Uncategorized

Summary

This workshop focused on innovative approaches to teaching AI fairness and governance, emphasizing the use of serious games and project-based learning. The speakers discussed the importance of making AI education more inclusive and accessible across diverse educational systems globally.

Tayma Abdalhadi highlighted the need for interdisciplinary approaches to AI education and the importance of empowering users through effective feedback loops. Ayaz Karimov introduced the concept of serious games, explaining their effectiveness in teaching complex subjects like AI. He demonstrated this with an example of a cybersecurity game called “Duck Code.”

Melissa El Feghali discussed the benefits of project-based learning in non-formal educational settings, emphasizing its flexibility and potential for community engagement. The speakers addressed challenges in implementing these methods, including issues of access to resources and expertise.

The discussion touched on the importance of cultural adaptability in AI education methods and strategies for measuring the effectiveness of interactive tools. The speakers also addressed concerns about screen time and the responsible use of AI tools like ChatGPT in educational settings.

Key recommendations included focusing on grassroots efforts, creating flexible learning frameworks, and promoting AI literacy. The speakers emphasized the need for contextualization in educational games and the importance of teaching critical thinking skills when using AI tools.

The workshop concluded with a call for educators to adapt their teaching methods to incorporate AI tools effectively, encouraging students to use these technologies as aids for creativity and critical thinking rather than as substitutes for original work.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– Using games and gamification to teach AI fairness and governance concepts

– The importance of project-based learning and non-formal education settings for teaching AI topics

– Strategies for making AI education culturally adaptable and accessible globally

– Challenges in implementing AI education initiatives, including access to resources and expertise

– Concerns about screen time and responsible use of AI tools like ChatGPT by students

Overall purpose:

The goal of this discussion was to explore innovative approaches for teaching AI fairness and governance, with a focus on interactive and engaging methods like serious games and project-based learning that can be implemented in diverse educational contexts.

Speakers

– Raneem Zaitoun, Workshop moderator

– Tayma Abdalhadi, Research Analyst on Human-Centered Technology, UN Regional Youth Advisory Group

– Ayaz Karimov, Researcher in Gamification and AI Education, Head of Product, Swiss Cyber Institute

– Melissa El Feghali, Youth Representative, World Organization of the Scout Movement (WOSM)

Innovative Approaches to Teaching AI Fairness and Governance

This hybrid workshop, featuring both in-person and online participants, explored innovative methods for teaching AI fairness and governance. The discussion focused on interactive and engaging approaches that can be implemented across diverse educational contexts globally, featuring insights from experts in human-centered technology, gamification, and youth education.

Speakers and Their Presentations

1. Ayaz Karimov – Researcher in gamification and AI education, Head of Product at Swiss Cyber Institute

Karimov introduced the concept of serious games as an effective tool for teaching complex subjects like AI. He distinguished serious games from regular games, explaining that while regular games are played for entertainment, serious games have specific educational goals. Karimov demonstrated this approach with an example of a cybersecurity game called “Duck Code,” which was played at the Global Cyber Conference in Switzerland. He highlighted key elements of effective educational games, including narrative, progressive difficulty, realistic scenarios, and clear objectives.

2. Tayma Abdalhadi – Research Analyst on Human-Centered Technology, UN Regional Youth Advisory Group

Abdalhadi emphasized the importance of an interdisciplinary approach to AI education, involving both technical and non-technical perspectives to provide a comprehensive understanding of AI concepts. She discussed the dynamic relationship between users and AI technology, highlighting issues of algorithmic bias and the importance of empowering users through effective feedback loops. Abdalhadi stressed the need for cultural adaptability in AI education methods, adapting learning materials to local realities and cultural contexts.

3. Melissa El Feghali – Youth representative at the World’s Organization for the Scouts Movement

El Feghali advocated for project-based learning in non-formal settings, allowing for more flexible and inclusive learning environments. She emphasized how this approach breaks down barriers of participation for youth, fosters collaborative learning, and enables real-world customization. El Feghali noted that the impact of project-based learning extends beyond the immediate activity, creating a “ripple effect” that continues to influence learners and their communities.

Key Themes and Approaches

1. Interdisciplinary and Inclusive Education

2. Serious Games and Gamification

3. Project-Based Learning

4. Cultural Adaptability and Contextualisation

Challenges and Concerns (from Q&A)

1. Screen Time Management: Karimov raised concerns about managing screen time, particularly for younger learners. He introduced the concept of ‘cyber disease’ and emphasized the importance of limiting screen time. El Feghali suggested that many educational games could be designed without requiring screen time at all.

2. Access to Resources and Expertise: El Feghali highlighted the lack of access to digital tools and expertise as a significant barrier to AI education in many contexts.

3. Responsible Use of AI Tools: The speakers addressed challenges posed by AI tools like ChatGPT in educational settings, particularly concerns about cheating. Abdalhadi emphasized the need to teach critical thinking skills when using AI tools, encouraging students to compare information from multiple sources and understand that AI outputs are not always entirely accurate.

4. Contextualizing Project-Based Learning: El Feghali discussed the importance of adapting project-based learning to local contexts and resources, emphasizing flexibility and creativity in implementation.

Recommendations and Future Directions

1. Focus on Grassroots Efforts: Emphasize local initiatives and community engagement in AI education.

2. Create Flexible Learning Frameworks: Develop adaptable educational approaches that can be tailored to different contexts and learning styles.

3. Promote AI Literacy: Karimov stressed the importance of understanding AI concepts, including technical aspects like hallucination in language models.

4. Adapt Educational Goals: Abdalhadi suggested reframing educational objectives to focus on critical thinking and creativity rather than just content production when using AI tools.

5. Implement Feedback Loops: Ensure that users of AI technology have opportunities to provide input and shape the development of AI systems.

6. Encourage Collaborative Learning: El Feghali emphasized the value of peer-to-peer learning and community engagement in non-formal educational settings.

Conclusion

The workshop concluded with a call for educators to adapt their teaching methods to incorporate AI tools effectively. The speakers highlighted the potential of serious games, project-based learning, and culturally adaptive approaches in making AI education more accessible and engaging. They emphasized the need for ongoing research into the effectiveness of these methods and the importance of developing AI literacy across different age groups and contexts.

The discussion revealed diverse perspectives on implementing innovative approaches to AI education, with speakers offering complementary strategies to address the challenges of teaching AI fairness and governance in a rapidly evolving technological landscape. At the end of the workshop, participants were provided with a digital handbook and additional resources to support their efforts in AI education.

Raneem Zaitoun: Hello. Thank you so much for joining us in person and online and welcome to the workshop. So workshop 232 and innovative approaches to AI teaching and fairness. A little bit more about our session today. So we will be exploring innovative methods to teach AI fairness and governance and this workshop will combine some expert insights, interactive sessions, example games, as well as policy discussions to foster inclusive and impactful discussions around education. So if you please move on to the next slide. Perfect. So let me introduce to you our speakers for today. We have over here Ayaz Karimov. He is a researcher in gamification and AI education and also a head of product at Swiss Cyber Institute. We also have our online speaker Tayma Abdelhadi. She’s a research analyst with a focus on human-centered technology. She’s a United Nations Regional Youth Board member as well and over here we also have Farhadi. She is a global youth representative at the World’s Organization for the Scouts Movement. All right. Next slide please. So for our workshop agenda today we will be delving into serious games and how we can use serious games for AI education and teaching AI fairness. We will then discuss policy questions on inclusivity, frameworks and the like. We’ll delve into an example game session for you and we’ll be talking about project-based training for practical learning as well. we’ll finish it off with a Q&A session where you can ask questions to any of our speakers, and we will also be asking questions to the speakers itself. And so without further ado, I think we are going to get started with the objectives of this session. If possible, could you please move to the next slide? Next slide, please. Yes, awesome. So some of the objectives for this session will be exploring AI fairness principles, discussing some frameworks around governance and AI, and introducing innovative teaching methodologies to enhance understanding. As this is a hybrid setup, we are looking to have our online participants ask questions through the Zoom itself and interact online, and all of the in-person attendees, please save your questions for later during the Q&A session, and we’ll have an interactive segment later on. Can we please move on to the next slide? And the next one, please. All right, perfect. So I’m going to get started with our online speaker, Tayma Abdelhadi. Tayma, if you could get started for us. So I’ll pass it off to her. Hello, everyone. Hello, Tayma. We can all hear you. Go ahead.

Tayma Abdalhadi: Thank you so much for this introduction, and thank you so much for this very, very important topic and session today. I’ll be the introduction for this session, and I’ll start from the fairness topic. And I think this is important because we have been pretty much inclusive in discussing policies and discussing how can we make this more fit with the human rights sector, but we are not inclusive when it comes to technology. Oftentimes, we keep the information and discussions regarding to how we shape the AI to the technical people, and I think that’s very, very wrong because it’s pretty much an interdisciplinary field right now. What I mean that it’s a dynamic relationship between the users of this technology and the technology itself. When we use the AI model, we shape it by the information we give it, but it also shapes our understanding of the topics that we give it and ask it about. That means it’s no longer just an input-output aesthetic output situation. It’s a dynamic situation, and if we do not empower the users by knowledge and by feedback loops, we will have a pretty skewed AI model, or we will have frustrated users. This leads to multiple problems. The first one is when you’re focusing on algorithms themselves, we can have bias. This bias can be eliminated in two ways. The first way is by the makers themselves who are our students, our future makers of technology. If we manage to install those concepts of fairness and how can we think about the human that we’re making the technology to as the code is being automated and we’re allowed more time and space to think critically and imagine scenarios, then we can mitigate or at some point create safeguard methodologies to protect the users against algorithmic bias. The second part is the users themselves. If we empower users through an effective feedback loop, that means we can officially install and mitigate further damage by the bias that’s held. happening. I’m totally against a concept that was installed traditionally, which is if the product is wrong, then we retrieve it, we fix it, and then we send it back. But right now, we don’t have that luxury because you simply don’t have any competitive context as a user. If you use, for example, ChatGPT and it gives you an answer, then you assume that’s the full truth answer, unless you take it and then you spread it on Reddit, like, for example, the David Mayer case, where some users raise concerns that we do not get any information if we ask it about certain names. It could be a privacy tactic. It could be a censorship tactic. But we don’t have enough transparency from the AI model that tells us what is exactly happening. And the most dangerous thing is when it only gives us a little bit of information and we think that’s all information available. One example that this could be dangerous in is when a political, when you ask it about a political figure and it gives you all the great, nice stuff that it did, but then it does not give you the part where you might think badly of them. This can be used. This can abuse the Privacy Act, for example, in the EU. And it can allow certain information to go through AI models and certain information not. While the user thinks this is the full truth and this is an unbiased opinion. This is also in the perfect cases. But we don’t also talk about the unintended cases that AI might be used in. One of my colleagues is in Africa and they say that sometimes when the teachers in elementary school have internet, they try to get pictures online to show their students about animals, about other countries. And the only truth they know is that static pictures. So imagine those communities being a target to a misinformation campaign where you have AI generated images. How can you explain? this audience that only knew the truth through static images because they don’t have enough access to internet, that there is something called AI generation and these images need to be fact-checked. I believe this is very, very important. I think role scenario playing and serious games and education is not just for computer science students or people in that disciplinary, but it’s also a part, it should be a part of the policies of companies who are deploying this technology as a way to humanize and to imagine further scenarios of how the technology is being used in this speedy, extremely fast-moving world. We need to think for two minutes and say, okay, if I deploy this tomorrow, what might the impact be? And who do I need to measure and imagine that impact? And the second question is more important. And I believe this is one of the key messages that we’re here to deploy. And this is part of conferences like this, where we bring diverse people and have messages discussed and see other aspects too.

Raneem Zaitoun: All right. Thank you so much, Tayma. If we could go back one slide, please. All right. So now I’ll pass it off to Ayaz to speak a little bit more about the use of serious games for teaching AI fairness. Yes.

Ayaz Karimov: Yeah. I can hear myself. So it means actually you can also hear me. Today, I will talk a little bit about the serious games and I will also show you one game that I made and we played last month in Switzerland at Global Cyber Conference. So it could be good examples of actually how we use the game there to teach the cyber security or cyber literacy. But before I start talking about everything, let’s talk about the games and the serious games like that. Maybe it’s the first time even you heard about this term serious games. The main difference between the game and the serious game is that actually when you play the game, you just play for the sake of, like, getting entertained, just to achieve something. But in the case of the serious games, you totally have totally different ultimate goal. For example, let’s say, actually, if your game is about health, let’s say, then your ultimate goal is to get healthier. If the game is about education, then your ultimate goal is to learn something or to teach something in a very, very good way. So you don’t care, actually, if you get entertained or not, but your first goal is totally different thing. But of course, then it comes to entertainment, the other stuff. So the main difference between the serious games and the games is that actually you have the one goal, and beyond this goal, you also have some kind of things to achieve, let’s say. I also did the research about the serious games, whether they really help the learner to achieve something or not. But I also put another research that was carried by other co-researchers about the serious games and their effectiveness. And the research shows that actually when you use the games, it generally positively impacts the motivation, engagement, and academic outcome. So in the general case, actually, you will have very, very good results from the games. But having said this, I also want to say that actually not all games are good for everyone. So hereby, we need to highlight the importance of personalized learning. But as I mentioned, in most of the cases, the serious games are considered as a very, very efficient tool to teach hard topics, something like AI or, let’s say, the STEM subjects. And why these games are good, another perspective is that most of the games are simulation-based. So even if you play the board game or, let’s say, if you play the other strategy games, in most of the cases, you get the simulation from the real life. So while you play the game, maybe your brain doesn’t understand, actually, what’s happening there. But actually, you learn something there which can be implemented in the daily life. in the real life as well. So that’s very, very strong tool actually nowadays. And I also put in the last bullet point, I put some types of the game, but today I will particularly talk about the puzzle game, which is very, very good way of this puzzle game is the escape room game. And what happens there is that actually you have the challenge in the game and you try to do some kind of actions. You try to solve this challenge. And once you solve this, then you move to another level and another level and you just try to escape the room, let’s say. If you can go to the next slide, please.

Raneem Zaitoun: And next one, please. So we cannot see the slides, like if you’re sharing them because we cannot see them. Sorry, everyone, a bit of a technical issue. All right, while we work on that, I could get started.

Ayaz Karimov: I will just briefly talk about this game. I will stand up because I also put some games from this games that I prepared with one game designer from Portugal. And the game’s name is the Duck Code. And the idea is that actually, if you can go to the next slide, please. So the idea is that actually we have a hacker and the hacker did the hacking in the four cities previously in Europe. So the story starts with like that. And then it’s the one hotel in Zurich. And the idea is that the fifth attack was going to happen or is going to happen in this hotel room. And the players are put in this hotel room and they try to make sure that actually they find some kind of clues so that they can stop this hacking. So the narration of the narrative of the game works like this. And it’s pretty much simple clues. So we didn’t use actually anything hard because the idea was that actually, if you put here like some kind of coding challenge or something like this, not everyone is going to. solve this. So we had really, really simple clues, which also helped them to learn some kind of cyber literacy, but at the same time, really get entertained. Can we go to the next slide, please? Yes. So again, we had the four hacks happened, and the next one is going to happen in Zurich. And our hacker left some of his belongings in this room. And in this, I will show you some of these items in the room so that you can understand what kind of belongings we are talking about, and why even we use these belongings in the game, because I guess that’s a very important point to highlight. If you go to the next slide, please. So now in the next slide, I will talk about six different things to you. So if you want to use the game, or if you want to create your own game, then you can just take a note, or I don’t know, just keep in your mind that actually, those are the most efficient, or those are the main techniques that actually you need to implement. So here, our question is that what you can do as a professional to make sure that the game is engaging, and it really teaches something. If you can go to the next slide, please. So the first one is the narrative. When I start introducing the game, if you remember, I started directly talking about some kind of background information, right? Like the hacking happened in some countries, it came to the Zurich, and actually, we had the one game master. Basically, this is the person who was leading the game. The game master was pretending to be the detective in the game. So he was in the same room with our players, and he was showing some kind of things, and he was just trying to pretend that actually he is also trying to solve this with them. So the first rule is that actually, you really need to have the good narration in the game. If you don’t have the narration, it generally fails, actually. Can we go to the next slide, please? This progressive difficulty, what does it mean, actually? In the first clue, let’s say that in your game, if you have the three or four clues, you always should start with the basic one. And if you use the basic, basic, basic, basic, then most of the time, actually, your game fails again. So the idea here in this game techniques is that you always have the level one, let’s say difficulty one. In the level two, you have at least a little bit more difficulty. If you don’t have the more difficulty, then it’s also another problem. And in our case, we also implement the same thing. And here, maybe it’s also good to mention, especially you don’t have to have so many challenges in one game. We had only two challenge, actually. We just had the one basic and one very, very hard one. Can we go to the next one, please? And the realistic scenario. So here, we bought a pot from the shopping. And what we did is actually we broke this pot in the room. And why did we do this is actually, normally, if you run away from there, highly possible is that actually you crash something and something fall down, right? And in the game, we did these things a lot. Like we just threw away some books, some glasses fall down, and that there was some juice on the floor. These kind of things, actually. When you have these really realistic things that actually happen, or some kind of actions in the game, the most players actually really, really like it. You can also integrate this kind of realistic things in the game as well. For example, in our case, we were using the pieces of the pot here, just pieces of the pot to create some kind of challenge for the players. So that’s why we didn’t only create this realistic scenario, but also use them as part of the challenge. Can we go to the next slide, please? The clear objective. So when you play the game, at least I guess it’s the core of all the learning activities, not only the serious games, but it’s pretty much important in the games as well. So basically, when you have the game, you cannot tell the players that you will win when you escape the room, right? It’s not that pretty much objective. You have to be clear. that actually what are the exact things that actually they need to do. For example in our narration we started by saying that you will have the two clues and that one the first part is there and the second part is there so they had the clear goals or clear objectives actually what they are going to do. By the way in this game just since this is in the picture I also want to say is actually we use exact documents that we try to find from the public resources as a crime office so we really pretend like it’s the real document from the crime office that’s why it has too much detail there. Can we go to the next one please? Yes and now actually my colleague Melissa is going to talk about the project.

Raneem Zaitoun: Yes so now we’ll pass it off to Melissa to talk about project-based training for practical learning.

Melissa El Feghali: Hi everyone so we’ve seen through the interactive example that Ayaz gave us how we can transform very abstract ideas such as AI fairness into tangible and engaging ones but the idea is how do we scale these approaches and how do we use project-based learning how do we use it to transform these experiences into sustainable and teaching methods and impactful methods that we can use in that are non-formal such as scout groups, community spaces, youth movements etc. So I’m going to talk about three things the first answer is why use gamification for project-based learning so gamification that uses games challenges and simulation is a natural fit for project-based learning but why because first of all it encourages active problem-solving and critical thinking but also it creates a very flexible environment to learn. So it makes learning accessible, because usually we’re used to traditional curricula where we have to follow it. But in these examples, we have the flexibility to experiment around in the places that are doing these games. And also, it builds engagement through clear objective, realistic scenarios, and the progressive difficulty that Ayaz talked about previously. The second question that you might ask is, why use these settings, and why do these settings work? So non-formal educational environments, such as scout groups, youth clubs, and community spaces are ideal for project-based learning, because they break down the barriers of participation for youth. So we have more flexibility to experiment, as I said, and we don’t have the barriers of who has access in terms of financials to access these places or not. And it fosters collaborative learning, where people work in groups, and they learn about empathy, and they build collectively ownership over the solutions that they come up with. And finally, it enables real-world customization. So youth can adapt challenges to local contexts. So they can adapt the game, for example, to local AI fairness issues, such as accessibility to schools or the technological resources that are available or not. The third thing I want to talk about is impact. So how do we scale the impact? Project-based learning doesn’t just stop when the activity ends. It creates a kind of ripple effect that goes on. So if, for example, someone in a scout group creates an AI challenge game about AI fairness, they can take this game to another scout group, to another school, to another youth club. And so from one idea, you can generate multiple ideas, and it creates this ripple effect, because participants gain ownership of the game that they’ve created. it can be adapted to multiple communities. So it’s not just like a fixed game that I’ve created and it only works within their context. So I just want to say that project-based learning supported by gamification empowers communities to democratize access to AI fairness and AI fairness education. So by integrating clear objectives, by creating realistic scenarios, by doing this progressive difficulty, a way of learning stuff, we can bridge the global concepts that are sometimes very complex and that we’re not able to break down, such as AI fairness, to local context and lived realities and we can make learning more inclusive, engaging and scalable. So one last thought to leave you with is think about the communities that you live in, think about the youth that are around you within these community spaces and how can you use project-based learning methods to introduce them to topics such as AI fairness and ensure that the message scales beyond just the session that you’re giving or the room that you’re in. Thank you.

Raneem Zaitoun: Okay, great. Can we move on to the next slide, please? Thank you, Melissa. All right, so now we’re launching into a Q&A panel discussion. We’ll start off with a couple of questions we have from our end then I’ll open up the floor to any questions that the audience may have. So I will start off with our online speaker, Tayma. So Tayma, my question for you is how can we ensure that the methods used to teach AI fairness and governance are culturally adaptable and accessible across diverse education systems globally?

Tayma Abdalhadi: I think this has two main factors that we need to take in mind. The first one is grassroots effort. It’s really damaging that technology comes from top to bottom when we go from a global scale to local communities because no matter how we try to understand the context we can never get it as the person who’s living there. And luckily, because the technology is such spreading worldwide, we can always find individuals within those communities who understand the local reality but also has the enough qualifications or at least the ability to connect with those global entities and then get them to speak to the local entities’ circumstances. Whether it was internet access, any cultural difference, it could be the simple story I told you about in classrooms where you don’t have much access to internet or materials. And if reached to the right person, it could impact a change in the technology itself. The second thing, as I always say, it’s the feedback loop. We can’t always say that when we put this little button that says feedback or support, that it’s enough motive or it’s suitable for everyone to report through it. We need to go and see what actually motivates people to make an impact and to deliver their voices. And most importantly, how can we make sure that those voices that have been delivered are actually getting the counterfeedback they deserve? So if I tell one company that their videos do not have enough markdown and they look too realistic and could be used in misinformation, and then I don’t see any impact, it will disencourage me to provide feedback again. And that will create frustrated users from one end, but also a broken loop of understanding and feedback from the other. So it’s mainly grassroot work. It’s empowering individuals and making their voices heard by updates, by working within the community to provide solutions that work for them.

Raneem Zaitoun: So I will now pass off the next question for you. What strategies would you recommend for measuring the effectiveness of interactive tools such as simulations or serious games and teaching complex concepts like algorithmic fairness?

Ayaz Karimov: I guess we already discussed about how games are good for this teaching, especially hard subjects. There has been other research actually why people are using the games. And actually one of the reasons actually, for example, if you want to teach biology or physics, it’s very, very hard subject to teach. So that’s why they were just trying to find some ways, and one of these ways is serious games. But I guess the question here maybe we need to ask is that what type of game I need to use? Because, for example, if I am a teacher, the first question that comes to my mind is that actually there are dozens of games, like the board games, simulation games, strategy games, like that. Which one to use in my classroom? And actually, the best way is to do this. Actually, you do some test iterations that actually one day you start with the board game. In the second day, you play the strategy game. In the third game, you play the puzzle game. And you just try to see actually which one is the best for your entire classroom, because I guess that was the best strategy to do. And that was the one thing actually we did with one biology teacher in our research. So I would say actually testing different games and trying to see actually which one is much more impactful, at least from the eyes of the teacher.

Raneem Zaitoun: Perfect. Thank you so much. Our next question goes to Melissa. So, Melissa, my question for you. What are the key challenges youth groups may face in implementing project-based training, learning for AI governance? And how can policymakers support these initiatives?

Melissa El Feghali: Okay. I’m going to talk about one challenge that I think is essential. It affects a lot of other things, and it’s access. It’s lack of access. Access in terms of resources, but also in terms of expertise. So a lot of youth movements lack the expertise in terms of mentorship, but also in terms of the technology that is being used or the tools that are provided to them. So three things that I think are very important to policymakers to take into consideration. The first thing is, of course, investing in infrastructure to have better access to digital tools, and also to digital literacy programs. The second thing is to create partnerships. Create partnerships not just between governments and private sectors, but also between the civil society sector. And in that way, there’s bigger room to share expertise from both sides. Third thing that is the most important is to support the flexible learning networks or frameworks that are available out there. So, when you give flexibility to the participants or to the people creating these initiatives, you have more room to experiment, to fail and then to build upon it. And this is a very important concept when it comes to project-based learning and the whole process that is used. So, if these three conditions are met, then for sure the challenges would be less challenging, let’s say, for the people who are trying to do this. And youth will be empowered in that way to have to not just learn about this concept but also be part of the solutions that are being created and have it be more flexible in terms of contextualization and the communities that they live in and that way it’s more relatable to them. Thank you.

Raneem Zaitoun: All right. Thank you so much for that, Melissa. Now, I will open up the floor to the audience if anyone has any questions to ask our wonderful speakers. Online as well. So, both online and on-site. Gulcan, if you have any questions through the Zoom Q&A, please let us know and we’d be happy to answer any of the questions as well. All right. Go ahead. All right. I’ll come up to you and give you the mic. Sorry. Excuse me.

Audience: Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you very much for the speakers, for the great information. I have just only one question, which is related to the screen time and how we can control, knowing that these tools is really very beneficial and with a very good intention to improve and develop, how we can manage the screen time and maybe the impact of the screen time or the access of screen time. Thank you.

Raneem Zaitoun: Should I? Yes.

Ayaz Karimov: if whoever wants to go. Yes, very, very, very good question. Actually, it has a name in the academia as well. It’s called like the cyber disease like that. It’s not only when you watch the screen too much or when you use the VR or AR, your brain like the loses itself. And if you like to watch your phone too much, your head is going to ache too much. And that’s why it’s called like the cyber disease. That’s very good point. I know some information is actually what could help for this, but actually it is still very, very huge problems, particularly for this immersive technologies, because everyone is talking about this technologies, but when it comes to using them, actually, it’s very challenging because not anyone can use this for a longer time. So normally it depends on the learner’s age or a little bit more detailed, of course, is needed to say something exactly. But normally, at least from the one of the research that actually I did, if the children’s age is between the eight to 12, then the normal playing time for the educational games should be maximum 40 minutes. So it’s considered like the one lesson per day, it’s enough. Normally one lesson is approximately 40 minutes in the countries that actually I live in. So it’s 40 minutes is acceptable. But of course, if you get tired, I know that actually you get to play with more fun and there are also other dimensions as well. For example, are you using this time only to play some games? Because also some games are designed in a ways that actually it doesn’t impact you that much. So actually you don’t have to really make your eyes tired. So it really depends on the game. But most of the time, the shortest answer is 40 minutes if the children’s age is up to 12.

Melissa El Feghali: I can add to that on what Ayaz said. It really depends on the game. that you’re aiming for. A lot of the games that can be created don’t even need to use screen or have screen time. And this is exactly one of the points we talked about the flexibility of these kinds of settings. You can do a whole game about AI fairness and education and outdoor settings where you wouldn’t even need any screen or screen time and you can relay the message in a creative way. So I think it really depends on the game, how you want to design it, what’s the context you’re in and what are the resources provided as well.

Raneem Zaitoun: Thank you. Tayma, is there anything to add?

Tayma Abdalhadi: I would echo what Melissa said on the flexibility of hybrid games, especially for children. And I think that’s a very important topic because oftentimes we focus on the digital solution staying in a digital world where we miss the core idea that it depends on logic. And at the end of the day, if you want to humanize something, you don’t need a screen for you to tell you how to humanize it. You just imagine, you use your imagination, use relevant cases and scenarios and that does not necessarily need a screen for you to do.

Raneem Zaitoun: All right. Perfect. Thank you, everyone. Do we have any other questions from the audience? I’m standing up in case I need to hand the mic to anybody. Any other questions? All right. Perfect.

Audience: Yeah. So I think one question or query that I have is when it comes to contextualizing project-based learning or even engaging learning or non-form education, many times what happens is that if you do not bring in or the elements, trying to bring all those elements as it is, like bringing the originality, when you contextualize it, that tends to really degrade the level of engagement or the brightness of that product. So have you any examples of any contextualized project-based learnings or initiatives that really has depicted that originality or has not even degraded with what it is supposed to be? So we’d love to know that. My question is, recently there have been a number of parents and teachers complaining about children using ChatGPT, whether to learn or to do assignments. I’d like to hear your thoughts on that. Do you have any tips on how? how to teach your and use ChatGPT in your own context. Thank you.

Raneem Zaitoun: All right, so I guess if we could tackle maybe each speaker asked answers one question, I think it’s most efficient.

Melissa El Feghali: I can answer the first question. So I have a lot of examples we can even discuss after the session if you’re interested. It really depends on the thing to contextualize. So for example, I was part of a training that teaches about peace education and peace is a very broad subject that can be like perceived in a different way in different contexts. And so this program is done around the world in different schools and in different communities. The idea is you keep the same concept. You can even keep the same game, but you have to change the instructions within the game. So for example, we used to do a game about human rights. Okay. And we have to show the difference between visible and invisible violence, and we show them real life examples. So in every community or country that we go to, we change these examples of scenarios and get scenarios from within the same community or country so that the people so that the children can relate to the stories that they reading. So instead of just saying that bullying happened in a school, we give a specific example about a specific type of thing that is usually mentioned in bullying within that community. So that’s a very small example, but it doesn’t devalue the concept or the idea you’re trying to portray. It makes it even more relatable. So that’s the idea about contextualization. You can have a set of games that you can take around, but you can’t keep it exactly the same. So that’s just a very short example.

Ayaz Karimov: Right. Yeah. And I will take the second question, which was about this. Let’s start from one thing. If you didn’t know, already AI, at least the mother of this boy is saying that. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Killed his son. So if you didn’t read the news like in the beginning of the November one one guy did the suicide and that there is still in Investigation, but actually there is very high possibilities that actually it was because of the AI because AI basically was misleading and Again, we can discuss it actually how it happened and why it happened and it happened in the characterized dot AI if you don’t if you know the tool that was that so it’s not the charge of it him. I guess they are even using for other stuff and actually it’s not even the children like that I know pretty much many people that actually they treat you with as a dear Psychologists, which shouldn’t be the case so I guess here the main important thing is that actually this AI literacy come to the stage because when what’s the first education we get in our lives is that in the school at least most of us learn how to read and write and that’s called literacy and then you become a little bit older and older you someone teaches you how to use the computer and that’s called digital. They teach you though how to be safe in the Internet then you learn a little bit cyber literacy and I guess now it’s the time to highlight the importance of that literacy. Actually, many governments are doing some stuff about this, I know that the Netherlands and also in the United Arab Emirates. They have the huge initiative about this a elitist and a particular prompt engineering So that you don’t get to believe that what the AI always tells you but you also have the enough knowledge to understand what’s wrong and what’s not. But it doesn’t and it’s the same thing with the LLM’s this AI tools. They give you the something and they pretends that actually they are telling the truth, but they don’t tell the truth they just hallucinate because it’s just the element they just try to give you some random answer. So the AI literacy basically helps you to not to get to these hallucinations and to make sure that actually you use these things efficiently. So my short answer would be really focus on this AI literacy. And I guess it’s not only for the children. At least I know that half of my friends or people around me, they don’t have the enough AI literacy, I guess, to be able to use these tools.

Raneem Zaitoun: All right. Thank you. Tayma, is there anything to add for any of the questions?

Tayma Abdalhadi: Yes. I want to add something on the second question because I’ve been working a bit with Child Online Safety. And this has been a reoccurring question. And I think this has to do with how we’re approaching AI tools, and especially generative text tools. The first one is, it’s very, very important to make sure that the children know that this is not reality, or at least it’s not the full reality. And this is what I was talking about, about not having comparative contexts. Even us when we’re dealing with chat GPT, when we’re on our own in the chat, we think this is the full truth. And we don’t have any way to compare that or to verify it. So for children, it’s important to be like, okay, this is the answer from one AI model. How about we try other AI models? Or how about we also try humans and ask the teacher or the mother or the sibling? And that way, they are built with a comparative system that they can always verify and check whatever is coming out of the internet, really, not just AI models. This was also a problem with Facebook before AI models came about. It just got upgraded with LLMs. The second part is, what is the goal of the homework? And I think this is a critical problem for all educators. If the goal is just to memorize or just to achieve an essay, then you’re failing as an educator to actually adapt with the technology. And the important thing is that you’re trying to teach your child how to have critical thinking using the LLMs. So instead of being like, okay, instead of writing your homework, how about you ask it what subjects you can write about? And then also make sure they understand that whatever is coming out of this LLM should not be satisfying for them to present on their behalf. That they have this energy and they have this creativity and they have this style in writing that no AI language model can replicate. And no matter how perfect, there’s no such thing as perfect or this perfect answer that we can get from the AI models. It’s the answer that you actually generate using your imagination, your experiences, whatever language that you have. And this should be rewarded, not just the grammatically correct, the perfect language answer. And I think this falls heavily on the educator’s side.

Raneem Zaitoun: All right. Thanks so much, Tayma. Okay. Is there any other questions from the audience? Okay. So I think we are going to wrap it up. Can I please go on to the next slide? All right, everyone. Thank you so much for your time and your attention for this workshop. We have provided actually a digital handbook that you can access. If you could please go on to the next slide. So here are some resources that we’ve included for yourself. You can scan the QR code. You get a digital handbook that way. It has a lot of our key takeaways from this session. And as well as some of the presentation slides. And team contact details. So if you’d like to connect with us through LinkedIn and the like, we have all of that for you. Once again, thank you so much for your time and attention. And it was a pleasure. Thank you. Thank you, everyone.

Agreement Points

Importance of interdisciplinary approach in AI education

Tayma Abdalhadi

Melissa El Feghali

Importance of interdisciplinary approach

Project-based learning in non-formal settings

Both speakers emphasize the need for diverse perspectives and flexible learning environments in AI education, promoting a more comprehensive understanding of AI concepts.

Need for cultural adaptability in AI education

Tayma Abdalhadi

Melissa El Feghali

Cultural adaptability of teaching methods

Contextualization of learning materials

Both speakers stress the importance of adapting AI education methods to different cultural contexts and local realities to ensure relevance and effectiveness.

Importance of critical thinking in AI education

Tayma Abdalhadi

Ayaz Karimov

Teaching critical thinking with AI tools

Need for AI literacy

Both speakers emphasize the need to develop critical thinking skills when using AI tools and the importance of AI literacy in education.

Similar Viewpoints

All speakers advocate for flexible and adaptive approaches in AI education, emphasizing the need for continuous feedback, experimentation, and adjustment of teaching methods.

Tayma Abdalhadi

Ayaz Karimov

Melissa El Feghali

Importance of feedback loops

Testing different game types

Creating flexible learning frameworks

Unexpected Consensus

Non-digital approaches to AI education

Ayaz Karimov

Melissa El Feghali

Screen time management

Project-based learning in non-formal settings

Despite discussing digital tools, both speakers unexpectedly agree on the value of non-digital or limited-digital approaches in AI education, addressing concerns about screen time and emphasizing the importance of real-world, hands-on learning experiences.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The speakers generally agree on the need for interdisciplinary, culturally adaptive, and critical thinking-focused approaches in AI education. They also emphasize the importance of flexibility, feedback, and real-world application in teaching methods.

