great. So the floor is yours. You start. And we have also people online and everything is working. Okay. Ready? Perfect. Yeah. Hello. Yeah. Good. Good evening here in Riyadh. Good morning. Good afternoon, everyone. Watching NASA. Thank you for joining to this section. And we’re going to have a very insightful section between the Pan-African U.S. Ambassador for Internet Governance, Internet Society Foundation, and ISOC alumni group. Today I have here Atanasi Bahaziri, who is from DLC, IGF. I also have Clary Van Zweten from Internet Society Foundation. Sorry, NASA will be joining us. And I also have Ida from also the East African region. We’re going to talk about AI for multilingual inclusion. And before we start, we’re going to have more discussion, which is practical. And we have some youth also here that we want to engage them and include them in this section. With the opening aspect of this section, we’ve seen so many challenges of expanding Internet access and its availability in local content across many languages. Whilst working towards this in advancing human rights and inclusion at digital age, AI for multilingual inclusion, we also discussed how Internet can be expanded to greater languages and inclusion in all aspects of. So, I’m going to talk a little bit about how we can make the internet accessible to everyone. So, let’s start with our work. Through the use of multilingual AI system, we can engage digitally-isolated population, people who are isolated from the internet in terms of language barrier. Granting equal access to information. In this, we want to improve digital literacy and education efforts in making internet content available to everyone. So, we are working on that. We are working on that in terms of five languages. It’s been a very awesome time to welcome my speakers here. I will give them just one minute for them to introduce themselves. So, looking at online, I have Clary here. Clary, if you can hear me, just a minute, just introduce yourself, then I will move to Atanasi, then the rest will join us. All right. Thank you.

Claire van Zwieten: So, first, hi, everyone. My name is Clary. I am the alumni specialist at the Internet Society. I have the wonderful job of working with our alumni, two of which are there on the stage today. And also, Ida, who is also here. Thank you so much for coming to this session, and I’m very excited for this exciting talk about how we can create more internet access for people who are not speaking the dominant languages of the internet. Thank you.

Jesse Nathan Kalange: All right. Thank you. Let me move to Atanasi.

Athanase Bahizire: Thank you so much. I’m Atanasi, an Internet Society alumni, and I’m one of the facilitators of the Pan-African youth ambassador on internet governance. I’m an engineer by profession, and when it comes to the IGF ecosystem, I coordinate the youth IGF in the DRC. I’m very happy and looking forward to the discussion. Thank you. All right. Thank you.

Jesse Nathan Kalange: Thank you so much. Ida will join us very soon, and we can start giving the remarks. I want to start from Atanasi. You mentioned facilitator for Pan-African Youth Ambassador for Internet Governance. Can you give a brief information about that, how multilingualism is focused on the training that you are doing at Pan-African Youth Ambassador for Internet Governance? And we dive into the next question for Clary. Thank you.

Athanase Bahizire: Thank you so much, Selby. So basically, we have been seeing a raise of participation of different actors in the Internet Governance Forum and other Internet Governance-related activities, but we realized that there was a lack of meaningful participation from Africa. When we tend to look deeply into it, we realized that many African countries don’t speak English and non-English-speaking countries, they tend not to be active. So we tried to play our part in the solution, and we came up with this initiative of the Pan-African Youth Ambassadors on Internet Governance. Basically, it has five cohorts with five different languages. The target is to train 1,000 young people per year within five different languages, so 200 per language. We have five cohorts, one from the Arabic court, the Portuguese court, the Swahili court, the English court, and the French court. What is very unique in this program is that we have introduced some African languages that are only spoken in Africa, and some other languages that are not widely spoken. so that we build capacity of the different participants, of the different African youth, so that they understand the stakes of the internet governance. And then we guide them through mentorship so they can join these discussions and be able to participate and also can contribute locally to different ideas in the different countries or region. So briefly, that’s what is about the Pan-African Youth Ambassadors on Internet Governance.

Jesse Nathan Kalange: All right, thank you, Atanasie, for highlighting on that. Clary, I wanna ask you, I wanna move to you. Before people, the fellowship, the ambassadors of internet society could come out as an ambassador, I know that they don’t just come out like that, there’s training. And I’ve seen some couple of training in also different languages internet societies working on in terms of closing that kind of barrier within languages and internet governance and other trainings. Can you also highlight on what internet society foundation and internet society as a whole is doing in terms of training, I mean, multilingualism within the world? Thank you.

Claire van Zwieten: That’s a great question. Thank you so much for asking. And at the Internet Society, as a global organization, we are committed to making sure that the internet is for everyone. That really is what we are striving for. And that is our goal, that’s how we think. And the internet cannot be for everyone unless everyone has access to it and can read it. And of course you cannot read the internet if you’re not speaking the language of what is written. So at the Internet Society, we really do our best to include as much interpretation as possible when we communicate with our community. We do so in Spanish, French, Arabic when we can, and we’re very committed to making sure that whenever we are speaking with our community or speaking with people beyond our community, we are providing them access to be able to understand what we are saying in the language they are most comfortable in. So we… really try to walk the walk when it comes to multilingualism and the internet by providing as many interpretations of options as we can do.

Jesse Nathan Kalange: Okay, all right, thank you. Alejandro is also here, but today this session is not going to be panel discussion. It’s going to be a group discussion as we are here. Before we go to the next discussion, we’ve seen that there are some AI language tools and AI system that is coming that we are training on large language models. I want to ask in the room so that we have the conversation with you before we come back to all that. In terms of language, communication with some of the AI tools like Googlebot, chatGPT, which is very common. Have you tried communicating with this AI language models, AI tools with your local language, and how does it look like? Are you still limited to start with English because it can provide only the answers in English? Have you tried different languages with this AI tool? So if you have that knowledge you can share with us. Yeah, you mentioned your name, your country, and your organization you are representing.

Audience: Thank you. Okay, hello everyone. My name is Miriam from Kenya. I’m an ambassador in PAYAG, another Swahili cohort. So personally I’ve interacted with chatGPT. I use it all the time, but for Swahili it’s a bit tricky because even the basic like greetings. I’m supposed to ask you habari yako and then the response is njema. So for the AI, it really hallucinates. It gives you wrong answers and then you have to tell it no that is the wrong answer and then the next time I ask you habari you respond with njema. So for the Swahili, it’s not really that good, but it’s really doing well. Maybe not for the common, because greetings are different. Maybe in Kenya and Tanzania they are a bit different, but generally Swahili it’s okay for me.

Jesse Nathan Kalange: Okay, all right. So

Audience: Okay, we have a, my name is Abdul Rehman and I’m from Lahore, Pakistan. We have worked on, with JGPT in Urdu and Punjabi, Urdu is a bit good, but in Punjabi it has some issues. We’re trying to build a platform for local, like daily wage earners, earners like plumbers and those people to make their resume by speaking their Punjabi accent or Punjabi language. So that’s a bit hard thing for open AI right now. That’s my take. Okay. All right. Yeah. Hello everyone. My name is Grace Ngijoi from Cameroon and concerning local languages is a bit, it’s a little bit complicated with our country because we have more than 200 languages, local languages. So, but actually there’s a, there’s a young Cameroonian who’s working on it, but he specialised on common languages with a huge, with a, at least with some majority, like Eundo, Basa and Bamilike because we have more people that come from that side. So, but it’s not yet effective, but at least with the news that we are having from him, it’s something that you can help us a lot in terms of communication with our local people.

Jesse Nathan Kalange: Okay. All right. Thank you. Do we have anyone again? Okay. So, and we’ll come back to another question. Let me go to this. We’ve seen the aspects of looking at how AI has been shifted among local languages. We have, you mentioned PAYAC has five languages, Swahili, Arabic, Portuguese, English and French. English is common. So, that’s the general that it is. Thank you. Okay. AI, most AI language models are trained on. Now, I want to ask the same question to go to Clary, then Clary also explain perspective from the ISOC side. We want to understand that, in terms of this digital language divide, because we see there’s a vast difference from English to the other five languages. How can we ensure that there is an equal AI technology access for all speakers in all languages?

Claire van Zwieten: It’s a great question. And I think that that points to one of the most fundamental questions and challenges that we face is having data to train on. It’s so much of the content on the internet is in English. And when AI systems need data to train on, many of the data sources they use are in English. So having ample data sources of other languages will be instrumental to making sure that we’re able to use AI for multilingual inclusion on the internet. And I think that until we’re able to gather enough data about every other language that we want, we’ll be able to use the internet way more accessibly, but it’s the biggest hurdle is really having LLMs being able to be trained on this data. So until we have more access and more content, we won’t be able to do it.

Jesse Nathan Kalange: Okay, all right, Atanasy.

Athanase Bahizire: Thank you so much. Let me just give a bit of context. I told you I’m an IT engineer by profession, and there is some stuff we don’t understand about AI. AI, basically we say AI artificial intelligence. Basically it’s the ability of the machine to mimic what the human brain can do, the task we can do. And we have seen a wide hype of AI now with the LLMs, the language models. And we think that AI is something that is just coming now, but we have- been having AI systems from long ago, and they are still developing, they are still developing. And something Claire just mentioned, very important. For us to have AI models, we need to have data. It’s just like a human being, for you to start speaking, you need to listen. After listening, okay, you understand, you learn, then you can speak, then you can deliver. It’s the same with AI, it has to learn from the data and then deliver. So there is this, when it comes to multiple languages, and there is this divide we have, that we think many of our languages are not documented. And that equals, they can only deliver, AI systems can only deliver from the data they’ve got. There is an issue now we have in different, our different communities now. We think when you use, you publish content in your local language, you feel like many people won’t see it. And so you can speak French, you can speak Swahili, you can speak Wolof, but you will go to English because you feel like that’s where you’ll get a wider audience. But then we create content on English and that data is going to feed English models and it will generate, it will help generate AI models in English. So one of the things I used to tell people is, if you want, if you feel like there is this disparity, the only way we can solve it now, as of AI is not that far, it’s still, okay, the hype is still new and we can document our local perspectives on the internet. So it’s about the data we put on the internet. So when you create content, yeah, create. you can make videos in your local language, you can publish articles in your local language and that will help feed these models. One other thing like we have seen use cases in countries like Rwanda in Africa, where they’ve managed to create a model that they can ask the AI any question related to legislations and it will give them answers and references like this is in this bill in this law and is under which article. So what is happening is that they’ve got all the legislations in their local languages, but they were in paper based. So what they’ve tried to do is to correct that data. They supported young entrepreneurs, actually young students, young startups with hackathon and competition and tell them, so you have to build a data project where you take this local bills and you digitalize them first of all, because that’s the first point. You get them online, that’s the second point. And then within the data, how can I say, within the data curriculum, within the data line, you need to have the data. Then there is what they call data cleaning. Some of the terminologies you see, they are not accurate. So they used to review that data, cleaning it to make sure it’s accurate and can go to this platform. And after they’ve got the data on internet, now they can start training the models on that data. And training, trying in machine learning, we used to say accuracy of your model. So you’re going to train your model, but sometimes it won’t respond accurately. Most of the time, even we see sometimes charge EPT that is really big, can’t respond accurately. So what we do is someone was talking about, you ask a question and then the AI can’t reply, but then you tell it’s the answer. And then next time when you ask it to respond with the good answer. So that is one of the three types of AI, I mean, machine learning. The first one is, you just, you give the answer. You said, this is a tomato. You give a picture of a tomato and you also tell it, this is a tomato. So when someone asks, it will say, this is a tomato. The other model is you give a picture of a tomato, you don’t say anything. And then it will tell you, okay, this is a tomato based on what it has got on the internet. The other way is you give it a picture of a tomato. It tells you it’s an orange. You say, no, this is not an orange, this is a tomato. It’s going to save the new data next time when you ask to be more accurate. And this is actually the best way of learning. The same as our children, like you tell, no, this is not good. So next time it knows, if I go this way, I may fall, this is not good. So next time it’s going to do it the proper way. So that’s the same thing with AI. And when it comes to multiple languages, it’s not the only way we can build strong AI models in our languages is by training it with the data we have. And so I really encourage us when in your usual life, when you want to do your work and you feel like you can do it in a non-English language, do it, it’s important. And we definitely will need at some point this various data.

Jesse Nathan Kalange: All right. Thank you. So Atanasis, you made a very good point. I’m interested in some part, but I will still come back to you later. Let me see if Aida is online and you can unmute. You see, with the AI perspective, it also starts from the literacy aspect of AI. We can feel that there is a gender disparities within the AI and also the multilingualism, whereby maybe some, most females can speak very good and well understand their local languages. But the fact that these tools cannot be connected to their languages so that they can navigate the use of AI, so it becomes very dividing when we are talking about AI. If Aida is there, maybe you can ask me, what do you think that we can do to close the gender disparity when it comes to the multilingualism and the use of AI? If Aida is not, maybe Clary can talk on that for us because I know Internet Society also promotes gender equality and that. Thank you.

Claire van Zwieten: Absolutely. I don’t think Aida is able to speak, so I’ll speak on her behalf. But the Internet Society is deeply committed to bridging the digital divide and including women in the Internet space is a huge part of that. So we really are committed to making sure that women have access to trainings and they’re able to gain all of the opportunities of the Internet the same way. And a lot of that has to do with making sure that women have access to training, women have access to mentorship. There are a lot of studies that show that women who go into technical fields but don’t have a mentor are less likely to complete whatever training they’re doing and less likely to succeed in that field. So I think it’s one of the issues that kind of piles on each other. So we need women in ICT and we need… So they can mentor the younger fellows who are coming in and need a woman to help guide them through that process because it is different to be in a male-dominated field. like the technical community tech really is. And something else I want to mention that you mentioned before is that AI is great for the digital divide because it helps bring some people up but it also very deepens it. Because if you’re in an area where your language is not represented on the internet, largely because you don’t have like very good access in your area, you’re not going to be able to use the benefits of AI either. So it compounds on itself very quickly, just as the issue of women in ICT does. And women do bring a lot of value and perspective to the field that is very necessary to keep it moving forward. And I look forward to even more organizations beyond just the Internet Society and PAIAG working to bring more women into the field.

Jesse Nathan Kalange: Okay, all right, thank you very much. And PAIAG, we also promote gender equality. So we make sure that the selection of people to learn about this new language models and multilingualism, we try as much as possible to get more people. As I mentioned that Rwanda as a country has done a policy AI chat whereby people can get information on that. Now, as I said, to get back to you on that, and also as an engineer, because there are some also technical stuff I need to ask you so that we all learn. I want to go back to my people because it’s an engagement we are doing with them. Do you think that, what has your country been able to do to develop maybe AI in terms of AI and multilingualism content? Has your government or your country been able to develop something out that you think that may be the future? Because I quite remember on the Arabic side, I was hearing that there are some training models that they’ve been trained on data set. But is it for the government? Can someone share insight on the perspective country then we can come back to discussion. see what can be done, as Clary was mentioning, that beyond PAIAGEN, ISOC, we can get other organizations to onboard. So if anyone has a contribution or question on what their government has been done, yeah, in terms of multilingualism.

Audience: Yeah, hi, everyone. My name is Vlad Ivanets. I’m the Youth Ambassador of this year of the Internet Society. And I’d like to share my experience, because I’m originally from Russia. And I know that we have the local company, which is quite big, like the big tech company, Yandex, which is also working on the LLM model. And it is quite popular, I would say, probably not only in Russia, but also beyond the country. And they really work hard on creating the competitive system. But they actually have some problems they’re encountering right now. And they said the internet lacking enough resources on the exotic languages, as they call it. And they’re really worried that they will not be able to create the sufficient tool for the AI tool that will be based on these languages. And actually, they also say that they’re running out of Russian resources. And it applies mostly to the high-level resources, because, yes, you can find a lot of information online. But is it qualitative enough? Can you really use it to build an effective model based on this? So they’re doubting this. And I think this is the question that should be addressed as well and discussed among us. How can we encourage the local communities to produce better quality of the text? And how we can empower them just to use AI systems and not be afraid of using it on their own local language. Yeah.

Jesse Nathan Kalange: All right. Thank you very much. Very nice question, because that was the next question that was coming. coming to also delve much into in terms of the culture, the dialects and other aspects related to AI. As someone is saying that I greeted AI in Swahili but the response is not as much as expected. So we see that the AI languages, because it has not been trained in Swahili, the culture and the dialects and the modalities within that kind of languages is being changed. And as my fellow ambassador is also saying that in terms of losing the quality of data, because we believe that the communities have a lot of local content they can produce. But what I also see is that we see a lot of disconnecting, disconnection between the rural people and how they can bring that down because people are not also connected. They don’t have internet access, they don’t have access to mobile. So the content creation in local language is also limited. And we can also look into that. Can I also have any other perspective in terms of some countries which are doing a work like how Rwanda is doing in terms of policy aspects where people are giving, and the government is supporting AI Muslim realism or promoting local contents through AI. Is it some innovations that the youth have been able to broaden? We can move it to the next question for our speakers. Okay. Yeah, Clary has something to share. Yeah, all right, Clary.

Claire van Zwieten: I’m based in Amsterdam, but I don’t sound like it because I spent most of my life in the United States. And there has been some amazing work done by the Navajo tribe, which is a tribe indigenous to the United States. And their language is disappearing. As new generations are growing up, they’re not learning Navajo the same way their parents or grandparents did. So there has been a huge push among young people in the region to make sure that their language is protected. through AI. So they’re helping feed learned language models through the documents and the text that they have to make sure that people who are learning Navajo in school are able to use ChatGBT in Navajo when they want to ask about their assignments or if they want to know something about their cultural history they’re able to ask it in their native language. So and because of that I mean language is so intrinsically connected to culture. So when you lose so much of your language you end up losing your culture in parts as well. So I give a lot of credit to the Navajo Nation and the work of their young folks in making sure that their language is protected as generations go on and the schools in that neighborhood no longer teach that language. So that is one example of a community around the world that’s using AI to make sure their language is not only preserved but is usable and has effective use in the coming centuries as it’s probably going to happen that their schools no longer teach it.