Consensus level

There is a high level of consensus among the speakers, particularly on the need for innovative and adaptive teaching methods in AI education. This consensus suggests a strong foundation for developing comprehensive and effective AI education strategies that can be applied across diverse contexts and learning environments.

Different Viewpoints

Approach to screen time management

Ayaz Karimov

Melissa El Feghali

Ayaz addresses the issue of managing screen time when using digital educational tools. He discusses the concept of ‘cyber disease’ and the importance of limiting screen time, especially for children.

Melissa El Feghali: I can add to that on what Aya said. It really depends on the game that you’re aiming for. A lot of the games that can be created don’t even need to use screen or have screen time.

While Ayaz emphasizes the importance of limiting screen time, Melissa suggests that many educational games can be designed without requiring screen time at all.

Unexpected Differences

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement were minor and primarily focused on different approaches to implementing AI education and managing screen time.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among the speakers was relatively low. Most speakers presented complementary viewpoints that enhanced the overall discussion on AI education and fairness. This low level of disagreement suggests a general consensus on the importance of AI literacy and the need for innovative, inclusive approaches to AI education.

Partial Agreements

Both speakers agree on the importance of AI literacy, but they differ in their approach. Tayma focuses on critical thinking and comparing multiple sources, while Ayaz emphasizes understanding technical concepts like hallucination in language models.

Tayma Abdalhadi

Ayaz Karimov

Tayma advocates for teaching children to approach AI tools critically. She emphasizes the importance of comparing information from multiple sources and understanding that AI outputs are not always the full truth.

Ayaz emphasizes the importance of AI literacy in education. He argues that understanding AI, including concepts like hallucination in language models, is crucial for effective and safe use of AI tools.

Similar Viewpoints

All speakers advocate for flexible and adaptive approaches in AI education, emphasizing the need for continuous feedback, experimentation, and adjustment of teaching methods.

Tayma Abdalhadi

Ayaz Karimov

Melissa El Feghali

Importance of feedback loops

Testing different game types

Creating flexible learning frameworks

Key Takeaways

Serious games and project-based learning are effective tools for teaching complex AI concepts like fairness and governance

AI education needs to be interdisciplinary and inclusive, involving both technical and non-technical perspectives

Contextualizing and adapting learning materials to local realities is crucial for effective AI education globally

There’s a need for increased AI literacy among both youth and adults to use AI tools responsibly

Feedback loops and grassroots efforts are important for making AI education culturally adaptable and accessible

Resolutions and Action Items

Implement project-based learning and serious games in non-formal educational settings to teach AI fairness

Focus on developing AI literacy programs for various age groups

Create partnerships between governments, private sector, and civil society to improve access to digital tools and expertise

Unresolved Issues

How to effectively measure the impact of interactive tools like serious games in teaching AI concepts

Balancing screen time and digital engagement with other forms of learning, especially for younger students

How to fully address the challenges of AI tools like ChatGPT being used for cheating in academic settings

Suggested Compromises

Using hybrid approaches that combine digital and non-digital elements in AI education games and activities

Adapting existing educational games and materials to local contexts while maintaining core concepts

Reframing educational goals to focus on critical thinking and creativity rather than just content production when using AI tools

What I mean that it’s a dynamic relationship between the users of this technology and the technology itself. When we use the AI model, we shape it by the information we give it, but it also shapes our understanding of the topics that we give it and ask it about.

speaker

Tayma Abdalhadi

reason

This comment introduces the important concept of the bidirectional influence between AI and its users, highlighting the complexity of AI’s impact.

impact

It set the tone for discussing AI fairness as a dynamic, evolving issue rather than a static technical problem. This framing influenced subsequent discussions on education and policy approaches.

The main difference between the game and the serious game is that actually when you play the game, you just play for the sake of, like, getting entertained, just to achieve something. But in the case of the serious games, you totally have totally different ultimate goal.

speaker

Ayaz Karimov

reason

This comment clearly defines serious games and distinguishes them from regular games, providing a foundation for understanding their educational potential.

impact

It led to a deeper exploration of how games can be used as educational tools, particularly for complex topics like AI fairness.

Project-based learning doesn’t just stop when the activity ends. It creates a kind of ripple effect that goes on.

speaker

Melissa El Feghali

reason

This insight highlights the long-term impact and scalability of project-based learning approaches.

impact

It shifted the discussion towards considering the broader, long-term effects of educational methods beyond just immediate learning outcomes.

We need to go and see what actually motivates people to make an impact and to deliver their voices. And most importantly, how can we make sure that those voices that have been delivered are actually getting the counterfeedback they deserve?

speaker

Tayma Abdalhadi

reason

This comment emphasizes the importance of user feedback and engagement in shaping AI systems, highlighting a often overlooked aspect of AI development.

impact

It broadened the discussion from just education to include the importance of ongoing user input in AI development and governance.

If the goal is just to memorize or just to achieve an essay, then you’re failing as an educator to actually adapt with the technology. And the important thing is that you’re trying to teach your child how to have critical thinking using the LLMs.

speaker

Tayma Abdalhadi

reason

This comment challenges traditional educational goals and proposes a shift towards teaching critical thinking in the context of AI tools.

impact

It sparked a discussion on how educational approaches need to evolve in response to AI technologies, moving beyond concerns about cheating to considering how to leverage AI for better learning outcomes.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by broadening its scope from simply teaching AI fairness to considering the complex, dynamic relationship between AI and society. They highlighted the need for innovative, engaging educational approaches like serious games and project-based learning, while also emphasizing the importance of ongoing feedback loops and critical thinking in both AI development and education. The discussion evolved from a focus on specific teaching methods to a more holistic consideration of how to prepare individuals to engage with and shape AI technologies in responsible and impactful ways.

How can we create effective feedback loops between AI users and developers to improve AI fairness?

speaker

Tayma Abdalhadi

explanation

This is important to ensure AI models are continuously improved based on real-world usage and to address potential biases or issues that emerge.

What are the best practices for designing serious games that effectively teach AI fairness concepts?

speaker

Ayaz Karimov

explanation

Understanding optimal game design techniques is crucial for creating engaging and educational experiences around complex AI topics.

How can we measure the long-term impact of project-based learning initiatives on AI governance understanding?

speaker

Melissa El Feghali

explanation

Assessing the lasting effects of these educational approaches is key to refining and scaling successful programs.

What strategies can be employed to manage screen time effectively while using digital tools for AI education?

speaker

Audience member

explanation

Balancing the benefits of digital learning tools with concerns about excessive screen time is important for healthy implementation of AI education programs.

How can AI literacy programs be developed and implemented for different age groups and contexts?

speaker

Ayaz Karimov

explanation

Developing targeted AI literacy initiatives is crucial for ensuring responsible and informed use of AI technologies across society.

What are effective ways to teach children how to critically evaluate AI-generated content?

speaker

Tayma Abdalhadi

explanation

Equipping young learners with skills to assess AI outputs is essential in an era of increasing AI-generated information.

Summary

This discussion focused on children’s rights and safety in the digital space, featuring panelists from various countries and organizations. The conversation highlighted the importance of protecting children online while also ensuring their rights to access, participation, and information are respected. Several key initiatives were presented, including Saudi Arabia’s National Framework for Child Safety Online, Albania’s integration of child protection into its cybersecurity agenda, and Australia’s e-Safety Commissioner’s work on education and prevention.

Panelists emphasized the need for a multi-stakeholder approach, involving governments, private sector, civil society, and children themselves. The Global Cybersecurity Forum’s efforts to develop child protection frameworks in multiple countries were discussed, as well as the role of child helplines in supporting children’s online experiences. Industry perspectives were provided, noting trends in companies’ approaches to children’s rights, including more sophisticated age-appropriate content classification and risk assessments.

Challenges were identified, such as the need for better data transparency from companies and the importance of addressing lesser-known issues affecting children online. The discussion also touched on recent regulatory developments, like Australia’s new legislation restricting social media access for children under 16. Participants stressed the importance of digital literacy, resilience-building, and critical reasoning skills for young people navigating the online world.

Overall, the discussion underscored the complex nature of ensuring children’s safety online while promoting their rights and highlighted the ongoing need for collaboration, innovation, and child-centered approaches in addressing these challenges.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– National strategies and frameworks for child online protection, including examples from Saudi Arabia, Albania, and Australia

– The role of technology companies in protecting children’s rights online

– The importance of child helplines in supporting children’s online experiences

– Challenges and innovations in online safety education and awareness

– The need for international collaboration and data sharing on child online protection

The overall purpose of the discussion was to explore different approaches to embedding children’s rights and safety within the digitalization agenda, with a focus on making the digital world a safe space for children to learn, play and explore.

The tone of the discussion was largely informative and collaborative, with panelists sharing insights from their respective countries and organizations. There was a sense of urgency around the topic, but also optimism about progress being made. The tone became slightly more concerned when discussing emerging challenges like changes to Internet standards that could bypass safety measures, but overall remained constructive throughout.

Speakers

– Jumana Haj-Ahmad: Deputy Representative for the UNICEF Gulf Area Office

– Floreta Faber: Deputy Director-General of Albania’s National Cyber Security Authority

– Maimoonah Al Khalil: Secretary General of the Family Affairs Council in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

– Alaa Al-Fadil: Global Cyber Security Authority in Saudi Arabia

– Paul Clark: Executive Manager of Education, Prevention and Inclusion at Australia’s E-Safety Commissioner

– Helen Mason: Director of Operations of Child Helpline International

– Richard Wingfield: Director of Technology Sectors, BSR, London office

– Afrooz Kaviani Johnson: UNICEF (co-moderator)

Additional speakers:

– Vicky Harisi: Harvard University, works on artificial intelligence and child’s rights

– Godsway Kubi: Lead facilitator for Internet Society Online Safety SIG

– Andrew Camping: Trustee with Internet Watch Foundation

Child Online Safety: A Global Perspective on Rights and Protection

This comprehensive discussion brought together experts from various countries and organisations to address the critical issue of children’s rights and safety in the digital space. The conversation highlighted the complex challenges of protecting children online whilst ensuring their rights to access, participation, and information are respected.

National Strategies and Frameworks

A key focus of the discussion was the development of national strategies and frameworks for child online protection. Maimoonah Al Khalil, Secretary General of the Family Affairs Council in Saudi Arabia, presented the country’s National Framework for Child Safety Online, launched in 2023. This framework covers four main areas: awareness, enablement, prevention, and protection, with ten tracks to achieve progress in these areas.

Alaa Al-Fadil from the Global Cyber Security Authority in Saudi Arabia discussed the ambitious Child Protection in Cyberspace initiative, which aims to develop child protection frameworks in numerous countries, upskill 60 million people, and protect 150 million children globally. Notably, the Global Cybersecurity Forum’s Child Protection in Cyberspace Global Summit held in Riyadh concluded with 12 key recommendations for the global community.

Floreta Faber, Deputy Director-General of Albania’s National Cyber Security Authority, explained how Albania has integrated child online protection into its cybersecurity strategy for 2025 and new cybersecurity law. Albania has also established a reporting platform for illegal online contact and is working with schools to raise awareness. The country is currently engaged in public discussions about addressing issues with social media use by children.

Paul Clark, Executive Manager of Education, Prevention and Inclusion at Australia’s E-Safety Commissioner, highlighted Australia’s focus on education programmes tailored to specific needs of children and young people, covering various age groups from zero to five up to young adults in their early 20s. The eSafety Commissioner also focuses on specific vulnerable groups, such as young people with disabilities, LGBTIQ+ teens, and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander youth.

Industry Practices and Responsibilities

Richard Wingfield, Director of Technology Sectors at BSR, provided insights into evolving industry approaches to child protection. He noted a shift from basic parental controls to more sophisticated methods, including children’s rights impact assessments for new products and features. Wingfield emphasised the need for better data transparency from companies regarding their child protection efforts.

Paul Clark discussed the promotion of safety by design principles in Australia, emphasising the importance of building safety measures into platforms and apps from the beginning, rather than adding them as afterthoughts.

Supporting and Empowering Children Online

Helen Mason, Director of Operations of Child Helpline International, highlighted the crucial role of child helplines in supporting children’s online experiences. She discussed how these helplines have adapted to provide multiple channels of access, including chat and various online means, to meet children where they are in the digital space. Mason noted that mental health and violence are the top reasons for children contacting child helplines, emphasizing the importance of raising awareness about these services.

Paul Clark emphasised the importance of engaging youth voices in policy development, citing Australia’s eSafety Youth Council as an example of ensuring young people’s perspectives are heard and acted upon.

Jumana Haj-Ahmad, Deputy Representative for the UNICEF Gulf Area Office, stressed the need to balance protection with children’s rights to access and participation online.

Floreta Faber highlighted the importance of addressing the needs of vulnerable groups in online safety initiatives.

Data and Research

Several speakers emphasised the importance of data collection and research on children’s online experiences to inform policy and interventions. Helen Mason discussed collecting data on help-seeking behaviours and issues faced by children through child helplines. Alaa Al-Fadil mentioned conducting surveys and research to inform policy, while Paul Clark stressed the importance of evaluating the impacts of new regulations and interventions.

Richard Wingfield called for improved transparency and data sharing by companies to better understand and address online risks to children.

Challenges and Emerging Issues

The discussion touched on several challenges and emerging issues in the field of child online safety. These included:

1. Balancing safety measures with children’s rights to access information and participate online

2. Addressing potential unintended consequences of age restrictions for social media access

3. Ensuring child protection considerations are integrated into the development of new Internet standards and technologies

4. Improving transparency and data sharing from technology companies about their child protection efforts

Regulatory Developments

Paul Clark mentioned upcoming Australian legislation to prevent children under 16 from accessing certain social media sites. This sparked a discussion on different regulatory approaches across countries.

International Collaboration

A recurring theme throughout the discussion was the need for international collaboration and knowledge sharing in addressing child online safety. Jumana Haj-Ahmad emphasised that the diversity of perspectives in the discussion underscored the need for collective action to ensure children’s safety in the digital space. The importance of international collaboration in Internet standards development to ensure child protection was also raised in an audience question.

Conclusion

The discussion highlighted the complex nature of ensuring children’s safety online while promoting their rights. It underscored the ongoing need for collaboration, innovation, and child-centred approaches in addressing these challenges. The speakers demonstrated a high level of consensus on the importance of multi-stakeholder collaboration and comprehensive strategies, suggesting a growing global recognition of the complexity of the issue and the need for coordinated efforts across sectors and regions.

As the digital landscape continues to evolve, it is clear that protecting children online will remain a critical global priority. This will require ongoing dialogue, research, and adaptive strategies to address emerging challenges and opportunities. The discussion emphasized that continued collaboration and innovation are essential to create a safer online environment for children while respecting their rights to access, participation, and information.

Jumana Haj-Ahmad: Okay, good afternoon everybody and thank you so much for joining us today. We’re delighted to have you all with us, both in person, in the room and online. And a very warm welcome to my co-moderator, Afrooz Kavyani-Joneson, who is joining me from UNICEF. Afrooz, thanks for joining us. My name is Joumana Haj Ahmad and I’m the Deputy Representative for the UNICEF Gulf Area Office. I am honored to help guide this discussion on a very important topic that resonates deeply to all of us. Children’s rights and safety in the digital space. As we all know, the Internet and digital technologies offer a lot of opportunities for children and adolescents to learn, to develop, to grow. But at the same time, these technologies and tools come with a lot of risks that require our attention and action. This session focuses on embedding children’s rights and safety within the digitalization agenda, ensuring that the digital world becomes a safe space, a place where children are protected, but at the same time, they’re learning, they’re playing, and they’re exploring. Today, we will be hearing from different countries, we will be hearing from different stakeholders, from different sectors about their efforts to make the digital space a safe space for children and adolescents. The diversity of perspectives, the diversity of the people joining this discussion, really emphasizes and underscores that a collective action is needed to ensure that children and adolescents are safe in the digital space. So, I will start by introducing our amazing and esteemed panelists. Dr. Maymoun Al-Khalil, Secretary General of the Family Affairs Council in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Ms. Alaa Al-Fadl, Global Cyber Security Authority in Saudi Arabia. Ms. Floretta Faber, Deputy Director General from the National Cyber Security Authority, Albania. Mr. Paul Clark, Executive Manager of Education, Prevention and Inclusion, E-Safety Commissioner, Australia. And back to Ms. Helen Mason, Director of Operations, Child Helpline International, Netherlands. Sorry, I forgot Mr. Richard. Apologies for that. Mr. Richard Wingfield, Director of Technology Sectors, BSR, London office. Thank you all for joining us in this exciting discussion. As we start the discussion, I would like to really flag two key points. The first one, as many of you know, it is estimated around one in three Internet users worldwide is a child. And this number underscores the importance of speaking about children’s rights and having children’s rights at the center of any discussion that relates to digital technology. Even for services that are not explicitly designed for children. Also, I think the second point is that we need to think about those children as real lives. Those children could be your own son or daughter, could be your nephew or niece, could be the son or daughter of a neighbor. So as we talk today about the importance of safety in the digital space of children, we need to put the lives of these children in our minds and hearts. And think about what experience are these children going through? Is it really a safe space that we’re offering them? Is it a space that is allowing them to grow and to learn and to make the best out of this opportunity that is being offered? I would like… Do you hear me? Okay. So I’d like to start with a question to Dr. Maimouna Al-Khalil. The IGF is being held in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia this year, which aligns well with the Kingdom’s strong digitalization agenda and its focus on child online protection. Could you share with us how the Family Affairs Council is integrating child online protection into the national agenda, into national policies, and coordinating with the different stakeholders and different departments?

Maimoonah Al Khalil: Thank you very much. I hope I’m audible to everyone. I’d like to start by thanking you for inviting me to participate in this dialogue and to share our national work here in the Kingdom on child online protection. There are numerous initiatives taking place today in Saudi Arabia from government agencies, NGOs, and private sector on child online protection. To coordinate these efforts and to enable greater impact for these initiatives and to apply a holistic approach that covers all aspects of child online safety, the Family Affairs Council in 2023 launched the National Framework for Child Safety Online. This framework has four main areas, one being awareness, two being enablement, three being prevention, and four being protection. Now, there have been 10 tracks that have been put into place to achieve progress in these four areas. I will only give a few examples because I know we only have four minutes. Under awareness, for example, we have a track on school curricula where we will be working with the Ministry of Education to look at development of tailored material that targets specific groups of children, age-related, so that the material that is not there is created, and the material that exists is also revisited to embed some awareness information, and also to develop separate independent material to be accessible online at any time. Under enablement, for example, we have capacity-building efforts to prepare teachers and parents mainly with the set of skills they require to detect any dangers that children might face online, and another track for integrated governance in order to have an integrated approach for what children are exposed to online. Under prevention, we have a measure that is based on research and data in terms of looking at how can we do to prevent from the beginning any kind of issues that children might face online, and basically this framework is aimed as an instrument to coordinate all of these efforts that are underway to bring focus to this issue, and to make sure that the public spheres, the private spheres, and the NGOs are working together towards one vision. Now, we cover a number of domains, including cyber security, data protection, privacy, even the psychological aspect of what children go through is very important, and protecting from any cyber crimes that are identified by national law. Now, there have been 12 government entities that have already been identified as stakeholders and partners in this effort, including also the private sector and active NGOs in this regard. The role of the Family Affairs Council in this particular guideline and framework is to coordinate all of these efforts, to monitor these efforts, to report on the progress of these efforts to the center of government, and to identify any gaps by suggesting remedial initiatives. Now, our efforts focus on stakeholder coordination mainly, partnering with decision makers, educators, service providers, and to establish a government model that brings everyone together for the benefit of the child, and our focus areas on enhancing digital literacy, protecting children’s data, and building a culture of safe online behaviors through awareness campaigns and family support. Our outcome-oriented approach is in addressing and finding the gaps, where are the gaps that we can start working on, and leveraging and advancing technology. So, technology here in this sense is a danger, but it can also be an ally and a helper, and aligning efforts with global best practices. I’d like to end by a recent initiative that has brought together national efforts. It was a Family Affairs Council-led national awareness campaign, but in actuality what made it succeed was every entity that came and joined this campaign that focused on promoting child online’s digital safety, promoting healthy digital practices and behaviors, and advocating for parental controls, artificial intelligence, reporting tools, support channels that are existing here in the kingdom and shedding light and bringing them to the fore in every way we could, whether online or through the channels of other participating entities. The targeted segment in this particular campaign were teachers, parents, and caregivers. So this is just a snapshot of the framework, and I hope you enjoy it. Thank you.

Jumana Haj-Ahmad: Thank you so much, Dr. Maimouna, for sharing this overview, and being here in Saudi Arabia has allowed me to also see the consultative approach that you led the process, that you applied in leading the process of the development of the strategy, which really, I think, helped a lot in having the different stakeholders on board, including children, and until now I remember those interactive consultations with the children that the Family Affairs Council led, which was an amazing process. Now I would like to go to Alaa Al-Fadil from the Global Cyber Security Forum. Since its launch, the Global Cyber Security Forum has prioritized child protection as a core initiative. Can you share with us more about the Forum’s mission and your strategy for strengthening commitment and action to ensure children’s safety within the digitalization agenda?

Alaa Al-Fadil: Thank you, Jumana, for the question. Allow me to extend my appreciation to the UNICEF for inviting us to this important session of IGF 2024. So allow me first to start by addressing the question that the majority of the audience might have, which is why the Global Cyber Security Forum is considering child protection in cyberspace as a key priority and core initiative within its mandate. As you know, the unique positioning of the GCF is that, considering the cybersecurity beyond the technical aspects, our work spans all areas, from geopolitics, technical, behavioral, social, under which the child protection is a priority. And as you know, the GCF was entrusted to deliver the Child Protection in Cyberspace initiative stated by His Royal Highness Prince Mohammed bin Salman. Our key targets for this initiative include, first, developing a child protection framework in more than 50 countries, upskilling 60 million people, and protecting 150 million children globally. So to achieve these targets, we have developed an extensive research to develop a robust strategy. These initiatives include, first, a deep assessment of the global landscape, globally, with the validation of key insights from global experts, as well as including reviewing reports, initiatives, organizations, and programs. Second, a global survey to cover 41,000 people, from parents and children, from 24 countries across six regions. And I invite you all to read the report, Why Children are Unsafe in Cyberspace. It’s available from our website, the Global Cybersecurity Forum. So now, when it comes to the delivery model of our initiative, mainly this initiative, it’s structured under one fundamental principle, which is strengthening and complementing existing efforts of major stakeholders. That’s why we are partnering with UNICEF, ITU, WorkProtect, DQ, to deliver on our initiatives project. Finally, to maximize the impact of this initiative, we conducted and organized the Global Cybersecurity in conjunction with the Global Cybersecurity Forum, the CPC Global Summit, in collaboration with our STEAM partners. And it was here in Riyadh last October. The summit was concluded with a 12-key recommendation for the global community. And I believe there is no better way to conclude than with a quote from His Royal Highness, Prince Mohammed bin Salman, in his welcoming statement to the participants of the GCF annual meeting at the CPC Summit. It reads as follows, cyberspace is closely linked to the growth of economy, the prosperity of society, the security of individuals, and the stability of nations. Thank you.

Jumana Haj-Ahmad: Thank you so much, Alaa, and for all the hard work. I know how you personally also led the preparations for the Global Summit on Child Protection. And it was an amazing summit with, as you said, with a lot of ambitious commitments made to make the digital space a safer space for children. Now I’d like to pass it on to Afrooz. Over to you, Afrooz. Thank you, Jamana.

Afrooz Kaviani Johnson: Can you hear me in the room? We can hear you, yes. Wonderful. So I’m glad that we can use technology to connect. And sorry, we’re not there in person, but I’m really happy to now go from the incredible developments within Saudi Arabia and the global picture from the Global Cyber Security Forum to hear from our colleagues and collaborators in Australia. So I have a question for Mr. Paul Clark, who, as Jamana mentioned, is the Executive Manager of Education, Prevention and Inclusion at Australia’s E-Safety Commissioner. So we know that Australia’s E-Safety Commissioner is implementing many measures to improve online safety for children. So really keen to hear from you, Paul, about your prevention and educative work in particular, realising that there is many other facets of work of the Commissioner, and to hear how you’re really ensuring that these efforts resonate with children and families across Australia to really make a difference in children’s lives. And because the theme of our session today is also about innovation, what are some of those key innovations that you’re introducing in this area?

Paul Clark: Thanks, Paul. Thank you, Afrooz. And thank you very much, everyone. It’s an absolute honour to be here today. For some of you who may not be as familiar with our work, I thought it might be interesting just to give a little bit of background about E-Safety, just to point out that when we were established 15 years ago, we were actually the children’s E-Safety Commissioner. In addition to our focus on education and awareness raising, we also pioneered the world’s first scheme to support individuals with legislative powers that enabled us to have harmful cyberbullying content removed for an individual. So now, while our responsibility extends to all Australians, and that’s reflected in our current name, children and young people will always remain an absolute priority for us. E-Safety in our education programs now, and it was quite a challenge for me to try and fit this into four minutes because there is quite an extensive range of programs there. We really want to focus on the specific needs of children and young people in different circumstances, always keeping in mind their fundamental rights to protection, participation and access to information. So this includes now programs, resources and training to support young people, their carers and educators from the zero to five age group, right up to young adults in their early 20s. Now in doing this, we’ve also ensured that we prioritise within these young people’s age groups. We know that specific cohorts are more at risk, and quite often these cohorts are those who are most likely to get the most benefit from engaging online. So in the Australian context, young people with a disability, for example, are more likely than the national average to encounter… at harmful and hurtful treatment online and hate speech and even physical threats. They’ve also been more likely to come across harmful content such as graphic violence and self-harm material. In Australia we know that LGBTIQ plus teens are much more likely than the national average to experience hurtful and hateful online interactions and also more likely than the national average to engage in risky online behaviours themselves and sharing personal information and sending messages that are sometimes inappropriate. And of course for Australia Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander youth are much more engaged than the general population in using the internet for cultural connections and staying informed about the world around them whether that be politics or news. But despite these positive cultural and newsworthy interactions sadly First Nations young people are three times more likely than the general population to be the targets of online hate and have offensive things said to them because of their race, ethnicity or gender. So when we talk about innovation of all the work we do I thought I wanted to call out two this evening, sorry today for you, that are really close to our hearts. Central to our commitment to children’s rights is our eSafety Youth Council. That’s a diverse group of young people for the ages of 13 to 24 from every state and territory in the country to ensure that young people’s voices are not just heard but acted upon when developing solutions, support and in helping us frame policy that impacts on young people. If we reflect on Article 12 of the Convention of the Rights of the Child it states that children have the right to express their views freely in all matters affecting them. Our Youth Council is really key for us to keep this principle at front and centre of the work we do. It’s not about doing work for young people, it’s about doing work with them. Our Youth Council has been involved in such a broad range of work at eSafety, everything from helping review content for our youth pages and to support teaching and our education models but also in shaping more broader policy decisions that will have a direct impact on young people. For an example they recently made a formal submission to the Australian Government’s social media inquiry and they’ve taken part in social media summits in two of our states, New South Wales and South Australia and they continue to be in high demand both within eSafety but also too from other key external stakeholders. And that leads me talking about those summits to children’s access to social media online and balancing rights and protections. I’m sure many of you would have heard now of the recent legislation that has just passed in Australia that’s going to prevent young people from under the age of 16 from accessing certain social media sites. These provisions are going to come into effect over the next 12 months and that’s when over that 12-month period is when we’re going to be able to specify which services and what regulatory mechanisms are going to be required to have this legislation enacted. There’s an awful lot of work to do in this space over a very short period of time and we’re building on our considerable work to date on these issues. We know that the relationship for young people between mental health, social media and online engagement is complex but we’re continuing to contribute our insights and research to assist the government and ensure that any new legislation such as this is effective in its measures and minimises the unintended consequences. But regardless of the access of young people, sorry, regardless of the age to access these certain sites, for us prevention and education will always be a foundation of eSafety’s work. It’s more important than ever for young people that we continue to work with them to build their digital literacy, their resilience and critical reasoning skills so that they’re prepared for the online environment regardless of what age they begin to engage with it. So as we continue to navigate a really complex landscape of online safety in a global world, we remain committed to listening to young voices, collaborating with other regulators and adapting our approach to meet the evolving needs and challenges in this digital world. Thank you. Thanks Paul. Incredible and really heartening to hear how the eSafety

Afrooz Kaviani Johnson: Commissioner is taking on board Article 12 of the CRC and really embedding that within all of your work. We should also note that we’re going to have some time for questions, hopefully at the end. So audience online and in the room, please start thinking about questions you may like to put to our panellists. So thank you. Thanks Paul. From Australia, I’m really delighted now to go to Albania and I have a question for Ms Floreta Faber, who as Jomana mentioned is the Deputy Director-General of Albania’s National Cyber Security Authority. So we’re really interested to hear how Albania is integrating child safety into its cyber security agenda. I hear that there is a new cyber security law in Albania and this includes a dedicated chapter on children. So could you tell us more about this and how you’re ensuring that ministries and departments are equipped with the latest knowledge and skills to effectively empower and support children online? Thank you very much for giving us the opportunity to be

Jumana Haj-Ahmad: part of this really fascinating discussion. Albania is a small country and we are very happy to be next to Australia now and we have been involved, really the Albanian government is committed to securing a resilient digital future for the Albanian people and especially for the young generation. And in order to realise this vision, of course we are focused on strongly protecting our critical and important infrastructures, but also protecting children

Floreta Faber: online. It is one of the main pillars of our work. The commitment is reflected in the inclusion of child online in the cyber security strategy for 2025 and we had it on the previous but now more developed in the new law on cyber security, which you mentioned, which came into force this May. The new law on cyber security is tasked with, has tasked the National Cyber Security Authority, undertaking all the measurements, the cooperation and coordinating of the work with all the institutions which are responsible for safety and protection of children and young people online, in order to create a safer online environment in Albania. This means preparing the new generation capable of benefiting from all the advantage of the new technologies and information technology, but also know the challenges of the new development and showing them that in today’s world the digital personality is of a high importance. In Albania we have seen this in different ways in order to address the issue. First, in order to, we believe it’s important to create a legal framework and the necessary mechanism that make all our government institutions but also the civil society work together. When I say public institution, the National Cyber Security Authority is coordinating the work, but State Police, Ministry of Education, State Agency for Child Rights and Protection, Audiovisual Media Authority, Electronic and Postal Communication Authority, People’s Advocate, they all play their own role in this field. We are trying to coordinate all the work that all the institutions do, in order to make sure that we cover the whole country with the issues on protecting children online. The National Cyber Security Authority has a reporting platform, where citizens can report directly cases of illegal online contact and also issues online. Last year we had a low number, but this year we have had over 250 cases, which people have reported to us, so we all send those cases to the police. In cases, we have done a questionnaire with children, which we have met through the Year in Awareness in-person events, and we have found out that TikTok and Snapchat is the most used platform from the young people. Especially when we had issues with TikTok, lately we sent our materials also to the Audiovisual Media Authority, who is directly talking with TikTok in order to prevent cases of using illegal contact. The FDA has implemented a number of initiatives during the years in order to protect children online. We are developing our strategy on protecting children, but in the last four or five years especially we have been working with ITU, UNICEF, U.S. government also support in trying to develop a number of initiatives in the country where we have been able to have various educational materials, videos, manuals, brochures, ways of awareness. And if I mention only in 2024, our authority together with the Children Protection Authority and with the support of UNICEF, we have organized, I can bring you some example, we have been on 28 schools around the country, 13 cities, 1,500 young students we have been talking with directly. We have been training the trainers, about 400 teachers in those schools, about 200 safety officers in schools in order to have everyone aware and educated and knowing which is the phone call they can make, where they can report in their cases. And we have organized a number of workshops and roundtables with different authorities, with teachers representative from local government, from high level government in order for everyone to play a role, what are the changes needed to be done and what is the awareness needed. We have some really cases of where kids have issues out of using the social media. And I can say that lately, when I say lately, like in the last month or two, we have the entire Albanian government addressing the issue for need of awareness in protection of children online. We are having a public discussion, it’s open to all schools around the country, talking with teachers, parents and students, how to address the issue. We have had our Prime Minister Edi Rama, who has been talking in a number of those consultations, addressing the issue, and we are trying to find what’s the best way to address the issue. Now, we are also talking, are we closing TikTok and Snapchat in Albania? But what we’re determined to do is really to address the issue, whatever is the best way to have our kids online, it’s as you said, our kids, our nieces and our nephews. If I quote the Albanian Prime Minister, he said there is no solution if there is no direct involvement in family, schools, both parents and teacher, and of course, all the government institutions in order to increase, expand, and say for, expand the safety parameter for our children. One new item where I would like to add, we believe that international collaboration for protecting children online is absolutely important, on top of the events that will continue next year in February on the day of Internet of Children Safety Online, we’re putting, we’re chairing an event with 13 countries from Southeast European Cooperation Process Initiative in order to speak not only sharing the experience, but try to share the resources we have for protecting children online. And in the process, I am happy to see that in a way the same as Australia, we have seen that the online protection of children is not enough. In the new strategy 2530, we’re, we’re putting the protection of all citizens online with a special emphasis and a special chapter, because we, we understand that in particular children, teachers, safety officers should be equipped with necessary knowledge, but also underrepresented in groups, it’s very important to be involved in all our work. We have started already doing events, but the new strategy is going to have a more organized framework on how to speak with people with different disabilities, Roma community, LGBT down community, people over age 65, and all those groups. So thank you very much for giving us the opportunity to share some of our experiences.

Afrooz Kaviani Johnson: Thank you so much, Floretta, that was amazing. And I know that it was a hard task that we gave everyone to try and, you know, synthesize the developments in four minutes, but really fantastic to hear the accelerated progress, I think, particularly in recent years, and just the whole of society effort that that is being led in Albania. Thank you. So from Albania, I’m really happy now to introduce again, Mr. Richard Wingfield to give us a different perspective from from his organization, which is BSR, Business for Social Responsibility. So Richard, really interested to hear about your work with companies. So we’ve, you know, there’s been a couple of mention of some tech companies so far. And just to hear what are the gaps and promising trends that you are seeing in relation to current industry practices, when it comes to children’s rights and technology, over to you, Richard.

Jumana Haj-Ahmad: Great, well, thank you so much for for inviting us. And I’m really glad to be able to talk about our experience.

Richard Wingfield: So for those of you who are not familiar, BSR is a global nonprofit, and we work with companies to turn human rights principles and laws and standards into practice using the framework of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. And as part of our human rights work, we’re increasingly being asked by companies to integrate respect for children’s rights into their products and services, but also their broader business and corporate responsibility strategies, processes and plans. And we’ve worked with UNICEF and a number of other actors over the years with our member companies, and we have over 300 of the world’s largest companies who are members and others. And the last few years have definitely seen an increasing interest in ensuring that children’s rights are protected in the digital environment. And that may come from regulatory requirements, such as the Digital Services Act or the Online Safety Act in the EU and the UK, which talk about looking at risks to children and the protection of fundamental rights. It could mean undertaking children’s rights impact assessments. It could mean looking at how companies are using their reporting and disclosure obligations. In all of these different ways, companies thinking about the importance of protecting children and the rights of children as part of their broader human rights responsibilities when it comes to technology and the digital environment. So I’ve tried to put together a few of the promising trends and then a few of the gaps to try and answer your question as helpfully as possible. The first promising trend is that the approaches that we’re seeing companies take to protecting children online are definitely evolving and becoming more sophisticated. So historically, we saw largely that efforts were focused on just parental controls. So really just giving parents the sort of the power to control their children’s online experience and sort of putting all of the effort and emphasis onto parents. This is still helpful, definitely, but we’re seeing more sophisticated approaches taken. So these can mean things like different kinds of content classification for different age groups of children, promoting digital safety education and how to use technology and products safely, undertaking more risk assessments of new features and services and thinking about how they will affect children, introducing different controls and access requirements for different age groups based on the development stage of children. So just becoming a lot more sophisticated in the techniques that are used to try to keep children safe online while still protecting their rights. We’re also seeing new regulation really driving a lot of efforts. And I mentioned some examples a moment ago. So we’re seeing in the EU, for example, the Digital Safety Act requires large online platforms and search engines to consider risks to children, including to children’s rights and to undertake risk assessments of changes to their products and services as well. In the UK, our Online Safety Act, which is now coming into force, also forces companies to think about risks to children and particularly experiences of harmful content or behaviour online. The Australian Online Safety Act and some of the regulatory developments in Australia have also been referenced. And I know the role of the E-Safety Commissioner has sort of been an example to many regulators around the world in terms of its approach to keeping children safe online. And then finally, we’re also seeing more companies do children’s rights impact assessments. So these are specific targeted assessments as new products and features are being developed to really think about how they may impact upon children’s rights, as set out in the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and then to take steps. mitigate risks to children as they’re finalised. There are still some gaps, one of which is the moment the impacts on children online have very much been driven largely by safety considerations and while this is incredibly important it’s also important to remember the opportunities to promote and advance children’s rights that come through technology and so thinking about how you integrate considerations around protecting children’s right to freedom of expression, their right to privacy, and other important fundamental rights as part of these assessment processes is an area where we think more work could be done. We’re also seeing that assessments are generally focused on a lot of like very well-known high-profile issues, for example things like children’s sexual abuse material, bullying and so forth and what we would like to see I think is a greater emphasis and a more holistic approach to the four ways that children can be impacted online and so that greater attention is paid to some of the lesser known issues, for example the way that children might be exploited in supply chains or forced labour issues, the protection of children’s privacy online as well. And the other gap that I think I want to highlight is at the moment we still don’t have enough transparency, so a lot of companies are undertaking this work but it’s not necessarily made public. We know that a number of companies have concerns around disclosing information because of legal liability risks or reputational risks, but we would love to see companies talking a lot more about the efforts that they are making, not just the changes in terms of products or features that they have created, but the actual process by which they engaged in undertaking those assessments, including how they engaged with children and children’s rights organisations so that that stakeholder engagement aspect is much more apparent and visible. We’d also finally maybe like to see a bit more data being produced by companies, so we know that there is an increasing emphasis by regulators on certain metrics around, for example, types of harmful content. Again it would be great to see companies producing more of this data proactively and perhaps also becoming more nuanced in the data that’s provided, so we could see how different age groups of children are being affected or how different vulnerable groups, and Floretta mentioned some of the other groups who might be impacted specifically, for example, ethnic minorities, young girls or children who identify as LGBTQ+. So there’s definitely some area for improvement but we are seeing some promising trends as well.

Afrooz Kaviani Johnson: Thanks a lot Richard. I think BSR has quite a unique view on these issues, so I think that was extremely insightful in a very limited time, but just giving us some cause for optimism, but also really clear areas where more work is needed. So I’m going to hand back to Germana and the

Jumana Haj-Ahmad: panellists in the room. Thank you Afrooz and thank you so much for the insightful interventions, amazing work really done in different sectors. And now we’d like to come back to Miss Helen Mason, the Director of Operations of the Child Helpline International. Thank you so much for being with us. The child helplines, which are operating in 130 countries, play a crucial role in supporting children across various aspects of their lives, including their online experiences. So can you share with us some insights from your data on children’s online experience and lives, but also how you’ve been using technology to enable a safer environment for children digitally?

Helen Mason: Thank you and good afternoon, that’s better. Well, it’s been a pleasure to be on this esteemed panel with my fellow panellists today, and thank you very much for the invitation. So yes, I will answer the question. Thank you very much for the question. But I’d also like to start by, I suppose, start by talking about the characteristics of child helplines, that child helplines are a response mechanism for children and young people in any aspect of their lives, and also a preventative mechanism as well. And I also want to highlight that I think that while the legislation is changing, by any of the accounts we’ve heard today, we are still designing retroactively for the online space in regard to children’s rights, and that’s very much evident in our own work. To mention here as well, that child helplines are key to the response to online harms as part of the We Protect model national response, and to that effect, over the last years, we’ve been developing different methods and capacity buildings around this type of issue that might come through to a child helpline. That means capacity building for our members, it also means around data frameworks, collecting data from our members on these types of issues. So regarding the question and regarding the data that’s collected by our child helpline members, important to say perhaps that it’s a unique resource, the data that we collect directly from the voices of children, in the sense that it’s also a byproduct really of the conversations that go on between children and young people and child helpline counsellors, and collecting that data and being able to collect that data in a timely fashion is really crucial to the way we can use that information to amplify children’s voices. So suffice to say that technology has had a huge impact on that particular aspect of our work in terms of data capture, data analysis, and also now looking at, for example, AI tools to analyse the chat information that comes through from child helplines, from children to child helplines. So in terms of the actual data we collect, of course, it can provide a unique insight into the lives of children, and it can be a very robust data source in terms of help-seeking behaviour, and we do believe that it should form part of policy and programming, you know, national, regionally, and globally. I would like to state that the most common reason for children and young people to contact a child helpline is mental health first and foremost, and violence secondly, and those are 32 percent and 24 percent of counselling contacts respectively. So we can also state that based on the data we collect that girls are more likely to contact child helplines than boys, with 52 percent of contacts coming from girls. And I think that what I would also like to share here is that our latest report on online child sexual exploitation and abuse, we see cases increasing as of 2018 when we first started to collect bespoke data on this, and that we also, I would say, report substantial issues around disclosure, substantial issues around taboos, substantial issues around under-reporting, and of course it’s very important for us to develop methods and strategies to deal with this together with our members and together with our different and many partners, including UNICEF, including We Protect, ICMEC, IWF, for example. I also want to highlight what we can also read in the data, is that in terms of non-binary contacts we can also see that there’s higher incidence of suicidal ideation, and those reports are more likely to be made via online methods. And I think that another aspect of the data that we see is around the method of contact, so child helplines optimally operating 24-7, free of charge, over the years have adopted and launched multiple channels of access, so you’ll be quite familiar, perhaps in your own country, with child helpline access that is coming through chat, through all types of online means, through voice as well, but essentially through all the different places that child children themselves are present. So it’s incredibly important that as child helplines being responsive to children, they need to be present in the places where children are. So that of course means working with different online platforms to develop ways to intersect with those platforms, to provide seamless referral to a child helpline service. So I think that bearing in mind that child helplines have always existed at the intersection of technology and child rights, partnerships with the industry is absolutely vital, and over the last years we’ve been spending time developing partners carefully with industry partners. partners like Snapchat, like Meta, Roblox, Discord, to see how those referral mechanisms can be integrated within platforms so that children and young people can find help when they need it, when it’s time critical. And so one of the big challenges we have is around raising awareness, raising awareness that, for example, a child might not know that there’s a crime committed, they might not be able to talk or disclose this information, so raising awareness in a preventative sense is absolutely vital, and that for us, of course, simply means raising awareness that you can talk to a child helpline about these issues. So I want to just close now. I want to say as well what really matters to me and Child Helpline International is also the 50-plus countries around the world without this kind of service. So given the role that we identify for child helplines in responding to online harms, it’s urgent and it’s our aim to fill that gap by 2030 to have a child helpline in every country of the world so that when a child needs to speak to someone, wherever they are, they can contact a child helpline. Thank you.

Jumana Haj-Ahmad: Thank you so much, Helen. We also have a child helpline here, actually, in Saudi Arabia, and I had the chance to discuss with the director some of the priority issues that Saudi children face here, and it’s very similar to also what you were saying, mental health is a key issue, and being subjected to violence is also another. Okay, so I think we have some time. We have seven minutes, and we are able to take a few questions from the floor here and a few from colleagues joining us online. So we have two questions here, so I think you’ll need to speak in the mic. Try to speak from where you are, and let’s see, but I doubt it. I think you’ll need the mic.

Audience: Hello, my name is Vicky Harisi, I’m from Harvard University and I work on artificial intelligence and child’s rights. My question, and first of all, thank you for all the amazing work that all of you do, it’s super impressive. I think my question is mostly for Mr. Clark from Australia, and I’m very curious to hear if you have tried to collect any data about adolescents’ reaction on your government’s decision to ban some social media platforms from them. I’m just curious to hear if you have any sense about this. Thank you. Thank you.

Paul Clark: As I mentioned, our youth council did provide formal submissions. We haven’t, as now, the mechanisms come into play, and we’re looking at which platforms will be excluded and the leverage that we’re going to have to use to look at how that’s implemented. I think we will be undertaking more study. Up to this date, most of our research, which is always published on our website, has looked at particular cohorts of young people to understand their experiences online, so to understand the benefits they receive, how they’re engaging and using technology, but also the specific risks that they’re facing. Part of the implementation of this legislation for us is we will be doing a full evaluation, so we’re about to now start a baseline research piece to really get that clear understanding and to follow that over the next two years to evaluate the legislation, so that’s not something that we have available right at this moment. Let’s take a question from participants online over to you, Afrooz, and then we’ll come back here, because we have two more questions here in the room, but I see that there is a hand up online. God’s Way Kubi. Yes, there’s a hand up online. I’m not sure if I can give… Hello, can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you. Great. Please go ahead. Please, can I be allowed to share my video? I don’t know. Okay, so while that is being worked on, I can go ahead. Okay, thank you so much.

Audience: Actually, I’m God’s Way Kubi, the lead facilitator for Internet Society Online Safety SIG, and I think I joined this quite a little bit late, but the conversation alone keeps me more interested, especially coming to listen to Mr. Paul Clark first. I got more interested, and so online safety, I would just like to say that we are currently working on projects. Yes, so actually, my intention is to get more collaboration from this organization, so we are working on a project in that developing a comprehensive online safety benchmark that will be used globally, and this will serve as a valuable tool for organizations and individuals, and our focus basically is on child online safety and also the use of social media and websites, how individuals could basically protect themselves using this particular site, but our focus is on children. So our target regions are actually sub-Saharan Africa, Southeast Asia, Latin, and North America. Those are some of the regions that we are hoping to engage some key organizations in those regions, particularly so that we could be able to cover a wider range and also to have a comprehensive online safety benchmark being done. So having had a project that Mr. Clark and other panelists have worked on, I would greatly like that maybe possibly if they could share their emails, I would like to collaborate on any of the projects they are currently working on and also get involved in our project as well to make our own also a success, because we are the Internet Society. We are trying to make it global. We are putting it on a global scale, so getting an organization involved and collaborate on this project is one of the key things that we value, so that is the little I could say from my end, but I think the chat is being disabled, so I’m unable to share. I saw an email, so I don’t know. Thanks, Godzway. No, that’s great. I mean, that’s one of the wonderful things about IGF, right, making the connections. We can talk with the technical folks and see how we can exchange contacts. Thank you so much. You’re welcome. Back to you, Jomana. Thank you so much, Afrouz.

Afrooz Kaviani Johnson: We have five minutes left. If we can take quickly one question from the room here. Over to you. Thank you. Hi there. My name is Andrew Camping.

Audience: I’m a trustee with Internet Watch Foundation. Really interesting presentations. You may or may not be aware that there are changes in Internet standards which will bypass content filtering and parental controls, exposing children to inappropriate, age-inappropriate content much more easily, and also allow tech companies to give them plausible deniability, a horrible phrase, so that they don’t see some of that illegal or unsuitable content. Is that something that you’re aware of, and how do we get more child protection groups involved in the development of Internet standards to prevent these things from happening in the future? Really appreciate your thoughts. Thank you.

Jumana Haj-Ahmad: I’m happy to jump in. Yes, please go ahead. Sorry, I was just going to jump in with two quick, quick points around that.

Paul Clark: One of the key things we push, initiatives we push in Australia, is safety by design. All these add-on parental controls and safety measures that are completed at the tail end often just demonstrate the failure in understanding and setting up a platform or an app with safety as the primary principle to begin with. One of the following pieces of legislation which the Australian government is about to bring in, post the age restriction piece, is an Internet duty of care. So putting a legal obligation back on the platforms that they must keep the safety and security of their users paramount. And so they will be held responsible for that. Thank you, Paul. I know that we have two more questions here in the room, but unfortunately we will need to close this session. So I would like to thank our esteemed panellists for your participation with us today and for the audience for joining us. Thank you so much for the rich discussion.

Jumana Haj-Ahmad: Thank you. Thank you, everyone. Thank you. Thank you.

Agreement Points

Developing comprehensive national strategies for child online protection

Maimoonah Al Khalil

Alaa Al-Fadil

Floreta Faber

Paul Clark

Developing comprehensive frameworks and policies

Coordinating efforts across government, private sector, and civil society

Integrating child safety into cybersecurity agendas

Implementing education and awareness programs

Multiple speakers emphasized the importance of developing comprehensive national strategies that involve various stakeholders to protect children online.

Engaging youth voices in policy development

Paul Clark

Helen Mason

Engaging youth voices in policy development

Providing accessible helplines and support services

Both speakers highlighted the importance of involving young people in the development of policies and services that affect them.

Collecting and analyzing data on children’s online experiences

Helen Mason

Richard Wingfield

Alaa Al-Fadil

Collecting data on help-seeking behaviors and issues faced by children

Improving transparency and data sharing by companies

Conducting surveys and research to inform policy

Multiple speakers emphasized the importance of collecting and analyzing data to better understand children’s online experiences and inform policy decisions.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers advocate for integrating safety measures into the design of digital platforms and services from the outset, rather than relying solely on after-the-fact solutions like parental controls.

Paul Clark

Richard Wingfield

Promoting safety by design principles

Evolving approaches to child protection beyond parental controls

Both speakers emphasize the importance of addressing the specific needs of vulnerable groups in online safety initiatives and support services.

Floreta Faber

Helen Mason

Addressing needs of vulnerable groups

Providing accessible helplines and support services

Unexpected Consensus

Collaboration between government and private sector

Maimoonah Al Khalil

Alaa Al-Fadil

Helen Mason

Richard Wingfield

Developing comprehensive frameworks and policies

Coordinating efforts across government, private sector, and civil society

Partnering with platforms to integrate help services

Conducting children’s rights impact assessments for new products/features

There was an unexpected level of agreement on the need for collaboration between government, private sector, and civil society in addressing child online safety. This consensus spans across different regions and sectors, indicating a growing recognition of the need for multi-stakeholder approaches.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement include developing comprehensive national strategies, engaging youth voices, collecting and analyzing data on children’s online experiences, promoting safety by design, and addressing the needs of vulnerable groups.

Consensus level

There is a high level of consensus among the speakers on the need for multi-stakeholder collaboration and comprehensive approaches to child online safety. This consensus suggests a growing global recognition of the complexity of the issue and the need for coordinated efforts across sectors and regions. The implications of this consensus could lead to more effective international cooperation and knowledge sharing in developing and implementing child online safety measures.

Different Viewpoints

Approach to regulating children’s access to social media

Paul Clark

Floreta Faber

Australia is pushing for safety by design as a key initiative. This approach emphasizes building safety measures into platforms and apps from the beginning, rather than adding them as afterthoughts.

Albania is trying to find what’s the best way to address the issue. Now, we are also talking, are we closing TikTok and Snapchat in Albania?

While Australia focuses on safety by design and legal obligations for platforms, Albania is considering more restrictive measures like potentially closing certain social media platforms for children.

Unexpected Differences

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement revolve around the specific approaches to implementing child online protection strategies, ranging from education and awareness to legal frameworks and potential platform restrictions.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among the speakers is relatively low. Most participants agree on the importance of protecting children online and the need for comprehensive strategies. The differences mainly lie in the specific implementation approaches, which are often complementary rather than contradictory. This low level of disagreement suggests a generally unified direction in addressing child online protection, which could facilitate more effective international cooperation and knowledge sharing in this area.

Partial Agreements

All speakers agree on the need for comprehensive national strategies to protect children online, but they differ in their specific approaches and focus areas. Some emphasize legal frameworks, others focus on education and awareness, while some prioritize coordination across different sectors.

Maimoonah Al Khalil

Alaa Al-Fadil

Floreta Faber

Paul Clark

The Family Affairs Council in Saudi Arabia launched the National Framework for Child Safety Online in 2023. This framework covers four main areas: awareness, enablement, prevention, and protection, with 10 tracks to achieve progress in these areas.

The Global Cyber Security Forum (GCF) is leading a Child Protection in Cyberspace initiative with ambitious targets. The initiative aims to develop child protection frameworks in over 50 countries, upskill 60 million people, and protect 150 million children globally.

Albania has included child online protection in its cyber security strategy for 2025 and in the new law on cyber security. The National Cyber Security Authority is tasked with coordinating efforts across institutions to create a safer online environment for children.

Australia’s E-Safety Commissioner focuses on education programs tailored to specific needs of children and young people. These programs cover various age groups from zero to five up to young adults in their early 20s.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers advocate for integrating safety measures into the design of digital platforms and services from the outset, rather than relying solely on after-the-fact solutions like parental controls.

Paul Clark

Richard Wingfield

Promoting safety by design principles

Evolving approaches to child protection beyond parental controls

Both speakers emphasize the importance of addressing the specific needs of vulnerable groups in online safety initiatives and support services.

Floreta Faber

Helen Mason

Addressing needs of vulnerable groups

Providing accessible helplines and support services

Key Takeaways

Many countries are developing comprehensive national strategies and frameworks for child online protection, involving coordination across government, private sector, and civil society

Industry practices are evolving beyond basic parental controls to more sophisticated approaches like children’s rights impact assessments and safety-by-design principles

There is a need to balance protecting children online with empowering them and respecting their rights to access, participation, and privacy

Data collection and research on children’s online experiences is crucial to inform policy and interventions, but more transparency is needed from companies

Accessible support services like child helplines play a vital role in responding to online harms and collecting data on children’s experiences

Resolutions and Action Items

Australia to implement new legislation restricting social media access for under-16s and introducing an Internet duty of care for platforms

Albania to develop a new strategy for 2025-2030 focused on protecting all citizens online, with special emphasis on children and underrepresented groups

Child Helpline International aims to establish child helplines in 50+ additional countries by 2030

Unresolved Issues

How to effectively engage children and youth voices in policy development related to online safety

Addressing potential unintended consequences of age restrictions for social media access

Improving transparency and data sharing from technology companies about their child protection efforts

Ensuring child protection considerations are integrated into the development of new Internet standards and technologies

Suggested Compromises

Balancing safety measures with children’s rights to access information and participate online

Combining technological solutions with education and awareness programs to protect children online

The diversity of perspectives, the diversity of the people joining this discussion, really emphasizes and underscores that a collective action is needed to ensure that children and adolescents are safe in the digital space.

speaker

Jumana Haj-Ahmad

reason

This comment sets the tone for the entire discussion by emphasizing the need for collaboration across sectors and stakeholders to address child online safety.

impact

It framed the subsequent presentations as part of a collective effort, encouraging speakers to highlight collaborative approaches.

To coordinate these efforts and to enable greater impact for these initiatives and to apply a holistic approach that covers all aspects of child online safety, the Family Affairs Council in 2023 launched the National Framework for Child Safety Online.

speaker

Maimoonah Al Khalil

reason

This introduces a concrete example of a coordinated national approach to child online safety, demonstrating how policy can be implemented.

impact

It provided a model for other countries to consider and set a benchmark for comprehensive policy approaches discussed by subsequent speakers.

Central to our commitment to children’s rights is our eSafety Youth Council. That’s a diverse group of young people for the ages of 13 to 24 from every state and territory in the country to ensure that young people’s voices are not just heard but acted upon when developing solutions, support and in helping us frame policy that impacts on young people.

speaker

Paul Clark

reason

This comment highlights the importance of including children’s voices in policy-making, aligning with Article 12 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

impact

It shifted the discussion towards the importance of child participation in online safety initiatives, influencing subsequent speakers to address this aspect.

The approaches that we’re seeing companies take to protecting children online are definitely evolving and becoming more sophisticated. So historically, we saw largely that efforts were focused on just parental controls. So really just giving parents the sort of the power to control their children’s online experience and sort of putting all of the effort and emphasis onto parents. This is still helpful, definitely, but we’re seeing more sophisticated approaches taken.

speaker

Richard Wingfield

reason

This comment provides insight into the evolving corporate approaches to child online safety, moving beyond simple parental controls.

impact

It broadened the discussion to include the role of private sector innovation in addressing online safety, prompting consideration of multi-stakeholder approaches.

Child helplines optimally operating 24-7, free of charge, over the years have adopted and launched multiple channels of access, so you’ll be quite familiar, perhaps in your own country, with child helpline access that is coming through chat, through all types of online means, through voice as well, but essentially through all the different places that child children themselves are present.

speaker

Helen Mason

reason

This comment highlights the adaptation of support services to meet children where they are in the digital space, demonstrating practical application of child-centric approaches.

impact

It introduced the perspective of direct support services, rounding out the discussion by addressing the immediate needs of children facing online risks.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by emphasizing the need for collaborative, comprehensive, and child-centric approaches to online safety. They highlighted the importance of policy frameworks, youth participation, private sector innovation, and accessible support services. The discussion evolved from broad policy considerations to specific implementations and direct support mechanisms, providing a holistic view of the challenges and solutions in ensuring children’s safety and rights in the digital space.

What data has been collected on adolescents’ reactions to Australia’s decision to ban some social media platforms for users under 16?

speaker

Vicky Harisi from Harvard University

explanation

This information would provide valuable insights into how the target population views and is impacted by the new legislation.

How can child protection groups become more involved in the development of Internet standards to prevent bypassing of content filtering and parental controls?

speaker

Andrew Camping, trustee with Internet Watch Foundation

explanation

This involvement could help ensure that child safety considerations are integrated into Internet standards from the beginning, rather than added as an afterthought.

How can organizations collaborate on developing a comprehensive global online safety benchmark?

speaker

Godsway Kubi from Internet Society Online Safety SIG

explanation

Collaboration on this project could lead to a more robust and widely applicable tool for improving online safety, particularly for children.

How can companies be encouraged to be more transparent about their efforts to protect children’s rights online?

speaker

Richard Wingfield from BSR

explanation

Increased transparency could lead to better understanding of effective practices and areas for improvement in protecting children’s rights in the digital space.

How can child helplines be established in the 50+ countries currently without such services?

speaker

Helen Mason from Child Helpline International

explanation

Expanding child helpline services globally would provide crucial support and protection for children in countries currently lacking these resources.

Summary

This discussion focused on the global threat of ransomware and efforts to combat it through the Counter Ransomware Initiative (CRI). Panelists defined ransomware as a form of cybercrime where attackers encrypt victims’ data and demand payment for its release. They noted its evolution from simple encryption to more complex extortion tactics, highlighting its increasing frequency, scope, and severity worldwide.

The CRI, launched in 2021, was described as a coalition of nearly 70 countries working to build collective resilience against ransomware. Key benefits for member countries include capacity building, enhanced information sharing platforms, and strengthened computer emergency response teams. The initiative operates through four main pillars: the International Counter-Ransomware Task Force, policy development, diplomacy and capacity building, and public-private partnerships.

Panelists emphasized the importance of public-private collaboration in addressing ransomware, noting that private sector entities often detect threats before governments and own critical infrastructure frequently targeted by attacks. The role of cyber insurance in countering ransomware was discussed, with panelists highlighting its potential to improve cybersecurity resilience and assist in incident response.

The discussion also touched on the increasing vulnerability of emerging markets and developing countries to ransomware attacks. Panelists stressed the importance of international cooperation and proactive preparation to combat this threat effectively. They concluded by emphasizing that no country is immune to ransomware and that a collective, global effort is necessary to address this persistent cybersecurity challenge.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– Definition and current state of ransomware as a global threat

– Overview of the Counter Ransomware Initiative (CRI) and its activities

– Benefits of CRI membership for countries

– Public-private sector collaboration to combat ransomware

– Role of cyber insurance in countering ransomware attacks

The overall purpose of the discussion was to provide an overview of the ransomware threat landscape and explain how the Counter Ransomware Initiative is working to combat this global challenge through international cooperation and public-private partnerships.

The tone of the discussion was informative and collaborative. The speakers aimed to educate the audience about ransomware and the CRI’s efforts while emphasizing the importance of countries and organizations working together to address this shared threat. The tone remained consistent throughout, with speakers building on each other’s points in a constructive manner.

Speakers

– Jennifer Bachus: Moderator, Number two in the State Department Cyberspace and Digital Policy Bureau

– Elizabeth Vish: Senior Director of International Cyber Engagement at the Institute for Security and Technology, member of the CRI Public-Private Sector Advisory Panel

– Dan Haney: Head of Incident Handling Department at Nigeria’s Computer Incident Response Team, Coordinator of the Diplomacy and Capacity Building Track of the Counter Ransomware Initiative

– Audience: Attendees asking questions

Additional speakers:

– Niles Steinhoff: Cyber Foreign Policy and Cybersecurity Coordination Division at the German Federal Foreign Office

Ransomware: A Global Threat and Collaborative Response

This discussion focused on the global threat of ransomware and efforts to combat it through the Counter Ransomware Initiative (CRI). The panel, moderated by Jennifer Bachus from the U.S. State Department, included experts Elizabeth Vish from the Institute for Security and Technology, Daniel Onyanyai from Nigeria’s Computer Incident Response Team, and Nils Steinhoff from the German Federal Foreign Office.

Understanding Ransomware

Ransomware was defined as a form of cybercrime where attackers encrypt victims’ data and demand payment for its release. The panelists noted its evolution from simple encryption to more complex extortion tactics, highlighting its increasing frequency, scope, and severity worldwide. Nils Steinhoff provided insight into the professionalisation of ransomware, describing it as “cybercrime as a service” with specialised vendors along the criminal supply chain.

Elizabeth Vish emphasised a significant shift in ransomware targeting, noting a “substantial growth in ransomware attacks in emerging markets” over the past two years. This expansion to developing countries and economies with fewer cybersecurity resources has heightened the global nature of the threat. Vish also briefly touched on the potential impact of artificial intelligence on future ransomware attacks.

The Counter Ransomware Initiative (CRI)

The CRI, launched in 2021, was described as a coalition of nearly 70 countries working to build collective resilience against ransomware. Daniel Onyanyai explained that the CRI “aims to build global resilience, bringing together countries to build global resilience, and also to offer support to member countries in case they are hit by ransomware.”

Key benefits for member countries include:

1. Capacity building

2. Enhanced information sharing platforms

3. Strengthened computer emergency response teams

The initiative operates through four main pillars:

1. The International Counter-Ransomware Task Force

2. Policy development

3. Diplomacy and capacity building

4. Public-private partnerships

CRI Membership and Information Sharing

Nils Steinhoff outlined the CRI membership process:

1. Interested governments write a letter of intent to the co-chairs of the Diplomacy and Capacity Building Pillar

2. A 14-day silence procedure allows members to object

3. If no objection is raised, the country becomes a member

Onyanyai highlighted that CRI members can request urgent assistance through established platforms, with technical teams from member countries providing support during ransomware incidents. He also mentioned specific information-sharing platforms developed by CRI members:

– Malware information sharing platform (Lithuania)

– Crystal Ball platform (UAE and Israel)

– CRI Portal (Australia)

Additionally, Onyanyai noted the mentorship aspect of CRI, where more advanced countries can mentor less advanced ones in handling ransomware threats. Information about member countries can be found on the CRI website (kamtaransomware.org).

CRI Stance on Ransom Payments

Onyanyai explained the CRI’s position on ransom payments:

– The CRI has a “no pay” policy for ransomware

– Most member countries endorse this statement, but it’s non-binding

– Individual countries may have their own policies on ransom payments

Public-Private Collaboration

Panelists emphasised the importance of public-private collaboration in addressing ransomware. Elizabeth Vish articulated the private sector’s willingness to collaborate, stating, “The private sector really does want to collaborate with mutual respect with the public sector… They want to work with governments and they specifically want to work with the CRI.”

Private sector entities often detect threats before governments and own critical infrastructure frequently targeted by attacks. Vish highlighted that the private sector can contribute through threat intelligence sharing and providing examples of successes and failures from which others can learn. She also mentioned IST’s blueprint for ransomware defense, available in multiple languages, which highlights actions small and medium-sized enterprises can take to reduce vulnerability to ransomware attacks.

The Role of Cyber Insurance

The discussion touched on the role of cyber insurance in countering ransomware. Panelists highlighted its potential to improve cybersecurity resilience and assist in incident response. Onyanyai mentioned that the CRI is working to enhance engagement with insurance companies, while Vish stressed that preparation is key to avoiding ransom payments and noted the role of cyber insurance in improving overall cybersecurity measures.

Conclusion

The speakers demonstrated a high level of agreement on the severity of the ransomware threat, the need for international and public-private collaboration, and the importance of proactive measures and information sharing. They concluded by emphasising that no country is immune to ransomware and that a collective, global effort is necessary to address this persistent cybersecurity challenge.

The discussion highlighted the complex and evolving nature of ransomware threats, the importance of initiatives like the CRI in fostering international cooperation, and the crucial role of public-private partnerships in combating this global cybersecurity issue. As ransomware continues to target a broader range of victims, including those in emerging markets and developing countries, the need for a coordinated, multi-faceted approach to building resilience and response capabilities becomes increasingly apparent.

Jennifer Bachus: of you joining us online remotely who have not experienced the fun of IGF. We do have technical difficulties on a somewhat regular basis. I’m really sorry but I’m just gonna warn you in advance that there are kinks in the system. At least that was my experience yesterday and already can feel that a little bit today. But anyway with that very I just want to say hello. To introduce myself my name is Jennifer Backus. I’m the number two in the State Department cyberspace and Digital Policy Bureau and I am the moderator today. At least I will be when my mic is not cutting out. I just want to thank all of you for joining us in this session, this open forum on ransomware. I think everybody in this room is here because you recognize the incredible threat to the entire world that it’s a global shared threat that we need to address. It’s impacted our schools, it’s impacted our hospitals, it pretty much impacts everybody around the world, our citizens, our government, and everything we’re trying to do in a digitally interconnected world. For those of you who are not familiar with the Counter Ransomware Initiative or CRI as we call it, it’s a coalition focused on cooperating internationally to address the threat and develop policies and mechanisms that reduce the incentives of ransomware. It is a multi-stakeholder model and and it has a private sector component and a large and diverse group of countries involved. And so I hope that today’s discussion will be an interest to many of IGF’s participants. I’m so happy to have with us today three great panelists. First of all, Daniel Onyanyai. Oh man, I’m really gonna kill your name. I’m sorry. I might let him say his own name because I think it’s super rude. Okay. He serves in the office of the National Security Advisor as the head of Incident Handling Department at Nigeria’s Computer Incident Response Team, the CERT. In this role, he oversees key aspects of national cybersecurity including vulnerability management, digital forensics, incident response, and risk mitigation. He also, to today’s discussion, serves as coordinator of the Diplomacy and Capacity Building Track of the Counter Ransomware Initiative. Niles Steinhoff, who’s online, currently serves in the Cyber Foreign Policy and Cybersecurity Coordination Division at the German Federal Foreign Office. He supports the German cyber ambassador, Maria Adlebar, who together with Nigeria is leading the Diplomacy and Capacity Building Track. Welcome. And then also online is Elizabeth Visch, who is Senior Director of the International Cyber Engagement of the Institute for Security and Technology, which is a member of the newly launched CRI Public-Private Sector Advisory Panel. Elizabeth leads IST’s work, engaging international audience with recommendations from IST’s work on the future of digital security and the ransomware task force. She works on cybersecurity best practices, including how the public and private sector can collaborate. The multi-stakeholder community can offer cyber capacity building for developing countries. I also have to say, Elizabeth is a veteran of the State Department and worked in our Bureau, so is an embodiment of the multi-stakeholder approach to these issues. So great to have all of you here. So I have questions, which is what I think I’m supposed to do next, but if anyone has a different approach, just let me know. We’re gonna start with Niles. And so can you help us define ransomware a little bit more precisely? Can you give us an overview of the ransomware state of play? Over to you, Niles. Hello and good afternoon from Berlin, Germany. Can you hear me in the room?

Speaker: Somebody think that looks good? Great, thank you very much. So let’s hope for no more kinks in the technical setup. And thank you for organizing this very important and timely session at the IGF in Riyadh. I’ve been asked to talk a little bit about defining ransomware and giving you a little bit of a state of play. And I would start with a very brief definition and then get into the details about actors, numbers, international peace and security, and also ransomware generally is an act of decrypting a victim’s data and holding them for ransom to unlock this data. I think this is nothing new and it’s been around for quite a while. Mostly these attacks are financially motivated by cybercriminals who follow opportunities to ransom entities, mostly in the commercial sector, and have less of a strategic outlook on who they ransom. What we see globally is that this very profitable business has specialized to become a service. Cybercrime as a service, where we, along the criminal supply chain, observe specialized vendors such as initial access brokers, the ransomware groups themselves who then ransom the victims for money, but also afterwards money laundering experts in the illegal sector, so to say. What we see nowadays is less so the decryption of data on a victim’s system, but more the extortion to not publish the exfiltrated data. So instead of regaining access to your own system, which might not be super needed anymore if businesses have good business continuity plans and backups, the sensitive data within the commercial data that a company has is usually published on the Internet on so-called leak sites to increase the pressure on these stakeholders. So what we also observe, at least in Germany, we have a growing concern not only about financially motivated actors, but more so about strategically motivated actors or advanced systems within the context of geopolitical tension may disguise as random ransomware actors in order to conduct cyber sabotage operations that would then not be distinguishable from regular ransomware groups who may also wipe data. But this is something we have not observed yet in Germany. So this is a bit what we have. We started with the simple I lock you out of your system, pay me type of ransomware actors, and now we went in an ecosystem that extorts companies for not publishing their data or information in the data on third parties. If you go by the numbers, ransomware is a hugely profitable economic business for these malicious actors. Last year in 2023, according to Chainalysis, a blockchain analysis company, the obtained crypto assets surpassed 1.1 billion US dollars in assets. The average ransom paid was around 620,000 US dollars. But victims always pay less ransom because the business continuity plans are becoming better and better. So from 2021, where about half of the companies paid ransom, now we have about a third, or last year we observed about a third of companies paying ransom. The majority of victims is in the commercial sector. And of course, you know, as I said, mostly these criminals are motivated by financial motives, so they go for the weakest link in the chain, so to say. But we would also say that the, of course, commercial impact of the ransom paid is not the actual impact when we talk about, let’s say, later on the effects of international peace and security, when for example public utility groups. Maybe on the groups, we, roughly speaking, Germany tracks 100 ransomware groups, but 5% of these groups are responsible for around 50% of all the acts. So it’s a pretty, if you want to say, if you speak in industries, it’s a very concentrated industry overall, with the biggest players in the game currently being still, or last year before they were taken down, Lockbit, Blackbuster, and 8Base. I want to also touch a bit on the broadcast meeting conveyed under the auspices, so to say, or the logo of the CRI. As I said, economic damages are not just one element, you know, the damage of the ransom paid to a company, but the problem with the ransomware ecosystem is that it attacks those that are mostly more vulnerable in terms of cyber security, and that often are public service providers. For example, in the healthcare sector, and provide you an example from Germany from last year, we had a ransomware attack on a regional communal IT service provider. they were ransomed and their services are still in recovery mode 15 months afterwards and it affects the life of 1.7 million citizens and 20,000 public workers who cannot use their computers to provide basic services such as child support, such as unemployment benefits, which in Germany are paid at the communal level and it shows that the societal impact and the really destabilizing effect of ransomware that it has on communities and this has been recognized at the level of the United Nations both within the briefing that the United Kingdom but also within the open-ended working group under the auspices of the first committee where we just passed a resolution recognizing the threat of ransomware to international peace and security. I just want to close by saying you know it’s not obviously only terrible, well it is pretty bad, but at the same time it is not such that governments aren’t doing anything against it. So the problem of course with cybercrime is often that you have actors who are not within your own jurisdiction and you need cooperation between governments and if that voluntary will to cooperate is not there, what do you do? So Germany and I think a lot of other jurisdictions are prosecuting individuals and malicious actors to disrupting ransomware groups and not only the operational sides but also getting the encryption and decryption keys, seizing crypto wallets or also as we recently did in Germany seizing crypto asset mixers which would launder illicitly obtained funds into legitimately looking crypto assets. I think one of the good examples was the Operation Thronos earlier in February of this year where multiple law enforcement agencies around the world cooperated to seize assets and server infrastructure of the biggest ransomware group BlockBit and also I think it led to a few arrests if I remember correctly in more than one country and some people say it’s playing a game of whack-a-mole but in the end that is not true. It is a persistent process by which those that want to slowly but steadily take out both the operational infrastructure but also the criminal ecosystem that underpins its profitability. So I will leave it at that. Back over to Riyadh. I hope I stayed roughly within my time limit and I look forward to the rest of the discussion. Thanks so much for that.