Jesse Nathan Kalange: Okay all right Clary. Let me come back to Atanasi. You mentioned that even in software engineering you see that the data that we feed in AI is not that much in terms of multilingualism and also the sources that we get those data, quality of data as such. Even the language model in terms of developing local content on AI models, do you think that there is an open source software that has allowed that we can have that multilingualism in that in terms of development from your perspective?

Athanase Bahizire: Thank you so much. Very good question. Actually it’s very quick. You know what, these big AI models we know they are developed in California. So what do you expect someone who is developing this system in California to put pigeon? How? So the idea here is innovation and the only way we can innovate is by being building our own systems. Yeah. Many of these, uh, basic, uh, source codes are open. So Slack, open AI at the basis, it was open source. There is, uh, at the Emirates in Dubai, one research, uh, university is working on AI, if I recall, FA is like for us, I don’t recall the name in Arabic, but so basically what’s the trying to do is to build a strong, uh, because at least they’ve got enough, uh, enough data in Arabic, but then they try to build a strong AI model that is first based in Arabic. Now it’s, uh, it has English. It has some other languages, but it was first, uh, based in Arabic. So you see it’s promoting their own perspective. So what I can see if we want multilingualism, it’s all about innovation. We need to build our own systems. And, uh, we have many of, uh, these resources like education in the past, it was all about going to big universities and, uh, you know, lending all these big opportunities, but now through the internet, as, uh, uh, Claire was saying the internet is an enabling tool and through the internet, we can learn some of these things, many of the software engineers you see today, they will tell you, uh, 90% of their skills, they didn’t learn it in university. So that is it. The internet is enabling us to do wonders. And so I can encourage, if you feel like you’re interested in one of these fields, you, you’ll find resources on the internet, Google on, you can start. There are many open source, uh, even Gemini, the previous Google has a level that is open source that you can take and build on something. We have a Congolese boy who tried to build on Gemini, a certain model that, okay, um, in our country, the traffic can be. terrible. So he’s trying to see building on Gemini. So he doesn’t really build the data set by himself, but is building on the open source AI to take it on our own traffic now and try to see if we can find solutions to you know, solve that particular problem. And it can happen. I’m hopeful that by the two or three years, he will be able to come up with a strong solution. So that is one example, some of the examples of the people are trying to leverage the open source resources. Another thing I could say is innovation is something it’s there is also this culture of loving what you do. I’ve seen a lady who studied economics in university, went to an MBA, but at some point, I was asking her advices in code. She decided to start coding and now she’s very good. She’s very good. And, and at some point, learning a new language, and I’m like, Oh, she knows this very well. It’s not like she studied curriculum in in tech, but she got access to, you know, different resources. And now she’s good at it. And she can do great. So I’m encouraging people, if you feel like you have the interest, you do what you can, and make sure you document your local perspectives, because that will really help in this inclusion in this diversification. There is one thing maybe when we talk about multilanguage IDN, we call it technically IDN. It’s non Latin scripts on internet. Just a quick example, when you get on your email, on your email inbox, an email that is studying, I don’t know, maybe let’s say in Amharic, a certain, it’s a name, arts, another script in Amharic dot something, you will definitely, when you see it, you will feel like it’s a spam. First thing you’d be like, hmm, what script is this one? You’d be like, no, this is a spam. But we are talking about multi-language. So that these other, we now have domain names that are in Arabic, in Russian, like even the Russian TLDs, they have a version that, RU, they have a version in Russian. The same in many other countries. In Egypt, they have one in Arabic. We have some other one in Chinese. So sometimes when it comes also to multi-language, it’s also about accommodating scripts that are non-English. And this technically, technically speaking, it’s a challenge to developers. So if many of the developers, that if you don’t really increase the budgets to accommodate this, they feel like it’s an extra work. So there is this spirit of wanting to go global. You see, I have an e-governance platform I’m developing, and you want people to apply for visas in Guinea or in Djibouti. Doesn’t you speak English or you use Latin scripts, but someone who is using non-Latin script, this start from left to right. So you’ve seen the email instead of, let’s say, athanas at gmail.com, it should be .com, gmail at athanas. And technically it’s possible, they do exist. But then for me as a developer, I need an extra layer of work to accommodate this kind of emails, of addresses on my platform. But when I have. of an ambition to go global. I can say, I was talking about the e-governance. Some people will come to apply for visa to go to G-booking, but your platform only accommodates scripts that are in English, they call the Latin script. Then someone who is from Bangladesh and is coming with, I don’t know, Bengali script, how will he apply? His email is just in that specific script. How would he apply, use your system? Because he can’t even log in, because he needs to have a different email. But when you want to go global, you will be accommodating this kind of technology. You say, maybe now we don’t have many users who are not from our country, but we expect in the next years, we’ll be having more people. So you design your systems with this inclusion in mind, that will really help us to get to the level of multi-language that we want to be to. Back to you, Fifi.

Jesse Nathan Kalange: Okay, all right. Thank you, Atanas. Before, you were saying that AI, and also Clary mentioned, without regulation from the prospective government, AI cannot be allowed to work functionally as how it’s supposed to work in every country, in terms of the multilingual promotion. Let me come to my people. If anyone have a question so far, then we’ll just wrap up with the last questions and answers to talk about in terms of AI regulation, then we will just wrap up with a session. Do we have any question online or in the room? Okay. Okay.

Audience: Well, I believe that to improve the language equity involves addressing different parts of the… representation of it. So, I grabbed here some points. Excuse me, can you mention your name and your… Sorry? Can you mention your name? I’m Kenli, Kenli Kosa from Mozambique. Okay, alright, thank you. So, I believe that to promote this language equity, I have some points here that I grabbed that could actually help to have this kind of, all the cultural languages to be involved in this. So, I have here, by promoting multilingualism, which is encourage the learning and use of multiple languages in school and communities. I have here, actually, in case language access, which is ensure that the public services provide materials and support multiple languages. I have one more here, which is increase the representation of it. That is to promote diversity in language and representation in literatures, media, and in academia. So, with these points, I believe that they can bring the language equity for all of us around the world.

Jesse Nathan Kalange: Alright, do you have any questions too? Yeah. Clary, do you want to say something?

Claire van Zwieten: Yes, I just want to share that I really like that point that the audience member posed, because representation is such a big part of this, and when you have a group of people who are building a model that is supposed to be for the whole world to use, it is still being created in the context of the model builder’s culture and language. So, when we don’t have people building models from their cultural and linguistic perspective, that means they’re always going to be adapting to the other side. So, as we’re talking about us adapting to different addresses, such as Amharic, and the way that they would be reading differently, it’s important to recognize how long they have been adjusting to us. So, I just want to take a second to highlight that there are many people in the global minority, or the global majority, who are not able to use these systems the way they would like because it wasn’t developed in their context. And that requires way more representation in academia, way more representation in the technical fields, so we have more cultures and more languages involved in creating these kinds of models. Thank you.

Jesse Nathan Kalange: Any questions again? Okay. We have two people there. So from Abineth, then we’ll go to Marion. Okay.

Audience: Thank you so much. My name is Abineth Sentayo from Ethiopia. So the session title, it says, AI for Multilingual Inclusion is Mostly Essential and Inspirational for a Country like Ethiopia because Ethiopia has more than 80 nations nationally live together and also more than 80 nations, 80 languages spoken in that area. So my question is that within 80 languages, more than 80 languages, there is minority-speaking language and also the majority-speaking language will be found in that place. So within the context of internet governance, internet governance, promoting digital equity means ensuring different ethnic and linguistic groups are not left behind technological advances. So my question is that how can AI drive to be tailored to support just particularly for undeserved or minority-language speakers? Thank you.

Jesse Nathan Kalange: Okay. So Clary, then Atanasi, are you going to answer this one? So let me just also add on top of it. It’s a very good question asking because for Clary mentioned that internet society is currently focused on Spanish, Arabic, English, then French. So… These are, when you take maybe, let’s say, central of Africa, we could see that we have about five or more countries who speak French. When you come to West Africa, let’s say, my country Ghana, Nigeria, other countries also speak English. When you go to the North Africa, Egypt, Libya, and other Morocco, they speak Arabic. So they are very OK with that. Within East Africa, Swahili is very dominating among Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, Rwanda, and stuff. But even in Uganda, what I have experienced is that it’s not that kind of basic language on there. They also have their own language. Now, Ethiopia is part of East Africa, but they also have their own language that they are speaking. Now, we are focusing in terms of, when we group Arabic, French, Portuguese from Mozambique, Sao Tome, Angola, Cabo Verde, they are speaking Portuguese, but sometimes it’s quite tricky and very different. These are grouped. So these are what he is classifying as major languages, because when you pick Spanish, you can get about five or more nationalities that speak Spanish. When we take off French, you can see even in Europe, Africa, other countries is there. When we take off English, it’s a very universal, common language everywhere. So we are working on that. But there are some countries which have different languages that they speak, apart from English, which is also a national language that most of them are speaking, which means that we are not considering that as an inclusion because it is a minor language. And most focus is getting people who can get about five to ten countries who speak this language. So he’s asking that, based on that inclusion that we are talking about. are we also going to look out for these minor languages, maybe let’s say one country is also, maybe about 2 million people in the country or 20 million people are speaking the same language, but it is a minor language because no other country is speaking the same thing. So you want to understand that inclusion. So Atenasi, you can go and then after that, Clary will also give the thoughts what Internet Society is also trying to do.

Athanase Bahizire: Thank you so much. Very good question, actually. I want to give you a perspective here. We have European countries like Slovenia, Romania and so on, who have a population of less than 5 million people, but their languages are on Google, on open AI and everything. And they have a strong foundation in their online presence. In the reverse, there are some countries, there are some languages like the Wolof, which is widely speaking more than one, more than three African countries. We have like the Hausa, is spoken in more than four countries. And we’ve like around 200 million people speaking the language. But if you’re talking about many language in the sense of the population, the population that speak Wolof may be bigger than the population that speak Romania, blah, blah, blah. So the idea is here is not only, it’s not really about the language itself, but it’s about how you document your own language. So that what I was saying again, I encourage you to document your languages. The other thing is after documentation, there is a connectivity. At some point Claire talked about it. There is a case in India. Like 10 years ago, they were at the same level as many of the African countries. But they’ve. got a solution, they have what they call a network of connectivity, fiber and other alternatives. So the country is interconnected, they have the infrastructure in place. And we have seen when the infrastructure is there, the connectivity is there, their e-commerce is very high, it’s very highly raising, their digital literacy. When you go to platforms, you go to YouTube, if you want to cook, among the ten videos you see, you find one. You go to online platforms that are not the big one. If you want a certain thing, you find one. So the mobile banking and mobile money is widely used there. Why? Because the connectivity was there. And then definitely they will document, they will do business, they will try to do the agricultural activity helped by the Internet, because the connectivity is there. So I believe connectivity is very important for us to, at some point, get this, because these applications are on the top of connectivity. We need to have connectivity. And what is the work of the Internet Society? Actually trying to empower communities and build community networks, whereby a community by their own, when they feel like marginalized, they don’t have the big ISPs, don’t find business there. They can build their own access to the Internet from their own. And by there, they will be able to leverage all the benefits that come with connectivity. So that is one of the things that when you have the connectivity, definitely you document your perspective. And when you document, we have the data and we can build AI models. We can build much more things.

Jesse Nathan Kalange: Okay. So, Clary, we are about to close, because we have four minutes. One minute or one and a half, you can take this. We’ve seen Internet Society as an international organization, which we have it in various countries. Looking at collaboration, Internet Society is doing their part. Now, can you give us an understanding? Because we have the government, industry, academia, who do research in terms of assets. And that’s why I was saying that there’s a country that they did their research to see that, let’s say, India, we have to connect them first. And when we connect them, they can create their content on their local languages or even other languages. Now, the government, industry, academia has a role to play. And we all understand that we cannot do that without innovations and stuff. What do you think that, in terms of collaboration, multilingual AI language development, what can we do? And you can share the perspective that all this organization, multistakeholder organization can do. And what’s Internet Society is doing to also support that? And what do you think that others can learn from that? Thank you very much.

Claire van Zwieten: Thank you. That’s a great question. And I would like to start by saying that, while we only cover the Arabic, Spanish, French, and English in our courses, we have over 100 global chapters around the world that are working with their local communities to try to solve their internet challenges, whether they have access or if there’s regulation that is harmful to the internet. They are able to do all of their work in their local language because of that local component to it. So while we are official for our trainings, it’s only those four, we really do, in our broader community, communicate in a much broader variance of languages. And, of course, multilingualism and AI will make the internet much more accessible to everyone. You can’t have AI without the internet. So we have amazing projects at the Internet Society which aim to connect the unconnected. We know that the remaining 2.8 billion are going to be the hardest to connect. So we’re doing the best we can and working with amazing partners around the world to connect those communities to the internet, help give them training so they can continue to maintain their internet. And then beyond that, we’re able to give them the skills to be able to communicate on the internet in their local language so there is greater representation. So it’s a process. And as one organization, we only do what we can, but we hope that with the power of our chapters, our lovely alumni like you two, people who are in our courses and our fellowships, and just our greater community are able to help support us in that mission of making sure that all communities are connected to the internet so they have the ability to use their local content online.

Jesse Nathan Kalange: Okay, all right, thank you. Does anyone have a question? So we are about to close, so they will say their final words. And Atenase, in your final words, just one and a half minutes, you can also highlight on what we can do to improve AI development and research in terms of collaborating to advance AI in multilingualism. Then we’ll just, okay, yeah.

Audience: Okay, should I present myself again? This is Grace from Cameroon. Okay, as an ambassador for PAIAC, I have a question. Atenase mentioned about we document our languages. Can you explain how can we do it? Like, okay, from Cameroon, how can I help my fellow, or how can I help my, yes, the young people to understand that, okay, we need to gather our document. What should they do concretely to gather those documents?

Athanase Bahizire: Okay, thank you so much. Very good. Quickly, we’ve been having in the past libraries, or easily what you can do like, let’s say personally, do you know your grandfather? Do you know their father and something? But if you reach out to some of your family, you can be able to gather specific data about your lineage or your lineage from, I don’t know, some generations. And you know, that is a valuable data you can’t find anywhere else. So you’ll be able to generate a certain information that nobody else can find in the world. And definitely your grandchildren, they’ll find it as a resource, you’ll get it. So there are other solutions. We have, we used to have our traditional musics. Most of the time during weddings, you see people singing all these musics, but now we are getting to, we are tending to forget all of them. But if you find, you have them, you can say, I’m collectioning, I have a collection of old music, I’m going to have them. And you can upload it on a certain streaming platform. That would be data that would be, people will be able to leverage on. And when people will be wanting to learn later on, they can build on that one. So we don’t have time. I think if you need some more information from,

Audience: I’m sorry, I’m skipping, so we have some grants. And I can tell you that there are some projects that are detailization of libraries. So you can take a look and you can, because you are not alone. There are many people on this. So, and sometimes the issue is that you don’t know what to do, or you know what to do, but you don’t have the funding to do it. So the Internet Society also helps you with this. So just for you to know that there are many people doing the same, trying to do that, and we can support you.

Athanase Bahizire: Okay. Yeah, thank you. So I was saying, yeah, if you want. you want to learn more definitely about Payag, about the Internet Society, or some of the technical questions, we can definitely meet later on after this session and discuss informally, because we don’t have time now. So my parting remark, I would say, when we want to build AI and inclusion, multi-language in AI, what we need is innovation, and innovation will come by creating our own solutions to our own problem, and trying to solve our own problems, actually, in using the digital technologies. Some of our countries are experiencing, I don’t know, flood or some other, like volcanoes in my country. And so there is a perspective that no one else have experienced. So you can also create a solution that no one else have created, that’s when innovation come into place too. Innovation is very important, and content creation and data collection. So we need to document, the internet is already there, we need to put on things. So document your expertise, document your life in a way that it can help the coming generation. Then there is one thing I was saying, we, this, there are challenges, but we need to be part of the solution. So there have been challenges when it comes to AI, when it comes to connectivity and all other aspects. So the only thing I can advise is let’s try to be part of the solution, to include our languages, part of the solution to make ethical and inclusive AI solutions.

Jesse Nathan Kalange: All right, thank you so much. Thank you, Atanasie, for that. And Clary, your final words, then we close.

Claire van Zwieten: My final words are, thank you so much for everyone coming to this session. The internet is for everybody. but not everybody has access. So I think it’s important that we have conversations like this on how we can use new and innovative tools to extend the reach of the internet and extend the accessibility of the internet. And I am so thankful to Asanase and Ibrahim Fifi Selby and being here and helping us guide through this conversation. And if you would like to hear more about how you can get more involved, I really encourage you to go to Alejandra who will raise her hand. There she is. And she can tell you more about our amazing empowerment programs which will train you to be the internet leaders of tomorrow, just like the two brilliant men who are on that podium.

Jesse Nathan Kalange: Okay. All right. Thank you, Clary. And thank you, wonderful people for joining. I have a gift for everyone so no one should leave. We have a gift for everyone for this section, joining this section. So our time is up and we thank you for joining. And we thank Alejandra for also supporting this program. If you have a final word, just 30 seconds, then we can all leave. And we appreciate you for joining. We are very happy for this conversation. Thank you. So just thank you.

Speaker 1: I want to say thank you to all of you. And this is an example of what we want to do at the Internet Society. We just give them tools, knowledge, some kind of like a program that it’s from six months or to a year. And that’s it. That’s what we do. The rest is coming from them. They are the stars. So that’s what I’m telling you now. We need you. So we are talking about multilinguism. We need people like you to go there to understand that if we don’t move and we don’t act right now, it doesn’t matter that we have like fundings, we have programs, we have support. At the end, your languages are going to die if you are not supporting them. So think about it. You need to put all the things that you have online, defend your languages and use all the tools that we have like A.I. to be sure that all these languages live and they have future for our kids on the future that we have. And as I said, everything is always depending on us. We are the power here and the internet needs us. So thank you so much. And thank you, the great speakers that we had. Please, a round of applause. Thank you.