Jennifer Bachus: So Elizabeth, building on that, recognizing that ransomware is of course an evolving threat, what do you foresee as the possible evolutions of the threat in the coming years?

Elizabeth Vish: Thank you so much and I’m happy to speak a bit about that. So the first thing I would say is that we’re seeing really substantial growth in ransomware attacks in emerging markets. It used to be that originally a lot of these criminals were attacking mostly companies in the Western Europe, United States, Australia, etc. In the last two years we’ve really seen a dramatic expansion of attacks against entities and companies and non-profits in the developing world in economies where there aren’t enough cybersecurity professionals, there aren’t enough resources to defend effectively. And at the same time, the criminals are also continuing to attack entities in the developed world. So it’s really in the globe. The other thing I would say is that we have also seen that the things that defend against ransomware, things like building resilience, building backups, having a reconstitution plan, the things that companies and entities can do to prepare for a cyber attack work for both ransomware and for other types of attacks. And so we would really encourage the use of cyber defenses, things like using multi-factor authentication, etc., in order to reduce the threat that ransomware poses. And then the other thing I would say is that over the next few years, we really anticipate that artificial intelligence may play a role in changing the nature of offenders. The tools that will be readily available to attackers could very well not just enhance their operations, but also afford them the ability to move at speeds that make it harder for defenders. So we would flag that while we haven’t seen really substantial adoption of artificial intelligence by ransomware threat actors yet, we would highlight that that could certainly come. And the other thing I’d say is that for all of the threat is evolving, a lot of what we see is the same old stuff, where ransomware attackers will get in through vulnerabilities that haven’t been fixed and will both encrypt the data and steal the data. And so there’s a lot of really basic things that people can do to defend that are still very effective. I’ll highlight that IST published the blueprint for ransomware defense. We published it in Portuguese, Spanish, and English. And it highlights things that small and medium-sized enterprises can do to make their surfaces less vulnerable to ransomware attacks. And we found that if those had been implemented in a few case studies, the ransomware attackers from succeeding. So we’d highlight that. And then we’d also say that the reality is that a lot of these criminals won’t necessarily face prosecution because they are resident in jurisdictions that don’t choose to prosecute cybercriminals. And so it’s really important that we take a proactive self-defense posture. I’ll stop there. Thank you.

Jennifer Bachus: Thanks, Elizabeth. Daniel, can you tell us more from your point of view about the CRI, what it is, why it was started, from your perspective?

Daniel Onyanyai: Okay. Thank you very much. CRI, I want to appreciate Niels and Vish for giving us a background about this ransomware. The CRI is a global coalition of governments and organizations that are coming together to build collective resilience against these threat actors. You know, where attackers, in a way, hold systems, lock systems, and then steal critical data and then request for ransom before they can release it. So it has become a global pandemic, and that is what necessitated the CRI. And the CRI aims to build global resilience, bringing together countries to build global resilience, and also to offer support to member countries in case they are hit by ransomware. Of course, you know, you cannot fight these criminals in isolation. So we have networks. Like, you know, now the ransomware ecosystem has been formed in a way that, you see, we have the ransomware operators on one hand, then we have the ransomware affiliates on the other hand, and then we now have the access brokers on another hand, each of them with different responsibilities but working together, and then sharing the ransom based on percentage. So it’s a big organized crime. So the CRI was formed so that countries can be well prepared, build collective resilience with one another, and then target these threat actors and hold them responsible for their actions, and also to cut off their illicit finance, you know, how they launder money through this cryptocurrency. So we want to be able to cut off that incentive, because the goal is just money. So if you can cut it off, you’ll be able to reduce their crime. And, of course, also to bring in the private companies so that we can improve on protections also. because the government alone cannot fight this criminal. We need the private sectors who can also, because they develop the softwares, they develop the systems, most of these attack, they see it more than we can see them, you know, from the government perspective. And so the CRI wants to make sure that the private sectors are… And then the other aspect is that we need to collaborate with one another to also build this resilience. Then why was this CRI, when was it launched or how did it start? Now, after the COVID, we discovered cybercrime, you know, continue to increase cyber attack, continue to increase because of the escalating impact of ransomware. Today, ransomware has increased in frequency, ransomware has increased in scope, and ransomware has also increased in severity. Before we used to have these, it started with just a single extortion method, lock your system or lock your data, then request for ransom, you pay ransom. You know, of course, there’s no guarantee whether you will get it, it’s just how it was. And then it moved to double extortion, whereby they lock up your system or your data, and then they also exfiltrate those data. And then, you know, threatening that if you don’t pay the ransom, then they will release the data to the public, thereby making the victims, you know, to take immediate action. But currently, it has now moved to multiple extortion method, which even if after targeting the victim, they also move to the clients or customers of the victim, you know, to also, that the access is to make them to take action and to get those things. So because of this escalating impact, that was why the CRI was formed. And also, you know, that another second reason is that the cross-border nature of cybercrime, you know, ransomware actors can be in any jurisdiction and be committing these crimes. And so, we need international cooperation for us to be able to bring them to justice. We need international cooperation for us to cut off their source of… That is one other reason. And the other reason is that government have come to realize that there is this urgent need, you know, for proactive solutions. You can’t just sit back. You need to be proactive, you know, before the attack. So countries need to put in place measures, you know, to keep themselves safe and put in place mechanisms. It could be in form of policies, in form of guidelines, but the end goal is that everybody must put in place structures to be able to withstand these people and also to support one another. Then CRI started specifically in 2021. It was launched and it was, you know, initiated by the United States government. In 2019, 2020, you will see that, you know, the number of attacks in most countries, like for example, in the United States, as at 2020, 2021, the number of ransomware attacks that was recorded was over 2,000 as at that point. And so, if you look across different countries, you will see so many countries recording thousands of attacks within a year. And so, there was this urgent need to, you know, bring countries together so that they can discuss this, the impact of ransomware. And so, in 2021, governments and organizations came together, even though it was a virtual gathering, to discuss, you know, to align their strategies, their policies, and their concerns so that they will be able to fight, to build collective resilience against these ransomware actors. So, that was how it began in 2021. Thank you. Thanks for that. And

Jennifer Bachus: CRI is doing to tackle ransomware now. Absolutely. So, currently, after the last

Speaker: summit, which the United States hosted in Washington in early October, the CRI’s members are broadly, let’s say, organizing around the idea that to address ransomware, we, as the, you know, states that are members of the CRI, need to tackle the problem in a holistic way by disrupting the criminal ecosystem that really underpins the profitability of ransomware attacks. So, not only address ransomware actors, but address the profitability to reduce the incentives. Right now, the CRI is organized along four work streams, we could say, that focus on building resilience, on cooperation, on policies, and on, you know, as much as possible attacks. I want to maybe just give you a rundown of the four pillars, which are called the International Counter-Ransomware Task Force, the so-called Policy Pillar, the Diplomacy and Capacity-Building Track, and the newest addition, the new work stream on public-private partnership that Daniel just mentioned, and I think Elizabeth, too. To start with, as, you know, Jennifer, as you said, the CRI is a multi-stakeholder, but also multi-agency model. If we want to address the ecosystem, we need to bring everybody in on the government side and on the company side who has the right tools to address the system, cyber security agencies, its police forces, it’s those that deal with crypto-assets laundering, but it’s also those that deal with diplomacy and with capacity-building. To give you an idea about the different work streams, maybe to start with the International Counter-Ransomware Task Force, where mostly police agencies, so cyber emergency response teams, come together under the leadership of Australia and Lithuania. Over the three years of its existence, the so-called ICRTF, I’m not going to repeat that name all the time, has developed two information-sharing platforms where members can share tactics, techniques, and procedures, but also indicators of compromise on ransomware attacks, and Australia has developed a website where Daniel has said, you know, one important element is also solidarity, so members can ask ongoing ransomware attack. Secondly, we have the policy pillar under the leadership of the United Kingdom and Singapore that have really worked around common challenges outside of just law enforcement that help tackle the ransomware ecosystem. Because they’ve been so active, I’m going to give you three examples, I think, that really highlight the variety and the width, so to say, of the Counter-Ransomware Initiative. France and Netherlands worked on cyber insurance, because cyber insurance is really both a tool to diversify and spread risks across the economy, but also to incentivize good behavior for companies in order to become more cyber secure and comply with basic cyber hygiene that Elizabeth outlined. Secondly, Australia released a playbook for businesses that helps them prepare for and react to and recover from small and medium-sized businesses that usually don’t have their own IT department to deal with cyber security. And then thirdly, Albania led a project on the implementation of Rule 15 of the International Financial Action Task Force that deals with the regulation of crypto assets. So, you know, this policy pillar shows you the width of the ecosystem that the criminals use, but we also address within the CRI. And then the last, or second to last, and then I’ll stop, we have the Diplomacy and Capacity Building Pillar that Nigeria and Germany, so me and my cyber ambassador Maria Adeba are chairing, where we try to, you know, connect or help people find more resources on capacity building, because, as you can see, As you can see from the variety of topics, capacity building is not only about technical capacities for emergency responders, but it really requires a lot of entities in your government to be up to date and to be able to work together with their agencies. And to close with, I want to highlight Canada’s work on public-private partnership, because as Daniel said, the software we use, the infrastructures that even our government systems run on, are often maintained and updated and held cybersecure by private companies. They see something in the networks, sometimes even before we do, and therefore having a solid foundation for public-private partnership, and IST has done some great work on these types of public-private partnerships, it’s absolutely key to have this holistic view on the profitability of the cybercrime ecosystem that is ransomware today, and we hope that over the next year we will find productive ways to advance on this public-private cooperation. And maybe one last fact, we’re closing in on 70 members, and we almost doubled in size by two years, and I think this really, really underlines how big of an issue ransomware has become all over the world, for any country, along these different lines of work.

Jennifer Bachus: Thanks, appreciate that. And for you, Daniel, what do you see as the benefits of CRI to member countries? Okay, so there are a lot of benefits for members, just like Nils mentioned. The first is capabilities. The CRI is really concerned because you need to build capacities for member countries so that they can be able to respond, maybe identify a ransomware attack,

Daniel Onyanyai: they will be able to have the capabilities to detect, to respond, and to also disrupt the activities of this criminal. So you enjoy that we provide capacity building through different collaborations with organizations that offer. These are already members of the CRI. We have the Council of Europe, we have the Interpol, we have so many of them who are also willing to join the CRI. And another benefit is that we have an enhanced information sharing platforms within the CRI. We have developed platforms, platforms like the malware information sharing platforms, which was developed by Lithuania. And then we have another platform we call the Crystal Ball, which was developed together between UAE and Israel. Australia also developed the CRI Portal. These platforms will help member countries to report incidents, seek urgent assistance. We have had instances, for example, like in Nigeria, when a private organization reported an incident, a ransomware attack to us. So immediately we escalated. And then it didn’t take up to some hours, few minutes, few hours, we started getting response from countries. And so the platform is there. So immediately you go into the platform for urgent assistance. Every country on that platform will be notified immediately. And then you will begin to see support from other countries. So there is nothing more reassuring than knowing that when, as a country, you are under attack, you have other backups, you know, from other member countries who are willing to support you and ensuring that you recover from such attacks. And also on the Crystal Ball platforms and on the MIS platform, you receive threat intelligence that will enable countries to stay proactive and to glean on the experience of other countries who are going to ransomware attacks. So you also find indicators of compromise in that place for you to enrich your platforms to be able to detect the activities of these. We also provide on those platforms, we have access to resources. So you have access, country-shared resources on that platform that is available only to member countries. And also what CRI, another thing that, another benefit you can enjoy is that CRI is committed to strengthening the capacities of the computer emergency response teams of member countries so as to, you know, make them to have, to be able to detect these activities, to conduct investigations, you know, of ransomware activities. So there are quite a whole lot of benefits that you can enjoy by joining the CRI. This is just to mention a few of them. Thank you.

Jennifer Bachus: Thank you for that. So Elizabeth, as was noted, the public-private cooperation within CRI are the pillar. The public-private cooperation has existed for a long time, what are the expectations for this sort of enhanced role in CRI? That’s a really great question and thank you.

Elizabeth Vish: First of all, I want to say thank you to the United States and to Canada for the work that Canada has done to launch the public-private sector advisory panel. The team at Public Safety Canada has been working hard to get everyone who can be part of it engaged in rowing in the same direction. My thoughts are that the private sector really does want to collaborate with mutual respect with the public sector and IST runs the Ransomware Task Force, which is a group of more than 60 experts that come together to combat ransomware. It’s a coalition led by the Institute for Security and Technology. We’re a non-profit think tank, so we can bring people together in sort of a neutral third space to talk about the ransomware threat. And we’ve heard a lot from our members. They want to work with governments and they specifically want to work with the CRI. They really think that they have a lot to offer to help combat this threat and that includes things like threat intelligence, that also includes things like examples of successes and examples of failures from which you can learn. I always really love to highlight that there are lessons learned from failures and if we learn those lessons, then we can avoid the failures in the future. There are lots of things that the private sector could do. They have the capacity to help governments recognize threats. They have the capacity to build and improve resilience. Private sector entities that are really capable of handling response when an incident or an attack occurs. I’ll also highlight that the private sector owns and operates a significant portion of critical infrastructure and critical infrastructure are the frequent targets of ransomware incidents. So it’s really important that the private sector be part of the conversation when it comes to addressing threats of ransomware. So my expectations for the advisory panel or the advisory group, it’s intended to bring together experts from both the public and private sectors to collaborate on cybersecurity issues related to ransomware, its primary recommendations and strategies to address ransomware threats, enhance cybersecurity measures, and strengthen national and international cyber resilience. We’re working on a work plan right now that will outline how the group is going to collaborate over the next year when it comes to building that collaboration between CRI members and the private sector. Our focus is really on providing advice and support to CRI members and to support, for example, Mills mentioned efforts related to insurance and how insurance can play a role in enhancing cybersecurity preparedness. That’s an area where most insurance companies are private companies. And so exchange of information and advice regarding that could be an opportunity for the CRI members to better target their engagement with insurance companies and better improve sort of the collaboration so that the insurance companies can do more. There’s some work that we’re doing at IST, which was, again, we’re sort of a nonprofit think tank that relates to the role that insurance can play in improving resilience. And so that’s just one of very many examples of the ways that the private sector can contribute. And we hope that CRI members will engage in a really robust conversation with the six members of the private sector advisory group so that we can help address this threat, which all of us face. Thanks, Elizabeth. And I know if you’re involved in this, there will be robust engagement. So I have no worries on that front.

Jennifer Bachus: So I know we have comments online, but also I want to start by, first of all, acknowledging the very full room here, which I’m very pleased to see. And to see if any of you here in the room have questions that you want to pose. I see one over there. And then I see one over there. And we’ll see whether we take more than one at once. So go ahead, please, sir. Good afternoon.

Audience: I’m Rapitson from Cambodia. So first of all, thank you for the moderator and panelists. And I would like to ask if Cambodia is indeed a member of the CRI. And if it is not, what is the criteria to join the CRI? Thank you.

Jennifer Bachus: I think I can answer that question, but maybe somebody else wants to instead. My understanding is Cambodia is not yet a member of CRI. There is a process through which you put in an application, and the CRI members consider it. But there is, I don’t know if Niels or if one of the people wants to elaborate a little bit more specifically on that. I could. Or Daniel, do you want to take it from the floor? Up to you. Okay. Just, okay. Continue. All right. Thank you for the question.

Speaker: The application process is relatively simple. The interested governments would write a letter of intent. The co-chairs of the Diplomacy and Capacity Building Pillar, which would be Nigeria and Germany. Daniel in the room maybe could give you the contact information afterwards. And then there’s a 14-day silence procedure under which members can object to the membership request.

Audience: And if no objection is incurred, the country that applied for membership would become a – write a letter, wait around 14 days, and if no objection is signaled, then you would become a member. Okay. Let me add this. You know, we have never seen countries objecting other countries, you know, from not joining. So you don’t have to be afraid of that. All right. Thank you.

Jennifer Bachus: Yeah. I think we try to recognize that this is a shared communal threat and that the more countries that come together to battle the threat, the stronger we’ll all be. And then with that, sir, I think you had a question over there. So hi. This is Adnan Malik. I’m from Pakistan.

Audience: Thank you, Daniel. Thank you, Nils. Thank you, Elizabeth, for the insightful discussion. But I’m still having a hard time navigating, you know, the support points. I mean, how do you guys provide support to the member state entities? For example, if I have to give you, for instance, if you know Case per Sky, they have this initiative, no ransom. You know, so like the decryption keys. So they have like a list of directories. So if you got attacked, if you’re an individual or maybe an entity and you got attacked by any popular ransomware, what they do is they provide you with a decryption key since, you know, it’s a very huge platform and they got a good threat intelligence teams. So I’m still trying to navigate the, you know, support. I mean, how that goes, how that work. Are you guys involving your technical teams or is it a consultancy only? The second point is, is there a directory where we can find the, you know, who are already part of the CRI? I mean, I would also, you know, love to see if my country were there. So yeah. Thank you.

Daniel Onyanyai: Okay. Okay. So you can find information. We have a website, kamtaransomware.org. And then for the other first question, the support we offer comes from the technical teams of the member countries. For example, if you request for support, the U.S. SART may decide to offer that support, the Australian SART. And that is why one of our goal is to strengthen the capabilities of the computer emergency response teams who are directly involved in responding to incidences like that. So in terms of the decryption key, first of all, when you report, if it’s a known cybercrime group and the decryption of any of the countries who are offering support to you, they will be able to release it to you. But if there are other things, you know, for example, you are faced with a new ransomware group maybe that have been in assistance in another country. So they will have more experience. So and if they have none, they can request for the indicators of compromise and some artifacts to also you send it to them like the one that happened in Nigeria. We extracted those indicators of compromise, those artifacts, and then forwarded it to those countries or those organizations who are offering support. For example, like the Interpol, we offered to them because none of them had the key to decrypt it, but they also have to also assist in the investigation process. So it depended on how well you want their support, whether you want to provide it to them or you want to give them a channel to provide support for you. But in any case, it is the technical agency or team of member countries that usually offer those investigative support. Thank you.

Jennifer Bachus: I don’t know if I answered the question correctly. Do either of the people online have anything they want to add? Elizabeth Niels? OK. Can you hear me? Did you have anything you wanted to add? Yeah. OK. Nothing to add. Great. Do we have another question from the room? OK. I saw there were. I will acknowledge that my ability to read the questions or comments is limited here in the room, but I think we might have somebody. No, it just seemed maybe that was just participants. That was exciting. Any other? OK. I think we have like maybe five more minutes. Oh, there is a question. Great. Am I audible? Yes.

Audience: Can you tell us a little bit more about how effective cyber insurance is in countering ransomware attacks? Thank you very much.

Daniel Onyanyai: OK. What we did is cyber insurance is actually what the CRI has been pushing. We have also made, involved the insurance companies of members’ countries. We had sessions with them, and we have also come up with guidelines on how the insurance company can come in to assist when it comes to ransomware attack so that they will be able to cover up for so many things. So we have done a lot to bring them on board. But it depends on how the countries, you know, because they are also subject to your country’s law. So it’s not like the CRI is overriding the country’s law. But what we have done is to always is to bring up, you know, those guidelines, those guidance, and also involve them. And before the summit, we had a session with them. And then after then, there was a guideline that was produced of which countries in collaboration with the insurance sector or the, what would I call it now, the responsible agencies, the responsible insurance agency in their country, or the regulator of the insurance sector in their countries. For example, like in Nigeria, we had to, for us to endorse that guidance or that statement, we have to involve them in it, and we endorsed it. So it means that for us in Nigeria, we are going to no guidelines or guidance that is released by the CRI. Does it need to identify them to pay? To pay? Okay, no, okay, to pay the ransom is not for us in the CRI, it is a no pay. So we have a statement to that that we don’t encourage and member countries should not pay ransom. And many member countries endorse that statement. So but as to whether your country will allow payment in some ways is dependent on your country. Even though most country endorse that statement of no pay, some country is the binding statement, it’s a non-binding statement. But most countries decide to leave it open as to whether to pay or not to pay. But for us in Nigeria, we don’t pay ransom and we don’t encourage. So even though at the back, people may decide to pay, it’s left for them, but for us as a nation, it is a no pay. Smith, you wanted to add something?

Elizabeth Vish: Yeah, absolutely. I think, so more broadly, as the potential to play a role in increasing resilience. I would say that there’s some great research that the Royal United Services Institute in the UK has done related to the role that insurance can play in reducing ransomware attacks. One role that insurance can play is helping the companies that they insure to improve their cybersecurity resilience and reduce their vulnerability to ransomware attacks. And that’s not something that all insurance companies do, but it can certainly play a role. The other thing that insurance companies can do is to help companies that they insure get attacked, they can help those companies to reconstitute their networks and get back up and running more quickly. Some insurance companies, when an attack occurs, bring on specific incident responders to help the company that was insured, that purchased the insurance, to respond more quickly. But I would just refer you to that research by Russi. It’s a really good paper looking at the role that insurance can play. Obviously, they are looking from a UK perspective, but I think that the UK perspective can be valuable for many different global operating contexts. Thanks. And then the other, oh, the other thing I’ll highlight, which I think just, is the statement that was produced at the end of the last CRI summit in October, that does sort of mention the best practices for response and includes that as part of a sort of overall approach to responding to an incident. It was endorsed, as mentioned, by many members and by some insurance consortiums. So I would just highlight that as a place that people go to approach a response to an incident. And it offers the perspective that some insurance companies have endorsed. So those are both really good resources to go to when it comes to insurance and ransomware. Thank you. Thank you very much. There’s two questions in the chat, which I will launch, and I think then we are coming to the end. One is, how do you authenticate if a private organization who is developing software is legitimate? And the second is, how well is third world countries

Jennifer Bachus: prepared to deal with this situation like this on their own? So I will see who wants to take one or both of those questions. Would you like to start with the second question? Anyone? I can jump in on the second question. IST does an annual report on the ransomware threat. We’re mostly looking at data from leak sites, so it’s not perfect data.

Elizabeth Vish: But I would say that overall, we’ve really seen the number of attacks against emerging markets, against emerging economies in developing third world countries go up. We’ve seen them go up over the last two years that we’ve done this report. We’ve really seen the increase in attacks against especially critical infrastructure in many places. And also sort of, to be frank, like the place where money is so things like banking and financial institutions, we’ve seen attacks against government actors and government entities like pension funds. So there was a case where cyber criminals attacked the pension fund of a small Caribbean island nation that made it hard for retirees to get their money, which is obviously a real threat to human health and wellbeing. And we don’t… So that’s really why we are underscoring the value of collaborating between government and private sector and also why we’re underscoring the importance of preparation. We have a joke, prepare, don’t pay. And we don’t mean that in the, you can’t pay, but rather avoid paying by preparing. You won’t get attacked, therefore you won’t have to even think about the payment conversation if you can be well-prepared. So I’ll sort of highlight that as the best way. I would also highlight that, when it comes to the question of… I don’t think that anyone should be dealing with this threat on their own. I think that the collaboration cert to cert, which has been highlighted here already, collaboration between national cybersecurity authorities, like in the US we have the cybersecurity and critical infrastructure authority. The Spanish government has NCBA. There are many sort of national authorities that would like to collaborate with one another. I’ll highlight that the State Department actually… Has collaboration when it comes to building national CSIRT capacity and also including in collaboration with Nigeria. And I think that that’s really the future of defending against this threat is improving partnerships and improving collaboration. The private sector really does wanna contribute, wanna play a role, both in investigating and disrupting these criminals and also in preparing for and recovering from this threat. So I would also encourage national authorities in developing countries to think about how they can get collaboration, to improve collaboration with the private sector. So that no one is alone, but rather we’re all addressing this threat together.

Daniel Onyanyai: Okay, so just to add, when you join the CRI, you are no longer alone. And to deal with some of these issues, what CRI has done is to provide kind of another country. You know, we mentor maybe a country who is less advanced when it comes to handling these kind of threats. So the collaboration, in quotes, will not be that whatsoever thing you need. So you can request from your mentor, they will guide you on the process to go. But the responsibility for you to authenticate a private organization still lies in your country. And then if, as a country, you don’t have what it takes to identify that, you can seek assistance through the CRI. And those assistance can be provided to do it. I don’t know if you understand that. On how to do it, it’s not like the CRI will come to your country and do this authentication. But then there are guidance, there are best practices, and there are resources that can be provided for member countries, you know, to be able to authenticate the private organization that provide those software. So that is why I said you are not alone. You can always seek for assistance, and you can also have access to the resources provided. Thank you.

Jennifer Bachus: Thanks for that. And I wish I could give everyone another shot to say a last word, but I’m getting the wrap-up sign, actually, pretty insistently at this point, and the closed captioning has ended. So I think that is going to end this event. I just wanted to thank our panelists for the amazing collaboration and work, and for all of you for showing up here today. Ransomware is an incredibly challenging issue that will take all of us to continue to battle it, and just to say that there is no country that is immune, and we all need to work together. So thanks to everybody. Thank you for joining us remotely. Thank you for joining us in person, and I look forward to seeing you all around IGF. Thanks.

Agreement Points

Ransomware is a significant global threat

Speaker

Daniel Onyanyai

Elizabeth Vish

Ransomware encrypts data and demands ransom for decryption

Ransomware is a profitable criminal business model

Attacks have evolved to multiple extortion methods

Attacks are expanding to emerging markets and developing countries

All speakers agree that ransomware is a serious and evolving global cybersecurity threat with significant financial and operational impacts.

Collaboration is crucial in combating ransomware

Speaker

Daniel Onyanyai

Elizabeth Vish

Jennifer Bachus

CRI has four main work streams to address ransomware holistically

CRI is a global coalition to build resilience against ransomware

Private sector wants to collaborate with mutual respect

Collaboration between government and private sector is key

All speakers emphasize the importance of collaboration, both between countries and between public and private sectors, in effectively addressing the ransomware threat.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers highlight the importance of information sharing and threat intelligence in combating ransomware, whether through CRI platforms or private sector contributions.

Daniel Onyanyai

Elizabeth Vish

CRI provides information sharing platforms for members

Private sector can provide threat intelligence and improve resilience

Unexpected Consensus

Importance of preparation in avoiding ransom payments

Daniel Onyanyai

Elizabeth Vish

CRI is working to enhance engagement with insurance companies

Preparation is key to avoiding ransom payments

While coming from different perspectives (government and private sector), both speakers emphasize the importance of preparation and proactive measures in dealing with ransomware threats, including the role of insurance.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The speakers show strong agreement on the severity of the ransomware threat, the need for international and public-private collaboration, and the importance of proactive measures and information sharing.

Consensus level

High level of consensus among speakers, implying a unified approach to addressing ransomware threats through initiatives like the CRI and emphasizing the global nature of the challenge.

Different Viewpoints

Unexpected Differences

Overall Assessment

summary

The speakers demonstrated a high level of agreement on the nature of the ransomware threat, the importance of the Counter Ransomware Initiative (CRI), and the need for public-private cooperation in addressing cybersecurity challenges.

difference_level

Low level of disagreement. The speakers presented complementary information and perspectives, reinforcing each other’s points rather than contradicting them. This alignment suggests a unified approach to addressing ransomware threats, which could be beneficial for coordinated international efforts through the CRI.

Partial Agreements

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers highlight the importance of information sharing and threat intelligence in combating ransomware, whether through CRI platforms or private sector contributions.

Daniel Onyanyai

Elizabeth Vish

CRI provides information sharing platforms for members

Private sector can provide threat intelligence and improve resilience

Key Takeaways

Resolutions and Action Items

Unresolved Issues

Suggested Compromises

What we see globally is that this very profitable business has specialized to become a service. Cybercrime as a service, where we, along the criminal supply chain, observe specialized vendors such as initial access brokers, the ransomware groups themselves who then ransom the victims for money, but also afterwards money laundering experts in the illegal sector, so to say.

speaker

Niles Steinhoff

reason

This comment provides crucial insight into the evolving nature of ransomware as a specialized, service-oriented criminal enterprise. It highlights the complexity and sophistication of modern cybercrime operations.

impact

This comment set the stage for a deeper discussion on the various components of the ransomware ecosystem and how to combat it effectively. It led to further exploration of the different actors involved in ransomware attacks.

The first thing I would say is that we’re seeing really substantial growth in ransomware attacks in emerging markets. It used to be that originally a lot of these criminals were attacking mostly companies in the Western Europe, United States, Australia, etc. In the last two years we’ve really seen a dramatic expansion of attacks against entities and companies and non-profits in the developing world in economies where there aren’t enough cybersecurity professionals, there aren’t enough resources to defend effectively.

speaker

Elizabeth Vish

reason

This comment highlights a significant shift in the targeting of ransomware attacks, drawing attention to the vulnerability of emerging markets and developing countries.

impact

This observation led to a discussion about the need for global cooperation and capacity building, especially for countries with fewer resources to combat cybercrime.

CRI aims to build global resilience, bringing together countries to build global resilience, and also to offer support to member countries in case they are hit by ransomware.

speaker

Daniel Onyanyai

reason

This comment succinctly explains the purpose and approach of the Counter Ransomware Initiative (CRI), emphasizing the importance of international cooperation.

impact

It shifted the conversation towards discussing specific actions and benefits of the CRI, leading to a more detailed exploration of how countries can work together to combat ransomware.

The private sector really does want to collaborate with mutual respect with the public sector… They want to work with governments and they specifically want to work with the CRI. They really think that they have a lot to offer to help combat this threat and that includes things like threat intelligence, that also includes things like examples of successes and examples of failures from which you can learn.

speaker

Elizabeth Vish

reason

This comment emphasizes the crucial role of public-private partnerships in combating ransomware, highlighting the willingness and potential contributions of the private sector.

impact

It led to a discussion about the specific ways in which the private sector can contribute to the fight against ransomware, including through threat intelligence sharing and lessons learned from past experiences.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by highlighting the evolving nature of ransomware threats, the global impact especially on emerging markets, the importance of international cooperation through initiatives like the CRI, and the crucial role of public-private partnerships. The conversation progressed from defining the problem to exploring collaborative solutions, emphasizing the need for a multi-faceted, global approach to combating ransomware.

How can artificial intelligence impact ransomware attacks in the future?

speaker

Elizabeth Vish

explanation

AI could enhance attackers’ operations and speed, making it harder for defenders to respond. This is an important area to monitor as AI capabilities evolve.

How can small and medium-sized enterprises implement effective defenses against ransomware?

speaker

Elizabeth Vish

explanation

SMEs often lack resources for cybersecurity. Understanding practical, accessible defenses for smaller organizations is crucial to reducing overall vulnerability.

What are the best practices for cyber insurance in countering ransomware attacks?

speaker

Audience member

explanation

The role of cyber insurance in preventing and responding to ransomware attacks is an evolving area that requires further exploration and guidance.

How can developing countries improve their preparedness and response capabilities for ransomware attacks?

speaker

Audience member

explanation

As attacks against emerging markets increase, understanding how to build capacity and resilience in developing countries is crucial for global cybersecurity.

How can authentication processes for legitimate software developers be improved?

speaker

Audience member

explanation

Ensuring the legitimacy of software developers is important for preventing potential security vulnerabilities and maintaining trust in digital systems.

What are effective strategies for public-private collaboration in combating ransomware?

speaker

Elizabeth Vish

explanation

Enhancing cooperation between government and private sector entities is seen as crucial for addressing the ransomware threat comprehensively.

Summary

This discussion focused on harmonizing strategies for implementing and following up on the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) and the Global Digital Compact (GDC). Participants explored how the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) could support these processes and what aspects should be coordinated.

The panel emphasized the importance of avoiding duplication and fragmentation in digital cooperation efforts. They highlighted the IGF’s role as a flexible, inclusive platform for addressing emerging digital issues and suggested it could be strengthened to support GDC implementation. However, concerns were raised about attempts to undermine the IGF and the need to renew its mandate.

Participants stressed the enduring relevance of WSIS’s vision for a people-centered information society, while acknowledging the need to address new challenges like AI and data governance. They discussed the importance of coordinating efforts across UN agencies and leveraging existing frameworks like the WSIS action lines.

The discussion touched on geopolitical tensions and the need for international solidarity in digital cooperation. Panelists expressed fears about the centralization of processes and the potential weakening of multi-stakeholder approaches. However, they also voiced hope for creative solutions and strengthened cooperation through existing mechanisms.

Overall, the conversation highlighted the complex interplay between WSIS, GDC, and IGF processes, emphasizing the need to build on past achievements while adapting to new realities in digital governance. The discussion underscored the ongoing challenges of ensuring inclusive, effective digital cooperation in a rapidly evolving technological landscape.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– The relationship between WSIS, the Global Digital Compact (GDC), and the IGF

– The need to coordinate and harmonize implementation of WSIS and GDC outcomes

– The role of the IGF in supporting digital cooperation processes

– Challenges to the multi-stakeholder model and the IGF’s mandate

– The importance of building on existing frameworks rather than creating new ones

The overall purpose of the discussion was to explore how to harmonize strategies for coordinated implementation and follow-up of the WSIS and GDC processes, with a focus on the role of the IGF.

The tone of the discussion was thoughtful and constructive, with participants offering nuanced perspectives on complex issues. There was a sense of urgency about the need to strengthen existing mechanisms like the IGF rather than creating new processes. The tone became more concerned towards the end as participants expressed fears about fragmentation and weakening of multi-stakeholder approaches, but also hopeful about the potential for creativity and collaboration to address challenges.