Jesse Nathan Kalange: Then we are done. So I’ll just have a seat, then I will just give you is it Yeah, we’ll have a picture. So

Agreement Points

Importance of documenting local languages and content

Athanase Bahizire

Claire van Zwieten

Audience

Documenting local languages and content is crucial

AI can help preserve endangered languages

Encourage learning and use of multiple languages

All speakers emphasized the importance of documenting and preserving local languages and content to support multilingual AI development and cultural preservation.

Need for diverse language data in AI development

Athanase Bahizire

Claire van Zwieten

Audience

AI models need diverse language data to be inclusive

Limited representation of diverse languages in AI development

Lack of quality data in many languages

Speakers agreed that there is a significant need for diverse and high-quality language data to develop inclusive AI models that support multiple languages.

Importance of connectivity for multilingual content creation

Athanase Bahizire

Claire van Zwieten

Connectivity is key for communities to create online content

Internet Society’s role in connecting the unconnected

Both speakers highlighted the crucial role of internet connectivity in enabling communities to create and share content in their local languages.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the importance of local initiatives and solutions in addressing language diversity challenges in AI and internet development.

Athanase Bahizire

Claire van Zwieten

Need for innovation and local solutions

Support local chapters working in their languages

Both the speaker and audience members stressed the importance of empowering diverse groups, particularly youth, to participate in internet governance and development.

Claire van Zwieten

Audience

Empowering youth to be future internet leaders

Increase diversity in language representation

Unexpected Consensus

Technical challenges in accommodating non-Latin scripts

Athanase Bahizire

Audience

Technical challenges in accommodating non-Latin scripts

Current AI tools struggle with many local languages

There was an unexpected consensus on the specific technical challenges faced in accommodating non-Latin scripts and local languages in AI tools and internet systems, highlighting a shared understanding of the complexities involved in multilingual AI development.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement centered around the importance of documenting and preserving local languages, the need for diverse language data in AI development, and the crucial role of connectivity in enabling multilingual content creation.

Consensus level

There was a high level of consensus among the speakers on the fundamental challenges and necessary steps for promoting multilingual inclusion in AI and internet development. This strong agreement suggests a shared understanding of the issues and potential solutions, which could facilitate collaborative efforts in addressing language diversity challenges in the digital space.

Different Viewpoints

Approach to language documentation

Athanase Bahizire

Claire van Zwieten

Documenting local languages and content is crucial

AI can help preserve endangered languages

While both speakers emphasize the importance of language preservation, Athanase focuses on community-driven documentation efforts, while Claire highlights the role of AI in language preservation.

Unexpected Differences

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement were subtle and centered around the approach to language documentation and preservation, as well as the emphasis on local solutions versus institutional support.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among the speakers was relatively low. Most speakers shared similar goals and perspectives on the importance of multilingual inclusion in AI and internet governance. The differences were mainly in the specific approaches and areas of emphasis, which could potentially lead to complementary rather than conflicting strategies for addressing the challenges of multilingual AI development and internet inclusion.

Partial Agreements

Both speakers agree on the need for multilingual inclusion, but Athanase emphasizes local innovation and solutions, while Claire focuses on the Internet Society’s existing programs and support.

Athanase Bahizire

Claire van Zwieten

Need for innovation and local solutions

Internet Society promotes multilingualism in its programs

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the importance of local initiatives and solutions in addressing language diversity challenges in AI and internet development.

Athanase Bahizire

Claire van Zwieten

Need for innovation and local solutions

Support local chapters working in their languages

Both the speaker and audience members stressed the importance of empowering diverse groups, particularly youth, to participate in internet governance and development.

Claire van Zwieten

Audience

Empowering youth to be future internet leaders

Increase diversity in language representation

Key Takeaways

AI models need diverse language data to be truly inclusive and multilingual

Documenting and creating online content in local languages is crucial for AI development

Connectivity and internet access are fundamental for communities to create and share local language content

AI can help preserve endangered languages if properly developed

There is a need for more diversity and representation in AI development to address language inequities

Innovation and local solutions are key to developing multilingual AI systems

A multi-stakeholder approach involving government, industry, and academia is necessary for advancing multilingual AI

Resolutions and Action Items

Encourage people to document their local languages and cultural heritage online

Support and participate in Internet Society programs to become future internet leaders

Leverage grants and funding opportunities for language preservation projects

Promote the learning and use of multiple languages in schools and communities

Increase representation of diverse languages in literature, media, and academia

Unresolved Issues

How to effectively support minority languages with small speaker populations in AI development

Addressing the technical challenges of accommodating non-Latin scripts in AI systems

Balancing the focus between major languages and less widely spoken languages in AI development

How to ensure consistent quality of language data for AI training across different languages

Suggested Compromises

Utilize open-source AI models as a foundation for developing localized language models

Focus on documenting and digitizing existing cultural and linguistic resources as a starting point

Collaborate with local communities and leverage community networks to improve connectivity and content creation

AI, basically we say AI artificial intelligence. Basically it’s the ability of the machine to mimic what the human brain can do, the task we can do. And we have seen a wide hype of AI now with the LLMs, the language models. And we think that AI is something that is just coming now, but we have been having AI systems from long ago, and they are still developing, they are still developing.

speaker

Athanase Bahizire

reason

This comment provides important context about AI, clarifying common misconceptions and grounding the discussion in a longer historical perspective.

impact

It shifted the conversation from viewing AI as a new phenomenon to understanding it as an evolving field, setting the stage for a more nuanced discussion about AI’s role in multilingualism.

For us to have AI models, we need to have data. It’s just like a human being, for you to start speaking, you need to listen. After listening, okay, you understand, you learn, then you can speak, then you can deliver. It’s the same with AI, it has to learn from the data and then deliver.

speaker

Athanase Bahizire

reason

This analogy effectively explains the fundamental concept of how AI models work, making it accessible to a general audience.

impact

It led to a deeper discussion about the importance of data in AI development, particularly in the context of multilingualism and local language preservation.

AI is great for the digital divide because it helps bring some people up but it also very deepens it. Because if you’re in an area where your language is not represented on the internet, largely because you don’t have like very good access in your area, you’re not going to be able to use the benefits of AI either.

speaker

Claire van Zwieten

reason

This comment highlights a critical paradox in AI development and its potential impact on linguistic diversity.

impact

It sparked a more critical examination of the potential downsides of AI in language preservation and representation, leading to discussions about the need for inclusive AI development.

There has been some amazing work done by the Navajo tribe, which is a tribe indigenous to the United States. And their language is disappearing. As new generations are growing up, they’re not learning Navajo the same way their parents or grandparents did. So there has been a huge push among young people in the region to make sure that their language is protected through AI.

speaker

Claire van Zwieten

reason

This example provides a concrete case study of how AI can be used for language preservation, making the discussion more tangible and practical.

impact

It inspired further discussion about practical applications of AI in preserving minority languages and cultural heritage.

We need to build our own systems. And, uh, we have many of, uh, these resources like education in the past, it was all about going to big universities and, uh, you know, lending all these big opportunities, but now through the internet, as, uh, uh, Claire was saying the internet is an enabling tool and through the internet, we can learn some of these things, many of the software engineers you see today, they will tell you, uh, 90% of their skills, they didn’t learn it in university.

speaker

Athanase Bahizire

reason

This comment emphasizes the importance of local innovation and self-reliance in developing AI systems for multilingualism, while also highlighting the democratizing power of the internet for education and skill development.

impact

It shifted the conversation towards discussing practical steps that individuals and communities can take to contribute to AI development for their languages, rather than relying solely on large tech companies or universities.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by providing a comprehensive overview of AI’s role in multilingualism, from its basic principles to its potential impacts and practical applications. The conversation evolved from a general introduction to AI to a nuanced exploration of its challenges and opportunities in preserving linguistic diversity. The speakers effectively balanced theoretical concepts with practical examples, encouraging participants to consider both the global implications of AI in language and the local actions they can take to contribute to inclusive AI development. This approach fostered a rich, multifaceted discussion that addressed both the technical and social aspects of AI in multilingual contexts.

How can we encourage local communities to produce better quality text content in their languages?

speaker

Vlad Ivanets

explanation

This is important for building effective AI language models for less common languages.

How can we empower local communities to use AI systems in their own languages without fear?

speaker

Vlad Ivanets

explanation

This is crucial for increasing adoption and usefulness of AI in diverse linguistic contexts.

How can AI be tailored to support underserved or minority-language speakers?

speaker

Abineth Sentayo

explanation

This is essential for ensuring digital equity and preventing linguistic minorities from being left behind in technological advances.

How can we concretely document our languages?

speaker

Grace from Cameroon

explanation

This is important for preserving linguistic heritage and providing data for AI language models.

Summary

This discussion focused on data governance and sharing in Africa, highlighting the challenges and opportunities presented by the continent’s digital transformation. The panel, comprising representatives from various African organizations, emphasized the importance of harmonizing data policies across the continent to facilitate economic growth and innovation.

Key points included the need for a balanced approach to data localization, recognizing both the importance of data sovereignty and the necessity of cross-border data flows for trade and development. Panelists stressed the importance of categorizing data to determine which types should be kept locally and which can be shared regionally or internationally.

The African Union’s Data Policy Framework was discussed as a guiding document for member states, though challenges in implementation were noted, including varying levels of digital readiness among countries. The need for stronger institutional frameworks at the continental level was emphasized to ensure consistent implementation of data governance policies.

Infrastructure challenges, including the lack of data centers and reliable energy sources, were identified as significant obstacles to data localization efforts. The panel also highlighted the importance of building local capacity in data management and analysis to fully leverage the potential of data for development.

The discussion touched on the need for a multi-stakeholder approach, involving both public and private sectors in developing data governance strategies. The importance of aligning data protection laws with trade agreements, particularly the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA), was stressed to avoid conflicts between data localization efforts and trade facilitation.

In conclusion, the panel agreed on the need for intentional, collaborative efforts to develop comprehensive national and regional data strategies that balance protection, innovation, and economic growth while addressing the unique challenges faced by African countries in the global digital economy.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– The importance of harmonizing data policies and governance across Africa

– Challenges of data localization and cross-border data flows

– The need for infrastructure development to support data governance

– Balancing national interests with continental vision for data

– Building capacity and empowering countries to implement data strategies

The overall purpose of the discussion was to explore how African countries can develop and implement effective data governance policies and frameworks to support digital transformation and economic growth across the continent.

The tone of the discussion was generally constructive and collaborative. Speakers acknowledged the challenges facing Africa in terms of data governance but remained optimistic about the potential benefits of improved data policies. There was a sense of urgency in addressing these issues, balanced with recognition that progress will take time and require cooperation between countries and stakeholders. The tone became more focused and solution-oriented towards the end as speakers offered specific recommendations and key takeaways.

Speakers

– Moderator: Session moderator

– Vincent Olatunji: Commissioner, Nigeria Data Protection Commission

– Paul Baker: International Economics Consulting Limited

– Souhila Amazouz: African Union Commission

– Thelma Quaye: Director of Digital infrastructure, skills and empowerment, Smart Africa

– Lillian Nalwoga: Affiliation not specified

Additional speakers:

– Levi Siansege: Internet Society, Zambia chapter and youth IGF

– Abdulmanam Ghalila: Telecom Regulator of Egypt

– Sorina Safa: UNEKA

– Dr. Martin Koyabe: GFC Africa

– Dereje Johannes: UNEKA

– Baratang Mia: Galhype Women Who Code

Data Governance and Sharing in Africa: Challenges and Opportunities

This discussion focused on the critical issue of data governance and sharing in Africa, exploring the challenges and opportunities presented by the continent’s ongoing digital transformation. The panel, comprising representatives from various African organisations, emphasised the importance of harmonising data policies across the continent to facilitate economic growth and innovation.

Key Themes and Discussion Points

1. Data Governance Frameworks and Policies

The African Union’s Data Policy Framework emerged as a central topic, with Souhila Amazouz from the African Union Commission (AUC) highlighting its aim to maximise data access and flows across the continent. The framework is built on principles of transparency, accountability, equity, and cooperation. Thelma Quaye from Smart Africa stressed the need for harmonisation of data policies at the continental level to align with this framework. Lillian Nalwoga emphasised the importance of developing intentional national data strategies and policies.

The discussion revealed that two-thirds of African countries have data protection legislation in place, with the Malabo Convention serving as a key instrument for data protection laws. However, audience members raised concerns about the challenge of aligning national interests with the continental vision on data governance. Paul Baker advocated for a practical approach to data localisation that doesn’t stifle business, highlighting the complex balance required in policy development.

2. Challenges in Data Governance

Several key challenges in data governance across Africa were identified:

– Lack of comprehensive legal frameworks in some countries

– Limited institutional capacity for implementing and enforcing data policies

– Inadequate data infrastructure and hosting capacity

– Cybersecurity threats

– Digital divide between urban and rural areas

– Data fragmentation at country and regional levels

3. Data Infrastructure and Localisation

The discussion revealed significant infrastructure challenges facing many African countries. Souhila Amazouz mentioned plans for regional data centres to improve infrastructure, demonstrating efforts to address this issue at a continental level.

The concept of data localisation sparked debate among the panellists. Thelma Quaye emphasised the need to balance data localisation with enabling cross-border data flows. Vincent Olatunji argued that full data localisation is not practical and called for data categorisation and classification. Paul Baker cautioned that data localisation policies can raise costs for businesses, highlighting the economic implications of such measures.

4. Cross-Border Data Flows and Trade

The importance of cross-border data flows, particularly in the context of implementing the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA), was a recurring theme. The moderator emphasised the crucial role of cross-border data flows in realising the AfCFTA’s objectives. Thelma Quaye stressed the need to align data protection laws with AfCFTA objectives to avoid potential conflicts.

Paul Baker highlighted the importance of cross-border data flows for Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) and trade. However, an audience member noted the current low demand for cross-border data flows due to manual systems still in use in many countries, pointing to the need for further digitalisation efforts.

5. Capacity Building and Implementation

The discussion underscored the critical need for capacity building in data governance across Africa. Souhila Amazouz emphasised the importance of building capacity among member states on data governance issues. The AUC is implementing the AU Data Policy Framework through:

– Organizing capacity building workshops

– Providing technical assistance to member states

– Working with the network of African data protection authorities

Vincent Olatunji stressed the importance of empowering data protection authorities to effectively implement and enforce data governance policies. The moderator stressed the importance of a multi-stakeholder and multi-sectoral approach to address these complex challenges effectively.

6. Trust and Collaboration

Speakers highlighted the importance of building trust between governments and businesses regarding data sharing. This includes ensuring transparency in data collection and use, as well as involving all stakeholders in policy development processes.

Key Takeaways and Unresolved Issues

The discussion yielded several key takeaways, including the importance of the AU Data Policy Framework, the need for harmonised policies that consider national interests, the crucial role of cross-border data flows for trade, and the necessity of capacity building in data governance.

Unresolved issues included finding the right balance between data localisation requirements and cross-border data flows, addressing the digital divide and infrastructure gaps across African countries, ensuring data quality and avoiding biases, aligning data protection laws with AfCFTA objectives, and financing data infrastructure and governance initiatives from both public and private sectors.

Future Considerations

Follow-up questions raised by participants highlighted additional areas for future consideration, including balancing data localisation with the promotion of African-owned platforms, managing data quality and preventing fake data, implementing the AU Data Policy Framework beyond policy domestication, addressing data fragmentation at the country level, avoiding data biases that perpetuate inequalities, and ensuring transparency in AI algorithms used for data processing.

In conclusion, the discussion revealed the complex challenges facing Africa in developing effective data governance strategies. While there was broad agreement on the need for harmonised policies and improved infrastructure, the path to implementation remains fraught with obstacles. The conversation underscored the importance of continued dialogue, capacity building, and collaborative efforts to navigate the intricate landscape of data governance in Africa’s digital transformation journey.

Moderator: Good morning, and sorry for that, we are going to start late this session. And let me check if we have all online, our online speaker. Shwela, are you online? Okay, you are here. And also, Vincent, Dr. Vincent. Yes, morning. Morning, morning, good morning, and sorry for this delay. Before we start now this session, I think it is a very important session why you are here today. When you discuss about data sharing, governance of data in the continent is a very important way. You know, the digital market is estimated to $180 billion by 2025, a lot of coming from data. And we have seen since the development of AI, data can provide a lot of opportunity in the continent, improve the economic growth for data, the growth of economy. Also, the issue of reliability is very important for data in the continent. But we can face some challenges in the African continent to take opportunity of this data generation. The key challenge are the issue of policy. Because several countries, all countries have several policies. We need to harmonize this policy at the continental level. And why AUC come with this AU data framework strategy? To guide the African data market. It is a very important strategy at the continental level. Second, we have issue of infrastructure. Digital infrastructure is a key challenge for data development in the continent. Especially if you want to discuss about… And we have a digital gap, very big digital gap in the continent. And if you look at the world level, among the 20 countries, we have a weak digital skills, 12 are from Africa. Another point, challenge very important for the African continent, it is a regional collaboration. We lack on regional collaboration. We have several institutions working together, working in the continent, and also across the member states. And for that, we need this collaboration between member states. It’s very, very important. And at the world level, why we put this data governance working group, after the adoption of the Global Digital Compact. And in the Global Digital Compact, you have among the five objectives. One is to create a global digital partnership, and the other one is to create a global collaboration. And the other one is a very important is the governance of data. Why our discussion today, it will be, we’ll provide some key guidance for African country on how we can take benefits of this data generation. As we know, Africa will represent 40% of our youth population will be in the next generation, and we need to make sure that we have a good governance for this new generation, and also to create welfare for this new generation, and that I can help, of course, if we make in place a good governance of this data, as a continental level and at the world level. And today, I have distinguished speaker to talk about this. I have a very good panelist. I have a panelist, my distinguished panelist. I have Mrs. Suela from AUC, my sister, Dr. Vincent online, my other sister, Lilian, and my brother, Paul. I think all are here. We have a sister and brother, I think we are going to have a good discussion today. And I’m not going to ask you some difficult question. Now, let me start by Suela. As you know, we talk about a lot on harmonization of data policy at the continental level. Why AUC, in partnership with a key institution, developed this AU strategy data framework for the continent? Could you tell us the objective of this framework? And where we are now with the implementation of this framework at the continental level? Over to you. You have three minutes.

Souhila Amazouz: Thank you. Good morning. Do you hear me? Yes, yes. Yes, good morning, everybody. And thank you, moderator, for this important question. Indeed, the adoption of the AU data policy framework marks the political shows the political will of African countries to effectively use data to support digital transformation and also support the development agenda of the continent. So the framework aims to maximize data access and also data flows across the continent. We consider data as a strategic asset and valuable resources. And the framework, by its development, as you mentioned, it was comprehensive, forward-looking, and with participation of all stakeholders, it was participatory approach, considering the importance of data and also the multidimensional of data that requires participation and involvement of key stakeholders. So the framework itself, it put forward a vision for the continent on how to use data and also how to manage and regulate data that we can benefit from these resources, while at the same time putting the necessary safeguards to protect people and also to protect economies from the misuse of these resources. So, the principles guiding the data policy framework, they are around transparency, accountability, equity, and also cooperation, as cooperation is very important to ensure the development of a shared data ecosystem across the continent, and also facilitate data to flow within countries and also between countries. So, the framework could identify the strategic frameworks of the strategic priorities of the continent, namely, developing the necessary capacities and also at the same time, strengthening and harmonizing data governance across the continent, reaching a high level of convergence of data laws and regulations, and this in line with the Malibu Convention to ensure same level of protection of data across the continent, and also it aims to build the capacities of member states to develop their national data systems, to develop internal national data policies, and to consider data, as I said, strategic asset, to work beyond personal data, but to work data as like resources that is needed for development of digital economy, and also a resource that is needed for the development of artificial intelligence and other emerging technologies. So, the framework provide guidance to member states on how to organize the data governance ecosystem at national level, and also how to create value from data and to enable the creation of data market that will support that they will be integral part of the digital single market. When it comes to harmonization and what we aim to achieve and where are we from the adoption of the framework since 2022, so we went through organizing kind of capacity building to explain and to have the same understanding because we know one of the challenges of the fragmentation of data governance across the world. is like there is not like common understanding of the data governance. There is no, there is different approaches on data governance. From our side, following the adoption of the framework, we organized several workshops, both at national and regional levels, like for us to reach the same level of understanding in line with data policy framework, and also to lay the foundation for the development of integrated and also anti-operable data systems across the continent. The challenges when it comes to the harmonization of data policies or data governance across the continent is the fact that so far, the focus mainly is on personal data. We have only few countries that develop international data policies, and they are working on data governance, but the work is ongoing as we are providing technical assistance program with support of our partner, GIZ, and also as part of the Data Governance for Africa initiative, we are providing technical assistance to member states to develop their national data systems. There is also the issue of data storage capacity that also may prevent or may be an obstacle for data flows across the continent. And we also identify the need to empower and to incapacitate data protection authorities or commission, because like now the mandate goes beyond managing the personal data, but they need to be empowered and also they need to be incapacitate and also to enhance cooperation between the different data protection authorities across the continent. We are working with the network of African data protection authorities. And also, as you mentioned, we are working with all organizations and stakeholders. We are, as part of the program, we are also trying to build the capacity of regional economic communities that they can facilitate and also develop the necessary frameworks and the mechanism at the regional level. At continental level, as part of the implementation, because the… The EU Data Policy Framework provided guidance on how to facilitate and to enable data flows across the continent. As part of the recommendations, we are working on developing a mechanism to facilitate data flows across the continent and also to develop a kind of data categorization and sharing framework, and also to work on open data because, as you mentioned, we need to make data available for artificial intelligence and the two are linked. And also, at the same time, we need to work on incapacitating our member states, both at policy level, policy makers and also technical levels, but also to enable Africa to participate in the ongoing discussion on shaping the data governance across the world and this in line with the Global Digital Compact. It is what I can say, but I will be happy to answer any questions.

Moderator: Thank you very much. You highlighted several issues that are very important, but we are guided by two key frameworks in the continent. The first is the EU Digital Transformation 2020-2030, as well as the African Free Trade Area Continental Strategy. How will this data governance be fit in these two frameworks?

Souhila Amazouz: Thank you for this follow-up question. The Digital Transformation Strategy is the overall framework that is guiding the digital agenda of the continent and the data policy framework is aligned as part of the implementation of the Digital Transformation Strategy. We developed several strategic frameworks, including the data policy framework that addresses the aspects related to data, but the overall objective is to accelerate an inclusive and sustainable digital transformation across the continent.

Moderator: Okay, thank you very much. Let me come now to my sister Thelma. In the EU strategies, there is a lot of issue regarding to the… cross-border data flow. As Smart Africa, you cover around, I think, 37 member states now, 41, good progress, 41 member states covered by Smart Africa. And what role can regional organizations such as Smart Africa can play in addressing this challenge?

Thelma Quaye: Thank you very much. Can you hear me? Souhila Amazouz: has mentioned. And the first one she mentioned was on harmonization. And one key thing that the regional organizations can and should do is to move in the same direction when it comes to the regulations and the policies. And that’s why it’s very key that we are all aligned to the Africa Union data framework. You would find that a lot of regional economic communities, you know, like ECOWAS, is trying to create a regional harmonized data framework. But it’s important that whatever work is being done in ECOWAS, whatever is being done in SADC, whatever is being done in EAC, is aligned to the, you know, the Pan-African framework. That is the only way we can move in one direction with regards to the policies that are fragmented and the rest. Now, the other thing is the infrastructure. About two years ago, Smart Africa did a listening tour. We went around our countries to see the state of data infrastructure. And what we found out was that there was a lack of trust between governments and businesses. Governments think that most of these businesses are in to harvest data for their own benefit. And so what a regional organization like Smart Africa can do is to foster or, you know, start that sort of trust currency, create that trust currency by ensuring that countries, beyond the regulations and policies, countries have the same understanding of what is a security threshold, for instance. What do I mean by that? Let’s say if Rwanda and Uganda needed to share data, they need to understand that they have the same policies or the same understanding of security. They have the same tolerance of data privacy so that they are able to create that trust. But we also need to look at it from an economic point of view, meaning when we are creating these regulations and policies, we need to think of it like, let’s say if an MTN came to Africa, would it be economically attractive for an MTN to deal with 50 plus policies? No. And that’s why we also were looking at doing, setting up regional data centers where we try and bring, we put cloud technology on different data centers across different countries so that we aggregate that space. Because of the trust, by the way, that I started with, these governments, everybody is trying, every government is trying to create a data center. But those data centers have very low utilization. That’s a lot of costs that we don’t need to spend. And so to encourage that trust is, from the infrastructure point of view, is to build this cloud technology on top of the various data centers across, we chose four countries, where these countries would sort of share. share a similar infrastructure, leveraging cloud technology, and thereby attracting multinationals to come in. And then the government also, in addition to making it easier for the multinationals, the government also have that confidence that they know where their data is and their data is not being extracted. One more thing that I want to add is that as regional organizations, beyond supporting countries, beyond creating frameworks and regulations and policies and all these data centers, we also need to be aligned amongst ourselves. We need to understand that there’s only one Africa. And we need to understand that the only reason why we exist as regional organizations is the African citizen. And so there needs to be what I call co-petition. We need to cooperate. We need to work together. We need to harmonize whatever it is that we are doing so that there’s no duplication of efforts. You realize that a lot of organizations are doing the same thing, which we could be more efficient if we came together, to even if we are doing the same things, to split the regions, for instance, or to share the responsibilities within the value chain. I think that’s something that we, as regional organizations, also need to do. In terms of the technical things or the technical implementations, it’s not lost on us. It’s the how. So if we’re able to coordinate properly, we will be able to move forward. Thank you.

Moderator: Thank you very much. All regional institutions should work together to avoid duplication for the interest of the continent. When we come to implement this AU Digital Transformation Strategy, now we have a picture of the regional… on the continental level with AUC and Smart Africa, they are also as an organization working on data, and we need to harmonize all this effort to come up with one strategy for the continent. Now, let’s see how we can implement now at the national level. The challenge faced by the country, we can get some example from Dr. Vaison, how do national data policy impact economic growth, trade, innovation, and digital transformation? As you know, data is a key tool to promote innovation in the continent. Dr. Vainsent, you have the floor.

Vincent Olatunji: Thank you very much. Good morning, and thank you for inviting me to be part of this panel. I think what we’re talking about now is really important, but more importantly that nearly everything we do in the digital world now depends on data. As we say, data is a new world, it’s the life and blood of human beings. So everything we do now depends on data. So it is really important for us as a continent to put in place appropriate strategies to harmonize data and have a continental approach to whatever we want to do in the area of the usage of data. However, we must restrain from just using data loosely. We need to properly identify the type of data we are talking about. Is it for planning? Is it for policies? Or is it for the areas of privacy or protection, or the dignity of human beings, or the rights of citizens, or their freedom or their interests? These are things that we need to take into proper context. Because if we are talking about personal data, we’ve really done a lot in Africa. For instance, out of 34 countries, 37 currently have their laws. I mean, 47 currently have their laws, and about 17 still thinking of what to do in the area of developing appropriate laws to ensure that there’s protection of privacy of individuals. Now, looking at the way we live and work globally now, there is virtually anything we can achieve in terms of economic growth, in terms of development, in terms of trade. Without proper harmonization of data, without putting in place appropriate policies to address such data, and without putting in place appropriate implementation framework and institutional framework to implement the data. Because it’s one thing for you to have the data. It’s a completely different thing for you to be able to properly administer it and make it work for you in a way that can add value to your economy, that can lead to economic growth. Now, for us to really tap from the benefit of data in the area of economic growth, we need to put in place appropriate policies. And I need to commend the African Union with what they have been doing with the African Union data framework. And also, in the area of personal data, the Malabo Convention, which actually led to, which was actually a turning point for instituting data protection laws across the continent. And as I said before, that now a lot of countries have their personal data, which allows us to speak to confidence and trust in their economies. That people, foreigners, foreign investors coming to Africa to invest, they know that, yes, when they share their data with you, the appropriate policies, appropriate laws, appropriate institutions that guarantee that, yes, whatever information they’re sharing with you is safe and secure. To that extent, that actually has led to growth in our economy. I swear, those countries that have existing laws. When you talk of trade, we are talking of Africa-continental free trade agreements, which is, the whole idea is only about having a cobbled, unified, digital. trade regime in Africa. This cannot happen without data, because this will definitely lead to e-commerce. I agree to cross-border transfer of data from one country to another to enhance trade and commerce. And if we don’t really have that, that’s where we can make progress. And with what has been done under AFRICTA, I’m sure by the time we really come together for proper implementation, I’m sure we will need to benefit from the inherent potentials in data modernization and proper implementation of data policies across the continent. In the area of innovation, you look at what is happening in the start-up ecosystem in Africa. They are really growing at a really unprecedented rate. Yes, it’s too slow as compared to other countries. For instance, the number of unicorns we have in Africa, they celebrate seven. As compared to the likes of the US, that’s seven over 600, India over 100. So we still have a lot of work to do. And the only way we can do, the only thing we can do is to enhance that we have appropriate policies that can drive data. More importantly, data of emerging technologies. We are talking of blockchain, talking of artificial intelligence, talking of Internet of Things, talking of big data and so on. All this is, what will drive them is data. So if we don’t have appropriate framework to do this, we won’t be able to achieve anything. However, the story is getting better. It’s better than what it used to be. It’s saying that the whole world, let me say, is really focusing on the start-up ecosystem in Africa to support them in terms of funding, in terms of support, in terms of a lot of strategies that we put in place to enhance innovation. That is why the digital economy in Africa is now growing very fast and we are trying to, we are really benefiting a lot from it. Now going to digital transformation. For any government to be fully transformed or to be fully digitalized, we can’t achieve it without appropriate data. that will speak to who we are, where we are, and where we want to get to. Then what kind of technological measures can we put in place to be able to achieve the vision that we have set for ourselves? This cannot happen without appropriate policies. This cannot happen without appropriate frameworks. This cannot happen without appropriate guidelines. Now you talk of EAs, you talk of education, so you can sit in the comfort of your room. We wanted to look at what happened with COVID. A lot of schools, they went under during COVID. And I keep telling people that, yes, we still despite all the challenges that came with COVID, there are still some areas that we say, OK, I actually encourage that. Because now, we now have a lot of schools deploying digital technologies for education. And even people working from home, the area of where you believe strictly you bring the borders as offices is gone. Now, you can say online, do your trading, trade innovations, and a lot of things are coming up. And I’m sure with all of us working together and putting in place appropriate institutional framework to drive what is happening in the EU, we will try to achieve and derive benefits from data. Thank you.

Moderator: Thank you very much for your intervention. I think you highlight something very important. Without data, we can’t achieve digital transformation. Let me get the view from Lillian in the context of the East African and at the national level in Uganda. Lillian, the floor is to you. Thank you, Mbatha.

Lillian Nalwoga: Good morning, everyone. I think the impact has been partially mentioned and what needs to be done. But what I wanted to throw more light on the digital policies that we are seeing coming up and the issue of data localization, where we are seeing that in several African countries, not just Uganda or East Africa, Rwanda, across the border, we are seeing many countries that are putting in an element of data localization in their data protection laws. And this can have a very negative impact, especially where we are looking at utilizing data we are seeing their economic costs. It’s most likely to increase the cost of doing business. As my colleague here from Smart Africa mentioned, the issue of setting up data centers. So if you’re looking at countries, say in Rwanda, which I think has a clause in their data protection law on data localization, pushing for having individual country data center, you come to Uganda, we also want to have our data locally hosted. It’s going to increase the cost of doing business. And if we are looking at promoting or advancing digital transformation, you’ll find that other aspects are not going to be, it will hinder cross data flow across the different countries. So that is one of the other negative impacts. But also what we are seeing that among the policies and the possible impact of pushing for data localization is the issue of privacy undermining. I think the previous speaker mentioned about a few countries about I think 47 having data protection laws. Some of these are still at in fact implementation. So when you push for things like policies that are advancing localization of data, you’re going to cut out a few of these other countries. And also this is going to impact the other continental level as pushing for the Africa Union Data Policy. You’ll find that you have a few countries moving forward and others being constant. We conducted, my organization, I work with CPSR, we’ve been documenting impacts of, we did an analysis of the AU data policy. We also did a several, an analysis on which way for data localization. And we are finding that where this is happening, there’s really a negative impact in terms of privacy violations. We have a few countries that much as they have the data protection laws, they are still struggling to have data protection offices set up and they are very much in the infant stage. I think the most active ones we are seeing is Ghana, South Africa, Uganda, Kenya just recently. There’s still a lot that needs to be done when we are talking about promoting, utilizing data policies and actual implementation. So I think I can say that at the implementation level. So probably I’ll come into the recommendations later.

Moderator: Thank you very much for that. Let me go, because we are running out of time now. Africa is a specific continent. We have 90% of our economy informal. And we listen some challenge on data localization, how data localization policy affects small business in Africa in view in the implementation is the African free trade area. Thank you.

Paul Baker: Thank you, Moctar for the question. So just to say that, yes, data localization policies have their benefits in terms of trying to promote more confidence in the security of personal data and privacy requirements. But we also have to consider indeed the implementation of these policies and actually is data more secure in your own jurisdiction than it is in other jurisdictions. So, you know, the consideration of really what is the feasibility of enforcing strong data policies in different countries is questionable anyway. For MSMEs, this is obviously it means raising the cost of accessing services that might be cheaper elsewhere. That’s the whole point of international trade is to be able to access a more variety of choices, but also potentially more sophisticated choices. Some that are less subject to cyber threats. It’s not clear yet whether many countries actually have the systems in place to be able to combat these kind of risks and threats. And, you know, for businesses, we have to understand that it’s true that there are opportunities for local businesses to develop cloud computing services. The commercial value and the returns on cloud storage is quite low in general. This is not where the main benefits come from. It comes from more the analytical tools that can be juxtaposed on these cloud computing centers. And so, are we also having a strategy to try and develop those kind of services? And I don’t believe at the moment that there is that foresight. We’re looking very much at the more the infrastructural development and looking at the actual cloud storage facilities rather than looking at the analytical tools. And again, on the analytical tools, if we look at the technology and sophistication of some tools that are available globally, it’s going to be very hard to match those. And so, accessing those for MSMEs is also considered critical. The AFCFTA digital trade protocol, of course, does try and promote cross-border transfers of data. They do not encourage data localization. And it’s trying to promote that free flow of trade. There is the moratorium on any types of duties on electronic transactions as well amongst the members of the AFCFTA. So, we see that trade agreements can advance, I think, more free flow of trade. Generally, the trade agreements are not prescriptive in terms of what should be the national regulations, but it’s just the principles and the boundaries of what those national legislations should contain. So, for example, the right of data subjects to be able to be forgotten or the consent for being registered on different systems. These are normally incorporated as provisions in a trade agreement, but they don’t tell you how you must do it as long as you’ve got a system in place that we have confidence in. That’s normally sufficient to be able to meet the standards of the trade agreements. And the same will be with the AFCFTA. So, the AFCFTA sets those general framework requirements, just as the African Union Data Harmonization Strategy also has. But it doesn’t actually incorporate the requirements of what each country must do. And just one last thing is that, of course, trade agreements promote equivalence and recognition of different standards. And that’s quite critical for businesses to be able to access other markets as well.

Moderator: Thank you very much. I think it’s a very important point you raised. We need to align with this digital trade protocol, this AU digital framework, as well as the AFCFTA when we would like to implement sound data policy at the national level. Let me go now to open the floor to the audience. I think it is a very important discussion we have now, and we learned a lot from our distinguished panelists. And data also, it is for everywhere, every day. We are using data day and night. Now, let me… Okay, you introduce yourself. Where are you coming from? Name and your institution. Let me start by this gentleman. Do you have a mobile here? Microphone, please. Okay.