Speakers

– Anrienette Esterhuysen: Moderator

– Justin Fair: U.S. State Department

– Jorge Cancio: Swiss government, Office of Communications

– Christine Arida: Government of Egypt

– Anita Gurumurthy: IT for Change, India; Global Digital Justice Forum

– Amrita Choudhury: Civil society representative, past member of MAG

– Bic: From Vietnam

– Nigel Cassimire: Caribbean Telecommunications Union

– Jason Pielemeier: Global Network Initiative (multi-stakeholder organization)

– David Fairchild: Government of Canada, Geneva Mission

– Gitanjali Sah: ITU

Additional speakers:

– Valeria Betancourt: Online moderator, APC

– Bruna: Rapporteur, MAG member

– Flavio: (no additional information provided)

Expanded Summary of Discussion on Harmonising WSIS, GDC, and IGF Processes

This discussion focused on harmonising strategies for implementing and following up on the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) and the Global Digital Compact (GDC), with particular emphasis on the role of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). The session began with a spectrogram exercise to gauge participants’ views on key issues, followed by a structured discussion on coordinating these processes to avoid duplication and fragmentation in digital cooperation efforts.

Spectrogram Exercise:

The session opened with a spectrogram exercise, where participants were asked to position themselves along a spectrum in response to questions about the relationship between WSIS, GDC, and IGF processes. This interactive element highlighted the diversity of opinions and set the stage for the subsequent discussion.

Key Themes and Arguments:

1. Role of the IGF in Implementing WSIS and GDC Outcomes

There was broad agreement on the importance of the IGF as a key platform for GDC follow-up and implementation. Amrita Choudhury and Jason Pielemeier emphasised the IGF’s role as an ongoing mechanism for flexible stakeholder engagement. Nigel Cassimire suggested that the IGF could be a place to develop concrete targets for GDC implementation.

However, some speakers highlighted challenges facing the IGF. David Fairchild, representing the Canadian government, expressed concern that the IGF is under threat and needs a strengthened mandate in the upcoming WSIS+20 review. Jorge Cancio from the Swiss government cautioned against viewing the IGF as a standalone solution, emphasising that it is part of a larger WSIS architecture.

2. Global Digital Compact (GDC) and its Relationship to WSIS

Participants discussed the GDC as a new initiative that builds upon the WSIS framework. There was emphasis on the need to integrate the GDC with existing WSIS processes rather than creating parallel structures. Speakers highlighted the importance of leveraging the WSIS Action Lines, which provide a framework for addressing various aspects of the information society, in implementing the GDC.

3. Coordination and Harmonisation of Digital Cooperation Processes

Participants stressed the need to build on existing frameworks rather than create new ones. Gitanjali Sah advocated for leveraging the existing WSIS framework and UN mechanisms like the United Nations Group on Information Society (UNGIS), which coordinates UN agencies’ efforts on information society issues. Jorge Cancio warned against the duplication and proliferation of new forums and processes.

Anriette Esterhuysen argued for updating the WSIS Action Lines to address new issues like artificial intelligence (AI) and data governance. This view was echoed by Amrita Choudhury, who emphasised the importance of addressing developing country needs in AI policy.

4. Challenges and Opportunities in Digital Cooperation

Several speakers highlighted ongoing challenges in digital cooperation. David Fairchild noted fragmentation between member states on the vision for internet governance. Jason Pielemeier stressed the need to resist efforts to weaken the IGF and the multi-stakeholder model.

Anriette Esterhuysen pointed out tensions between geopolitics and corporate interests in the digital space, introducing the concept of “neo-illiberalism” to describe the current global context. She emphasised the importance of international solidarity in addressing digital challenges.

David Fairchild raised concerns about the centralisation of processes, warning of a “New Yorkification” that could potentially exclude some voices. However, Jorge Cancio saw an opportunity to update the global architecture creatively.

5. Progress and Gaps in Digital Inclusion

Speakers acknowledged both progress and persistent challenges in digital inclusion. Gitanjali Sah highlighted significant achievements in areas like telecentres and distance learning. However, Amrita Choudhury noted persistent challenges in connectivity and digital divides, particularly in developing countries.

Anriette Esterhuysen called for a renewed focus on the WSIS vision of a people-centred information society. This sentiment was echoed by other participants who stressed the importance of addressing inequity and renewing commitment to civil society participation.

6. Role of Civil Society

Several speakers emphasized the crucial role of civil society in these processes. There was concern about ensuring meaningful civil society participation in both the WSIS and GDC processes, as well as in the IGF. Speakers noted the challenges faced by civil society organizations, including limited resources and the need for capacity building.

Key Takeaways and Unresolved Issues:

1. The IGF is seen as a crucial platform for implementing WSIS and GDC outcomes, but its role and mandate need to be strengthened, particularly in light of the upcoming WSIS+20 review.

2. There is a need to coordinate and harmonise various digital cooperation processes, including the GDC, with existing WSIS frameworks to avoid duplication and fragmentation.

3. Existing WSIS frameworks, including the Action Lines, and UN mechanisms like UNGIS should be built upon rather than creating entirely new structures.

4. Significant progress has been made in digital inclusion, but major challenges and divides persist, particularly in developing countries.

5. There are tensions between different visions for internet governance among member states, highlighting the need for continued dialogue and compromise.

6. Civil society participation remains crucial, but faces challenges in terms of resources and meaningful engagement.

Unresolved issues include how to balance multilateral and multi-stakeholder approaches in digital cooperation, how to address the centralisation of digital governance processes, and how to ensure adequate funding and resources for the IGF and civil society participation.

Conclusion:

The discussion highlighted the complex interplay between WSIS, GDC, and IGF processes, emphasising the need to build on past achievements while adapting to new realities in digital governance. While there was broad agreement on the importance of coordination and the central role of the IGF, participants also acknowledged significant challenges in ensuring inclusive, effective digital cooperation in a rapidly evolving technological landscape. The conversation underscored the ongoing need for dialogue, compromise, and creative solutions to address these complex issues, particularly as the international community approaches the WSIS+20 review.

Anrienette Esterhuysen: And also to tell you we’re going to do this session a little bit differently. I’ll shortly be asking you all to take your headset and stand up. But before we do that, I just want to introduce the session. I’m going to take this off for now. I hear an echo. You know what it is? It’s my Zoom. I need to switch my speaker on. So welcome, everyone, and thanks for joining us. We’ve heard a lot about WSIS. We’ve heard a lot about the Global Digital Compact in the last few days. Is there anyone in the room who doesn’t know what WSIS stands for? I dare you. No, I’m serious. Is there anyone who doesn’t know what WSIS stands for? Well, that’s good. GDC? And this session, we actually want to build on all the previous discussions, because there’s been many of them, and I think we’re all together actually paving this way towards a better understanding of how these processes relate to one another, but specifically how we can harmonize strategies for coordinated implementation, and that’s what we’re going to talk about today. We have a fantastic panel. I’m going to give your names later, and they can say a little bit more about themselves. We have… Rita Choudhury from India, representing civil society, also past member of the MAG. Jorge Cancio from Switzerland, from the Swiss, from Barcom, the Swiss Ofcom, the Swiss Office of Communications. We have online Jason Pilemeyer over there from a multi-stakeholder initiative called GNI, Global Network Initiative, a membership organization. We have David Fairchild from the government of Canada in the Geneva Mission, very closely involved in all of this. And online we have Anita, Anita Goramurti from IT for Change in India, but also part of something called the Global Digital Justice Forum. I want to introduce my colleague, my online moderator, Valeria Betancourt from APC, who leads APC’s global governance work. And we have as our rapporteur, Bruna, and who is also on the MAG. And then Gitanjali from the ITU, also known as Ms. Wusses. I’m gonna use that because someone, and I’m not a grandmother Wusses, so really enjoy that label. So before we start, I’m gonna ask everyone now to get up. Get up, put your bags down, put your cell phones down, most importantly, put your cell phones down or put them in your pocket, but take this with you. Can I just take this with us? Yes. Valeria, you can stay there. I can stay here, yeah, to channel the participation. So you have to be there. I want you to go into that open space at the back. Just stand around, and I’m going to make you think, work, and talk, and walk. And we’re going to do a spectrogram exercise. Has anyone ever done a spectrogram before? No. You have, good. So I’m going to make a statement. And then based on your reaction to the statement, and remember, it’s the IGF, you are here as individuals, you’re not here as delegations, even though you might think you are. And so you can just have a gut reaction. If you agree with that statement, I want you to stand over there. If you disagree violently over there, if you’re uncertain, just position yourself somewhere along an imaginary line. I haven’t said anything yet. Okay, here’s the first statement. The Global Digital Compact provides exactly the agenda which the IGF needs to become more focused and effective. If you agree over there, if you disagree over there, if you think there’s a little bit of both, somewhere in the middle. Okay. Okay, let me ask someone, I’m going to ask you, sorry to do this to you, Justin, but you are kind of, I would say, just off center, just off center left. Why do you stand here? What is your view? Sorry, the idea is that as you listen to people, I’ll ask other people, you can put your hands up if you want to contribute. If you feel that the response is making you shift your position a little bit, then move your body to shift. Either you disagree even more, or you actually find yourself moving a little bit.

Justin Fair: I would say that the GDC is a good outcome. I think it has a good plan, norms. principles, some of the commitments, all that’s good, some of the way forward, but if you it’s still a negotiated document and there was a lot of kind of compromise from different folks in it, and so ultimately I don’t think it’s perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but I would still say if I’m in the center left camp here that it’s it’s fairly good and something that can be built on going forward. On the IEGF, I think that there’s a lot in there for the IEGF. Now some of this is was explicit and I think there is was thought through how the IEGF, but some of it is how the IEGF responds to that. It’s not what New York or what member states tell the IEGF to do, but also there’s work there and I think now the question is does the IEGF community agree that there’s work that’s relevant for the community here to take forward.

Anrienette Esterhuysen: If I was standing over there, I think I would have moved a little bit. I think these agendas are what we make of them. Anyone on that side who disagrees that the GDC gives the IEGF what it needs, that want to share their view? No one here wants to speak. Flavio, no. Anyone else who wants to comment on this? Jorge, do you want to say anything?

Jorge Cancio: Yeah. Sorry. Jorge Cancia, Swiss government. My question would be, where’s the money for the IEGF, for instance? I think the GDC is a reasonable outcome for the negotiation it was, so it could have been much worse if we look at the initial draft, for instance, but it leaves many things open and now So, similarly to what Justin said, the ball is in the air, we have to kick it into the right direction, and the IJF community has a very important role to play there. But I think on the substance, there are many interesting, reasonable things we have to address. I’m completely in agreement with that. But on the architecture, I think there are some dangers there.

Anrienette Esterhuysen: Thanks, Jorge. Valeria, is there anyone online that wants to… I see Christine there as well, I see Anita and Jason. If you were in the room, where would you stand? GDC gives the IJF exactly the agenda it needs, or you don’t think so? Anita and… Yes, Christine, and then Anita.

Christine Arida: I would be leaning towards the right of the rule, but then I might take a few steps, because there’s some truth to that, just not completely.

Anrienette Esterhuysen: And, Christine, just introduce yourself to everyone.

Christine Arida: Sorry, I’m Christine Arida with the government of Egypt.

Anrienette Esterhuysen: Thanks, Christine. Anita.

Anita Gurumurthy: Thank you. I just wanted to say I would stand in the middle and agree with Jorge and Justin, because I think we mustn’t also forget that the objective of the GDC was not to actually provide direction for improving the IJF or make it effective. That was not the stated objective. And, of course, I think where is the money is a very, very important question. On the other hand, I do think that the GDC broadens the issues at stake for an inclusive information society, which the IJF can and must take up.

Anrienette Esterhuysen: Thanks, Anita. I’m just going to ask Justin to introduce himself, because I forgot to do that earlier.

Justin Fair: Justin Fair, U.S. State Department.

Anrienette Esterhuysen: Okay, now you all did fairly well there. The next statement is, the concept of an inclusive, people-centered information society that came out of the WSIS is obsolete. Agree on this side, disagree on that side. I think people are right when they say the IJF lacks diversity. Okay, anyone want to say why they are standing where they are standing? There are quite a few people in the middle.

Amrita Choudhury: Hi, my name is Amrita. I think while the WSIS talks about information society, I think it’s still important because many of the visions in the WSIS have not been met yet. Like for example, we are not connected yet. But again, the WSIS talks about internet and how it is used. So even if you’re talking about digital technologies or any emerging technologies, they come under the overview of how internet is used. So you may use different ways, but the basic essence of WSIS still runs true. I would not call it obsolete. You may want to add a bit of it to it, like information and digital societies like Netmundial tried to do. That’s my take.

Anrienette Esterhuysen: Any of you, I’ll come to you just now, Justin, but are people still using the concept of information society at all in their own disciplines or their works? Or the concept of knowledge society?

Anita Gurumurthy: In fact, Annarette, we work very closely with many UN agencies. So we’ve expanded it into information and knowledge societies at the ITU. The Council Working Group on WSIS calls it information and knowledge societies to include UNESCO’s work, FAO’s work. even more than that. And in fact, I heard the ADG of UNESCO say yesterday, they’re also now

Anrienette Esterhuysen: including, they’re linking data to data and information and how they relate to one another into transforming into knowledge. So they still have that concept there. Justin, yes, you’re actually in exactly the same spot you were before. Diplomats.

Justin Fair: No, I stayed here because I somewhat agree that I think that if you look back at the original WSIS documents, a lot of the norms and principles, we’ve seen an evolution of those from, you know, through the years, including through WSIS plus 10. And then even more recently with GDC, where that seems to have been updated. And that was one of the key elements of WSIS. A lot of the development plan has evolved over the years, including with the SDGs coming on top of it, which seems to have changed a lot of the development. And then one key thing the WSIS did is provide some framework on how different UN agencies or stakeholders can cooperate on certain areas, and then how they can come together through different processes in a follow-up and review. And all of that seems to have changed over the years. So I think in that way, going back to, you know, to those that are purists and look back to the original, it seems to have way changed from early 2000s on that. But I agree with Gitanjali, that just means that it’s an evolving process, and not to get too rigid in, you know, these exact outcomes from many years ago, because I think that there is a lot that’s been kind of evolved since then, updates, developments, new processes, things of that nature, which have kind of breathed new life into that. And so the question just going forward is how to do that, how to take a framework that has matured over the years, has changed and evolved, is still effective, but only if we can continue to strengthen it and evolve it. Sorry, you want us to move?

Anrienette Esterhuysen: So people, please come inside, please come inside so that we can, that we can, we’re nearly finished, so I think it’s fine. Okay, so anyone else who was standing on this more sort of that information society is an obsolete concept that wanted to add anything? Okay, then I’m going to go to my last statement, which was none of them turned out to be as provocative as I hoped they would, but this one might. The multi-stakeholder approach to digital cooperation entrenches existing dynamics of power and influence. The multi-stakeholder approach entrenches the status quo, existing dynamics of power and influence and internet governance. If you agree over here, somewhere in the middle over there, if you disagree that the multi-stakeholder approach entrenches existing dynamics of power and influence, over there, you agree. Can I, are you willing to speak? Just introduce yourself.

Bic: Hi, I’m Bic from Vietnam. So I think, you know, people, we talk more and more about this concept today, multi-stakeholders, but from, you know, my background, you know, and in the region as well, I feel like it’s still very much state-centric. So when we talk about that, then maybe, you know, it poses a challenge to the existing system.

Anrienette Esterhuysen: Yeah, I think we, I think there was a lot of people in civil society during WSIS who supported the multi-stakeholder approach, believing that it would give them more power and influence. And I’m not sure they always… feel they really got that. But anyone there who feels that the multi-stakeholder approach has created more inclusion, democratization, anyone who wants to offer a view, introduce yourself, please.

Nigel Cassimire: Yes, Nigel Casimir from the Caribbean Telecommunications Union. I think if you look at the difference between something like the WSIS Outcome Document and the GDC, you see a lot more commitment and multi-stakeholder. So I think it just takes time, right? What multi-stakeholder is trying to do is influence the multilateral framework. And you’re seeing, I would say, influence, certainly, right? It’s not something that will happen overnight. So I don’t think it entrenches. I think it is working, but slowly to gain influence in the multilateral space.

Anrienette Esterhuysen: Thanks, Nigel. And I must say, I follow your work quite closely. And I think what I see in the Caribbean is actually a real demonstration of how partnership and collaboration just deepens over time. Anyone online who want to respond to this statement? Valeria is there? No. Anyone there who really supports the multi-stakeholder approach and wants to add? Anita, please go ahead and then we’ll give it to one more person and then you can all sit down.

Anita Gurumurthy: Okay. I agree with my colleague from Vietnam that there is always in the world, you know, power. And, you know, we’re not starting on a fresh slate each day. So just like the power of the state, there’s also the power of the market and the power of big business. And all business, you know, is not the same. And therefore one very important thing. is I’d like to point to an interesting idea of multistakeholderism, which was enunciated by Netmundial in 2014, not the 2024 one, but the 2014 one, which says that internet governance should be built on democratic multistakeholder processes, ensuring the meaningful and accountable participation of all stakeholders. The respective roles and responsibilities of stakeholders should be interpreted in a flexible manner with reference to the issue under discussion. And what I think, therefore, is it’s important to remember that multistakeholder is not one thing, because, for instance, we can’t change a monopoly market situation with stakeholder interventions. You need regulation. So the role of the state and regulation, for instance, you cannot run a community network, you know, with interference from the state. So you need communities. So I really think that it’s extremely important to situate the idea of multistakeholderism in context. And without context, multistakeholderism is just an empty signifier. Thanks.

Anrienette Esterhuysen: Thanks, Anita. And I mean, I would just add one other thing that I think it’s important. And I think the Netmundial Sao Paulo guidelines also point this out. Stakeholder groups are not homogenous. There’s so much diversity between governments within civil society. The private sector is enormously diverse. So I think that’s the other thing that we also need to keep in mind. Okay, any last reflections on this topic? No. So you can sit down. I think a little bit more moving around would have been good, but we didn’t have enough space. Thank you very much, everyone, for participating in this exercise. So, everyone, while you take your seats. I hope everyone can still hear me. I now would like us to begin to think and unpack in a little bit more detail, more concretely, what we mean by coordinated implementation, follow-up and review, and ways of approaching this that takes us from WSIS to GDC and maybe back to WSIS again, but however you see that. So the first question that I want to ask, and I’m going to ask not a specific panelist, the panelists can decide who wants to respond, but the first question is, where is this first question? We at the IGF, we’re part of the IGF process at the moment, how do you see the IGF, but concretely, supporting these important processes that took place in 2024? We have the net model plus 10, which produced these guidelines on how to deepen and strengthen multi-stakeholder processes within multilateral, intergovernmental spaces, but also in multi-stakeholder spaces. We had the pact of the future, and part of the pact of the future is obviously the global digital compact, which gave us these quite high level objectives and commitments, and highlight some of the new and emerging areas that we are facing in digital governance. So yes, anyone want to respond specifically how you see the IGF? I think there’s probably a lot of consensus in this room that we want the IGF to be a key part of GDC follow-up and implementation, but some concrete suggestions. about how that can be done. Any one of our speakers online or in the room that want to, Amrita, please go ahead. You take the first step. And then I invite the other panelists to respond.

Amrita Choudhury: Thank you, Henriette. I’m taking a stab on behalf of the working group of MAG on IGF strengthening and strategy because we, and many of you are part of that group. And so this group has been trying to work a bit on it. And we’ve, as a community, created a working, a vision document for IGF. It’s also there on the website. I’m not too sure where the link is. So there has been discussions on how the IGF can contribute not only to the GDC, but also ally with the WSIS discussions and the others so that in a coordinated way, the IGF can work. There are various steps which have been proposed in terms of action. For example, to formalize IGF’s evolution, try to make the IGF model more strategic, and to also have, for example, a track where the implementation of GDC could be discussed in an open multi-stakeholder platform because even the GDC document recognizes the IGF, the national regional IGFs and its entire ecosystem. So that’s one. Even the Sao Paulo guidelines actually talk about, the NetMundial Plus 10 actually talks about IGF being the custodian to have more discussions on the implementation of many of these, how the multi-stakeholder process can be enhanced by different others who want to actually improve upon the processes, et cetera. Similarly, as I mentioned, the follow-up track of the GDC is something which has been spoken about, and how complementary relationship with the other WSIS partner institutions could be developed and strengthened. I would urge all of you to look at the vision document. I think the community has come up with fairly a good one, which is a bit more actionable. You are welcome to give more comments and I’ll leave it at that for now.

Anrienette Esterhuysen: Thank you, Marita. And maybe just to take a step backwards and ask the panelists, and actually if as many of you can respond to this as possible. When we talk about this harmonizing of strategies for implementation and follow-up of the WSIS and GDC, what exactly is it actually that we’re talking about? When we say there needs to be coordination, that we need to avoid duplication, what is it that we feel should be coordinated? There’s so many different elements of this process. There’s participation, there’s implementation and planning, follow-up, collaboration, partnerships. There’s also gathering evidence and research and identifying problems. So what do you think are the key processes where we need to facilitate a more harmonized approach? And Jason, do you want to start off with that? I know you’re speaking from a multi-stakeholder organization’s perspective. Do you want to respond to the IGF question? You’re welcome to respond to the IGF question.

Jason Pielemier: Thanks, Henriette. That’s what I had actually mentioned in the chat when you asked for comments on that. So maybe I’ll touch on that and maybe it helps segue to your second question. I think that the… So I want to build quite a bit on what Marietje was saying. I think that the… the Netmundial document itself did a good job of identifying the importance of avoiding fragmentation and duplication of fora at a stage earlier this year before the GDC had been concluded and I think a lot of what people had in mind at that moment was the GDC and the GDC went through a number of rounds of evolution and negotiation including opportunities for public comment and thankfully I think ended up in a place where some of what many in the stakeholder community saw as potential duplication was ironed out and we ended up avoiding creating new forums and spaces which is particularly important as the Netmundial São Paulo Principles and Outcome document indicate because of the challenges that stakeholders in particular, stakeholders from global majority, stakeholders coming from civil society, have a lot of challenges from a resource perspective in tracking, engaging, traveling to, and participating in multiple processes simultaneously and so I’m pleased that we were able to avoid some of that duplication at the end but I think there are still many open questions about the extent to which the GDC and its follow-up will be efficiently coordinated with WSIS and I think as the Netmundial Principles noted, the IGF is probably one of the best ways in which to ensure that coordination not just the annual IGF, but of course, the regional and national IGFs, which creates sort of a continuing, existing, well-known set of spaces where a diverse range of stakeholders have proven to be able to come together to address a pretty wide range of important digital issues. So to me, the role of the IGF is really as a kind of ongoing mechanism for engagement. It’s a flexible, the IGF doesn’t have a narrow mandate by any means. So the sort of substance and focus of what is engaged, what stakeholders engage on in the IGF is very flexible. And I think the question for us, and this kind of leads you to your second question is, so what specifically can and should we be focusing on? What are the tracks, whether using existing dynamic coalitions or thinking about new processes? The vision document is clearly an important piece of this puzzle. What are the specific things that we as part of the IGF community can now do to ensure that not only WSIS and the principles and objectives behind that process, but also the GDC continue to move forward in a coordinated and as participatory as possible manner. So that all starts, I think, with the need to renew the mandate for the IGF, which is critical and we shouldn’t get ahead of ourselves. That still has to happen. And of course that happens in the context of the WSIS Plus 20 review. And I think Jorge alluded to earlier the importance of resources, right? The IGF has done an incredible amount in terms of the number of people it’s brought together, the number of… conversations, the range of topics addressed, with a fairly shoestring budget. And so if we’re going to ask the IGF, to bolster its role as this sort of interstitial tissue between these various processes around these topics, it needs to be resourced sufficiently and effectively.

Anrienette Esterhuysen: And thanks a lot for that, Jason. And Anita, I see you want to respond to my question about what it is, particularly in your case, from a civil society perspective, that you feel should be coordinated.

Anita Gurumurthy: Thanks, I think the question has two parts, you know, what should be coordinated and why, and I think you put it extremely succinctly, it’s extremely complex, and therefore, how to get to it should be guided by what’s the imperative. So the imperative here is, and in our view, if I could, I would dare say on on the behalf of some civil society organizations, the WSIS does remain, in some ways, I think, the mother framework. And I do think that there is an abiding vision in WSIS, and maybe I’m a hopeless romantic, but when I see those mentions of people-centered information society, I think we have a long way to go. But the very fact that the global community could commit to it, today, the what of coordination and harmonization is just grown exponentially. So we really need to look at the data and AI revolution. And that is why the GDC took a kind of a timely approach to flag the what. And I would say that updating the WSIS Action Alliance, for instance, through ideas of standards for digital public goods, what are the common standards? You know, what are the ethical standards? Also looking at private platform services and addressing the fragmentation of network standards, looking at democratic integrity and addressing hate speech, or looking at the data for development agenda and saying, what are the rule based you know, arrangements for data sharing at a global, regional, national, and subnational levels to achieve the SDGs. These are some what’s, but I think more important than the what for harmonization and coordination are two very important issues with the why. The first is without coordination and without harmonization, we will not be able to realize the vision of equality and inclusion. And therefore, coordination is very, very important to address the inequity that the GDC recognizes is characteristic of the information society. And we do need, I think, to pay attention to this kind of inequity. And the second reason I think why we need to coordinate and harmonize is the inclusion, participation, and the rightful agency of civil society requires a renewed commitment at this conjuncture. And I think there, if I might say the GDC falls short a little bit, it hasn’t, you know, been very vocal in its commitment or to renew its commitment to the participation of civil society. And here we need, I think, 21st century imagination of, and that’s why we think of the WSIS and cherish the memories of 2003 and five, because civil society said that, you know, multilateralism in its, you know, in its old bottle will not do, right? So we need, I think, a truly transparent, democratic, accountable governance of digital technologies at all levels. And this is one of the reasons, and this is one of the whys for justifying increased coordination and harmonization. I’ll leave it at that.

Anrienette Esterhuysen: Thanks a lot, Anita. And I think it’s fine to be a hopeless romantic about WSIS. I know of at least three WSIS relationships that are still going on and two WSIS babies, as we used to refer to them. And they’re now a young adult. Jorge, you wanted to respond and then David, I see you too. So let’s hear what you feel we should focus on harmonizing and coordinating as part of this process from a government perspective and from a Jorge perspective.

Jorge Cancio: Yeah, thank you, Henriette. So Jorge Cancias with government again, maybe there’s a personal but also a government perspective. I think if we’re talking about babies, I would start to say the GDC actually is a baby of WSIS. So when did it start really at the IGF 2017 in Geneva? We had a discussion about updating digital cooperation and then we had the high level panel on digital cooperation. And finally, we had the GDC after some years in the pandemic and everything. As Anita said, the GDC gives some impulses on the what we have to do. So data governance, meaningful connectivity nowadays, human rights, artificial intelligence governance, so many things. And what is the role of the IGF in that game? So that was also part of the question. I would zoom out and say the IGF, you cannot just talk about the IGF because the IGF is part of the Swiss army knife that is composed by the WSIS architecture. And the WSIS architecture are parts that are about mandates of organizations like the ITU who have been under WSIS investing hundreds of millions into connectivity, into capacity building, into outreaching to many countries. It is the action lines and there is also UNDP, UNESCO, all the UN organizations. You have the CSTD, which is the follow. up place where member states meet but also stakeholders meet together and then give a feedback to the UN system in New York. We have the WSIS forum where we look every year where the action lines stand, where we can update things. And then we have the IGF. And the IGF, you have to see it in the context of that Swiss Army knife. And it is there to have an open discussion on equal footing to identify emerging topics. That is completely valid today, I think. And what is specially needed, I think, is to avoid a proliferation of processes. So if you have a Swiss Army knife and something doesn’t work, you try to improve it. You try to get the blade again, that it cuts properly, whatever. But you don’t take another Swiss Army knife. And then you have to. And you don’t know which one to use. And you spend your time in that. So I think it’s time to use this impulse to update WSIS. But not only the IGF, the whole of the architecture. And there, I think, the Sao Paulo Multistakeholder Guidelines can give us inspiration. Because it’s not only about multistakeholder processes like the IGF or ICANN. It’s also about more traditional multilateral processes where we can learn from the practice, the test bedding the IGF and other fora have been doing for 20 years. Thank you.

David Fairchild: who cover horizontally digital issues. So I have a privilege of covering a number of UN and multilateral processes in the space. I’ll try to be succinct so that we at least can move on to some other questions. And I’ve asked this question before. So what is the difference between WSIS in 2005, 2015, and 2025? And I think if you answer that to yourselves, I think you start to realize why the GDC exists. You can draw whatever answers you want away from it, but the GDC reflected the needs of some member states who felt that the WSIS or the architecture was missing the boat on certain areas. And so the negotiations of the GDC really reflects, unfortunately, yes, a multilateral process. I think we can all have a chin wag offline about how multi-stakeholder it was. But nevertheless, we were all at the table as member states and signed on to what is the GDC. So we can’t go back in history and change it whether we want to or not. But what I think is critical to understand is that there were member states who were actively undermining the IGF, actively undermining ICANN, actively undermining the internet governance model that exists today. You don’t see that in the news. You won’t see that in the final document. But I think if you talk to member states and they’re willing to tell you a little bit more, what you didn’t see was probably more important than what you saw as the final product, because what you did see in the negotiations was a clear differentiation of an ideological view of the future of the internet and how it should be governed, how the digital space needs to exist going forward. And I think that’s kind of bringing me – I think that is one of the most critical things that people need to understand. It is not all rose-colored glasses and status quo ante and we just move along and renew and things will carry on as they are. I think the second point here is as a like-minded, five eyes, G7 chair country, Canada needs to recognize is that there are valid needs that have been identified through the GDC that we need to take care of. And I think that’s where the impetus to take a real serious look at the WSIS process, not necessarily talking about updating the action lines, but I think we need to see whether they’re still fit for purpose and how they need to perhaps reflect some of the demands that have been coming forward. And the IGF, frankly, was under and remains under attack. I don’t wanna diminish the point, nor amplify it too high. If you go and look at the UN General Assembly 79, the ICT for development resolution that was just passed, there was a very minor voted change to diminish the language that was agreed in the GDC six weeks ago on how we refer to the IGF. They voted to, the G77 put forward a vote to diminish the word, to take out the word, the IGF as the primary multi-stakeholder forum. They voted to have the primary removed. So these are small data points, but on an aggregation level seem to suggest that for whatever reason, there are certain countries, certain blocks who have a different view of what the IGF is or isn’t and where it should go in the future. We tried to negotiate for the IGF to be stabilized and permanentized through the GDC. We were not successful. And so we are now in an inflection point as how do we sort of resuscitate our efforts through the negotiations, but to carry this forward through 2025. And so I think, I’m trying to give you something new to play with so we don’t just sort of hear the same old, same old that we heard from multiple workshops over the previous days. And so I think the other point we need to really pay attention to is how does the WSIS review and GDC implementation really play into the long game, which is 2030? And the SDG review. And I think if you go and look at the pact of the future, there are over 240 references in the pact to. development as a word search, which really suggests what is it that we really are trying to address. And I think what we are looking at is a convergence of, at a different time, digital ran on its own track, and there was the analog development world over on another track, and they ran in parallel. And we had the WSIS Action Lines and the Millennium Development Goals, which became the Sustainable Development Goals. We are seeing a convergence. We are living now in a digitalized 21st century. And I think we really need to take a step back and look at the architecture, and yes, Canada does not believe that we need to duplicate. We are looking for efficiency, and I think the system as it exists is more than capable. I mean, the IGF is a 20-year established and trusted environment. But there are member states who say, well, it only discusses internet governance. They seem to forget the second half of the same paragraphs from the Tunis Agenda, which says the IGF is actually responsible for considering digital issues, digital public policy issues. Every new issue can find a home in the IGF as long as we are willing to reconsider the existing language. And I’ll stop there.

Anrienette Esterhuysen: Thanks. Valeria, I’m out of the Zoom, so you can just tell me. My Zoom disconnected. Does Jason want to react? Jason wants to react. Jason, do you want to react directly to David? Because I think Geetanjali wants to give his perspective. But go ahead, Jason. Let’s hear from you first.

Jason Pielemier: Yeah, no, I just put a comment and I’ll read it out loud for folks who can’t see it. But just quick plus one to David’s points that I think should really help us focus on the WSIS plus 20. I think there’s perhaps a tendency with GDC and other things to sort of take our eye off of the ball here. The WSIS plus 20 should be an opportunity not only to expand the mandate of the IGF, but to strengthen that mandate and strengthen the institution of the IGF. But that’s not. guaranteed, right? That is going to depend on the conversations and the negotiations that happen this year. And I think we need to kind of redouble our focus on that because if we don’t, there is a chance, as David alluded to, there are some who I think would push for the IGF to be weakened. And I think that would take us in the wrong direction. So I just wanted to kind of footstomp on that point quickly and hand it back to you.

Anrienette Esterhuysen: Yeah. Thanks, Jason. But I think I also heard David say, and maybe I didn’t hear correctly, but that this is not, when we talk about the what, to use Anita’s framing, the what is not just the IGF. There’s a bigger what and a longer term what out there as well. And it also sounds to me, David, from what you’re saying, that a big part of the what is building the kind of commonality and collaboration that WSIS did manage to achieve between North and South and between the developed and the developing world. And I think it’s wise of you to have reminded us that things are more fragmented in some ways. And Gitanjali, you work in the IT, you’re part of the WSIS process and you work in the UN system itself. From your perspective, what is the most important what and why?

Gitanjali Sah: Thank you, Anirudh. In fact, WSIS for us has been really the UN in action in terms of digital cooperation, the beautiful framework of WSIS action lines that we implement based on our mandates, like WHO has e-health, ILO has e-employment, UNESCO has mostly the knowledge societies one. So it’s a beautiful framework that all UN agencies are working together to implement. strengthen Anita’s point, you know, we should really build on this framework and the strength that we have. And it’s really not true that the action lines are very outdated. Because if you look at the WSIS forum page, you will see that the WSIS action lines are being updated in terms of like the emerging trends, the opportunities and challenges every year by the UN agencies involved. So you can see very, very beautiful presentations on the evolution of the context of each action line and what are the emerging trends. So you can have a look at it online. Also in terms of the existing mechanisms, we really feel, and ITU has been saying this, Doreen said it a couple of times, WSIS forum and IGF are really the successes of the WSIS where multi-stakeholders have got the platform to voice their opinions and to be part of the UN process. So really, the WSIS review gives us an opportunity to look at it. And from the UN perspective, the interagency mechanism of the UN called UNGIS, the United Nations Group on Information Society, that’s really an effective mechanism and that should be built on and used by the UN system. So we have rotational chairpersonship of ITU, UNESCO, UNDP and UNCTAD, along with the regional commissions and more than 35 members of the chief executive boards. So the frameworks and the systems are all in place and we should definitely utilize them. The other thing that brought back memories in the previous session is, again, what you and Anita have been talking about, that we have built this community to this point that now we are talking about things like emerging technologies like AI, but where did we start in 2006-2007? We really have to remember that effort, especially by civil society, the open source movement. the indigenous languages, the cultural aspects that UNESCO has been doing. You know, with the IDRC, we actually set up these telecentres in India, in the villages in India, where we were looking at how telecentres, post offices could be converted into telecentres, where they could provide e-governance services. You know, distance learning was a revolution in so many countries, where young girls could actually study because of distance education, you know. So we really need to also think of what we have achieved, like on the ground, all of us who’ve been working together so hard for all these years. And of course we’ve evolved from all of those technologies to now we are talking about AI, meta, new emerging technologies, but we really need to think about those challenges that we faced and overcame as well. The community radio stations, Anita will know about them, that we built in villages that provided information to the villagers, you know. So we’ve come a long way and we must commend the community

Anrienette Esterhuysen: for that as well. Thanks a lot for that, Geetanjali. And I think the sad thing is that we’ve come a long way, but also when it comes to digital inclusion, we’ve not come nearly far enough and many of those challenges still remain. We’ve now got less than 10 minutes left and I’m going to ask, I’m going to take just two inputs from the audience, very briefly, and then I’m going to ask the panel to share their closing comments with them. So I see a hand there. Juan, anyone else who wants to comment from the audience? No. So Nigel, you have to be very brief because we’ve got five minutes, less than five minutes left. So a bite-sized comment.