Audience: Good morning. I’m Levi Siansege with Internet Society, Zambia chapter, but also with the youth IGF. I love the discussions about data. Let me start with this. And my observation is most of the platforms where we actually send our data as Africa are not owned or hosted in Africa, which raises then the question for me as we are talking about data policies from Africa when most of the data that we use, most of the platforms we use are actually not hosted in Africa. How do we balance the access aspect so that we create more room for data localization as well as promote increased access so that most of the infrastructure that we are talking about to allow for data to be localized are actually hosted in Africa? But also the second aspect of my question is how do we create an aspect where most of the platforms we use are developed and owned in Africa so that it makes more sense to host most of the data that we are pushing for localization to be actually owned and hosted within Africa? Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. This is Abdulmanam Ghalila working for the Telecom Regulator of Egypt. Actually, I like the words said by Suhaila about the policies and the regulation of the data. So the question is here. How could we? manage the data to be a good one rather than be a fake one. I think it will be works for the local community, for the local country, not for the regional organization or regional cooperation between countries. This is the first equation. Second equation is that, how could we change the mind, change the wheel to be from having the data to be secured locally on the continent? Third equation about, do we have an example of the regional cooperation regardless of the data? Thank you. Hello, good morning. My name is Sorina Safa from UNEKA. My question is, hello, Yes, please go ahead. Okay, my question is regarding the EU Data Policy Framework compared to the European Data Policy Framework. What did we learn? The European is the binding one and the African Union is a voluntary base. And as Lillian highlighted, having a policy or a guideline is a good one, but to make it a reality, there are so many things need to follow up. The African Union policy focus solely, mostly on localization and data sovereignty. As you can see, Levi has highlighted the digital divide, but also if we cannot even have a stable electricity grid in Africa, how do we make sure that this aspiration that we have become a reality? So harmonization is one thing, but cross-sectoral or cross collaboration is necessary. So my focus or my question to AUC Suheila is what is the implementation plan other than domesticating the EU Data Policy Framework on its own as a policy framework? Thank you. First of all, thank you so much for this particular session. My name is Dr. Martin Koyabe, GFC Africa. I’ve got two parts to my submission here. One is a prescription, and the other one is probably a question for the panel. What we see here, in my opinion, is what we call the mixed messaging in some levels. On one hand, if I’m seated here as a commissioner for data for a country, my responsibility will be to protect the data of my country as a sovereign entity. But then I’m being told, no, you’ve got to open your data so that we can be able to make sure that you do trade. And then someone also is saying, we don’t have the data in my country, it is hosted somewhere else. So what we need to do probably would be a layered harmonization, where if we talk of infrastructure, do we have it in terms of data centers? If we talk of the issues of implementation, do we have the top level domain names being used effectively? If we talk of awareness, are the levels that are supposed to be aware of what needs to be done? So I think for me, the messaging should be very clear in terms of harmonization. And then the second issue is also to look at the issues of infrastructure. If we talk about infrastructure and how we want to share infrastructure, are we building the infrastructure that is there to be able to deal with what we are talking about in terms of data harmonization or data localization at the national level? Thank you. Good morning. Hello. Are you hearing me? Yes, there is. Okay, thank you, Magdar. I am Dereje Johannes from UNEKA. So, my question is on the data governance challenges in Africa. Actually, it’s good to talk about data governance and its challenges in Africa. So, the issues like lack of comprehensive legal framework, limited institutional capacity, inadequate data infrastructure, cybersecurity threats, and digital divide are mentioned as one of the challenges of data governance in Africa. But for me, the most serious and the most, I mean, challenges that we should focus on is data fragmentation. So, my question is, do we really have a harmonized data at the country level, leave alone at the continent level? Because we know that data is often siloed across, you know, various institutions, making it difficult to integrate and utilize for decision making. So, we need to just, you know, bring even an institution in a single country to have a kind of really the same format so that we can use that data appropriately. So, the question is, do we really have that sort of, I mean, data harmonization in the country? And the second question is for Zohila, do the AU data governance, I mean, considers this issue? Thank you. Yes. So, I just wanted to chip in and say that we recently worked on a project as well on cross-border data flows in Africa. And we’re mainly looking at the inconsistency between the continental vision and what is happening at national level. So we looked at Nigeria, Senegal, and Mozambique as a case study. And one of our findings, of course, I think some of the panelists have already mentioned it, is that there is always that clash between national interests versus continental vision and the broader continental vision. And we need to have more discussion around how best can we align what is happening in our national governments and what is happening at the AU level. And I guess something that I also want to add to the conversation, which wasn’t mentioned, was the issue of data deficiencies and especially the low demand for cross-border data flows. So when we were doing this research, which actually found that a lot of African governments are operating manually and they’re using outdated systems and have unreliable data. And because of that, there is always that challenge of low demand for use of that data. And that also impact on how African countries and businesses are approaching this question of cross-border data sharing as well. And then just to add on as well, we already have a couple of African countries that have already started adopting and implementing the AU data policy framework. So there is room there for peer-to-peer learning from these African countries that are leading on national data strategies and they can share their experiences with others as well. So I’ll stop there. Thank you. My name is Baratang Mia from Galhype Women Who Code. So my question is based on what Melody said. And it’s like, how do we avoid selective data implications? Because at the moment we are perpetuating inequalities that are created by. data that’s very biased. At the moment, the people who have access to Internet are the same people who are holding the resources. Everything that they have, it’s excluding the marginalized. So how do we make sure that at the moment, the data that’s online that we have is not perpetuating the inequalities? Thank you. It is actually a comment rather than a question. To my colleague said here. Actually, he combined both the data and digital transformation projects. So in order to have communication between data and digital transformation project, there should be some kind of AI that processes data and have some decision or some outputs that could be processed by digital transformation project decision maker. Actually, how could I trust the books of AI or software of AI, who depends on some input and have some output, and I don’t know what are the algorithms used in order to extract this output from this input. This is one of the challenges. If we could overcome these challenges, I think we will go better for the data for Africa. Thank you.

Souhila Amazouz: Thank you. Now, let me, if there is no question in the room, I will go back to the panelists. There are a lot of questions for AUC. Let me start by Suela. Thank you. Do you hear me? Yes, I think maybe the majority of the questions, they are related to the data infrastructure and the data localization capacity of Africa as a continent, and also the capacity. or at national hosting capacity at national level. I think this is one of our challenges that is one of the common challenges for African countries. But just to say that we are aware about like the weaknesses and the deficiencies that we need to address and there is work in progress. So we cannot wait until we have everything in place that we can start talking about how to manage, regulate and effectively use the data that is being generated across the continent. So for instance, when it’s related to regional data centers, there is already three regional projects that have been selected by regional economy communities, like they are projects that are adopted, the whole region, they agreed on them to be regional data centers. And now there is the African Union Development Agency, which is the AODANEPAD is moving towards the implementation. And from the discussion that we had recently as part of the development of the continental strategy on artificial intelligence, there is a recommendation to accelerate the implementation of these three projects and to see if the possibility to move towards additional regional projects at national level, as part of the Data Governance for Africa initiative, which is an AUEU program, there is a part about supporting member states to develop a kind of project proposals on national data centers on business models. And there is more about project preparation at the kind of accompanying member states to identify or to prepare national projects. I think having national data centers doesn’t prevent data to flow across the countries. As Thelma mentioned, it is about putting in place the policies and the regulation that will build that trust and confidence among countries and also among different stakeholders that we can enable data to flow across borders. And as Paul mentioned, like it’s not all data that we need to enable to flow across the continent, but we need to do kind of classification and to identify the level of security and privacy of each type of data and having represent countries to agree on the minimum requirements to facilitate data flows. And for this, we are establishing a committee that where we will have all representatives of from EU member states and also regional organizations that they will discuss. It will be kind of open discussion, like they can agree on the minimum requirements and also the best way to facilitate data exchanges and data cooperation across the continent. On the comparison between the African Union and the European Union policy framework, I think the approach is different. We cannot also compare because the context is different as it was mentioned, even within Africa, we have some countries that are somehow advanced in the implementation of the EU data policy framework on developing the necessary mechanism at national level to manage data. And we have at the same time, some countries that are at early stage of data and digital readiness. And for us as regional and continental organizations, we need to work with all countries and to find a common ground, like to facilitate collaboration among countries. So the EU data policy framework is a continental policy, is the continental approach. It includes several recommendations that both at national level, at regional and continental level, it provides guidance where we need like the direction. And now it is, as we move to the implementation, we are doing beyond what is… included in the data policy framework, as for instance, on national data governance, and involving all national actors, we are supporting countries to have national dialogue on data governance, we with all stakeholders, they have this discussion, it don’t define the key stakeholders, it don’t define how they organize themselves to develop their national data governance ecosystem. The work is ongoing. So far, we progressed very well with Zambia, they are about to finalize their national data policy framework, and also Smart Africa supported two additional countries, Senegal and Ghana. And we are working with countries to create that conversation at national level, and facilitate the discussion around data as an asset beyond personal data, but data as a resource that needs to put at the disposal of the key stakeholders and also to be used as development of digital economy and support the digital trade. And also, as part of the support, we developed guidelines on how to, to facilitate to include data as in the digital trade agreements. And we are working towards supporting member states to develop their national data capacities on the deficiencies in the laws and there is all this I think they are already identified also in our assessments. And as I said, like the work is ongoing, there is like two thirds of countries that have in place their national data protection legislation, some of them they are outdated, many countries they are in the process of reviewing them. There are like less than 50% of countries they have in place their national data authority or commission, and some of them they are not operational yet. And there is support, as I said, like we are we are providing support. to incapacitate and empower this data authorization. And on the last question about how to avoid biases and how to make data available for Africa-driven development, we, it is a collective work. It is collective efforts. Like once we put in place all these necessary mechanisms and also we develop the capacities at national level. From our side, there’s African Union and the regional organization. We aim to create platforms to facilitate collaboration among member states and to create the conditions for data to flow and also to support the digital trade in line with the AFCFDA objectives. So our work is to find like the common objective and common interest of African countries. The work is ongoing. It is a lot of work, but we are optimistic. As we say that many countries, they already started and they are already advanced in the implementation of the AU data policy framework. Thank you.

Thelma Quaye: Thank you, Kenyam. So I’ll try to answer one of the questions on how to balance the fact that most of the platforms we use are not owned in Africa and we are talking about data localization. I wish I had a board here. But how I see it is that we need to segregate the data because we are not, you know, when we talk about data governance, we are not trying to be protectionist or we are not trying to, you know, create an island of Africa. There should be, so on one side, there should be national level localization. Then there’s regional level localization. Then there’s continental level localization. Then across this, we have confidential, private, and public. So once we are able to categorize our data across these metrics, we will then know how we can, you know, keep what we have to keep in the countries. If it’s critical and it’s of confidential nature, or if it’s something that is of jurisdictional matter. Then we go to the next level. For me, the cross-cutting is between where we need to let go or where we need to open up our borders to the next countries is what is going to impact or what will help facilitate the AFCT. At the moment, our data protection laws are in direct contraction with the AFCT. We are not aligned. AFCT is in their own world and data protection authorities are in their own world. So once we have that matrix, we will now know which box of data we can, you know, let go to facilitate trade. on trade, because Rwanda is 12 million, and a business sets up and cannot thrive because 12 million is too little. Meanwhile, if we tweaked that policy so that if we segregated our data and knew what exactly we can let go, we can open up a 1.4 billion market to the rest of Africa. Then the third part would be what we can let go outside Africa, because we don’t have the platforms now. We have not had a lot of unicorns, as my colleague from Nigeria had mentioned. So until we get there, we need to be able to understand that we need to find that fine balance of which sort of data we’ll let go, which sort of data we need to keep, and which sort of data we need to also facilitate so it helps our trade. From the Smart Africa perspective, we encourage data localization within an African context, not just a national context. Data localization within an African context now brings into the question, how do we leverage cloud, how do we leverage the existing infrastructure within Africa, that is, the existing data centers in Africa, to be able to localize data in Africa, share trust amongst ourselves, and help Africa so that we retain our data as much as we can within Africa, because it will lower costs, it will increase efficiency, it will also increase the quality of service that people receive. Thank you.

Vincent Olatunji: Yeah, so I’ll say that I just want to add one or two words to issues around data localization. And the basic question I want us to ask ourselves is, can we actually practice full data localization? The answer is no. You want to sit in your room, you buy goods and services from organizations in the US, in Europe, in Asia, and you exchange your data, you exchange your information. Those data you are giving out, are they still local data? The truth is, the world is not a global village. There is no way you can practice full localization. Even when you are saying you want to leverage your cloud, there are several cities or countries. Where are these countries? And as I mentioned by some of the panelists, I think what we need to do is to do data categorization. What categories of data must remain local in our country, no matter what the situation is. What categories of data that we must share. And I think AU should take the lead in this work, so that other African countries can really key to it. In addition to that, somebody has mentioned the benefits that they have in EU countries and what we have here. I think the strength of the EU GDPR, for instance, is the fact that all 27 countries under EU, they are linked to the GDPR. And their population is just about 447 million. Whereas in Africa, our population is 1.4 billion. But in the situation whereby we have different focuses, different visions concerning our laws, we are not aligned what we are doing with the UN Convention on the EU Data Policy Framework. So there should be a very strong institutional control at the level of EU to direct and guide what is happening in Africa as a continent, from which all other countries within the continent can be able to tap into and derive their laws from this. I think that is very, very important for us. Because there is strength in ANOVA, there is power in ANOVA. in Andorra, that whatever we want to do, if we are not united, we will be divided and we will be able to achieve anything in the area of the usage of our data and the policy that we want to put in place. No matter how robust the policies are, if there are no strong continental, internal framework to control or to ensure implementation, we will be able to achieve it. So we need to work on this. Thank you.

Lillian Nalwoga: I need someone in response to any particular question, but let me conclude by saying that we need to be very intentional. Intention, I know we are, but you can’t, okay, great. So we need to be very intentional. My colleague here has mentioned us recognizing data as a national asset. And I think being intentional right now is looking at us, how do we go about with this categorization? So we need to be developing national data strategies. Yes, much as we’ve been pushing for the data protection and all that, but we need to have national data protection, national data strategies. I think I need to be corrected, but I think Ghana just came up with one with support from GIZ. Uganda just has a working draft which was launched sometime last month. And this can be adopted by other countries because then there we shall know which data are we keeping locally, how can we protect this, what kind of investments are we looking at, what kind of support do we need. But also intentional means that we need to be looking for financing. When you categorize that, then you know where you’re going to invest heavily. You’re going to know how you’re going to utilize this data to bring in more income. And you need to know which data, which category of data is going to be looking at promoting more innovation. So intentional, looking at support, funding for both I think the private sector, looking into the private sector support, tapping into that pocket, but also partners and I think GIZ and Smart Africa World Bank and the UNDP are doing that, but also we need to see how we can tap into the private sector to see how they can support this national data governance or data strategies.

Paul Baker: Okay, thank you. Just quickly, I think that we have to be practical, data localization are like stifle businesses. Very simple example, for me to come to this conference I had to send my most personal data to Germany, giving all my passport details. So if we are not going to allow the sharing of very personal information in certain circumstances, that becomes very problematic. So localization strategy is not going to help businesses. How do you enter into a contract with somebody else if you can share it? documents, particularly with due diligence, that are very, very personal on the shareholders of the company, on their where they live, on their passport details. So I think it’s not very practical and we need to think, you know, what we want to achieve and I think the UDG GDPR was quite effective in that sense, that there are certain requirements as to what we’re sharing data with another country to ensure that they are aligned with the principles that you set and indeed we have African principles which we can try and encourage other countries to adopt. They are not normally so unaligned to what GDPR has already done. Many African countries have already adopted a GDPR model in their data protection acts, but they haven’t gained equivalence yet, so where we need to put the focus on here is on mutual recognition, so equivalence, and helping those countries that really are struggling to even, you know, have a data protection agency or move towards that format to try and promote it. I think it’s really not a very practical solution to try and bar the access to data and just one thing, if I may say, is on platform question, which I think is a very important recurring question that happens all the time. There’s three sort of levels that businesses use as channels for selling online. The first one is Facebook and social media, that’s not truly e-commerce, so we can remove those kind of platforms. The second one is national platforms do exist and they are being used for domestic e-commerce and then there’s platforms to trade with other markets and using those platforms we want to use the platforms that give us the greatest opportunities to access markets, so if that happens to be eBay or it happens to be, yeah, Amazon, then that should be the platform that you as a business should be able to use. If you’re now putting total localization requirements, that you must only use those platforms, again it will damage businesses, so we need to think very carefully about these policies.

Moderator: Thank you, we are almost at the end of this session. Let me give you the floor, Paul, for your last word, for one word takeaway for this meeting, one word only. Harmonized approaches? No, one word. Two words, harmonization. Harmonization,

Lillian Nalwoga: Intention.

Thelma Quaye: One, one, one, one. Empowerment, empowerment.

Moderator: Dr. Van Say, one word for takeaway of this session.

Vincent Olatunji: Collaboration. Collaboration.

Souhila Amazouz: A balanced approach. Like, forward-looking, I would say forward-looking. I think I am allowed to have two words since I am the last one. I would say multi-stakeholder and multi-sectoral approach.

Moderator: I think it was a very important discussion. We raised a lot of issues regarding this data sharing, data cross-border. And what we need, we agree, we acknowledge this EU data framework strategy. But as an implementation at the national level, we have to take into consideration the local needs, as well as the other framework at the continental level, and at the world level, like this digital protocol, this EU digital transformation framework, as well as the AFCTA. Also, I think data is a national asset. But we need to contextualize data localization in the Africa context. It is very important. But for that, we need to build the adequate infrastructure. We talk about data center, but there is something the panelists didn’t talk about. It is the issue of energy. If you want to build this infrastructure, we need energy. It’s the data center. And generally, the data center, the owner will build where we have access to energy in Africa. Africa in energy is a big problem. Harmonization also is very important. We need to work together at the continental level to harmonize all policy because we have several policies, you have data protection, you have private data, you have also AI policy. All is focused on data. We need to harmonize all this policy at the continental level. Of course, this regional organization has to work together to better serve the interests of Africa. We have AUC, we have ECA, we have Smart Africa, we have the regional community. We have all to work together in order to provide key assistance to African countries in the data governance. And also, we welcome and acknowledge the support of GIZ because GIZ is supporting very well the implementation of data governance at the continental level. And now, when we go to this four industrial revolution, data is a key and we need to have a good governance of our data. And thank you once again, GIZ, for that. And I think African countries can take benefits of this support by developing their national strategy for data governance and also building capacity of member states because we need to know what’s happened at the continental level, what are the needs for African countries in terms of data. It’s very important before we think to build this national strategy. Thank you so much to all the speakers. I think it was well done. And also, you raised a key issue we can take away from this meeting. But we need also, as you say, this multi-stakeholder is very important. Collaboration also is a key. Harmonization, intention, also empowerment. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Agreement Points

Need for harmonization of data policies across Africa

Souhila Amazouz

Thelma Quaye

Vincent Olatunji

AU Data Policy Framework aims to maximize data access and flows across the continent

Need for harmonization of data policies at continental level to align with AU framework

Importance of empowering data protection authorities

Speakers agreed on the importance of harmonizing data policies across Africa, aligning with the AU Data Policy Framework to ensure consistent governance and protection.

Importance of data categorization and balanced approach to localization

Thelma Quaye

Vincent Olatunji

Paul Baker

Need to balance data localization with enabling cross-border data flows

Full data localization not practical; need for data categorization

Need for practical approach to data localization that doesn’t stifle business

Speakers agreed that full data localization is not practical and emphasized the need for a balanced approach that categorizes data and allows necessary cross-border flows while protecting essential data.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the importance of developing comprehensive national-level strategies and empowering relevant authorities to effectively implement data governance.

Lillian Nalwoga

Vincent Olatunji

Importance of developing national data strategies and policies

Importance of empowering data protection authorities

Unexpected Consensus

Recognition of infrastructure challenges

Souhila Amazouz

Thelma Quaye

Audience

Plans for regional data centers to improve infrastructure

Need to balance data localization with enabling cross-border data flows

Lack of data infrastructure and hosting capacity in many African countries

There was unexpected consensus on the recognition of infrastructure challenges, with both officials and audience members acknowledging the need for improved data centers and hosting capacity across Africa.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement included the need for harmonized data policies across Africa, a balanced approach to data localization, development of national data strategies, and recognition of infrastructure challenges.

Consensus level

There was a moderate to high level of consensus among speakers on key issues. This consensus suggests a shared understanding of the challenges and potential solutions for data governance in Africa, which could facilitate more coordinated efforts in policy development and implementation across the continent.

Different Viewpoints

Data localization approach

Thelma Quaye

Vincent Olatunji

Paul Baker

Need to balance data localization with enabling cross-border data flows

Full data localization not practical; need for data categorization

Need for practical approach to data localization that doesn’t stifle business

While all speakers agree that full data localization is not practical, they differ in their approaches. Thelma Quaye emphasizes balancing localization with cross-border flows, Vincent Olatunji focuses on data categorization, and Paul Baker stresses the need for a business-friendly approach.

Unexpected Differences

Focus on data infrastructure vs. policy

Souhila Amazouz

Audience

Plans for regional data centers to improve infrastructure

Lack of data infrastructure and hosting capacity in many African countries

While Souhila Amazouz discusses plans for regional data centers, audience members highlight the current lack of infrastructure. This unexpected difference highlights a potential gap between policy planning and on-the-ground realities in many African countries.

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement revolve around the approach to data localization, the balance between continental and national-level policies, and the prioritization of infrastructure development versus policy implementation.

difference_level

The level of disagreement is moderate. While there is general consensus on the importance of data governance and the need for harmonization, speakers differ in their specific approaches and priorities. These differences reflect the complex challenges of implementing continent-wide data governance in Africa, given the varying levels of infrastructure and policy development across countries. The implications of these disagreements suggest that a flexible, multi-layered approach may be necessary to address the diverse needs and capacities of different African nations while still working towards continental harmonization.

Partial Agreements

All speakers agree on the importance of data governance frameworks, but they differ in their focus. Souhila Amazouz emphasizes the continental AU framework, Thelma Quaye stresses harmonization across countries, and Lillian Nalwoga highlights the need for national-level strategies.

Souhila Amazouz

Thelma Quaye

Lillian Nalwoga

AU Data Policy Framework aims to maximize data access and flows across the continent

Need for harmonization of data policies at continental level to align with AU framework

Importance of developing national data strategies and policies

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the importance of developing comprehensive national-level strategies and empowering relevant authorities to effectively implement data governance.

Lillian Nalwoga

Vincent Olatunji

Importance of developing national data strategies and policies

Importance of empowering data protection authorities

Key Takeaways

The AU Data Policy Framework aims to maximize data access and flows across Africa while protecting privacy and security

There is a need to harmonize data policies at the continental level while considering national interests

Data infrastructure and hosting capacity remains a challenge in many African countries

Cross-border data flows are crucial for implementing the AfCFTA and enabling trade

Capacity building on data governance is needed at national and regional levels

A multi-stakeholder and multi-sectoral approach is important for effective data governance in Africa

Resolutions and Action Items

Develop national data strategies aligned with the AU Data Policy Framework

Establish regional data centers to improve infrastructure

Provide technical assistance to member states on developing national data systems

Empower and build capacity of data protection authorities

Create mechanisms to facilitate data flows across the continent

Unresolved Issues

How to balance data localization requirements with the need for cross-border data flows

How to address the digital divide and infrastructure gaps across African countries

How to ensure data quality and avoid biases in data collection and use

How to align data protection laws with AfCFTA objectives

How to finance data infrastructure and governance initiatives

Suggested Compromises

Categorize data to determine what can be localized vs shared across borders

Promote data localization within an African context rather than just national borders

Adopt a balanced approach that considers both data protection and economic growth

Develop equivalence and mutual recognition frameworks for data protection across countries

We consider data as a strategic asset and valuable resources. And the framework, by its development, as you mentioned, it was comprehensive, forward-looking, and with participation of all stakeholders, it was participatory approach, considering the importance of data and also the multidimensional of data that requires participation and involvement of key stakeholders.

speaker

Souhila Amazouz

reason

This comment frames data as a strategic asset and emphasizes the importance of a multi-stakeholder approach in developing data governance frameworks. It sets the tone for viewing data policy as a complex, multidimensional issue.

impact

This comment shaped the subsequent discussion by establishing data as a critical resource and highlighting the need for collaborative approaches in policy development. It led to further exploration of stakeholder involvement and comprehensive policy frameworks throughout the conversation.

Beyond supporting countries, beyond creating frameworks and regulations and policies and all these data centers, we also need to be aligned amongst ourselves. We need to understand that there’s only one Africa. And we need to understand that the only reason why we exist as regional organizations is the African citizen.

speaker

Thelma Quaye

reason

This comment introduces the crucial idea of alignment between regional organizations and emphasizes the ultimate beneficiary – the African citizen. It challenges the potential fragmentation of efforts across different organizations.

impact

This comment shifted the discussion towards the importance of coordination between regional bodies and keeping the focus on benefiting African citizens. It prompted further discussion on harmonization and avoiding duplication of efforts.

Without data, we can’t achieve digital transformation.

speaker

Moderator

reason

This succinct statement encapsulates a key insight about the fundamental role of data in digital transformation efforts.

impact

This comment reinforced the central importance of data governance in achieving broader digital transformation goals, influencing subsequent discussions on implementation strategies and challenges.

Data localization policies have their benefits in terms of trying to promote more confidence in the security of personal data and privacy requirements. But we also have to consider indeed the implementation of these policies and actually is data more secure in your own jurisdiction than it is in other jurisdictions.

speaker

Paul Baker

reason

This comment introduces nuance to the discussion of data localization, challenging the assumption that local storage is always more secure and highlighting implementation challenges.

impact

This comment sparked a more critical examination of data localization policies, leading to discussions about balancing security concerns with practical implementation challenges and cross-border data needs.

We need to segregate the data because we are not, you know, when we talk about data governance, we are not trying to be protectionist or we are not trying to, you know, create an island of Africa. There should be, so on one side, there should be national level localization. Then there’s regional level localization. Then there’s continental level localization. Then across this, we have confidential, private, and public.

speaker

Thelma Quaye

reason

This comment introduces a nuanced approach to data localization, proposing a multi-tiered system that balances national, regional, and continental needs while also considering data sensitivity.

impact

This comment deepened the discussion on data localization by proposing a more sophisticated framework. It led to further exploration of how to categorize data and balance various needs and priorities in data governance.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by establishing data as a strategic asset, emphasizing the need for collaborative and coordinated approaches, highlighting the central role of data in digital transformation, introducing nuance to the debate on data localization, and proposing more sophisticated frameworks for data governance. They collectively moved the conversation from broad principles to more specific implementation challenges and strategies, while consistently emphasizing the need to balance various stakeholder interests and priorities.

How to balance data localization with increased access and promotion of platforms developed and owned in Africa?

speaker

Levi Siansege

explanation

This is important to address the issue of data sovereignty while also promoting African-owned digital infrastructure and services.

How to manage data quality and prevent fake data?

speaker

Abdulmanam Ghalila

explanation

Ensuring data quality is crucial for effective decision-making and policy implementation at local and regional levels.

What is the implementation plan for the AU Data Policy Framework beyond policy domestication?

speaker

Sorina Safa

explanation

Understanding the concrete steps for implementation is essential for turning the policy into actionable results across the continent.

How to address data fragmentation at the country level?

speaker

Dereje Johannes

explanation

Data fragmentation within countries hinders effective data integration and utilization for decision-making, which needs to be addressed before continental harmonization.

How to avoid selective data implications and address data biases that perpetuate inequalities?

speaker

Baratang Mia

explanation

Addressing data biases is crucial to ensure that data-driven policies and initiatives do not exacerbate existing inequalities.

How to ensure transparency and trustworthiness of AI algorithms used in data processing for digital transformation projects?

speaker

Unnamed audience member

explanation

Understanding and trusting the AI algorithms used in data processing is important for building confidence in data-driven decision-making processes.

Summary

This discussion focused on gender equality in the context of the Global Digital Compact (GDC) and related digital initiatives. Participants explored how to leverage the GDC to address gender gaps in artificial intelligence, digital access, and technology leadership. They emphasized the importance of mainstreaming gender perspectives in digital strategies and policies.

Key points included the need for gender-responsive AI development, addressing technology-facilitated gender-based violence, and promoting women’s representation in tech industries and STEM education. Speakers highlighted the importance of multi-stakeholder cooperation and partnerships in implementing the GDC’s gender equality principles.

The discussion touched on the digital gender divide, noting that globally there are still 189 million more men than women using the internet. Participants stressed the need for increased investments in digital infrastructure, skills development programs targeting women and girls, and efforts to make online spaces safer for women.

Several speakers emphasized the importance of data collection, particularly gender-disaggregated data, to inform policies and measure progress. The role of digital public infrastructure (DPI) was discussed, with a call for gender-responsive design in DPI solutions.

Looking ahead, participants suggested creating a standalone action line for gender in the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) process, integrating digital issues into the Beijing+30 review, and implementing gender-responsive budgeting and procurement in technology initiatives. The discussion concluded by emphasizing the ongoing nature of these efforts and the need for continued collaboration across various UN processes and stakeholder groups.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– The Global Digital Compact (GDC) and its incorporation of gender equality principles

– Addressing gender gaps in AI development and governance

– Promoting women’s digital skills, leadership, and representation in tech industries

– Implementing gender-responsive digital public infrastructure (DPI)

– WSIS process and plans for mainstreaming gender in digital initiatives

The overall purpose of the discussion was to examine how gender equality and women’s empowerment are being addressed in global digital policies and initiatives, particularly the Global Digital Compact, and to identify key actions needed to create a more inclusive digital ecosystem.

The tone of the discussion was largely analytical and solution-oriented. Speakers highlighted both progress made and remaining challenges in achieving digital gender equality. There was a sense of urgency in addressing gaps, but also optimism about opportunities to advance gender-responsive approaches through multi-stakeholder collaboration. The tone remained consistent throughout, with all participants contributing constructive ideas and recommendations.

Speakers

– Papa Seck: Chief of Research and Data Section at UN Women

– Helene Molinier: Leads the Action Coalition on Technology and Innovation for Gender Equality at UN Women

– Roy Eriksson: Finland’s Global Gateway Ambassador

– Isabel De Sola: From the UN Secretary General’s Tech Envoy office

– Radka Sibille: Digital affairs advisor at the EU delegation in Geneva

– Hajjar El Haddaoui: Chief of digital economy and foresight at the Digital Cooperation Organization

Additional speakers:

– Nandini Chami: Deputy director of research and policy and engagement at IT4Change

– Tala Debs: WSIS and SDGs project coordinator at ITU

– Caitlin Kraft-Buchman: From Women at the Table and A+ Alliance for Inclusive Algorithms

Revised Summary: Gender Equality in the Global Digital Compact and Related Initiatives

This event, organized by UN Women and the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), focused on gender equality in the context of the Global Digital Compact (GDC) and related digital initiatives. The discussion explored how to leverage the GDC to address gender gaps in artificial intelligence, digital access, and technology leadership, emphasizing the importance of mainstreaming gender perspectives in digital strategies and policies.

Introduction and Overview:

Helene Molinier, Director of the Innovation and Technology Facility at UN Women, opened the discussion by highlighting the GDC’s acknowledgment of gender disparities and its inclusion of gender equality as one of its 13 principles. She emphasized the risk of “double exclusion” for women in the digital realm and stressed the need for clear targets and accountability mechanisms for GDC commitments.

EU Perspective:

Radka Sibille, Deputy Head of Division for Digital Technologies at the European External Action Service, affirmed that gender equality is strongly enshrined in the GDC. She highlighted EU initiatives aimed at making online spaces safer for women and emphasized the importance of investing in digital infrastructure and skills programmes for women.

Finland’s Contribution:

Roy Eriksson, representing Finland’s Permanent Mission to the UN, discussed Finland’s commitment to addressing technology-facilitated gender-based violence. He noted the GDC’s commitment to developing methodologies to counter digital violence and highlighted the work of Finland’s Generation Equality Youth Group in promoting gender equality in technology.

World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) Process:

Tala Debs, Digital Inclusion Specialist at ITU, explained how the WSIS process champions ICTs and gender mainstreaming. She provided specific statistics on the digital gender divide, noting that globally there are still 259 million fewer women than men using the internet. Debs also introduced the WSIS Gender Trendsetters and Repository of Women in Technology initiatives.

Digital Public Infrastructure and AI:

Isabel De Sola, Senior Advisor at the Office of the UN Secretary-General’s Envoy on Technology, discussed the need for partnerships to develop gender-affirming AI, noting that current AI models are likely not gender-responsive due to data biases.

Nandini Chami, Deputy Director of IT for Change, argued that data governance in digital public infrastructure (DPI) must be evaluated through a gender justice lens, emphasizing the importance of public consultations with affected communities in DPI design.

Digital Economy Navigator:

Hajjar El Haddaoui, Chief Impact Officer at the Digital Cooperation Organization, introduced the concept of a Digital Economy Navigator to assess countries’ progress on digital equity. She noted that the GDC offers a framework for cooperation on gender equality and highlighted the organization’s work in promoting digital inclusion.

Recommendations and Action Items:

1. Develop effective methodologies to measure, monitor, and counter digital violence against women.

2. Increase investments in digital infrastructure and skills programmes targeting women and marginalized communities.

3. Integrate gender perspectives into policies and programmes addressing disinformation.

4. Implement the Digital Economy Navigator to assess countries’ progress on digital equity.

5. Support the WSIS Gender Trendsetters and Repository of Women in Technology initiatives.

6. Create a standalone action line for gender in the WSIS process.

7. Integrate digital issues into the Beijing+30 review.

8. Collaborate on a WSIS-Beijing+30 Common Action Plan for bridging the gender digital divide.

Caitlin Craft Bachman, from UN Women, concluded the discussion by suggesting the creation of a standalone action line for gender in the WSIS process and the integration of digital issues into the Beijing+30 review. She also proposed collaborating on a WSIS-Beijing+30 Common Action Plan for bridging the gender digital divide.

Conclusion:

The discussion highlighted the ongoing nature of efforts to achieve digital gender equality and the need for continued collaboration across various UN processes and stakeholder groups. While there was broad agreement on the importance of gender equality in digital technologies, the speakers emphasized the need for concrete actions, clear accountability mechanisms, and multi-stakeholder cooperation to translate the principles of the Global Digital Compact into meaningful change for women and girls worldwide.

Papa Seck: Greetings, everyone, and welcome to this session. My name is Papa Seck, and I’m the Chief of Research and Data Section at UN Women. In my section, we also have the work on digital technology and innovation, so it’s really a pleasure to host this session this evening. So just quickly, next year, obviously, as we’ve been speaking about, we will celebrate WSIS Plus 20. But it’s also an important year for gender equality, because it is the 30th anniversary of the Beijing Platform for Action. So the issues related to technology and digital will also be front and center of that discussion. At UN Women, we host the Action Coalition on Technology and Innovation, which is part of the Generation Equality Forum, and you will hear about that shortly from a colleague of mine, Helen Molina, who really leads that exercise. But before giving her the floor, I just wanted to welcome you all to this really exciting panel and this exciting discussion, and I really hope that we will all be able to gain some insight from it. So without further ado, I’ll give the floor to my colleague, Helen, who will do the presentation for us. Helen, over to you.