Juan: Yes, I don’t want to repeat many things that have been said. So I will concentrate on, if we want to coordinate, go back to there. We need to focus that each process should focus in their unique characteristic. The WSIS Forum should focus in their unique characteristic, the IGF should focus in its unique characteristic. I’m not going into it, into that now, because we don’t have time. But we should, in order to be efficient with what was from WSIS, the framework for WSIS, we have to get it to the, to make it efficient, and each one to what it has, including the intergovernmental process in the CSTD. If each one focus in their own characteristic, without duplicating, then they will need to create the communicating links between all of them, and in order to be efficient.

Nigel Cassimire: Nigel? Yes, thank you, I’m being heard? Okay. Nigel Casimir from the CTU again. I’m just wondering if the IGF could be, whether primary multi-stakeholder or just multi-stakeholder gathering, whatever, could be the multi-stakeholder place where we develop targets for the implementation of the GDC. The GDC is kind of high-level stuff, and maybe in this multi-stakeholder space, we could identify what are some of the specific things we want to see done under the GDC by a particular time. And maybe develop some performance targets for it.

Anrienette Esterhuysen: Thanks a lot for that, Nigel. So you know, it feels to me that we actually needed much more time with this session, but I think many sessions feel like that. And I mean, just to close us, and maybe to pave the way for further work, I want to ask each of the panelists. Firstly, do you think that the IJF should change its name to the Digital Cooperation Forum? And just a yes-no response. But then what I want you to close with is what are your fears and your hopes for this process of harmonizing GDC and WSIS implementation? I want you to start with your fear. Can you still hear me? Good. And start with your fear and end with a hope. So let’s start with our online speakers. Jason, why don’t you go first? Change

Jason Pielemier: the name or not. Yes, no. Your fear and your hope. No. And my fear is I think that the IJF, as we’ve talked about, it depends on—its strength is drawn from the broad and diverse range of stakeholders who are able to participate in it across the international IJF event, but also the national and regional ones, and all of the interstitial work, intersessional work. So hosting the IJF in countries where journalists, Wikipedia editors, women, LGBTQ people are systematically discriminated against or harassed, that works directly counter to that strength. It weakens the IJF. And it is, I don’t think, unintentional by any means. So that is a fear that I have, that the IJF will continue to be co-opted, will be diluted. And I think we need to to acknowledge that that is happening, acknowledge that there are countries that are working against the IJF, its mandate renewal and extension, and efforts to strengthen it. My hope is that we, the multi-stakeholder community, that support the IGF can resist that, can push back on that. And I think that’s going to take a lot of work, but I’m encouraged by the NetMundial process, encouraged by sessions like this one, encouraged by all of the incredible work that people in this room virtually and in person do. And I hope we can continue to work together, even if we don’t always agree on every topic, to support and strengthen the IGF going forward.

Anrienette Esterhuysen: Thanks, Jason. Anita.

Anita Gurumurthy: Thank you. My answer is, I don’t know. I mean, I’m ambivalent about the name, what’s in a name, but I want to actually answer your question about fear and hope by also responding to our esteemed contributor from the government of Canada. I think that for civil society, we are caught at a moment politically at this point in time, between very, very scary geopolitics and greedy geoeconomics. It’s really frightening, I think. And therefore, somebody said, we are not in an epoch of neoliberalism as so many social movements have fought against neoliberalism. Today, we are caught in neo-illiberalism. So we have the worst of both, right? We have illiberal politics and we have the greed of corporations. So in my view, I would like a better understanding among nation states, better understanding among peoples. And like Jorge said, I think regardless of whether it’s good practices in multi-stakeholderism or good practices in other fora, like the Biodiversity Convention, which has benefit sharing mechanisms with communities, with indigenous peoples, we really need to look at international solidarity as a unifying principle. And I’m not the first one to speak about it. And I really, really think that we should go beyond narrow blocks. And, you know, I’m quite happy. to question the G77 and my own government for a healthy politics. So at some level, I think that we need to understand why people are doing what they are doing and what they’re trying to protect, right, in an AI economy where most people are left behind. So we reject bad politics and we reject very poor economics. What we really want is a solidarity vision of interdependence and mutual reciprocity. Thank you.

Anrienette Esterhuysen: Thanks, Aineta. Amrita.

Amrita Choudhury: I agree to what Anita mentioned and even Jason mentioned and what you were saying. There are gaps which need to be addressed, not necessarily creating new structures. And what Gitanjali mentioned, we need to also sometimes look back and see the reach we have currently. If you look at the IGF and its structure, it’s huge. If you’re saying the IGF is not working on new things, look at what, for example, the Policy Network on AI or Internet Fragmentation is doing. The challenge today is when the reports come out, who is viewing it? Is it going to the necessary governments to see that they also reflect, like the policy P&AI is working mostly on developing nations, sustainability, labor wages, which are critical things for developing countries. Are the messages going? There have been many things which have come up from many of the meetings to strengthen the IGF. But have they really been implemented? Obviously the leadership panel did come in, the multi-year themes have come in, but how much more has it been used by the member states? I think that’s also important. There are gaps, but many things are being cribbed about. You can use these platforms. So I would say use existing resources and I’ll leave it at that. Thanks a lot.

Anrienette Esterhuysen: David.

David Fairchild: I’ll be very quick because I saw you got the two minutes.

Anrienette Esterhuysen: It will be done in three minutes, so you can relax.

David Fairchild: Okay. I’m agnostic to the name. I think it’s what color the cat is and whether it catches my statement. My fear is that we’re witnessing a centralization and a New Yorkification which in some parts is justified for the multilateral system but is being done at the detriment of the existing system and I’ll leave it there. Because I think what we’re suffering from is from a collective proximity bias. It’s like what have you done for me lately as opposed to what has WIS has done over 20 years and I think my hope I’ll leave with is sort of like that we wake up in time to sort of realize that the IGF actually does serve the entire community but and in that is in fact one of our positions is by stabilizing the funding and stabilizing the IGF we can actually bring it to where the voices need to be heard. I mean this is a very homogenous community at the IGF and we struggle every year to bring the different voices the different opinions around the table because that’s you know you can’t make a pearl without sand.

Gitanjali Sah: Thanks David. And Reda I’ll just share the hope that you know ITU as a UN agency specialized agency on digital we stand ready to support provide our secretariat support to all not only to member states but you know we have sector membership academia so we are there to support and to ensure that there is the process going forward as multi-stakeholder and you know that in the vision of WIS is beyond 2025 we do see some of these strengthened foundations of WIS. Thank you.

Jorge Cancio: So to the brand I think the IGF is already has been for many years the digital cooperation or governance forum if the rebranding is good for branding purposes let’s be open about it. My fear is that the entire WIS system or the UN system doesn’t deliver on the promises. on really having a digital present where nobody is left out. And one fear there is that this proliferation of processes of fora makes the inclusivity and the work more difficult. And the hope is really the creativity of this and many other communities in being able to find solutions together. And I think that with that creativity that we’ve witnessed many times here in the IGF, we are able to update the global architecture, which is just a means to deliver on the goals we want to have to have a digital fair present and future.

Anrienette Esterhuysen: Thanks very much, Jorge. And I’m really sorry that we ran a bit over time. And I think, I mean, if there’s one key takeaway here, is that there’s a lot more to be said about the what. And I think also about the how. But I think the one key takeaway for me from your inputs in this session, and Valeria, I lost my Zoom connection. So I want to apologize to online comments that we’ve not included. But I think the lesson here is that even after 20 years more, if we add Geneva of WSIS implementation, we’re still grappling with issues of power, with issues of inclusion, with delivery and implementation. We recognize the strengths of the multi-stakeholder approach. We recognize its weaknesses. And I think we do see the IGF as a place where we can address that. And we see NetMundial as one of the tools we can use. But I think, so for me, any new process that’s trying to set up and enter this arena of digital cooperation really needs to keep in mind complexity and can we really afford to start new processes which after 20 years will be at this moment of learning and realization and solidarity and lack of solidarity that we are at now. We really can do better, I think. So let’s continue and let’s use our WSIS and our IJF processes to do this. So thanks very much everyone for your participation and thanks to everyone in the room and thanks to our tech people. Apologies. Thanks very much to Jason and Anita and all

Jason Pielemier: the online participants. Thank you, Henriette. Thank you, Bruno. Thank you, Valeria.

Agreement Points

IGF as key platform for GDC follow-up and implementation

Amrita Choudhury

Jason Pielemier

David Fairchild

Nigel Cassimire

IGF as key platform for GDC follow-up and implementation

IGF as ongoing mechanism for flexible stakeholder engagement

IGF under threat, needs strengthened mandate in WSIS+20 review

IGF as place to develop concrete targets for GDC implementation

Multiple speakers agreed on the importance of the IGF as a platform for implementing and following up on the Global Digital Compact, emphasizing its flexibility and multi-stakeholder nature.

Need to build on existing frameworks rather than create new ones

Jorge Cancio

Gitanjali Sah

Juan

IGF part of larger WSIS architecture, not standalone solution

Build on existing WSIS framework and UN mechanisms like UNGIS

Focus on unique characteristics of each process (WSIS Forum, IGF, etc.)

Several speakers emphasized the importance of leveraging and improving existing frameworks and processes rather than creating new ones, to avoid duplication and increase efficiency.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers expressed concern about threats to the IGF and emphasized the need to strengthen its mandate and resist efforts to weaken the multi-stakeholder model.

David Fairchild

Jason Pielemier

IGF under threat, needs strengthened mandate in WSIS+20 review

Need to resist efforts to weaken IGF and multi-stakeholder model

Both speakers highlighted the importance of updating existing frameworks to address emerging technologies like AI, with a focus on the needs of developing countries.

Anita Gurumurthy

Amrita Choudhury

Need to update WSIS Action Lines to address new issues like AI and data governance

Importance of addressing developing country needs in AI policy

Unexpected Consensus

Recognition of persistent digital divides despite progress

Gitanjali Sah

Amrita Choudhury

Anita Gurumurthy

Significant achievements in areas like telecenters and distance learning

Persistent challenges in connectivity and digital divides

Need for renewed focus on people-centered information society vision

Despite coming from different perspectives, these speakers all acknowledged both the progress made in digital development and the persistent challenges, suggesting a nuanced understanding of the current state of digital inclusion.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement centered on the importance of the IGF in implementing the GDC, the need to build on existing frameworks, and the recognition of both progress and persistent challenges in digital inclusion.

Consensus level

Moderate consensus was observed on key issues, with some divergence on specific approaches. This suggests a shared understanding of the importance of digital cooperation, but potential challenges in agreeing on specific implementation strategies.

Different Viewpoints

Role and effectiveness of the IGF

Jason Pielemier

David Fairchild

Jorge Cancio

IGF as ongoing mechanism for flexible stakeholder engagement

IGF under threat, needs strengthened mandate in WSIS+20 review

IGF part of larger WSIS architecture, not standalone solution

While Jason Pielemier views the IGF as a flexible mechanism for engagement, David Fairchild emphasizes the need to strengthen its mandate due to perceived threats. Jorge Cancio, however, sees the IGF as part of a larger WSIS architecture rather than a standalone solution.

Approach to digital cooperation processes

Anita Gurumurthy

Jorge Cancio

Gitanjali Sah

Need to update WSIS Action Lines to address new issues like AI and data governance

Avoid duplication and proliferation of new forums/processes

Build on existing WSIS framework and UN mechanisms like UNGIS

Anita Gurumurthy advocates for updating WSIS Action Lines, while Jorge Cancio warns against creating new forums. Gitanjali Sah suggests building on existing frameworks, showing different approaches to addressing digital cooperation.

Unexpected Differences

Perception of WSIS relevance

Anita Gurumurthy

David Fairchild

Need for renewed focus on people-centered information society vision

Fragmentation between member states on vision for internet governance

While Anita Gurumurthy advocates for renewing focus on the WSIS vision of a people-centered information society, David Fairchild highlights the fragmentation among member states regarding internet governance. This unexpected difference shows contrasting views on the relevance and unity of the WSIS vision in current discussions.

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement revolve around the role and effectiveness of the IGF, approaches to digital cooperation processes, and the relevance of existing frameworks like WSIS in addressing current challenges.

difference_level

The level of disagreement is moderate, with speakers generally agreeing on the importance of digital cooperation but differing on specific approaches and priorities. This implies a need for further dialogue and compromise to develop a cohesive strategy for implementing the GDC and WSIS outcomes.

Partial Agreements

All speakers agree on the importance of the IGF and digital inclusion, but differ on how to achieve these goals. Amrita focuses on the IGF’s role in GDC implementation, Anita emphasizes addressing inequity and civil society participation, while Gitanjali highlights past achievements in digital development.

Amrita Choudhury

Anita Gurumurthy

Gitanjali Sah

IGF as key platform for GDC follow-up and implementation

Address inequity and renew commitment to civil society participation

Significant achievements in areas like telecenters and distance learning

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers expressed concern about threats to the IGF and emphasized the need to strengthen its mandate and resist efforts to weaken the multi-stakeholder model.

David Fairchild

Jason Pielemier

IGF under threat, needs strengthened mandate in WSIS+20 review

Need to resist efforts to weaken IGF and multi-stakeholder model

Both speakers highlighted the importance of updating existing frameworks to address emerging technologies like AI, with a focus on the needs of developing countries.

Anita Gurumurthy

Amrita Choudhury

Need to update WSIS Action Lines to address new issues like AI and data governance

Importance of addressing developing country needs in AI policy

Key Takeaways

The IGF is seen as a key platform for implementing WSIS and GDC outcomes, but its role and mandate need to be strengthened

There is a need to coordinate and harmonize various digital cooperation processes to avoid duplication and fragmentation

Existing WSIS frameworks and UN mechanisms should be built upon rather than creating entirely new structures

Significant progress has been made in digital inclusion, but major challenges and divides persist

There are tensions between different visions for internet governance among member states

Civil society participation and addressing inequity remain important priorities

Resolutions and Action Items

Use the upcoming WSIS+20 review as an opportunity to strengthen the IGF’s mandate

Update WSIS Action Lines to address new issues like AI and data governance

Develop concrete targets for GDC implementation through the IGF

Ensure IGF discussions and outputs reach relevant government stakeholders

Unresolved Issues

How to balance multilateral and multi-stakeholder approaches in digital cooperation

How to address the ‘centralization’ and ‘New Yorkification’ of digital governance processes

Whether the IGF should be renamed to reflect its broader digital cooperation role

How to ensure adequate funding and resources for the IGF

How to bring more diverse voices into IGF discussions

Suggested Compromises

Focus each process (WSIS Forum, IGF, etc.) on its unique characteristics to avoid duplication

Use existing IGF structures like Policy Networks to address emerging issues rather than creating new forums

Be open to rebranding the IGF if it helps communicate its broader role, while maintaining its core functions

The multi-stakeholder approach entrenches existing dynamics of power and influence in internet governance.

speaker

Anrienette Esterhuysen

reason

This provocative statement challenged assumptions about multi-stakeholder processes and sparked reflection on power dynamics.

impact

It led to a nuanced discussion about the strengths and limitations of multi-stakeholder approaches, with participants offering different perspectives based on their experiences.

The GDC is a baby of WSIS. […] And what is the role of the IGF in that game? So that was also part of the question. I would zoom out and say the IGF, you cannot just talk about the IGF because the IGF is part of the Swiss army knife that is composed by the WSIS architecture.

speaker

Jorge Cancio

reason

This comment provided important historical context and framed the IGF as part of a larger ecosystem of digital governance mechanisms.

impact

It broadened the discussion beyond just the IGF to consider how different mechanisms and processes fit together in the overall digital governance landscape.

And from the UN perspective, the interagency mechanism of the UN called UNGIS, the United Nations Group on Information Society, that’s really an effective mechanism and that should be built on and used by the UN system.

speaker

Gitanjali Sah

reason

This comment introduced a specific UN mechanism that many participants may not have been familiar with, highlighting existing coordination efforts.

impact

It added depth to the discussion about coordination mechanisms and emphasized building on existing structures rather than creating new ones.

My fear is that we’re witnessing a centralization and a New Yorkification which in some parts is justified for the multilateral system but is being done at the detriment of the existing system and I’ll leave it there.

speaker

David Fairchild

reason

This comment raised concerns about shifts in power and decision-making within the UN system that could impact existing digital governance processes.

impact

It introduced a note of caution into the discussion and prompted reflection on the potential downsides of changes to the existing system.

For civil society, we are caught at a moment politically at this point in time, between very, very scary geopolitics and greedy geoeconomics. It’s really frightening, I think. And therefore, somebody said, we are not in an epoch of neoliberalism as so many social movements have fought against neoliberalism. Today, we are caught in neo-illiberalism.

speaker

Anita Gurumurthy

reason

This comment provided a broader geopolitical and economic context for the challenges facing digital governance, introducing the concept of ‘neo-illiberalism’.

impact

It elevated the discussion to consider larger global trends and their impact on digital governance, encouraging participants to think beyond just technical or procedural issues.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by broadening its scope from specific mechanisms like the IGF to the larger ecosystem of digital governance. They encouraged participants to consider historical context, existing structures, power dynamics, and global geopolitical trends. The discussion moved from technical details to more fundamental questions about the goals and challenges of digital cooperation in a complex global landscape. This led to a rich, multifaceted conversation that highlighted both the progress made and the significant challenges that remain in achieving inclusive and effective digital governance.

How can the IGF be more effectively resourced to fulfill its expanded role in coordinating digital cooperation processes?

speaker

Jason Pielemier

explanation

Jason highlighted the need for sufficient resources for the IGF to effectively coordinate between various digital cooperation processes, which is crucial for avoiding duplication and fragmentation.

What specific actions can be taken to update the WSIS Action Lines to address current digital challenges like AI governance and data sharing?

speaker

Anita Gurumurthy

explanation

Anita suggested updating WSIS Action Lines to include modern digital issues, which is important for ensuring the continued relevance of WSIS framework in addressing current technological challenges.

How can the IGF develop concrete targets for implementing the Global Digital Compact?

speaker

Nigel Cassimire

explanation

Nigel proposed using the IGF to develop specific implementation targets for the GDC, which could provide a clearer roadmap for achieving the GDC’s high-level objectives.

What steps can be taken to ensure that the WSIS+20 review strengthens rather than weakens the IGF’s mandate?

speaker

Jason Pielemier

explanation

Jason emphasized the importance of using the WSIS+20 review to strengthen the IGF, which is crucial for maintaining a robust multi-stakeholder forum for internet governance.

How can we improve the dissemination and impact of IGF outputs, particularly to governments and policymakers?

speaker

Amrita Choudhury

explanation

Amrita highlighted the need for better communication of IGF outcomes to ensure they influence policy decisions, which is essential for the IGF to have real-world impact.

What strategies can be employed to resist attempts to weaken or co-opt the IGF?

speaker

Jason Pielemier

explanation

Jason expressed concern about efforts to undermine the IGF and called for strategies to counter these attempts, which is important for preserving the IGF’s integrity and effectiveness.

How can we foster greater international solidarity in digital cooperation efforts?

speaker

Anita Gurumurthy

explanation

Anita emphasized the need for international solidarity in addressing digital challenges, which is crucial for overcoming geopolitical tensions and ensuring equitable digital development.

What measures can be taken to avoid the ‘New Yorkification’ of digital cooperation processes while maintaining necessary multilateral engagement?

speaker

David Fairchild

explanation

David raised concerns about centralization of processes in New York at the expense of existing systems, highlighting the need to balance multilateral and multi-stakeholder approaches.

Summary

This discussion focused on digital platforms connecting private sector businesses with development opportunities in Africa, particularly highlighting the Hefez platform in Egypt. Tamer Taha introduced Hefez as a revolutionary platform bridging information and financial gaps for Egyptian companies seeking to expand into African markets. The platform provides structured information about projects and available financing, making opportunities more accessible to local businesses.

Maneesha Gardizi, representing GIZ, emphasized how such platforms enable smaller and medium-sized companies to access development cooperation projects, fostering innovation and creating a win-win situation. Alan Ananulu shared experiences from iVenture, a platform connecting startups in East and Southern Africa to regional opportunities, highlighting success stories and challenges faced.

The discussion explored how these platforms overcome infrastructure limitations in Africa, with Alan explaining the use of low-level tech and social media to reach entrepreneurs. Tamer introduced a new matchmaking feature on Hefez to enhance engagement between different stakeholders. The conversation also addressed regulatory obstacles, with Maneesha and Alan emphasizing the need for mutual agreements on e-signatures to facilitate cross-border trade and market entry.

An interactive poll revealed audience perspectives on barriers to cross-border collaboration, the role of digital platforms in improving Africa’s investment climate, and sectors needing solutions for development and growth. The discussion concluded with questions from the audience about incorporating venture capital opportunities and strategies for raising awareness about these platforms, especially in rural areas.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– The Hefez platform connecting private sector with development partners in Africa

– Challenges and opportunities for intra-African trade and investment

– Digital solutions to overcome infrastructure limitations

– Regulatory obstacles and potential solutions like e-signatures

– Importance of information sharing and trust-building for cross-border collaboration

Overall purpose:

The discussion aimed to explore how digital platforms and solutions can facilitate private sector engagement, cross-border collaboration, and development opportunities in Africa, with a focus on the Hefez platform and similar initiatives.

Tone:

The tone was generally informative and collaborative, with speakers sharing insights from their various perspectives. There was an optimistic undertone about the potential for digital solutions to overcome challenges, but also a realistic acknowledgment of existing obstacles. The tone remained consistent throughout, maintaining a professional and solution-oriented approach to discussing complex regional issues.

Speakers

– Tamer Taha: Representative of the Hefez platform

– Mahitab Assran: Moderator, GIZ Egypt

– Manija Gardizi: Representative from GIZ

– Allan Ananura: Representative of iVenture platform in Uganda

Additional speakers:

– Mariam Walid: Moderator, GIZ Egypt

– Ahmed (no surname available): Audience member from Egypt

Digital Platforms Connecting Private Sector with Development Opportunities in Africa

This comprehensive discussion explored the role of digital platforms in connecting private sector businesses with development opportunities across Africa, with a particular focus on the Hefez platform in Egypt. The conversation brought together representatives from various sectors, including Tamer Taha from Hefez, Manija Gardizi from GIZ, and Allan Ananulu from iVenture in Uganda, moderated by Mahitab Assran.

Introduction to Digital Platforms

Tamer Taha introduced Hefez as a revolutionary platform designed to bridge information and financial gaps for Egyptian companies seeking to expand into African markets. The platform provides structured information about projects and available financing, making opportunities more accessible to local businesses. This addresses a crucial challenge highlighted by Taha: “Actually they’re like Egypt and the Egyptian private sector have a lot of opportunities and potential to expand to the African region especially in sectors that we know Egyptian companies are competitive in like construction and manufacturing and so on yet there was a challenge on who to talk to in Africa or in any other country”.

Manija Gardizi, representing GIZ, emphasised the importance of such platforms in enabling smaller and medium-sized companies to access development cooperation projects. She noted, “For us as GIZ it was very very important to enable access actually also to smaller and medium-sized companies since in the development sector a lot of same and similar players and it’s basically often a dozen of them and the big ones like McKinsey etc are actually using the bidding and the tender situation of development companies”. This perspective highlights how digital platforms can foster innovation and create a more inclusive environment for businesses of all sizes.

Allan Ananulu shared experiences from iVenture, a platform connecting startups in East and Southern Africa to regional opportunities. He highlighted the success story of Marifa Sasa, a startup that offers future feed trainings to young people, as an example of how iVenture’s platform has facilitated growth and expansion for businesses.

Overcoming Infrastructure Limitations

The discussion explored various approaches to overcoming infrastructure limitations in Africa. Allan Ananulu explained iVenture’s strategy: “How we’ve been able to overcome this challenge is number one, to use low-level tech, not real-time tech. That means you get to post these opportunities on the platforms where these entrepreneurs are even in their leisure. For instance, Facebook”. This approach demonstrates the innovative ways platforms are adapting to reach entrepreneurs in areas with limited internet access.

Tamer Taha introduced a new matchmaking feature on Hefez to enhance engagement between different stakeholders. This feature aims to connect businesses with relevant opportunities and partners, further addressing the challenge of connecting businesses with opportunities.

Regulatory Obstacles and Solutions

The conversation addressed regulatory obstacles, with Manija Gardizi and Allan Ananulu emphasising the need for mutual agreements on e-signatures to facilitate cross-border trade and market entry. Gardizi stated, “From a very, very clear legislation perspective, the governments need to be here on board, and the governments basically need to have a mutual recognition of their own different e-signatures in order to facilitate more trade opportunities for these small, medium and large-sized business entrepreneurs”.

Allan Ananulu highlighted the challenges faced by startups when entering new markets, particularly in understanding different regulatory environments. Tamer Taha suggested the implementation of soft landing programs to help entrepreneurs navigate these challenges when expanding across borders.

Audience Perspectives and Concerns

An interactive poll revealed audience perspectives on the role of digital platforms in improving Africa’s investment climate. The audience identified South-South collaboration as the main way digital platforms can improve the investment climate in Africa. Additionally, traditional industries were identified as the sector most in need of solutions to bridge the gap to relevant opportunities.

Questions from the audience raised important points about incorporating venture capital opportunities and strategies for raising awareness about these platforms, especially in rural areas. In response, Tamer Taha mentioned Hefez’s plans to work on capacity building with businesses, focusing on how to write solid proposals for development partners.

Conclusion

The discussion provided a comprehensive overview of how digital platforms like Hefez and iVenture are transforming private sector engagement in development across Africa. While challenges remain, particularly in infrastructure and regulation, there is a strong consensus on the potential of these platforms to create more inclusive and innovative approaches to development cooperation in the region. The conversation highlighted the importance of adapting to local conditions, such as using low-tech solutions and social media platforms to reach entrepreneurs in areas with limited internet access. The speakers emphasized the need for continued collaboration between various stakeholders, including governments, development agencies, and the private sector, to fully realize the potential of digital solutions in fostering intra-African trade and development.

Tamer Taha: especially in our region. I will leave you with the QR codes if you would like to have a look on the on the platform and I’m looking forward to discussing with you about the platform and the private sector engagement in general. Thank you so much.

Mahitab Assran: Thank you Temer for the presentation and it’s it’s a very impressive platform the first of its kind I would say in in the region and maybe in the world connecting the private sector with development partners who previously would not be able to access such opportunities. So I can start with the first question with you Temer. How do you how do you I mean Hefez as as a revolutionary platform how would does it leverage these digital solutions to provide the private sector in Egypt specifically on the underserved sectors and underserved regions with opportunities from Africa and from the world?

Tamer Taha: Thanks for your question. Actually they’re like Egypt and the Egyptian private sector have a lot of opportunities and potential to expand to the African region especially in sectors that we know Egyptian companies are competitive in like construction and manufacturing and so on yet there was a challenge on who to talk to in Africa or in any other country and we worked with some different partners in terms of getting more information about the opportunities and the need for let’s say projects to be supported or implemented by companies by local by the private sector in general and I have been I show one example which is the ORA project in Grenada and the idea is to just find the right partner who has the right information try to translate this information in a language that can be understood by the local business and inform the local business in some way that the this is the project and this is the potential financing for the project available from the development partner and connecting the dots and I think it’s it’s always a matter of a gap an informational gap and a financial gap so the beauty of the platform it has filled in both gaps so it when when you visit the platform you’ll find a list of projects but also a list of financial entities who are available and who would support the implementation of the project whether in terms of guarantees whether in terms of financing the project and having a tender so companies can apply for the tender and it’s almost guaranteed that financing is almost guaranteed so in a nutshell I think what we did we the information was there we gathered the information in a well-structured way so that the companies can benefit from it and encourage also inform the companies or the existence of such platform and we saw a lot of companies for the first time they knew about the existence of such financial instruments the existence of such opportunities and it helped them really to expand more broadly and more regionally and the benefit from the existing tools.

Mahitab Assran: That’s fantastic. From the other side of the table here we have Manisha Gardizi representing a development partner that uses the Hafez platform and here it’s interesting to hear the other side my first question to you is how do you feel like Hafez platform has better served you as development partner and the second part of the question would be how do you think such a platform can guarantee equal access to all levels of businesses small, large, located in a big city, located in a small rural village.

Manesha Gardizi: Thanks a lot Mahitab. For us as GIZ it was very very important to enable access actually also to smaller and medium-sized companies since in the development sector a lot of same and similar players and it’s basically often a dozen of them and the big ones like McKinsey etc are actually using the bidding and the tender situation of development companies. So in the end of the day for us it was predominantly the idea behind of this matchmaking platform to enable access and equal access actually to a lot of smaller players in the bigger field of development cooperation and I think this is very much also the case if we are speaking about all the six different sectors in development cooperation if it’s education or we are speaking about digitalization or support of the private sector but also energy and climate all the different sectors often are in the hand of a dozen development consulting agencies. For this reason we think this has got a twofold perspective of supporting the countrywide or Africa wide even business market. On the one side you’re supporting small and medium enterprises which would normally never understand about the existence even of such a development cooperation and order finance platform or order finance projects because they normally never get in touch with this sector. On the other side you also enable an access of and also a sustainable kind of facility of opening this market to a various setup of smaller startups for instance. We saw startups which actually never cooperated with development actors and for this reason now they entered the market and we can foster innovation in a much bigger size also in our development projects. So I think it’s like a very perfected win-win situation for both sides of the party.

Mahitab Assran: Thank you Maneesha. Our third question is to Mr. Alan Ananulu, our virtual participant. Can we see him here on the screen? Alan could you turn on your camera? We should be able to see you. Before I ask you the question I just want to make sure that the participants here can see you. Hi Alan, yes we hear you but we still cannot see you. Oh I’ve switched it on, I don’t know. Let’s just give the technical team here a minute. Yeah well I could start with a question. Speaking Maneesha of small and medium enterprises and small startups, my question to you. Yes Alan, yes we well we see you in the top corner. Yes. Yeah. They’re working on it. We can almost see you now, almost. Okay so speaking of small and medium enterprises, your platform connects startups, small and medium enterprises in East and Southern Africa. to opportunities in the region. If you can tell us more about this initiative, and also if you can share with us a success story of how these startups have successfully collaborated together. Yes, finally, we see you on screen. Go ahead.

Speaker 1: Yes, it’s a pleasure to join in from Uganda. A good afternoon to you all. Yes, straight to the question. iVenture has been able to connect a startup called Marifa Sasa to opportunities in Southern Africa, in Botswana and Southern Africa to be specific. Some of the issues that we’ve faced, of course, barriers to entry and a lack of acceptance into the community with government support and that type of thing, which has been tremendous challenge for us. However, we’ve tried to address it through, number one, digitizing the services and trying to work remotely, which doesn’t nearly cut it as much as a physical interaction would do. But yes, we’ve had success with Marifa Sasa, which offers future feed trainings to young people. Future feed trainings are marketable jobs that they get to access as soon as they finish these courses that are offered on Marifa Sasa. And that’s one huge success that we’ve had. Thank you.

Mahitab Assran: Another question to you. Hello. Yes, can you hear us?

Speaker 1: Yes, yes, yes, I can hear you.

Mahitab Assran: All right, I have another question to you, Alan. Now, Africa as a continent has varying levels of infrastructure, not all countries and regions within even the same country are the same. How do you think digital infrastructure as well as physical infrastructure, so how do you think such digital solutions and digital platforms like iVenture, which I mean, if you can give us a minute and explain it to the audience, how do you think such platforms overcome these obstacles of lack of infrastructure sometimes and reach these underserved communities?

Speaker 1: Yes, that’s a beautiful question. And a big hurdle that I’m sure that even Haifa has faced since its launch. How we’ve been able to overcome this challenge is number one, to use low-level tech, not real-time tech. That means you get to post these opportunities on the platforms where these entrepreneurs are even in their leisure. For instance, Facebook. A lot of these entrepreneurs in Uganda specifically and East Africa are on Facebook a lot even in their leisure. So one way we’ve been able to overcome that is to put these opportunities there. But we’ve also been able to, that is essentially leveraging technology, but we’ve also been able to use things like WhatsApp, which we use to broadcast these opportunities to startups and SMEs. So it’s the leveraging of technology, which even in its low level of penetration, I mean, at least once a week, somebody will be able to get access to Wi-Fi or internet access. Maybe not daily, but somewhere, somehow they will get access to this information once they get onto social media, even in the lowest of the low internet-penetrating places. Thank you.

Mahitab Assran: Thank you, Alan. My next question is to you. You’ve told us that there is a new feature that’s going to be added to Hefez, a matchmaking feature. Can you tell us more about this feature?

Tamer Taha: Sure. After launching, we received a lot of requests, especially from the private sector and also other governments, especially in Africa, that they want to see products that they are looking for a partnership with the private sector, whether as implementers or as a triple-B private partnership and so on. From the other side, sometimes the government is looking to engage with the private sector, not as a service provider, but as a partner, as a partner who can not necessarily implement the product, but participate in a certain project with their expertise or their in-kind contribution and so on. So we thought of, in order to enhance the engagement and the dialogue between the different corners of the pyramid, whether the government partners, the private sector, or development partners, are looking actually for bankable projects and bankable partnerships between the government and the private sector. So we thought of having this business matchmaking hub, where any partner can think of an idea and a project, and they explain exactly what is this product about and what kind of partnership are they looking for. Are they looking for a financial partner who can finance and provide financing to the product? Are they looking for a government partner to implement the product? And they have, especially for startups, they have a technology, a certain technology that they want to have implemented by the government and to be piloted in a certain area and so on. So there are different types of partnerships, and this matchmaking hub should be able to, from one side, list what kind of requests exist, whether coming from the companies or coming from the government and so on, and what are the details, what is the… It shows also what some metrics, what is the ROI, what is the size of the product, what’s in which sector. So if I’m a company and I’m looking for a certain product in a certain sector, I can see a list of relevant products in my sector. Again, it’s all about creating a platform for venture partnerships and potential dialogue, and it’s all about also filling the information gap.

Mahitab Assran: Thank you, Taimur. Actually, just to both Maneesha and Alan, we can get him back on the screen. So maybe Maneesha, if you can maybe first start first. My question is, there are regulatory and legislative obstacles, or let’s say steps still to be taken. in order to better support intra-African trade and investment. In your opinion, what more in terms of regulation could be done to support private sector enterprises, regardless of their size, in intra-African trade?