Helene Molinier: Thank you very much, Papa, and good afternoon to everyone. I hope you can hear me OK. It’s actually great that the technology allows me to be with you today, even though I cannot be here in person. So I’ll start just with a few words to reflect back on the GDC journey and to set the scene before the panel. Just to say that over the last two years, we’ve ignited multi-stakeholder conversation at UN Women level on how to leverage the GDC to drive a more equitable digital transformation. We did that first by publishing a position paper on how to take forward the recommendation of CSW67 and integrate them into the GDC negotiation. A lot of these efforts were led by the members of the Action Coalition on Technology Innovation for Gender Equality, and 10 governments in particular that launched a call to action a year before the GDC to mainstream and prioritise gender perspective in the negotiation. They were also led by civil society organisations, which developed the feminist principle for including gender in the GDC, and this principle emphasised on the need for a right-based, gender-responsive digital framework. In the current multilateral context, reaching consensus on the GDC has been an achievement. And for us, I think the first lesson is that it has been the confirmation that collective multi-stakeholder efforts can clearly contribute to positioning gender perspective into negotiations at the intergovernmental level. As a result of this work and these efforts, what we have now is a GDC that does acknowledge gender disparities, and I think this is a welcome recognition, finally, that digital technologies are far from being neutral. Obviously, another step in the right direction has been that the GDC recognised gender equality and the empowerment of all women and girls as one of the 13 GDC principles. The GDC reaffirms many recommendations from CSW67 agreed conclusions, including the mainstreaming of gender perspectives in digital strategies, the need to address barriers to meaningful, safe and equitable digital access for women and girls, and the fact that we need to promote women leadership and participation in technology and digital decisions. And obviously, that we need to urgently address gender-based violence, which occurs through or is amplified by the use of technology. There are a few other great opportunities in the GDC, especially the fact that it acknowledges the data divides, the need to target capacity building and entrepreneurship for women, or the fact that we need to support inclusive STEM education. And all these are really truly valuable commitments. But we all know that having aspirational language won’t be enough. And so we have a collective responsibility to ensure that the GDC implementation is set on clear targets and accountability mechanisms, so that commitments to gender equality are more than symbolic. We cannot rely only on ethical guidelines. We need to put in place enforceable standards grounded in international human rights. A few of the gaps may be that we have in the GDC. We find them, for example, on emerging topics such as AI and GPI. And here the references to gender equality have not been included in the final draft. And as a result, we feel that it perpetuates gaps that have led to the current state of digital inequity that we have. We cannot have digital technologies or digital infrastructure deployed without assessing their broader associative risk and opportunities. And so having these gaps, it means that women are at risk of being doubly excluded, being excluded first of the economic opportunities that AI or GPI can offer, but also excluded for the governance decision in shaping their deployment. In the GDC, we see calls for investments in connectivity, in transfer of technology, in GPI, but there is no strong call to invest in people. And so the problem at stake today, it’s not just about being online. It’s about not being erased or excluded from digital innovation altogether. And so we have currently a gender divide that is driven by structural inequalities and they are deep rooted and they prevent women from accessing the technical and financial resources that would help them benefit from the digital revolution. And so this is something we feel must be acknowledged, must be reversed. And as Papa mentioned, next year we have two important milestones. We have the review of YSYS, 20 years since its inception, and the review of the Beijing platform, 30 years since it was adopted. And they both offer a unique opportunity, not only to review this mechanism, but also to advance GDC implementation. And so the objective of today’s session is that we collectively shape a cohesive action agenda and chart the path forward and to ensure that gender equality, that women’s digital rights are not merely mentioned, but that they are prioritized in the implementation of all these instruments, YSYS, Beijing, GDC, and that they all come together. And so this is the objective of today’s discussion and we look forward to this exciting panel and over to you, Papa and colleagues. Great.

Papa Seck: Thank you, Hélène. Really, again, I do recall this work and really trying to shape a paper to guide discussions on the GDC, at least trying to, as much as possible, to integrate a gender perspective. And I think this is really one of the, I would say, key achievements of the Action Coalition. So congratulations to you and to colleagues for this excellent work. So now I’ll just turn to the panel. We have a great panel of speakers. So I have Isabel Dossola-Criado, who’s from the office of the UN Secretary General’s tech envoy. Mr. Roy Ericsson, who’s Finland’s global gateway ambassador. Ms. Radka Sibyl, who’s a digital affairs advisor at the EU delegation in Geneva. And Ms. Salah Abdullal, who’s the chief of digital economy and foresight at the Digital Cooperation Organization. And then we have two speakers who are online, Ms. Nandini Chami, who’s the deputy director of research and policy and engagement at IT4Change. And Ms. Talha Debs, who’s the YSYS and SDGs project coordinator at ITU. So I’ll start with you, Isabel, and just a reminder that we have about, I think, four minutes each in terms of answers so that we can stick to the time. So Isabel, who, in your view, what would be the building blocks of a… of gender responsive AI, recognizing both its transformative power, but also the risks that are inherent in it.

Isabel De Sola: How can we leverage the GDC to bridge the gender gaps in AI and governance? Thank you so much for having me. It’s really a pleasure to join this conversation. I’m Isabel De Sola from the UN Secretary General’s Tech Envoy. We, our office recently led a process accompanying a high level advisory body on AI in their research and consultations around the world to emerge recommendations from the field, from countries, from academics, scientists on how to govern AI for humanity. And we held a very interesting session on the question of women and gender and the governance of AI. The results of the high level body’s process are available online. It’s a wonderful report. And a couple of them landed in the Global Digital Compact, which was recently approved at the end of the Summit of the Future. So the high level body offered up its recommendations to the process of the Summit of the Future. And through interaction and negotiation, the member states accepted two and maybe one more of those recommendations, which means that alongside the GDC’s enunciation of a principle for gender equality and empowerment, we also link a way forward on AI governance. So to take your second question first, Papa, it’s rather abstract, to be honest. How do we leverage the GDC? It’s a little bit abstract, but essentially what we’ve put into the GDC are these two issues side by side. So we wanna govern AI for humanity, but we need to do so in a way that is gender empowering. And that’s important because words matter, and this is an agenda that we can take forward to bring stakeholders together to cooperate on concrete tasks, which I think is actually much more interesting to address the question of how do we make sure that AI works for women? Well, the truth is that right now, we’ve got a lot of problems in front of us with AI. So the number one is that it’s data driven, and the data is mostly in seven languages, mostly in English, and it doesn’t represent actually data necessarily generated by women around the world. Certainly not women of color, certainly not women in rural areas who may not have access to connectivity. And underneath that, it’s maybe not girls as well that are generating that data. So the AI models that are being developed at the moment, unfortunately, they’re probably not going to be gender responsive. Not all is lost, because I think that these agendas have done a tremendous job of sounding the alarm from the get-go. So what didn’t happen with the internet, which was to say from the get-go, how does the internet work for women? That’s happening now, is that from the get-go, the UN will take its first steps in implementation of the GDC, keeping the gender empowerment principle and actions in mind. And there’s a second principle that I think can help us from the GDC, which is to work in partnerships. And that’s the end of day one here at the IGF. It’s starting to sound a little bit trite to say that, but I have an example. So we know that current LLMs are not necessarily gender empowering, but if we work in partnerships, and because of the high visibility that’s been created on this risk, we might be able to steward these LLMs and generative AI in a way that is more gender reaffirming. So I heard during our consultations for the high level advisory bodies report, I heard an academic say something that I should give her copyright for, but she said, it takes a village to raise a gender affirming AI. So we need to work with the companies, academics, scientists need to look closely at their data and at their models. Tweak the data, data can be tweaked. We need to roll it out into the world and have civil society accompany its applications in the world, and a feedback loop from civil society to companies to tweak it again. Oh, okay, sorry. And probably I’m talking too much. Let me check the time, I’ve gone through four minutes. Okay, sorry, I’m talking too much. It takes a village, meaning academics and scientists, let’s look at the data together, make it more friendly towards women. Let’s look at the applications. What is the user loop? So some applications, we may not be able to tell ahead of time how those applications will affect women and girls. So working with civil society and governments to have a feedback loop towards the companies and a human in the loop that can help to train up women for the use of these AIs or the reverse, tweak them so that they are more gender friendly. So those are just some concrete, one abstract idea about the policy world and one concrete idea of partnerships. Thank you.

Papa Seck: Thank you, thank you very much. And sorry, it was my headphones that weren’t working. So Roy, now I turn to you. In your view, is the GDC adequately addressing the risks of gender disinformation, discrimination and technology facilitated violence against gender-based violence? Or what do you think are the key measures that are required to ensure that women and girls can benefit from a safe and empowering environment? Well, thank you.

Roy Eriksson: So my name is Roy Eriksson and I’m the Global Gateway Ambassador for Finland. And Global Gateway is a EU initiative to finance big infrastructure projects in the Global South. In my answers, actually, in order to save some time, I will concentrate mainly on the TFGB issue, but I will only refer to the first question that the UN Special Rapporteur, Irene Kahn, tackled the topic of gender disinformation in her report for the 47th UN General Assembly. One of her recommendations is that states should integrate fully gendered perspectives into their policies and programs to address disinformation and misinformation in digital literacy programs. So that is also something that we do in Finland. Already from primary school, we teach media literacy to our kids so that they can have better tools to understand what is real information and what is maybe disinformation of some sort. When preparing and negotiating the Global Digital Compact, gender equality was one of Finland’s top priorities. We are pleased that it is one of the principles highlighted in the compact, emphasizing the cross-cutting nature. There are also concrete commitments related to technology-facilitated and gender-based violence in the compact. From the point of view of this discussion, the most important one is the commitment to develop effective methodologies to measure, monitor, and counter all forms of violence and abuse in digital space. The problem is very real. According to the Economist Intelligence Unit, 38% of women have personal experience of digital violence and 85% of women using the internet have witnessed digital violence against other women. In Finland, latest research shows, for example, that digital violence is the most common form of violence in young people’s intimate relationships. This issue has wider repercussions as it is also a real threat to democracy because it threatens to limit the participation of women and girls in society and societal debate. But what can the GDC do and what should we focus on in implementing this commitment? First, we need more data and evidence to base our actions on. In this, it is critical that the private sector is able to track this phenomena and share data with researchers and authorities. More transparency is needed on the part of platforms where these activities take place. Second, we need effective grievance mechanism where users can report concerns and raise issues followed by action on the part of platform operators and service providers. Third, human rights perspectives need to be mainstreamed in the design of new digital technologies, including digital services, so as to be able to understand their potential human rights impacts and anticipate the need to protect women and girls from risk. And finally, updating our legislative means and ensuring our law enforcement and judiciary systems are capable of addressing TFGB, be our key. Concrete measures need to be taken to ensure that national legislation, policies, strategies and action plans on the prevention and elimination of gender-based violence include online gender-based violence. Law enforcement and the judiciary system need to be able to recognize, prevent, investigate and address this problem. Improving services for survivors is also of critical importance. Finland has taken these issues seriously. The DGC reinforces the need for multi-stakeholder cooperation in implementing the UN Digital Agenda. The compact is not only important for states, but also for non-state actors, the private sector, civil society and academia. The DGC anchors the Agenda for Digital Cooperation firmly under the UN Charter and respects international law and human rights. This responsibility concerns both the states and the private sector, and I hope we can together address TFGB in implementing the compact. And lastly, I would like to mention Finland’s Generation Equality Youth Group as an example of civil society’s active engagement. Established in 2021, it consists of 27 young people who focus on advancing gender equality through advocacy. They have published two manifestos called Right to be Online. The first one is for the technology sector, and the second one, which was published only three weeks ago, is for decision makers on how to tackle gender-based online violence. I will stop here and look forward to this. Is it okay now? Sorry about that. One of my functions at UN Women is actually, I’m the Chief of Research and Data, so we do work a lot on the measurement side, particularly here on the measurement of technology-facilitated violence. And it’s exciting that one of the things that we are now doing is really developing a consistent and broad framework for measuring and monitoring the TFGB. And I think that’s really going to advance us in terms of documenting the problem, measuring it, but also addressing it. So thank you very much. So, Bisabel, let me turn to you. The GDC includes references to digital skills and leadership in technology. Are they sufficient, and how can we address gender-based disparities in digital access and promote women’s representation in tech industries, in STEM education, but also in decision-making roles? Thank you. Thank you so much. And it’s a pleasure to be here, so thanks for having me.

Radka Sibille: My name is Radka Sibila, and I work for the European Union delegation to the United Nations in Geneva. The EU was very closely involved in the negotiations of the GDC, and we are very happy to see that the GDC is so strongly enshrined in the human rights, in the international human rights law, including with regards to the gender perspective. As was already mentioned, the GDC upholds the gender equality and the empowerment of all women and girls. And it also speaks about the different targets and about the different obstacles that we need to overcome. So we would need to work on affordable connectivity, digital skilling, and inclusion of women in the tech positions. But, you know, as was already mentioned, the GDC is just a framework, and it can only be impactful if we are able to implement it together and forcefully. And this is going to be a work of the, you know, all the multi-stakeholder community. And the journey will be long, as we already heard during the high-level segment this morning. You know, the representation of women in the tech force, in the tech workforce is very low still. So, for instance, you know, when I read the statistics from the women in tech in Europe, there is only, you know, women comprise only about 19% of the tech workforce. The number is even lower in the leadership positions. And we also saw that during COVID, for instance, women in tech sector faced a likelihood of being furloughed or laid off twice as high as that of their male peers. We also see in those statistics that only 2.3% of women-led startups, for instance, can get venture capital funding. And if you look at the developing countries, you know, the obstacles and challenges are made even greater by the overall global digital divide and the lack of access to meaningful connectivity. So, what do we need to do? There is yet another obstacle that was also mentioned that once women actually get online, they sometimes face gender-based violence. So, the environment online is not safe enough for them. So, I would just like to highlight maybe three points that we need to concentrate on. First is to increase investments overall in the digital infrastructure including broadband connectivity, but also promotion of digital skills and literacy programs that will particularly target the marginalized communities. We also need to increase women’s representation in tech industries, in the STEM education and decision-making roles. And of course, we need to try to make the online space safer for women with zero tolerance to gender-based violence online. We as the EU, we are trying to do that as Team Europe through our Global Gateway project. I will mention just a couple of them. So, for instance, in Mozambique, we have a great initiative. It’s called Vamos Digital and it’s about creating space for digital skills and coding forces for high school students that target particularly women and girls. And we also cooperate with regard to the overall connectivity and bridging the digital divide. We cooperate with the ITU on a project regarding meaningful connectivity indicators that is being implemented in several countries of the world. And then when it comes to the online digital space, as you might have seen, the EU has produced a number of digital legislation pieces which are based on the human rights-based approach to technologies, and in particularly also trying to make the online space safe for women. So, for instance, the Digital Services Act, which is also targeting the content of the social media platforms, or the AI Act, which is trying to regulate the high-risk situations where AI can be misused or can have a negative impact on human rights, including women’s rights. And I will be happy to then answer more questions. Thank you so much.

Papa Seck: Great. Thank you. Thank you very much. So, Miss Hara, let me turn to you. As you know, the work that you do at Digital DCO is really important. There have been many conversations in the lead-up to the GDC on the need to strengthen capacity and address knowledge, a lot of it that you already do. We also talked about resource gaps a lot, especially for low-income countries. How can we make sure we prioritize the generation of knowledge, build capacities, but also generate resources towards ambitious actions that can help us to really, I think, bridge what a lot of us have been talking about here, which is fundamentally the gender-digital divide. So, what is it, from your experience, can you give us some clues on how we may be able to do that?

Hajjar El Haddaou: Thank you so much. I guess. Thank you so much. So, I think what is very important, I would like to build on what you have said from the EU, is that the GDC are principles that we are all agreeing on. Even at DCO, it’s our core mandate is to ensure that every person, every business, every nation has a fair opportunity to participate and have an equal access to all the opportunities that is offered by the digital economy. And this aligns well with what we are trying to achieve by the GDC and the principles of equitable access for everyone. And you have even shed the light, it has been shed the light, how important that those principles need to be translated into actions. And this is also a part of what we have tried to do is, because we have done a lot of conversation on the GDC, we have been involved. Recently, we have launched what we call the Digital Economy Navigator, which will help in assessing, first of all, if we want to really move forward and have progress towards an equitable opportunity, we need to measure where we are. We really need to understand where we are. understand where is the gap, what is exactly missing in different countries. And this is what we are trying to do with the Digital Economy Navigator, which is, again, based on the importance of society, having a dimension of society, having them a share of a fair opportunity, and having that enabler layer from government with the right Internet access, with the right infrastructure, with the right policies that will enable that. And we assess the country, what are the gaps for those countries, how they can progress. And we have included, there are 50 countries, we have included some of the LDCs countries within our assessment. And from what we are seeing, what we are seeing is that we really need to focus on having those data, and on those data for women, having the right for them to get the right skills to really be part of this acceleration. Isabella talked about AI, and how it’s very important in place, how to include the different languages. And this is even what we are trying to do with all the initiatives in DCO, to build upon those principles that are set in the GDC, to make sure that everyone have that right skills, have the right investment in technology from women, different startups, SMEs, all of them, to make sure that it has to be a multi-stakeholder approach. It’s not upon just one country, or one organization, it needs to be a cooperation, a private sector between the governments, between us as international organizations, to really work together, because no one entity or one nation can solve this issue alone. It needs a unite of efforts and direction, which the GCD is offering already, and I think this is the only approach and the only way that this can happen.

Papa Seck: Great, thank you very much. And I think the theme of multi-stakeholders is really resonating, I think, across the past couple of days. So, I’ll now turn to Ms. Chami, and here, Ms. Chami, my question is regarding something that is not in the GDC, particularly DPI, digital public infrastructure. And just this morning, during the plenary, I think we heard about DPI, but also AI-DPI, and here, again, we see a gender perspective that is fundamentally missing. What do you think are the key principles of thinking gender by design that can be applied here?