Manesha Gardizi: Thanks a lot for the question. From a development perspective, and as a development partner for us, it’s quite interesting to have a more sustainable situation here. For this, we basically need more mutual agreements, for instance, like on e-signature. We think that the digital signature or the e-signature is an absolute way forward for a new, let’s say, more sustainable cooperation on a bilateral level, but also on a regional level for the different trade companies and also for different consulting agencies, but also for the ODA players from a general perspective. From a very, very clear legislation perspective, the governments need to be here on board, and the governments basically need to have a mutual recognition of their own different e-signatures in order to facilitate more trade opportunities for these small, medium and large-sized business entrepreneurs. For this reason, I think this is one of the prerequisites if we’re speaking about a pan-African perspective of how to foster an improved system for the platform logics and also for e-trade in general, and this would be basically my first suggestion. Thank you.

Mahitab Assran: Adam, I think some of your partners and your beneficiaries have had some experience actually attempting e-signature, so can you tell us more about your perspective?

Speaker 1: Yes. For sure, an e-signature would take us a long way, push the needle, if you like, in the right way to achieve scalability, because in my sector, which I’m most familiar with, I deal with a lot of startups which are characterized by, number one, the ability to scale and scale far and wide. So entry into new markets has been a big hurdle for us as entrepreneurs who would like to enter new territories. There are already issues of cultural norms that you have to understand. For instance, if I was to come and start selling in Egypt, there are already cultural norms which I would need to first understand as an entrepreneur. So when these other non-tariff barriers like market entry restrictions get in the way, it becomes quite a problem. Again, we’ve faced that in South Africa, where entrepreneurs even have a hard time getting a visa from Uganda getting into South Africa, just to start the conversation of understanding the culture, and that has been quite a bit of a problem. And yet, conversely, just neighboring Kenya, Kenyans can get into South Africa without a visa, so there’s a bit of an issue. And yet, if this e-signature was made available, then maybe we wouldn’t need visas and all these issues, and it would ease market entry and growth, for sure, for SMEs and startups who would like to scale and explore these new markets. Yes, those are my thoughts.

Tamer Taha: Depending on what Manija and Alan mentioned, I think there is a huge opportunity for the local platforms to connect together. What Alan mentioned, we’re discussing it also on a national level in terms of our startup policies, how to have soft landing programs where entrepreneurs from Alan’s network can come and know more about the regulatory environment in Egypt, how they can have incentives to expand their technologies or partner with local startups in Egypt. And I think it’s all about the trust, and access to information. And I think having such platforms, even if they’re digital in the beginning, but they can create long-lasting relationships that would actually enhance the inter-African trade, because we don’t need to build a lot of infrastructure, especially in the sectors that are tradable and that can be expanded fast, like startups and technologies.

Mahitab Assran: Thank you, Tamer. I think we’ll wrap up this part of our session. We now have an interactive exercise to do together. We’d like to hear from our audience your view on this topic. Mariam, yes, if you can share your screen and the QR code. Thank you for your support in moderating this online, Mariam. Thank you. Fantastic. So, we have a QR code here. You would like to scan it. There’s three poll questions that you can answer. Help us participate. The first question, I’ll read it aloud to you. What do you see as the main barriers to cross-border collaboration with regards to the private sector in Africa? The first answer or the first choice is legislation, infrastructure, lack of connectivity, or another option that you can add. We can’t view the other answers. We can’t see others, so let’s go for infrastructure. The second question, I’ll read it out. How can digital platforms improve the investment climate in Africa? We have three options of South-South collaboration, localization of funds, and fostering innovation. Thank you. Okay, I think the answers are coming in a very specific direction of South-South collaboration. Okay, shall we move on to our third question? Read it out. Read it out. So the third question is, which stakeholders or sectors do you think need solutions to bridge the gap to their relevant opportunities with the aim of further development and growth? Civil society, traditional industries, agriculture, or other? Okay. So far we have 100% on traditional industries. Very clear choice. All right. Thank you, Mariam. Ah, we have competing starting agriculture, so we give it a minute for more answers to come in. I think we still have a winner with traditional industries. Okay, so to wrap up this part of the session, are there any questions to our panelists? You can also turn on your camera, so if anyone wants to ask you a question. Also, if you want to go ahead and enter any of your questions in the chat, I can ask if anyone wants to unmute and ask a question. You can type your answers directly. We have a question here. Thank you. Just introduce yourself. Go ahead and take my mic if you wish.

Audience: It’s working now. Thank you very much. My name is Ahmed. I’m from Egypt. Thank you very much for the presentations. HAFES sounds like a wonderful platform. As a startup ecosystem, I was wondering if HAFES also incorporates opportunities that are provided by venture capitalists or angel investors, or is this something done on a separate platform? My other question is, I’m sure the information was done very neatly, but there’s always challenges. You mentioned making the tool for its users. I was wondering if you were, in collaboration with GIZ, spreading the word through a media campaign, some targeted door-knocking, especially in the rural areas of Upper Egypt, to make SMEs aware of this platform. Thank you.

Tamer Taha: Thanks a lot, Ahmed, for your important questions. Regarding the first question, as I mentioned, the development partners play an important role in the startup ecosystem, whether through funding investments, VCs who invest in Egyptian startups, or by providing capacity building, and also provide knowledge about certain sectors. What we do at HAFES, all the services, whether financial or capacity building, are divided by type of beneficiary. There’s always a category for startups, so they can check which type of financing or what type of opportunity is available. Around 90% of the opportunities are targeting startups, actually, and early-stage businesses, because they are the ones who need the most in terms of capacity building and so on. Regarding your second question, this is exactly what we’re going to do in 2025. We’re going to have roadshows across the country in partnership with business associations, chamber of commerce, and so on. All the governments will have a big media campaign, because we recognize that not everybody knows about the platform. Once they know, they say, okay, why didn’t I know about it before? Adding to this, what we heard also from the participants or the users of the platform, they said, okay, I’ve checked the tender, or I applied for this opportunity, but I wasn’t accepted. Another bigger company or a company with more experience have actually competed with me, and they got the contract, or they got the financial result. What we’re going to do, in addition to awareness, we’re also working on capacity building with businesses on how to have a solid proposal and how to write a proposal that would be of interest for the development partner to support. This will be done in the next year. We have a plan for this, and hopefully, we know the ecosystem, especially for startups and also for SMEs.

Mahitab Assran: For our online participants, I know there’s an issue with the audio now. We’re working on it, but if you want to send us your questions in the chat, I can read it out to our speakers. I’ll maybe give it a few minutes, and if any of our participants here have any questions. All right, then. Thank you to our speakers. Thank you, Alan, for joining us from Uganda and for your valuable insights. Thank you for having me. It’s been a real pleasure. Thank you. I invite anyone who would like to partner in accessing the East Africa market to reach out to you, and then maybe you will be able to connect them. Yes, for sure. Alan, thank you, Manisha. Thank you so much for your time. Thank you for your insights. It’s a pleasure having you. Thank you for our audience. Thank you all. Bye. Bye.

Agreement Points

Digital platforms enhance private sector engagement in development

Tamer Taha

Manija Gardizi

Speaker 1

Hefez platform bridges information and financial gaps

Platform enables access for smaller players in development cooperation

iVenture connects startups to opportunities across Africa

All speakers agree that digital platforms play a crucial role in connecting private sector businesses, especially smaller players and startups, with development opportunities across Africa.

Need for improved regulatory frameworks to facilitate cross-border collaboration

Manija Gardizi

Speaker 1

Need for mutual agreements on e-signatures to facilitate trade

E-signatures would help startups scale across borders

Both speakers emphasize the importance of implementing e-signatures and mutual agreements to facilitate cross-border trade and collaboration for businesses in Africa.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers highlight the potential of digital solutions to overcome infrastructure limitations and enhance inter-African trade, particularly for startups and technologies.

Tamer Taha

Speaker 1

Digital solutions overcome infrastructure limitations

Connecting local platforms can enhance inter-African trade

Unexpected Consensus

Focus on smaller enterprises and startups

Tamer Taha

Manija Gardizi

Speaker 1

Platform enables access for smaller players in development cooperation

Platforms foster innovation by enabling startups to enter development market

iVenture connects startups to opportunities across Africa

There was an unexpected consensus among all speakers on the importance of focusing on smaller enterprises and startups in development cooperation. This emphasis on smaller players challenges the traditional dominance of large, established companies in the sector.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement include the importance of digital platforms in connecting private sector to development opportunities, the need for improved regulatory frameworks to facilitate cross-border collaboration, and the focus on smaller enterprises and startups in development cooperation.

Consensus level

There is a high level of consensus among the speakers on the potential of digital platforms to transform private sector engagement in development across Africa. This consensus implies a strong foundation for future collaboration and policy-making in this area, potentially leading to more inclusive and innovative approaches to development cooperation in the region.

Different Viewpoints

Approach to overcoming infrastructure limitations

Tamer Taha

Speaker 1

Hefez platform bridges information and financial gaps

Digital solutions overcome infrastructure limitations

While Tamer Taha focuses on bridging information and financial gaps through a comprehensive platform, Speaker 1 emphasizes using low-level tech and social media to overcome infrastructure limitations.

Unexpected Differences

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement were minor and primarily focused on different approaches to addressing infrastructure limitations and the specific implementation of e-signatures.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among the speakers was relatively low. Most speakers presented complementary views on improving private sector engagement in development and facilitating intra-African trade. The differences in approach reflect the diverse perspectives of development partners, platform providers, and startup representatives, which could lead to more comprehensive solutions when combined.

Partial Agreements

Both speakers agree on the importance of e-signatures for facilitating trade and expansion, but Manija Gardizi emphasizes the need for government-level mutual agreements, while Speaker 1 focuses on the benefits for startups scaling across borders.

Manija Gardizi

Speaker 1

Need for mutual agreements on e-signatures to facilitate trade

E-signatures would help startups scale across borders

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers highlight the potential of digital solutions to overcome infrastructure limitations and enhance inter-African trade, particularly for startups and technologies.

Tamer Taha

Speaker 1

Digital solutions overcome infrastructure limitations

Connecting local platforms can enhance inter-African trade

Key Takeaways

Digital platforms like Hefez and iVenture are playing a crucial role in connecting private sector businesses, especially SMEs and startups, to development opportunities across Africa

These platforms help overcome information gaps and infrastructure limitations, enabling broader participation in development projects

There is a need for regulatory improvements, particularly around e-signatures, to facilitate intra-African trade and investment

Collaboration between local platforms and soft landing programs can enhance inter-African trade and help businesses expand across borders

Awareness campaigns and capacity building for SMEs are necessary to maximize the impact of these digital platforms

Resolutions and Action Items

Hefez to implement a new matchmaking feature to enhance partnerships between different stakeholders

Hefez to conduct roadshows across Egypt in 2025 to raise awareness about the platform

Hefez to provide capacity building for businesses on writing solid proposals for development partners

Unresolved Issues

How to address varying levels of digital infrastructure across different African countries and regions

How to ensure equal access to opportunities for businesses in rural or underserved areas

How to overcome cultural and regulatory differences when expanding businesses across African borders

Suggested Compromises

Using low-level tech and social media platforms to reach entrepreneurs in areas with limited internet access

Creating soft landing programs to help entrepreneurs understand regulatory environments in different countries

Actually they’re like Egypt and the Egyptian private sector have a lot of opportunities and potential to expand to the African region especially in sectors that we know Egyptian companies are competitive in like construction and manufacturing and so on yet there was a challenge on who to talk to in Africa or in any other country

speaker

Tamer Taha

reason

This comment highlights a key challenge in cross-border business expansion and sets up the need for platforms like Hefez.

impact

It framed the discussion around the importance of information sharing and networking across African countries, leading to further exploration of how digital platforms can address these challenges.

For us as GIZ it was very very important to enable access actually also to smaller and medium-sized companies since in the development sector a lot of same and similar players and it’s basically often a dozen of them and the big ones like McKinsey etc are actually using the bidding and the tender situation of development companies.

speaker

Manija Gardizi

reason

This insight reveals the current imbalance in access to development opportunities and the need for more inclusive platforms.

impact

It shifted the conversation to focus on how digital platforms can level the playing field for smaller businesses, leading to discussion of specific features and benefits of such platforms.

How we’ve been able to overcome this challenge is number one, to use low-level tech, not real-time tech. That means you get to post these opportunities on the platforms where these entrepreneurs are even in their leisure. For instance, Facebook.

speaker

Allan Ananulu

reason

This comment provides a practical solution to the challenge of limited digital infrastructure in some African regions.

impact

It broadened the discussion to include innovative ways of reaching underserved communities and highlighted the importance of adapting to local conditions.

From a very, very clear legislation perspective, the governments need to be here on board, and the governments basically need to have a mutual recognition of their own different e-signatures in order to facilitate more trade opportunities for these small, medium and large-sized business entrepreneurs.

speaker

Manija Gardizi

reason

This comment identifies a specific regulatory challenge and potential solution for enhancing cross-border trade.

impact

It steered the conversation towards the role of government and policy in facilitating digital trade, leading to further discussion on regulatory obstacles and potential solutions.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by highlighting the main challenges in cross-border collaboration and trade in Africa, such as information gaps, unequal access to opportunities, infrastructure limitations, and regulatory barriers. They also introduced potential solutions through digital platforms, innovative tech approaches, and policy changes. The discussion evolved from identifying problems to exploring practical solutions and considering the roles of various stakeholders in implementing these solutions. This progression provided a comprehensive view of the complexities involved in enhancing private sector engagement across Africa and the potential of digital platforms to address these challenges.

How can digital platforms like Hefez and iVenture overcome obstacles of lack of infrastructure to reach underserved communities?

speaker

Mahitab Assran

explanation

This question addresses the challenge of varying levels of infrastructure across Africa and how digital solutions can be adapted to reach areas with limited connectivity.

What more can be done in terms of regulation to support private sector enterprises in intra-African trade?

speaker

Mahitab Assran

explanation

This question explores the regulatory and legislative steps needed to better facilitate trade and investment between African countries.

How can e-signatures be implemented across African countries to facilitate trade and cooperation?

speaker

Manija Gardizi

explanation

The implementation of e-signatures was suggested as a way to improve sustainable cooperation and trade opportunities on a bilateral and regional level.

How can soft landing programs be developed to help entrepreneurs expand into new African markets?

speaker

Tamer Taha

explanation

This area for research focuses on creating programs to help entrepreneurs learn about regulatory environments in different African countries and partner with local startups.

Does the Hefez platform incorporate opportunities provided by venture capitalists or angel investors?

speaker

Ahmed (audience member)

explanation

This question seeks to understand the scope of financial opportunities available on the Hefez platform, particularly for startups.

How will awareness of the Hefez platform be increased, especially in rural areas?

speaker

Ahmed (audience member)

explanation

This question addresses the need for outreach and communication strategies to ensure widespread knowledge and use of the platform.

How can businesses be better prepared to compete for opportunities on platforms like Hefez?

speaker

Tamer Taha

explanation

This area for further research involves developing capacity-building programs to help businesses create more competitive proposals for development partner opportunities.

Summary

This discussion focused on the challenges and opportunities of global digital adoption, addressing both the need to connect the unconnected and the implications of bringing large populations online. Panelists emphasized the importance of connectivity for economic empowerment, education, and healthcare, sharing personal stories to illustrate its impact. They highlighted barriers such as infrastructure costs, device affordability, and lack of relevant content and skills.

The conversation stressed the need for collaboration between governments, private sector, and civil society to create enabling policy environments and incentivize investments. Speakers discussed various approaches, including community-centered connectivity solutions, open-source technologies, and digital public infrastructure. The role of emerging technologies like AI in bridging digital divides was explored, with examples of how they can enhance accessibility and create localized solutions.

Panelists also addressed the challenges that come with increased connectivity, such as online safety and mental health concerns, particularly for young users. The importance of digital literacy and skills development was emphasized, along with the need to involve youth meaningfully in shaping digital policies and technologies.

The discussion highlighted successful examples of technology use in civic participation, healthcare, and education from various countries. Speakers stressed the importance of creating inclusive digital ecosystems that respect local cultures and languages. The overall consensus was that while technology presents challenges, it also offers powerful tools for solving global issues when implemented thoughtfully and collaboratively.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– The importance of connecting everyone to the internet and bridging the digital divide

– Challenges in providing connectivity, including infrastructure, affordability, and digital literacy

– The need for public-private partnerships and multi-stakeholder cooperation to expand connectivity

– Leveraging emerging technologies like AI to provide inclusive access and services

– Ensuring online safety, digital skills, and meaningful use of technology, especially for youth

The overall purpose of the discussion was to explore ways to expand internet connectivity globally while also addressing the challenges that come with bringing large populations online rapidly.

The tone of the discussion was largely optimistic and solution-oriented. Speakers highlighted positive examples of how technology is being used to empower communities and improve lives. At the same time, there was acknowledgment of the significant challenges that remain in bridging digital divides. The conversation maintained a constructive tone focused on collaboration and innovative approaches to expand meaningful connectivity.

Speakers

– Timea Suto – Global digital policy lead at the International Chamber of Commerce, moderator

– Gbenga Sesan – Executive Director at Paradigm Initiative

– Thelma Quaye – Director of Digital Infrastructure Skills and Empowerment at Smart Africa

– Sally Wentworth – President and CEO of the Internet Society

– Takuo Imagawa – Vice Minister, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications of Japan

– Alaa Abdulaal – Chief of Digital Economy Foresight at the Digital Cooperation Organization

– Jose Renato Laranjeira de Pereira – Co-founder of the Laboratory of Public Policy and Internet, researcher at the University of Bonn in Sustainable AI Lab

– Shivnath Thukral – Vice President for Public Policy for META in India

– Tami Bhaumik – Vice President, Civility and Partnerships at Roblox, Chair of the Board of the Family Online Safety Institute

Additional speakers:

– Audience members (various unnamed individuals who asked questions or made comments)

Revised Summary of Global Digital Adoption Discussion

Introduction and Key Themes

This discussion brought together experts from various sectors to explore the challenges and opportunities of global digital adoption. The conversation focused on strategies for connecting the unconnected, addressing the implications of rapidly bringing large populations online, and leveraging technology for development. Speakers shared personal experiences and case studies to illustrate the impact of connectivity on economic empowerment, education, and healthcare.

Key themes that emerged included:

1. The critical importance of internet connectivity for development

2. Challenges and opportunities of expanding digital access

3. The role of different stakeholders in advancing digital inclusion

4. Leveraging technology for development and public services

5. The importance of digital literacy and safety education

6. Including youth and local communities in technology development and policy-making

Importance of Connectivity and Digital Inclusion

Speakers unanimously agreed on the critical importance of internet connectivity for development. Gbenga Sesan emphasised that “connectivity could be a matter of life and death”, highlighting its role in enabling access to healthcare and education. Thelma Quaye provided context, noting that only 40% of Africans are connected to the internet due to infrastructure and affordability challenges.

Different approaches to achieving connectivity were discussed:

– Sally Wentworth advocated for community-centred connectivity approaches, empowering local communities to build and maintain their own networks.

– Takuo Imagawa highlighted Japan’s success in achieving near-universal connectivity through a mix of competition policy and government support. He also mentioned Japan’s initiatives in promoting research and development of non-terrestrial network technologies.

– Shivnath Thukral discussed the potential of open-source technologies and AI to bridge connectivity gaps and language barriers.

Challenges and Opportunities of Bringing People Online

While expanding connectivity was a primary focus, speakers also addressed the challenges that come with increased internet access:

– Thelma Quaye emphasized the need for relevant content, affordability of devices, and political will to solve connectivity issues.

– Sally Wentworth stressed the importance of ensuring people have the skills to participate safely and securely in the digital economy once connected.

– Jose Renato Laranjeira de Pereira highlighted that indigenous communities face both benefits and risks from increased connectivity.

– Tami Bhaumik emphasised the importance of digital literacy and safety education, especially for children and parents.

Speakers also noted positive outcomes of increased connectivity:

– Gbenga Sesan pointed out that technology enables civic participation and political engagement for young people, citing the example of the ReVoter app used for election monitoring in Nigeria.

– Alaa Abdulaal mentioned the potential of platforms for sharing digital solutions between countries to accelerate adoption, highlighting the Digital Cooperation Organization’s Digital Economy Navigator tool and Impact platform.

Role of Different Stakeholders in Advancing Digital Inclusion

The discussion highlighted the need for collaboration between various stakeholders:

– Thelma Quaye argued for government intervention and public-private partnerships to connect underserved areas.

– Takuo Imagawa emphasised the importance of multistakeholder cooperation to address digital divide challenges.

– Tami Bhaumik discussed the responsibility of technology companies to develop safety tools and digital literacy resources, mentioning Roblox’s partnership with the UN to develop helplines for developing nations.

– Sally Wentworth noted that civil society coalitions can leverage technology to advocate for better policies, citing the example of the global encryption coalition.

Leveraging Technology for Development and Public Services

Speakers provided various examples of how technology is being used to address development challenges:

– Shivnath Thukral discussed how AI and open-source technologies can enable localised solutions for agriculture, education, and government services in India.

– Jose Renato Laranjeira de Pereira mentioned platforms connecting homeless workers to job opportunities as an example of appropriating technology for social good.

– An audience member highlighted how technology facilitates transparency and citizen engagement in governance and constitution-making, citing a digital platform for constitutional feedback in Guinea.

– Thelma Quaye shared how AI-powered drones are improving healthcare delivery in remote areas of Rwanda and mentioned Smart Africa’s work in using AI to harmonize policies across countries.

– An audience member emphasized the importance of maintaining analog options alongside digital solutions for public services.

Importance of Digital Literacy and Safety Education

Throughout the discussion, speakers emphasized the critical role of digital literacy and safety education:

– Tami Bhaumik stressed the need for comprehensive digital literacy programs targeting both children and parents.

– Sally Wentworth highlighted the importance of equipping people with skills to navigate the digital world safely and securely.

– Speakers agreed that digital literacy should be integrated into education systems from an early age.

Including Youth and Local Communities in Technology Development and Policy-Making

Several speakers emphasized the importance of involving youth and local communities in shaping digital technologies and policies:

– Tami Bhaumik advocated for including teens and youth in the development of online safety policies and technologies.

– Jose Renato Laranjeira de Pereira stressed the importance of involving indigenous communities in decisions about technology adoption.

– Gbenga Sesan highlighted how young people are leveraging technology for civic engagement and political participation.

Key Takeaways and Action Items

1. Develop platforms for sharing successful digital solutions between countries.

2. Integrate digital literacy into education systems from an early age.

3. Create safety tools and resources for parents and children using online platforms.

4. Involve youth meaningfully in technology policy development processes.

5. Use a mix of government support and market competition to expand connectivity.

6. Maintain analog options for public services alongside digital solutions.

7. Leverage open-source technologies to enable localised and sovereign digital solutions.

8. Address affordability issues for devices and connectivity in low-income areas.

9. Ensure equitable access to emerging technologies like AI across different regions.

10. Use AI tools to make constitutional drafting and legal processes more interactive and accessible to citizens.

Conclusion

The discussion highlighted the complex and multifaceted nature of global digital adoption. While there was strong agreement on the importance of connectivity and the need for collaborative approaches, the conversation also revealed the challenges of balancing rapid digitalisation with safety, cultural preservation, and equitable access. The speakers’ diverse perspectives and experiences underscored the need for context-specific solutions and ongoing dialogue to ensure that digital technologies are leveraged effectively and responsibly for global development.

Moving forward, priorities should include:

1. Developing comprehensive strategies to address connectivity gaps, particularly in underserved areas.

2. Investing in digital literacy and safety education programs.

3. Creating mechanisms for meaningful youth and community involvement in technology policy.

4. Fostering international cooperation to share best practices and digital solutions.

5. Ensuring that digital transformation respects and preserves cultural values while promoting development.

By addressing these priorities, stakeholders can work towards a more inclusive and equitable digital future that harnesses the power of technology to drive sustainable development and improve lives globally.

Timea Suto: managing the challenges of global digital adoption. My name is Timea Suto, I’m going to be your moderator today. In my day job I am global digital policy lead at the International Chamber of Commerce. Today we are gathering for this main session under the theme of the IGF, harnessing innovation and balancing risk in the digital space, which I think is one of the main themes of all of the conversations we’ve been recently having on digital policy and internet governance, so it’s quite timely that we address this here at the IGF. What we will try and do in this session is connect two parts that I like to say that come with bringing people online. First of all, what can we do to actually make sure that everyone, everywhere, every day has connectivity, that they are able to connect to the internet, that they are able to access services that are relevant to them, that they are in their own languages, and that they can actually make use of, that want them to come online. And then of course that everybody has the skills to make sure that they can participate once in the online world, once they are online, whether that it’s for a social activity, whether that it’s for an economic activity, or whatever other service they want to access. But then once we bring populations online, and as we carry on doing, what happens then? Is that the end goal, to bring people online? Have we solved everything once everybody is connected? And that is going to be the second part of our session. What are the challenges of actually bringing a lot of people online at the same time, and what happens once they are online? So these are the two actual main themes that we would like to discover in this session together, and I have a distinguished list of panelists here to help me answer those questions. I’m very glad I don’t have to bring the answers, I will be just asking the questions today. So first we will have Mr. Gbenga Sesan, Executive Director at Paradigm Initiative. Then we hope we will be joined by Ms. Thelma Quay, we’re waiting for her to join our session, Director of Digital Infrastructure Skills and Empowerment at Smart Africa. Then we have Ms. Sally Wentworth, President and CEO of the Internet Society. Dr. Takuo Imagawa, Vice Minister, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications of Japan. Ms. Alaa Abdullah, Chief of Digital Economy Foresight at the Digital Cooperation Organization. Mr. José Renato Laranjeira de Pereira, Co-founder of the Laboratory of Public Policy and Internet, and a researcher at the University of Bonn in Sustainable AI Lab. Hi Thelma, so great to have you. Then we have Mr. Srimad Tukral, Vice President for Public Policy for META in India. And then last but not least, Ms. Tami Bhaumik, Vice President, Civility and Partnerships at Roblox, also the Chair of the Board of the Family Online Safety Institute. So without further ado, we are going to jump into our first segment of the panel, trying to figure out how we make sure that we bring everybody online, what is still left to do in this very important task. And after we hear first from the half of the panel, we’ll turn to questions and comments from the floor. So please know there will be microphones circulating around the room. room when you are ready to ask your questions. So as the speakers are speaking, think of what you might want to ask them as they speak. So my first speaker today is Gbenga Sesan, and, Sibenga, I’d like to ask you a little bit about why is it so important that we connect everybody? Why is it so important, especially to connect those who are living in remote or hard to access areas, and how does this work in your region?

Gbenga Sesan: Thank you. I’m tempted to say, and I will say, connectivity could be a matter of life and death. We write an annual report on digital rights and inclusion at Paradigm Initiative, and one of the stories that really, really, really paints this picture for me is a story of a woman who was three minutes away from missing medical intervention, because the telecom services in our country were shut down, but someone just knew that it was just mobile phone connectivity that was shut down, and they could get Wi-Fi signal to make a voice over IP call. It sounds like when we talk about connectivity, at times it sounds like, oh, it’s nice to have, but in many cases, in health care, it could be a matter of life and death. In education, it’s a matter, it’s a difference between somebody who was born into poverty and who walks to literally eradicate poverty in just one generation. We do training programs for young people, and one of the stories that I love is the story of Famous and also the story of Esther, but let me tell one of the stories. Famous was told by his parents, you’ve gone through secondary school, that’s it, that’s all we have. Your younger sister has to go to school, so when you get to SS3 and you graduate, go find a job somewhere at a factory and just work there. Famous walked down the street and found our training center in his local community, a slum in Lagos, Nigeria called Ajegunle. He walked in, saw that we had computers, showed interest, signed up for a six-week training program. After six weeks, Famous paid, for some reason, paid attention to Microsoft Excel. He just loves spreadsheets, and we asked him, why spreadsheets? Well, he says, it sounds cool, spreadsheets. That was what made a difference in his life, because a few months after he finished, he saw an advertisement for an internship. He applied for it. He got the internship at the UK Deputy High Commission in Lagos. While he was on that internship, he saw another opportunity for a full-time job at the UK High Commission in Abuja, and when he told me he was going to apply, I was like, well, maybe not. You don’t have a degree, and there are not too many people who will be able to apply for this. But of course, he was so sure of his knowledge of spreadsheets, he applied, and he got the job. To cut a long story short, Famous got the job. His excitement was that the embassy sent a car to his house, because he needed to fly for the interview, and that if he didn’t get a job, that was fine. But he got the job, spent six months on that job, resigned because he had saved enough, went to the university, graduated, got a job at KPMG. That was in 2009, sorry, not 2009. Today, Famous is a manager at KPMG in New Jersey. That is what is possible with connecting people. It is not theory. It is my story. It is Famous’s story. It is a story of every young woman, every young man who gets access to opportunities. It is a story of every person who has access to healthcare, because they can connect with the services, even though they have as many doctors in the village. But this is why it is important. Every time we say we must connect the rest of the world, the last third of the world, we’re not saying that because it’s nice to have, because we would like to say that in Riyadh, so that everybody will hear it. It’s because just as we found out during COVID, businesses, education, healthcare will come to a standstill, especially in the times of emergency, if we do not have connectivity. And that is why it’s important. It is important because if the story of Famous were told without connectivity, it would most likely be working in a factory, which is not a bad thing, if that is the only chance you have. But right now, his entire family has moved, one generation has moved out of poverty because of his chance connection to training, mentorship, and connectivity. And that is what we must do for the rest of the world.

Timea Suto: Well, I think that’s a very inspiring start for this conversation. There is no better stories than the personal development stories to actually illustrate and make it real of why we are doing what we are all doing in our day jobs and why we are talking about this up on this stage. With that, I’m going to turn to Thelma, and to follow the same sort of question that I’ve addressed to Pramila, I’d just like to ask a little bit about your views and Smart Africa’s views of connecting the next billions, and what do you think are the barriers that exist still for us achieving the goal of connecting everybody?

Thelma Quaye: Thank you very much. And apologies, I was in another session that took a bit of time. So you know, there are a lot of Famouses, and another perspective to it is, I also have a story of a lady called Aisha, and for her, she hasn’t gone through training, but for her it was just the access to a phone and WhatsApp, that’s changed her life in terms of her business. She sells shea butter in Ghana in her small locality, but when she was able to afford a phone, which we know is one of the barriers, when she was able to afford connectivity, So, for me, it’s a utility, just like we are fighting for electricity, water, Internet, it’s equally a utility. But then, what are the barriers? Why do we still have only 40% of Africans connected to the Internet? Why do we still have so little access to the Internet? So, for me, it’s a utility, just like we are fighting for electricity, water, Internet, it’s equally a utility. Why do we still have only 40% of Africans connected? Traditionally, it has been the mobile network operators investing. Africa is connected because we have a lot of mobile network operators investing. But then, they are at the point where it doesn’t make business sense now. Putting up a tower in that village where Aisha lives doesn’t make business sense. Because the number of people there will just not make the return on investment. So, we need government intervention now. It doesn’t have to be a private sector thing anymore. It has to be a PPP where government is now investing in infrastructure, for instance, and giving this infrastructure to the private sector to build upon. It has to be also a collaborative effort, for instance, where private sector or the Internet service providers are now agreeing that let’s share infrastructure to reduce our costs, for instance. So, that’s one challenge. The other challenge has been, you know, the likes of Aisha, when you give her a phone, what does she do with it? If you look at the content structure of Africa, a lot of our content, Internet content, is on entertainment. And so, a lot of them will not understand what they have to do with it, if it’s just entertainment. But if we then now put content that allows them to learn, or even allows them to trade their words, or we teach them how to sell their words, the economic activity, if we give them content that are relevant, then they are able to, you know, make use of it. And then, finally, is, you know, the cost of handsets. I think this morning, Ms. Bogdan-Martin mentioned it, how expensive it is to get a handset. We tried in Rwanda, with Marathons, to try and assemble phones, so it becomes cheaper, but it wasn’t cheap. The cheapest was around $120. That’s very expensive for the average African. So, we need to also see how we make devices cheaper. Now, I’m not talking about future phones, because we did a survey with the youth, and they said, look, I want that iPhone that you’re holding, but I want it at the cost that I can afford. I don’t want to buy it at that amount. So, we need to talk to, and I know there are stakeholders here, the Googles of this world, the Qualcomm’s, the people in, part of bringing a device, but also the government, on the government side. What are the taxes that can be taken out? What are the incentives that can be taken out to make these smartphones, not future phones, smartphones affordable so we can all use it? In fact, if you look at the coverage, you know, situation of Africa, over 80% has mobile coverage. But 40% are connected, and that’s because of affordability. And then there comes skills, and then, you know, relevancy of the content. And these are all things that we can do about, we can do something about. The only thing that I think we’ve talked too much about and done nothing is the investment part. In terms of the government coming in to invest, we have the universal service access funds. If you check the status of these funds across some countries, some are dormant, some are being used for all sorts of other things that are not, you know, that they are not supposed to be used for. So why don’t we go back to why these funds were created to solve the situation? For me, I think we’ve spoken about it for too long. The solution lies in front of us, and governments are able if their will is there. So the issue, one other barrier I’ll add before I end is the political will. We need to have that political will to solve this issue. Let’s not, you know, continue talking. We can do something about it, and let’s do something about it. Thank you.

Timea Suto: Thank you very much, Thelma. There’s quite a lot in a very short intervention, but I think what is important to bring out, because it showed up a number of times as you were speaking, is this need of the private sector and the public sector cooperation, and creating those policy incentives together to make sure that the market works in every region and in every circumstance, and that actually requires a lot of collaboration between the government and the private sector. So I’m going to turn to Sally, who has worked on this issue for quite some time now, and in coming into this role that you have now with ISOC, I’m just asking what is ISOC’s perspectives on these issues, and what are some of the work that you have done in this area together?