Speaker 1: Hi, thank you for the question. I hope that you can hear me online and offline as well. Yeah. So, just to get to that, so let’s first understand what we’re all talking about when we talk about digital public infrastructure. And here, I think that UNDP DPI safeguards working groups’ definition of DPI, referring to an umbrella term that refers to a gamut of secure and interoperable digital system solutions for enabling the delivery of public services, is useful to think about. And when you’re looking at gender by design, feminists have long recognized that infrastructures are not value-neutral artifacts, but rather they are political ecosystems. And we can recall the feminist argument for the right to reproductive health services to be actioned as a feminist infrastructural right through gender-responsive design of public health clinic infrastructure as far ago as 30 years back in the days of the ICPD. And so, DPI is, of course, no exception to the gender by design argument. With this background, now when we look at the question of the first principles of actioning gender-responsive DPI, there are some insights I want to share from our research at IT4Change about some principles. So number one, data governance choices in DPI solutions embody an exercise power, and therefore, design choices must be evaluated through the gender justice lens in all stages of the data lifecycle. So to begin with, with respect to data collection and processing in DPIs that support public service delivery, we must use the principle of data minimization. And further, when we encode gender realities in data categories, we need to pay attention to intersectional power and how it operates, and what kind of database sorting and targeting are we deploying. Secondly, we need to give equal attention to the question of downstream data use. Data governance frameworks of DPIs need to be grounded in feminist data justice visions by protecting the right of all data subjects to dignity, privacy, personal autonomy, and the right to be represented in database decision-making, and most importantly, the right to collectively determine how the social commons of data are preserved and promoted for public value and public benefit. The commons of public welfare data cannot become a free-for-all resource that the market exploits without any benefit sharing with relevant data communities. Secondly, when adopting DPI solutions, particularly in the global South where gender digital divides in access and use continue to persist, we cannot lead to a digital-by-default solution which results in the exclusion of women from full citizenship and access to their rightful entitlements. This also means that rather than looking at mobile as last-mile imaginaries, the older and abiding issue of public access points being citizen kiosks for digital public service delivery, we need to have them as integral to DPI imaginaries. My final point is about reimagining DPI as democratic, participatory, accountable infrastructures because after all, gender inclusion is a project of democracy as the Southern Feminist Movement shows us. What this means is that in the design and development of DPIs, we need to leave no one behind. Institutional safeguards for public consultations to guide techno-design choices in DPI design and rollout should be happening not just with affected communities but also frontline workers, the majority of whom are women, whose labor will be implicated in the transition to digital public service delivery. Further, and most importantly, we need legal guarantees to protect women’s human rights bottom lines in DPI implementation, especially in public-private partnership arrangements that are becoming increasingly common in the turn to AI-enabled public service delivery where AI system operators and AI system providers, the government and private partners will be in new relationships. A legally guaranteed right to explanation in DPI deployment is particularly critical in this context for democratic accountability. Last but not the least, last-mile institutional support for addressing intersectional exclusions and discrimination, the right to grievance redress in DPI systems in welfare service delivery becomes crucial. Thank you so much. Great. Thank you very much.

Papa Seck: And really, you know, again, really excellent principles, and I think, you know, we’ve missed it in the GDC, but we have to make sure that it is part of its implementation. So, and I think this is really, again, a role, there is a role in it for everyone. I think that’s where the issue of multi-stakeholders really do come in. And my final question is to Ms. Tara Debs. The GDC recommends mainstreaming a gender perspective in connectivity strategies. How has the YCIS process been addressing gender mainstreaming? And what are the plans for YCIS plus 20 to continue fostering a more inclusive digital ecosystem and support implementation of the GDC? We can’t hear. Can you hear me now? Yes. Okay. Thank you very much. So, I’m very pleased to take part in this important panel discussion. Since its inception in 2003, the World Summit on the Information Society has set out a vision for harnessing information and communication technologies to promote gender equality.

Speaker 2: The YCIS Declaration of Principles affirms that development of ICTs provides enormous opportunities for women who should be an integral part of and key actors of the information society. The inclusion of women and Girls is paramount to bridging the digital gender divide. It aligns with the WSIS’s vision to build a people-centered, inclusive and development-oriented information and knowledge societies where everyone can create, access, utilize and share information. However, the digital gender divide remains one of the greatest barriers to the meaningful participation of women in society. According to the latest ITU facts and figure in 2024, 70% of women are using the internet, compared to 65% of women. This means that globally, there are 189 million more men than women using the internet in 2024. While significant progress has been made, the estimated 2.6 billion people who remain unconnected are primarily women and girls, especially from LDCs, where progress is actually, unfortunately, moving backward. For the past 20 years, the WSIS process has been instrumental in bridging these issues and bringing them to the forefront. Gender mainstreaming is a cross-cutting issue across all 11 WSIS action lines, which offer a robust framework to promote meaningful, affordable access to digital literacy and empowerment for women, among other objectives. At the annual WSIS Forum, WSIS persistently champions a special track on ICTs and gender mainstreaming, and from this special track, we have launched initiatives such as the WSIS Gender Transactors, WSIS Stocktaking Repository of Women and Technology, which is a unique platform which aims to identify and connect women leaders and practitioners across the digital realm for development and to create spaces for networking, mentorship sessions, and documentations of best practices. I actually invite you all to join this repository. And of course, the WSIS Gender Transactors, who pledge to actively champion and advocate for and promote the inclusion of gender consideration in the digital discourse. Another important aspect to highlight is the WSIS Stocktaking and the WSIS Prizes, serving as a valuable resource, with more than 13,000 projects sharing gender-sensitive projects that promote digital inclusion from across the world and facilitating their replication among multi-stakeholders. For instance, projects like Our Girls, Our Future by Ghana Yielding Accomplished African Women have been recognized in 2021 for addressing the barriers women face in accessing digital technologies, specifically targeting women in underrepresented communities and regions. As we look toward WSISPASS20, gender mainstreaming remains a priority in fostering a more inclusive digital ecosystem. The upcoming review in 2025 provides an opportunity to evaluate progress, identify gaps, and develop strategies that align with the recently adopted Global Digital Compact, where gender perspectives are central to its implementation, and of course, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Some of the work includes continue encouraging the development of gender-responsive technology and innovation that take cater to the needs of women and girls through partnerships and multi-stakeholder collaborations. Keep supporting the data collection and gender disaggregated data collection to better inform policies and initiatives using the Partnership on Measuring ICTs for Development. Under WSIS Action Line C4 Capacity Building, keep supporting and scaling Skills Development Program, specifically designed for women and girls in more regions to accelerate progress. Great examples are the ITU’s Equals Global Partnership, focusing on access, skills, leaderships, and research. The AI Skill Accelerator for Girls, which aims to equip young women and marginalized communities with the capacity to become AI creators and not just consumers. Promoting gender-responsive policies, advocating for policies that address affordability, online safety, and equitable access to digital resources for women and marginalized groups. Collaborating with UN Women and other stakeholders on a WSIS Beijing plus 30 Common Action Plan for bridging gender digital divide. Through the open consultation process that is currently being active for the preparations towards the WSIS plus 20 High Level Event in 2025, some WSIS stakeholders are calling for a new WSIS Action Line on Gender. Joining the WSIS plus 20 High Level Event 2025 and contributing to the ICTs and gender mainstreaming special track is also an aspect to work towards the WSIS plus 20 review in 2025. To conclude, over the years WSIS has acknowledged the critical importance of fostering digital gender equality and this recognition stems from the understanding that digital inclusion is a cornerstone for achieving broader social and economic equality. The Global Digital Compact, Beijing plus 30, and the WSIS plus 20 review offer a critical opportunity to reimagine the digital future. By doubling down on gender mainstreaming, we can ensure that this digital revolution leaves no one behind. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Ms. Demps. So, really, you know, again, a very rich discussion and I think, you know, some of the common themes are being highlighted here and so, Helen, maybe let me just turn to you to see if there are maybe a couple of questions. We still have about five minutes, but just in case there are any questions or comments that are coming through the chat. Thank you, Papa. I know that we’re over time, but at least I think

Papa Seck: we have one speaker. Kitli, are you there? Yeah, I’m here. Hi. Thank you very much. So, hello, colleagues and many friends on this panel. Just to go to the, I’m Caitlin Craft

Speaker 3: Bachman from Women at the Table on A plus Alliance for Inclusive Algorithms. I just want to say, as we look to the lessons on gender equality from the GDC, we have a couple of operational ideas. One is to have a standalone action line for gender in WSIS to add an action line. We know that having a standalone paragraph in the GDC, which we worked very hard to incorporate, is a powerful opportunity. We would obviously also like stronger mainstreaming throughout WSIS, which I know they’re working very hard at, but for everybody to support that and advocate. We also think a digital track at Beijing plus 30 and within CSW in general would be a really fabulous addition to bring together the worlds of digital and gender. And to that end, also the use of CEDAW’s very recent general recommendation 40 for parity for women in all forms of decision-making, including in the technology world, which again, we worked very hard for having them mention AI and technology. So, it would be fabulous if that coordination between UN Women, between WSIS, between OSET, the Office for Technology, would be sort of integrated and worked hard on so that we have the floor, the terrible floor, of technology facilitated gender-based violence. But we also start to create a much higher and much wider ceiling for the possibilities that the new technology can bring. And then finally, to help make those possibilities a reality, we would like for everyone to consider gender-responsive budgeting, and in particular, gender-responsive public procurement would set aside for both women-owned businesses and women-run businesses, for which we now have an ISO standard, but also for businesses that address the inequities that women face and sort of work to create a better enabling environment that way. So, it’s not only about more women and more women studying STEM, but it’s also more operations that actually go towards creating different structural barriers. And finally, sex disaggregated data, sex, age, and geography. Thank you very much.

Papa Seck: Thank you very much, and sorry I had to rush you there. But really, again, I wouldn’t prolong this much. I know you have places to be. But really, just I think, thank you to all of you for joining us and for this conversation, and also for those who have joined us online. It’s, you know, we have 25 participants who are still there, really, again, listening to this conversation. And it’s not a one-and-done. We’ll continue this conversation, including through Beijing, WSIS, and next year. So, thank you very much. Thank you.

Agreement Points

Importance of gender equality in digital technologies

Helene Molinier

Roy Eriksson

Radka Sibille

Hajjar El Haddaoui

Speaker 2

GDC acknowledges gender disparities in digital technologies

Gender equality is one of 13 GDC principles

GDC reaffirms recommendations from CSW67 on mainstreaming gender perspectives

GDC offers framework for cooperation on gender equality

WSIS process champions ICTs and gender mainstreaming

Multiple speakers emphasized the importance of recognizing and addressing gender disparities in digital technologies, as reflected in the Global Digital Compact (GDC) and other international frameworks.

Need to address digital violence against women

Roy Eriksson

Radka Sibille

GDC commits to developing methodologies to counter digital violence

Need for more data and evidence on digital violence against women

Importance of effective grievance mechanisms for users to report concerns

EU legislation aims to make online spaces safer for women

Speakers agreed on the urgency of addressing digital violence against women through various means, including data collection, grievance mechanisms, and legislation.

Promoting women’s participation in technology

Radka Sibille

Speaker 2

Need to increase women’s representation in tech industries and STEM education

Importance of investing in digital infrastructure and skills programs for women

Need for gender-responsive technology and innovation

Speakers emphasized the need to increase women’s participation in technology fields through education, skill development, and targeted investments.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers highlighted the importance of addressing gender biases in AI and data governance to ensure more inclusive and equitable digital technologies.

Isabel De Sola

Speaker 1

Current AI models likely not gender-responsive due to data biases

Data governance in DPI must be evaluated through gender justice lens

Unexpected Consensus

Multi-stakeholder approach to digital gender equality

Helene Molinier

Hajjar El Haddaou

Speaker 1

GDC reaffirms recommendations from CSW67 on mainstreaming gender perspectives

GDC offers framework for cooperation on gender equality

DPI design should include public consultations with affected communities

Despite coming from different sectors, these speakers all emphasized the importance of a multi-stakeholder approach in addressing digital gender equality, suggesting a broader consensus on collaborative efforts.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement include recognizing gender disparities in digital technologies, addressing digital violence against women, promoting women’s participation in technology, and the need for gender-responsive AI and data governance.

Consensus level

There is a high level of consensus among the speakers on the importance of gender equality in the digital realm. This strong agreement implies a shared understanding of the challenges and a collective commitment to addressing them, which could facilitate more coordinated and effective actions in implementing the Global Digital Compact and related initiatives.

Different Viewpoints

Approach to addressing gender disparities in AI

Isabel De Sola

Speaker 1

Current AI models likely not gender-responsive due to data biases

Data governance in DPI must be evaluated through gender justice lens

While both speakers acknowledge the need for gender-responsive AI, Isabel De Sola focuses on partnerships to develop gender-affirming AI, while Speaker 1 emphasizes the importance of data governance and evaluation through a gender justice lens.

Unexpected Differences

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement revolve around the specific approaches to implementing gender equality in digital spaces, particularly in AI development, data governance, and addressing digital violence.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among the speakers is relatively low. Most speakers agree on the overall goals of promoting gender equality in digital spaces and implementing the GDC. The differences mainly lie in the specific strategies and focus areas each speaker emphasizes. This level of disagreement is not likely to significantly impede progress on the topic, but rather suggests a need for integrated approaches that combine various strategies to achieve comprehensive gender equality in digital spaces.

Partial Agreements

Both speakers agree on the need to address digital violence against women, but they propose different approaches. Roy Eriksson emphasizes the development of methodologies within the GDC framework, while Radka Sibille highlights EU legislation as a means to create safer online spaces.

Roy Eriksson

Radka Sibille

GDC commits to developing methodologies to counter digital violence

EU legislation aims to make online spaces safer for women

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers highlighted the importance of addressing gender biases in AI and data governance to ensure more inclusive and equitable digital technologies.

Isabel De Sola

Speaker 1

Current AI models likely not gender-responsive due to data biases

Data governance in DPI must be evaluated through gender justice lens

Key Takeaways

The Global Digital Compact (GDC) acknowledges gender disparities and includes gender equality as a key principle, but implementation with clear targets and accountability is crucial.

Technology-facilitated gender-based violence is a major concern that requires better data, reporting mechanisms, and legislative responses.

There is a significant need to increase women’s representation in tech industries, STEM education, and digital leadership roles.

Current AI and digital public infrastructure (DPI) systems often lack gender-responsive design and need improvement.

Multi-stakeholder cooperation and partnerships are essential for implementing the GDC and addressing gender digital divides.

Resolutions and Action Items

Develop effective methodologies to measure, monitor, and counter digital violence against women

Increase investments in digital infrastructure and skills programs targeting women and marginalized communities

Integrate gender perspectives into policies and programs addressing disinformation

Create a Digital Economy Navigator to assess countries’ progress on digital equity

Support the WSIS Gender Trendsetters and Repository of Women in Technology initiatives

Collaborate on a WSIS-Beijing+30 Common Action Plan for bridging the gender digital divide

Unresolved Issues

How to effectively address gender biases in AI and large language models

Specific mechanisms for enforcing GDC commitments on gender equality

Strategies for increasing venture capital funding for women-led tech startups

Methods to ensure gender-responsive design in digital public infrastructure

Approaches to balance digital-by-default solutions with inclusion of women lacking digital access

Suggested Compromises

Partnering with tech companies, academics, and civil society to develop more gender-affirming AI systems

Balancing digital service delivery with maintaining non-digital access points for those lacking connectivity

Implementing gender-responsive public procurement to support both women-owned businesses and those addressing women’s inequities

We cannot have digital technologies or digital infrastructure deployed without assessing their broader associative risk and opportunities. And so having these gaps, it means that women are at risk of being doubly excluded, being excluded first of the economic opportunities that AI or GPI can offer, but also excluded for the governance decision in shaping their deployment.

speaker

Helene Molinier

reason

This comment highlights the critical importance of considering gender impacts when developing and deploying digital technologies. It introduces the concept of ‘double exclusion’ for women in the digital realm.

impact

This set the tone for much of the subsequent discussion, emphasizing the need for gender-responsive approaches in AI and digital infrastructure development.

It takes a village to raise a gender affirming AI. So we need to work with the companies, academics, scientists need to look closely at their data and at their models. Tweak the data, data can be tweaked. We need to roll it out into the world and have civil society accompany its applications in the world, and a feedback loop from civil society to companies to tweak it again.

speaker

Isabel De Sola

reason

This comment introduces a collaborative, multi-stakeholder approach to developing gender-affirming AI, emphasizing the importance of ongoing feedback and adjustment.

impact

It shifted the conversation towards practical solutions and highlighted the need for continuous engagement between tech developers and civil society.

Data governance choices in DPI solutions embody an exercise power, and therefore, design choices must be evaluated through the gender justice lens in all stages of the data lifecycle.

speaker

Nandini Chami

reason

This comment brings attention to the power dynamics inherent in data governance and the need to consider gender justice at every stage of data use in digital public infrastructure.

impact

It deepened the discussion on DPI by introducing a critical feminist perspective on data governance and design choices.

We need to put in place enforceable standards grounded in international human rights.

speaker

Helene Molinier

reason

This comment emphasizes the need for concrete, enforceable measures to ensure gender equality in digital spaces, moving beyond aspirational language.

impact

It shifted the focus towards actionable steps and policy measures, influencing subsequent discussions on implementation strategies.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by consistently emphasizing the need for gender-responsive approaches in digital technology development and governance. They moved the conversation from identifying problems to proposing solutions, highlighting the importance of multi-stakeholder collaboration, data governance, and enforceable standards. The discussion evolved from general principles to specific strategies for implementing gender equality in digital spaces, with a strong focus on practical steps and policy measures.

How can we ensure that the GDC implementation is set on clear targets and accountability mechanisms?

speaker

Helene Molinier

explanation

This is important to ensure commitments to gender equality are more than symbolic and lead to concrete action.

How can we develop effective methodologies to measure, monitor, and counter all forms of violence and abuse in digital space?

speaker

Roy Eriksson

explanation

This is critical for addressing technology-facilitated gender-based violence and making the online space safer for women.

How can we increase investments in digital infrastructure, digital skills, and literacy programs that particularly target marginalized communities?

speaker

Radka Sibille

explanation

This is essential for bridging the gender digital divide and ensuring women’s meaningful participation in the digital economy.

How can we implement gender-responsive data governance in Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI) solutions?

speaker

Nandini Chami

explanation

This is crucial for ensuring that DPI design and implementation do not perpetuate or exacerbate existing gender inequalities.

How can we integrate gender perspectives into AI governance and development?

speaker

Isabel De Sola

explanation

This is important to ensure that AI systems are gender-responsive and do not perpetuate biases against women and girls.

How can we improve data collection and gender-disaggregated data to better inform policies and initiatives in the digital sector?

speaker

Tala Dabbs

explanation

This is crucial for understanding the gender digital divide and designing effective interventions to address it.

How can we implement gender-responsive budgeting and public procurement in the technology sector?

speaker

Caitlin Kraft Buchman

explanation

This could help create a better enabling environment for women-owned and women-run businesses in the tech sector.