Sally Wentworth: Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak on this topic. This topic of connectivity is one that’s very near to the Internet Society’s heart. Our mission and vision is that the Internet is for everyone. And so the fact that we still have over a third of the world’s population not connected to the Internet means that we have a lot of work to do, and that’s work that the Internet Society is very committed to. I was taken with the stories of my colleagues before me, and particularly the story of Aisha, where she’s in a community where there may not be a business incentive to connect. The Internet Society has been in the space of connecting hard-to-reach communities for whom there may not be an initial business incentive, and what we do is really look at a community-centered approach, a bottom-up approach to connectivity that ensures that people in their local communities are empowered, are resourced, are trained, and are skilled enough to build the community networks or to build the networks for themselves. We believe that with a small investment, and we have quite a bit of experience with this, that local communities that are supported in this way can build the networks, they can maintain the networks, they can sustain their connectivity, and ultimately they can defend it. And that is a hugely powerful model of connectivity that I think we need to look more at as a global community as we think about how we bridge this final digital divide. We have done this since 2020. We have provided funding and technical assistance to over 60 community-centered connectivity solutions around the world, and this is a major part of our strategy going forward. And I was asked to provide a few examples, and just a few minutes before I walked in here, I stopped by the booth of the Internet Society chapter in Tanzania, who last year was awarded with the WSIS Prize for the Tanzania Digital Inclusion Project, which really does embody this community-centered connectivity approach. And here, what they say is that they have connected over 1,800 citizens to affordable and meaningful broadband internet, trained 4,000 youth and women… on essential digital skills, are training teachers on e-learning skills. This is all being done by the local community for themselves. They understand what is needed, they understand what the gap is, and by ensuring that through, in this case, a chapter, that ensures that that connectivity is sustainable over the long run. They’re actually, interestingly now, looking at a program to make the smartphones more affordable, particularly for women entrepreneurs, through a financing program that allows them to use this technology then for their own social enterprises and the like. We’ve seen these kind of solutions work both in Africa, outside of Africa. We were very happy to deploy the highest community network in the world, in Mount Everest, to connect the Sherpa communities in Nepal, who are feeling the effects of climate change on their economy, and the lack of connectivity has been a real barrier for their people to participate in the digital economy going forward. By connecting that community, they now have access to medical care, but also to skills and training opportunities that might expand the economies in those communities. Airbnb is coming in. Some of the Sherpas are now opening their homes via Airbnb, and again, providing different kinds of opportunities for that community to participate in the global digital economy. So this model of community-centered connectivity, we don’t have to wait for the solutions to come in. Communities can connect themselves, I think is a powerful approach to this, and one that, again, as I said, the Internet Society has been committed to and will continue to be committed to. Going forward, and I know this is the topic for the second part of this panel, what we wanna really think about and work with partners on is, as we’re bringing these populations online, how do we ensure that they have the skills and the expertise to participate in the global digital economy safely and securely? So it’s not enough to just bring connectivity in. We need to ensure that people have the skills to participate safely and in a way that gives them confidence that their information is protected and that they feel safe and secure. So these are things that we’re taking very seriously and I think are important as we think about how we bring connectivity to the final 2 billion people who are not online.

Timea Suto: Thank you, Sally. You’ve mentioned the importance of making sure that in the communities, there are ways of building up networks. There’s the importance then to connect the small networks to the larger grid and also making this work in a way that it works in investment, it works for the trainings, and it works for the long-term sustainability and resilience of these networks. So there’s a lot of works between the various different partners and stakeholders on making all of this happen. I’m curious, Dr. Imagawa, how do you see this from the Japanese perspective and from your perspective in sitting in the government? What are the actions that governments can take to help incentivize connectivity?

Takuo Imagawa: Well, thank you, Chair. I looked at a little bit different point of view in this panel. Well, despite the advancement in digital technology, there remain. the world. We have a global network of 2. 6 billion people worldwide who are not yet connected to the Internet and there are still many people who can fully enjoy the benefits of digital technology. It is crucial to further accelerate international cooperation to build an inclusive digital society. As you know, emerging technologies such as AI can only be effectively utilized when connectivity is realized. It is important to ensure that we have a global network of 2. 6 billion people worldwide who are not yet connected to the Internet and there are still many people who can fully enjoy the benefits of digital technology. Also, we should avoid letting these emerging technologies create a further divide. In addition to providing physical access, it is essential to ensure that these technologies are affordable and that individuals have the necessary literacy and skills. Also, we should continue the work on creating ASTRA and accessible networks for everyone. It is still overview, but the U.N. summit, the first thing listed in the IDBC and importance of UMC is mentioned. Commitment can’t be accomplished through the IGF. It is a very important issue and the IGF has been mentioned many times. Significant efforts have already been made and we need to continue building on these achievements. In particular, next year makes the WSIS plus 20 review. The WSIS initiative should be complementary to the follow-up of the GDC. During this upcoming review, it is necessary to consider the importance of multistakeholder efforts. The IGF provides a vital platform for diverse stakeholders in digital technologies to gather and engage in active discussions. This forum exemplifies the importance of multistakeholder efforts and we firmly believe that extending the IGF’s mandate is the right thing to do. Thank you. the digital divide. The role of the ITU is significant. We recognize that ITU is a substantial contribution to bridging the digital divide, especially in developed countries through their various initiatives. Japan will continue to support these efforts by the ITU. Please allow me to briefly introduce Japan’s domestic initiatives. Japan has significantly advanced its ability to strengthen individual journeys. In 2012, we saw the development of mobile phones, where the national coverage rate of optical web service for households reached 99. 9% of the population in 2023 and the coverage rate of mobile phones for households reached 99% of the population in 2003 and 2014. We believe that the most important coverage of both fiber and mobile are coming from the good mixture of competition policy and the government’s support for non-profitable regions. We have been promoting competition between the dominant incumbent and the entrance by the regulation as well as introducing the mechanism of so-called universal service fund and also financial subsidies to the players . In addition, Japan is promoting research and development of non-terrestrial or space network technologies, such as high altitude platform stations called HAPs, which provide connectivity in remote areas where communication infrastructure is not well established. This is part of our efforts to advance the next-generation communication infrastructure by beyond 5G or 6G. We are also assisting the capacity building programs of our digital users. the digitalization of the internet and the digitalization of the internet and the digitalization such as the use of the smartphones and the digital ID card called my number card or protection against cyber attacks and so on. So through such initiatives of the regulatory and financial frameworks as well as the digitalization of the internet, we are trying to bring in the digitalization of the internet and we would like to contribute to enhancing the global connectivity. Thank you.

Timea Suto: So as this was the first sort of thought starters ideas from the first half of our panel, so what we’re trying to take away here and what I hear a lot about is the need to try and find solutions that are sort of universal in spirit, but work at the local level. So I’m hearing calls for partnerships at the grassroots level to reach out and train and find the people and talk to them in their own, not just their own language, but the way that they live in their own situation. What I’m hearing calls for enabling policy environments to make sure that we work together, government, government-to-government partnerships, and we’re trying to make sure that we work together, governments, businesses, civil society, the technical community, to make sure that we incentivize investments, we incentivize trade and commerce to actually help facilitate affordability of connectivity and of devices. Incentivizing investment in skills and in training programs and, of course, then making sure that we incite the business cooperation at the global level and we come together in a forum to have these conversations and then cooperate with partners outside our local communities, outside our nations, to make sure this all works the same way that the Internet works at the global interconnected level. So we have a little bit of time to turn to the audience for some reactions on this, and then we’ll turn to the second panel. If you have any comments or questions, please wave your hand high so that my colleagues can see you. And when you speak, please introduce yourself.

Audience: Hello. My name is connecting ordinary citizens to the Internet. No, I’m just kidding. My name is Dr. Naza, Nicholas Kirama from Tanzania. And I wanted to make a comment on the effect of connecting schools to the internet. As when you get time, you go through our booth, you will see that we’ve been able to connect about 10 schools to the internet. And what we are getting from the schools that we have been able to connect in Tanzania is that the school students, there is a lot of improvement in terms of their grades that they are getting from their exams. And also, the teachers that we have engaged in our programs, they have been able to go online, access different courses, and through these courses, they have been able to improve their skills, their teaching skills, as well as upgrade, taking different free courses online. And before the connectivity, teachers were not able to access free courses online because the access was very limited. They didn’t have any broadband internet access in their schools. And with that, it was impossible for them to stay online for a long time to be able to study the courses online. So connecting schools, connecting the the communities, the ordinary citizen to broadband internet has enabled the communities that we save in Tanzania access digital opportunities online. So we have a lot of improvements in terms of grades, and also the teachers now can be able to read and improve their teaching skills online without ever looking over their shoulder that their data bundle is going to exhaust. So it is very important to continue to build alliances around the world to finance the connectivity for schools, connectivity for the rural communities, and also the underserved urban communities as well. So I think the idea of connecting people to digital opportunities online is very important because ultimately you will find yourself in a situation where when you connect people, the next frontier will be what sort of empowering skills that we need to deploy to these communities so that they can stay safe and they can feel comfortable to stay online. Thank you so much.

Timea Suto: Thank you for that comment. Indeed, I think a lot starts once we are able to get a school online or get a library online, because they are the hearts of the communities they function in, and then the ripple effect is clearly palpable. Do we have any other comments or questions? I don’t see anybody. There you are, sorry. Yes.

Audience: Hello, everyone. My name is Arjun Singh Bjoria. from Vizoria Foundation India. My question is that it’s based on the use of international AI in evaluation, the examination. Now, I just want to let you know. I want your opinion on how we can create a uniform framework for the evaluation of the students’ examination. Is it possible to create a uniform framework for the evaluation throughout the world? I just want your opinion on that. A uniform digital evaluation framework on the evaluation of students’ examinations.

Timea Suto: Thank you for that question. Would anybody from the panel care to respond to that question? Are we able to? The panel is asking if you could clarify your question.

Audience: Yes, certainly. In the education system, every degree having the final examination, right? Now, can we create a digital platform or a digital framework through which we can use the technology to evaluation of the students throughout the world? That is my question. Based on the technology, internet, and AI. Every country is having different evaluation process.

Timea Suto: Please, go ahead.

Shivnath Thukra: I can try and answer that question. Since you said you’re from India, there are many AI evaluation-based frameworks which have been created in the education space, both in the private sector and the civil society sector in the not-for-profit space. I can tell you one example. One of the partners that Meta in India works with is a foundation called Rocket Learning Systems. And all that they do is use AI evaluation on actual physical answer sheets by deploying thousands of teachers who… have based their evaluation by first physically evaluating them, and then they have created a machine learning tool to assess how they can give feedback digitally to improve upon the evaluation ecosystems. As a result, the feedback loop that the teachers have created is going back to the student at the end of it. And using AI analytics tool, they are able to point to them where they need to work harder. This is in the civil society space, not-for-profit space, and I’m happy to connect you with rocket learning. Similarly, in the private space, many of the edtech companies are doing the same thing. So one is to deliver education. The other is to assess education programs based on the tutorials that they run, how AI analytics can help them. I’m happy to share those examples async after the session as well. But yes, to answer your question, the possibility definitely exists. It is already being deployed. And what that would do is, which I was going to respond to when Tamir comes to me, is it solves two issues. One is of scale, given that in a country like India, for example, over a billion people, let’s say about 300 to 400 million students coming online every year, you will be able to solve the problem of scale of giving real-time feedback used on AI tools. And the second is the complexity of the language, which is a point I’m going to talk about in detail subsequently, is how using AI analytic tools, you can solve the language issue to give feedback to those, even if the teacher doesn’t know the language, AI tools can help understand better assessment of such frameworks.

Audience: Thank you, sir.

Timea Suto: Thank you for jumping in on that, Shivnath. I think we have time for one last question on this first segment of the panel, if there is anybody from the floor. My colleagues are getting a workout to make sure we get the microphone to you.

Audience: My name is Professor Nabi, I’m presenter of Creators Union of Arab in United Nations. So I was last year in Kyoto and the same problem was, we were talking about the same problem but actually I didn’t see any action plan. I’m sorry to say that I have some plan to do some rules, enforcement rules, and I’ll give you some examples. Why not we do like, if you need to promote as a faculty member in this area, so you have to teach some people in that area. We have to draw some rules in order to help some society in order to be educated enough to use the internet and so on. In Arabian Gulf for example, in all the countries, if you have a company, then you have to have some local people in your company in order to proceed. And this is their rights. And also their rights, the people who don’t have any connection in the internet, to enforce the people who has internet, to teach them in order to take your rights in your job, in your promotion, in your salary sometime, I’m sorry to say this. So we need an action plan in order, it’s called enforcement action plan in order to help those people in a different area. Thank you very much.

Timea Suto: Thank you for that. Would anybody from the panel like to address the important question, skills development? Can we have the microphone here? I can also speak.

Gbenga Sesan: Oh, it was switched off. Oh, it was switched off. I’m happy to speak to that and I think two things. One is the importance of skills. We can’t overemphasize that. The story I told earlier of Famos, the reason he was able to advance is because he picked the first skill in using spreadsheets and that led to others. But the second, which also ties into the story of skills, is the need to empower communities. You know, Sally spoke earlier about, and I think it’s really important. because learning is not just about the content, it’s also about the agency. It’s also about realizing the fact that this is not something given to me by others because they pity me. This is something that I am given access to. And I think this is really important. This is why one of the things, you know, when Thelma talked about the universal services funds earlier, I was pretty excited because we did a whole report on, and I will actually be speaking about that tomorrow at one of the lightning talks, about 26 African countries and what they have done with USFs. And you’re right. Many times, the solution we need to connect the last mile is already there. You’ve collected the money from the taxes, but we need action. And I think that’s the phrase you just used. We need people to be literally forced to act. So I think it’s important to have a sense of agency in learning, and it’s absolutely important to make sure that the community buys into it because we have done projects that were literally protected by the community. In one of those times, I was leading a project called Lagos Digital Village, and there was a situation where people were fighting and it became very violent. The security guards in the area who had children who were learning from the center came to my office, locked the door, locked the gate, and when everything happened and everything settled down, I asked them what was going on. They said, well, we were protecting you because you’re the one training our children, and we are protecting this center because if they destroy the computers in this center, our children and their children and the next generations will be as poor as we are. So I think when communities get a sense of agency and ownership, it not only helps to learn, it also helps to protect and to make this sustainable.

Tami Bhaumik: I can also add to it. Go ahead, please. So I couldn’t agree with you more. I’m Tami Bhaumik. I’m from Roblox, and I’ll get into a little bit more. I’ll explain what Roblox is, but I can’t agree with you more. I lead an area called civility at Roblox, and our sole focus is to bridge the education gap between children, parents, and teachers. And if we’re going to create a global community that will thrive in this next generation of the internet, we must educate everyone. And so our focus really is working with partners from around the world to make sure that we’re getting evidence-based data to be able to inform and educate parents. teachers and, you know, children so that they can grow up in a much safer place. But I can get into that during our session.

Timea Suto: Yes. Thank you so much, Tami. And I think that’s a great segue in going into the second half of the panel. We’ve heard a lot as we were talking here together with the audience, but also as I was listening to the first part of the panel on what happens once people are online. Whether it’s for education, accessing important services like healthcare, or their own maximum potential on the job market, or actually developing in entrepreneurship or making businesses grow. So those are all the positives, the great stories, what we want to happen. But of course, there’s also sometimes challenges with coming online. And so that’s what we try to address in the second part of the panel. So once people are online, what is it that we still need to do to make sure that connectivity is meaningful, that that actually works? So to start us off and sort of make the connection between the first half of the panel and the second, I’m going to turn to Alaa Abdullah from the Digital Cooperation Organization. And we’d love to hear from you, from the DCO perspective a little bit, how do you work to address digital divides, and what are the challenges that you see that come with rapid connectivity?

Alaa Abdullah: Hello, everyone. Good afternoon. I’m very honored, first of all, to be in this session, and even to be the first speaker to connect both aspects. And I would like to highlight some of the important points that my colleagues here in the panel have mentioned, which is looking at that there is almost more than a third of the people are still not connected. And then we talked about some skills that they need to be from a digital literacy perspective, and how it’s very important for everyone to have that. digital economy was and will be moving in the digital world as in the real world where we have to engage and share knowledge data and connecting data with personal data. So we had in two different countries to specifically this work about electronic information technology, to attend conversations about critical metals of course, from the start to the conversation in terms of the digital divide and the digital divide and the digital divide and the digital divide and the digital divide. So it is part of our objective and goal is to also bridge the digital divide and make sure that everyone is part of this ecosystem and the acceleration of digitalization that is going on. And for us to do that, let me go back. We are a four years old organization, so we are actually a four-year-old organization, and we have been doing this for a long time. We have been doing this for a long time, and it is very important for us to understand. Understand what are the different challenges that are hindering the progress and the participation to be part of this digital economy growth or even digitalization growth. And this is why we have done a lot of global roundtables. We have been doing it internally with leaders, nations, when in finals to know what is going on and decision-making regarding those challenges. And the insights were similar to what we are seeing, which is there is a lot of countries are struggling with, do they have the right infrastructure for them to be connected. Do the nations have the right skills when they are already connected? Are the policies and regulations from the country coming together to address these issues? And also, they are already facing a lot of challenges. And a lot more is there is cooperation between different countries and organization. Are the businesses involved in that process to combat these accidents. I was involved in learning but they So, I think that we need to start measuring things. I mean, we need to start measuring things, because, again, if we want to really make sure that everyone has a fair opportunity, we need to start measuring things. Because, again, just saying that there is a gap, there is a divide, we already have numbers that people, 2. 6 million people are not able to vote, 2. 6 million people are not connected, but, okay, how can we start measuring how countries can start progressing? And this is why we put it among ourselves in the DCO. We have that goal, okay, let’s first of all create a framework to look at the digital economy. Have that, and I think one of the audience who have asked, do we have a unified framework, and, yes, we do, but we need to build a unified framework, definition on how to measure the digital economy, what is needed for each country for them to progress, to grow, to have all the nation connected and have that fair opportunity. And we launched recently during the UNGA in New York, the digital economy navigator, which is a tool that we put the framework on how to measure the digital economy. We assessed 50 countries for them to understand where do they currently stand from a digital economy perspective. We put different level of categorization from a maturity perspective, identified that we have three dimensions, we need the right, we need to tackle it from a business perspective, from a society perspective, and then having a unified framework that we put the framework on how to measure the digital economy from a society perspective, and then having that dimension of what would enable identifying 11 pillars, different pillars from infrastructure, from digital transformation, having the right regulations, having the right digital skills, education, health, and different sectors. And then we assessed those 50 countries and gave where do they stand, what is the gap, how they can move forward. We’ve done that huge analysis through different lenses, through the 11 pillars that we have. We looked at different regions, because again, you need to create synergies. Not every country should work alone. We can work together, and you find all of these findings in the report that we have launched, and I hope that everyone had the chance to look at it, which is the Digital Economy Navigator report. With that set of recommendation, where we can start creating synergies targeted to government, targeted to private sector, where we all have to work together. Because again, we believe in the approach of cooperation. We are the Digital Cooperation Organization. Cooperation is our middle name, and this is how we try to work. Because we believe that we are in a world, we do not want to leave anyone behind. How can we guarantee we don’t leave anyone behind? We have to work together. So again, the Digital Economy Navigator, I think we believe that this navigator will help in starting to measure the maturity. To have that, if we identify what is the gap, let’s build actionable plan, which is also one of the audience was mentioning, and then let’s measure are we progressing or not towards those different pillars from, as we said, connectivity, skills, infrastructure. And for us, we took all of those findings. Those findings were not just a one-year work. We have been working for three years to gather the data and to really have that understanding to bridge the digital divide. And we created what we call the digital space accelerators. Those accelerators are focused on the challenges and the gaps that we are finding. Again, going back to finding the synergy between different stakeholders and different countries. The digital space accelerator, we identify each year specific topics that are very important that will help making sure that the future is inclusive and sustainable and that everyone has that fair opportunity to grow. And we try to have that multi-stakeholder approach where we create different topics with different groups. We bring governments on the table. We bring private sector, academia, experts, and we try to solve that challenge. We created a group for, which I have mentioned, women, women empowerment, how they can be empowered in the ICT and through the ICT. We created a group for misinformation online and how it’s important to solve that issue. Also AI, ethical use of AI, and differently, and we almost covered along 11 topics last year and this year. It’s all built on one mechanism, which is bringing all the right stakeholders, not only government, but government, private sector, think tanks, experts, and not only focusing on one country, rather than going, we go through different global roundtables to really capture the different aspects, different insights from and angles that each expert and each region can bring to. And we try to build those solutions. And again, there is a report in our website that reflects that journey. of the digital space accelerators and the different topics that we have, and it produced, this mechanism produced almost 11 publications that are giving specific, some of them are toolkits, some of them are for unified frameworks, policy recommendation, and we hope by this mechanism we really would help in bridging the digital divide. In addition, last but not least, that I want also to highlight of some of the cases that we are working on, which my colleagues mentioned the skills, and even enabling digital transformation for different businesses. We have what we call We Elevate, it’s a program that we have where we enable women-led businesses and help them to have the right skills to transform digitally from regular businesses to businesses online. This is giving them an opportunity not only to have a digitalization for the sake of digitalization, but even expand their businesses. Being online means having bigger outreach, being cross-border, and this really has been already launched in different countries of our member state, and we are targeting to digitalize 300 women businesses, giving them even the right skills and the courses that will enable them to be online. Just as a final point, I really iterate that we believe that cooperation is the solution. No one nation can work alone and solve all of the issue. It has to be a collaborative approach where countries work together, private sector, international organization, NGOs, all of us try to work together hand-in-hand to solve those challenges and bridge the digital divide.

Timea Suto: Thank you so much for that comprehensive presentation of all your work. What strikes me is the fact that you’re talking about collaboration between nations, which is very important, especially as we see how difficult it is sometimes for nations to agree on the way forward, so producing incentives, toolkits, opportunities for them to meet and collaborate and identify perhaps common challenges that require their common solutions is very important. But you’ve also mentioned sort of building blocks of the digital economy itself, starting from connectivity but working all the way up our way to the most recent technologies. So how do we move from bridging the divides for connectivity so that we can make sure that we are not widening the divides as we move rapidly along with the development of technology? So this brings me to José Renato because you work a lot on emerging technologies and how do you see connectivity as a prerequisite to where we need to arrive with AI and digital technologies and what do we need to enable access to everybody to those technologies as well?

José Renato Laranjeira de Pereira: Thank you very much. Thank you for having me. It’s a pleasure to be here. Okay, it was a bit too loud maybe. Okay, thank you very much for having me. And yes, I have been looking a little bit, have been looking to this topic and I think that connectivity is, we have talked a lot about access, have talked about how we should universalize connectivity, access to digital tools as a whole and I think that we have been working on this for a while and we haven’t yet achieved it. We have not achieved this universalization yet but I think that we should also start thinking about how can we include, how can we have the allies of this community so they can also help shape the digital agenda, shape the digital futures. And we have, despite the many benefits that we can see that digitalization brings and I think that most of my colleagues here mentioned a lot of them, having access to job opportunities, having access to the possibility of learning, of reaching wider audiences. I think it also relates to like how can we include these people so that they can also think about how is the future of technology that they want in order to serve their own purposes and which includes also the purposes that we need in order to like solve climate issues, environmental issues as a whole. So for this I think that it’s very important that we look for instance to how local communities are using these technologies and are being impacted by them and I think that the Brazilian Amazon, especially among indigenous peoples, bring very important clues on what, where are we going and what are the challenges that we have and the opportunities out there. And most recently, especially in the last two years, we have been having what I see as a transformation out there. For years we have more indigenous communities being connected either through community networks or more traditional ways of having access to internet. But nowadays, especially when we look into the Amazon, where traditionally the Brazilian state and telecommunication companies have been failing to provide connectivity to these people, one new factor is out there which is low-earth orbit satellites, especially when you think about Starlink. And to some degree these technologies are allowing many of these peoples to communicate between themselves, to have access to social benefit, but at the same time they bring a whole new challenge which is they are also facilitating access to people who end up being enemies of these communities. And I’m talking here about invaders of indigenous territories, of illegal gold miners… land grabbers and so on. So this brings us to a paradox here. On the one hand these technologies are facilitating the capacity of indigenous to resist to these people but at the same time they’re contributing to the cycle of violence to be perpetuated and this is even more problematic when we think that, for instance, if you think about the Yanomami people in Brazil, their territory has been witnessing the invasion of many of these gold miners sometimes even to fuel the digital economy. They have been extracting gold and selling to many big corporations, big tech corporations that are across the world. So how can we be their allies in resisting against these challenges, especially when we consider that, and this is the case of many of the Yanomami communities, that they had to decide and sometimes even go against their own habits, their own ontologies to connect in order to resist these problematic features of both these invaders but also of how the industry develops itself as a whole. So something has to be changed and I think that it’s very important that these people end up participating in the design of these digital futures, both on a degree of developing these technologies but also of thinking about policymaking. And I think that forming issues should be pushed forward and we’re here in a form of multi-stakeholder forum and I think that we should think about possibilities for us to be allies of these groups. And I think that, first of all, and I think that has already been mentioned by many of my participants, digital literacy is fundamental and not just to use correctly these technologies but also to help them develop and critically assess what’s going on among them and also with regard to their infrastructure, so the infrastructures that relate, that are on the basis, on the fundamentals of these technologies. So the first, digital literacy. The second is their ability to help them address the risks of monopolies and I think that state action here is fundamental, thinking about how can we create alternatives, especially considering that Starlink is controlled by Elon Musk, who has been frequently challenging Brazilian authorities and failing to comply with many institutional demands that are made to him. Third would be to think about governance measures that allow for popular digital sovereignty. There are many movements happening in this regard. One of them is the homeless workers movement, which talks a lot about popular digital sovereignty, which is not only digital sovereignty on a state level but also to communities to control their data, to control their platforms. And finally, enabling, help build bridges so they can also participate in policymaking efforts. In Brazil, for instance, in the debates on AI regulation, we have already had three years of debate and only one indigenous representative, who was Chimeia Vaite, managed to participate. My organization is very happy to have been an ally in this stance, but this has to change. This has to change. And I think that as Davico Penao e Yanomami, who is a very important indigenous leader in Brazil, says, all of these mechanic machines should also be appropriated by these peoples, because it is their blood and their metals, the resources in their land, that are feeding them. So they should also find ways, should help them find ways to appropriate them, in order to shape these digital futures that I’m talking about. Some initiatives are already underway. The Brazilian Internet Steering Committee is working a lot to connect these communities, along with many other organizations, including the Instituto Socioambiental. ISOC also participates in many community networks being built there, and beyond. But I think we should give a step further, and I think that COP30, which is going to take place in the Brazilian Amazon in 2025, is a very important forum for us to bring the discussion, how to find ways to bridge, to create bridges, so that these communities can participate in the shaping of these digital futures. Thank you very much.

Timea Suto: Thank you so much for that input, and for highlighting the need of not only connecting people to the… and the technologies but also connecting them to the conversations that we have about these technologies and make sure that we shape those together with those who we are trying to target. We have also mentioned emerging technologies and AI and we’ve kept hearing AI creep in in these sessions and I think it creeps in into every session that we have at the IGF recently. So I want to turn to Shivnath and ask a little bit about what you feel are the persisting challenges to achieve inclusivity not only in connectivity but at the end of the spectrum that we have, maybe not at the end of the spectrum generally, but where we are now with the development of technology. How do we connect people inclusively to the latest developments when we already see that we are facing challenges at the beginning of the spectrum also?

Shivnath Thukra: Thanks to you and thanks for inviting me, Meta from India on this panel. I will, in the spirit of being a very very diehard optimist, I’ll try to paint a more realistic, pragmatic and positive picture of what I see as the future and hopefully will address some of the concerns my friend Jose has but more importantly I want to pick a one-one line each from each of the speakers to try and create a framework of why we must use technology for the sake of technology. It is very important to sometimes sit back and think why have we failed over 2.3 billion people of this world so far. I’m sure Sally will agree that even if we give them network, even if we give them connectivity, it may still not solve for the need of the Internet because the Internet as we know in our languages may not be the Internet that we will be able to provide for them in their language or in the complexity of the environment they live in which is affordability, access to to device, et cetera. So I think if you step back, and Mr. Cezanne said, no one should be left behind. Internet is that critical if you provide it to people. Thelma said, the over-pivoting on private sector investment has not really led to the result that you want to see on the ground. Our friend from Japan said, could it be the futuristic technology like AI which helps us solve it? Ms. Abdullal said, cooperation between nations. Fully agree, and I’ll tell you why one by one. At Meta, we definitely feel the answer to this future is open source technologies, which Meta professes. And I will tell you two examples why so. Let’s take the issue of language. You said no one should be left behind. Today, it is possible using a program like NLLB 200, which Meta runs. It’s a program called No Language Left Behind, where almost 200 languages can be translated directly with each other. Normally, the framework of translation is you take a language, get it down to English, from English to the other language. Today, NLLB makes possible 200 languages to be translated directly. There’s an offering in the open source world called Universal Translator, where languages, which are known as low resource models, where you do not have a written script of a language. Those languages can be trained using AI models so that these languages become inclusive as a part of the general internet ecosystem. What is it that solving for is inclusivity. It is solving for those very people who are outside the world of the internet to be brought into the world of internet. So while we solve for physical connectivity, physical infrastructure, you must solve for this. Let’s look at some more examples of where open source technologies, like our large language models, Lama, has been able to help. And I will give you some Indian examples. I was telling my friend from India about examples in education. And we’ll talk about agriculture in our part of the world agriculture is a serious issue, right? But if you deploy open source technology, you can actually give the information relevant to the farmer on the device using llama There is a low-cost model of llama which you can deploy on the device It doesn’t need to be on some fancy computer with some fancy server supporting it. You can deploy it There is a startup in India called Kisan AI. Dr. Abdullah will talk about the startup ecosystem These are the kind of examples which can solve for it whereby they get relevant crop information Climate information in the era of climate disruption using their phone. They can have large language models So you said AI is the fashionable world AI is being deployed on the device not through some very sophisticated Ecosystem and they get real-time information. So that’s agriculture for you Student-led inclusivity Josie you talked about how do we make sure representation happens? One of the reasons representation doesn’t happen is because they feel overwhelmed by the lack of connectivity to the language of English For example in India, we are running a program with the Institute called Wadhwani Institute. It’s a very famous AI Institute where how to teach children English at local state level which Has largely education system delivered in local language. How can they learn? English skills similarly for the government one of the partnerships that Meta has deployed using AI tools is how to make sure somebody in a remote area finds the right skill set Training available on the government website governments actually have done a fabulous job of running programs But the missing link is how do people access it? So if let’s say in your region you’re running skilling programs But somebody doesn’t know how to go find that right skilling program this pilot that we are running allows them to connect by just Verbal assistance saying I am so and so from this region. I am in this language. I would like to learn about welding and the AI assistant can help them find the right course in the nearby geographical region. The long and short of this story is, with open source technologies, what are you achieving? Inclusivity, you’re achieving a lot of real-time feedback, making these models better, and the best part, which addresses, and I think, Josie, you mentioned about sovereign AI, we do not think it is in contradiction. When you adopt open source technologies, you can have local deployment. You don’t have to worry about your data floating elsewhere. You can use a large language model locally and create those solutions. Why is this possible? I think you talked about policy framework, super critical. Why do we need supportive policy frameworks? In India, for example, India’s now decently famous for what is known as digital public infrastructure. It was a government initiative. Government created the digital rails based on the identity layer to deliver solutions like payment. Today in India, almost on a daily basis, we have billions of transactions purely cashless using your phones. How is that possible? Because you created what is called digital infrastructure, which the government did, private sector built on it, and I think the DPI approach, the digital public infrastructure approach that the government took to AI, will be the next frontier, and I’ll tell you how. Government will build open compute resources, support open source technologies, open data sets, and support language translation models. If you combine all these four from a DPI perspective, many low-income countries, middle-income countries could leverage what they have not been able to do for 20 years within a few years. They don’t have to go through the whole evolution cycle. They can crunch that. I was at the India IGF last week. Mr. Changat, I spoke there, and he was talking about how the world is so diverse. For these 2.6 billion people, there is no uniform solution. AI could be that bridge. AI could be that glue which will bring all these people in. You start connecting the dots, create low-cost, localized solutions in their language to deliver not just citizen services from the government, but support an ecosystem, like a startup ecosystem like we have done for agriculture, for education, for payments, financial sector. I’m sure in our part of the world, small-ticket lending is an issue. Farmers want small-ticket loans. How do you use AI-based analytics to do that? I think the world is full of possibilities, according to me, and I think the next frontier of the 2.6 billion people will be solved for much faster if we are able to adopt and embrace open-source technologies, which is in sync with what the world needs. Thank you.

Timea Suto: Thank you so much for that, as you said, very optimistic perspective, but I think also a very tangible and real one on what technology can help us achieve. You said technology for the purpose of technology, but I don’t think you’re right. It’s not technology for the purpose of technology. It’s technology for the purpose of developing the potential that individual societies and businesses have. It’s not just to have the next one and the newest one, it’s to actually use it in a way that is helpful for the communities that are so diverse, as you said, and build the bridges to help them bring them along on where they feel they ought to be in their potential. I want to continue with that line, and Tommy, when you spoke, responding to the question you mentioned, how we need opportunities to empower people to have the relevant skills and training to access AI, and through that skills and training, we can actually help them address some of the safety issues that they might face when coming online, or the big unknown of connecting to the internet and the newest technologies. So perhaps you can expand a little bit on that now, and you have more time here to expand a bit what you and what Roblox does.

Tami Bhaumik: Thank you so much. What an honor to be here with all of you and hear your interesting perspectives. So what I’d like to do is focus, maybe take a little bit of time to share a little bit about what Roblox is. We are not quite as big as Meta. So I’d like to take some time to explain what Roblox is. So Roblox is a technology platform. It’s a place where people can come to learn, to work, to create, to communicate with one another. And a lot of people come to actually design and create games and experiences, publish it out on our platform to millions. We now have over 6 million active developers developing experiences. We have tens of millions of games and experiences on Roblox. Every type of game you can imagine. And it is a place where young people and children are thriving. It’s where they’re learning, it’s where they’re connecting with one another. And if you take a future vision of where this next generation will go, it is they will be in immersive worlds such as Roblox, learning with one another and doing things. It is, we have now 90 million daily active users on our platform. So we are large and we are global. And so from a connectivity standpoint, it’s so important to enable people from all generations to be able to connect with one another and learn from one another. The Roblox platform is someplace where they can do it. Because there are so many young people on our platform, we prioritize safety. So the area that I lead is called civility. And it is focused on, as I mentioned before, bridging the education gap between the generations, which is so important. It’s giving parents the tools and the knowledge to be able to help their children to thrive. online. So I have two daughters, and I actually laugh because I am in the technology industry, and when people talk about, you know, if you see something that bothers you, go to a parent or a trusted adult. I’m not this expert, right? So I’m not a doctor or an academic. How do I know? Parents have no idea how to guide their children in this new internet world. It is up to us collectively to make sure that we have the power to be able to educate parents so they can help their children to thrive, and that is through industry. Industry needs to be responsible. Technology companies need to be responsible to make sure that they have the education materials available and getting it out there. It is the responsibility of governments to make sure that they’re prioritizing digital literacy, not just as an afterthought, but truly and meaningfully integrating it into their education systems from the very beginning. By the time a child gets to 15 or 16 years old, it’s too late. We need to start thinking about educating them the moment they get a digital device into their hands, making sure that it’s age-appropriate and making sure that the information going to the child is evidence-based and it’s vetted. And so one of the things that we do at Roblox is we work with governments, we work with teacher organizations to make sure that we’re developing curriculum. As an example, in South Korea we’re developing a curriculum, a digital, a civility digital literacy curriculum for teachers and a separate one for parents. So many parents come and say to me that they are so scared of the world that their children the digital world their children are going into. But fear is driven by the unknown. And if we can educate them, the more that we educate parents, the less fearful they are. And so, at Roblox, our civility initiative is based on three different pillars. The first is safety. You gotta know how to use the safety tools. You need to know that they’re there, and that you need to know how to use them. If a bad actor comes on or you see bad content, you need to know where to report it. You need to know how to process it. That is something very important. The second is mental health and well-being. Loneliness is a global epidemic. Anxiety and depression, global epidemic. We need to wake up, we need to take this seriously, and we need to make sure that anywhere where there are young people, children, that we need to make sure that we’re giving them the lifelines necessary in order to help them thrive. That is helplines, that is, and I know that United Nations, in fact, we’re partners with United Nations in developing helplines for developing nations. That is, we need to make sure that those lifelines are available and easily accessible. I’ll give you an example. On Roblox, one of the things that we do in this world, we have a partner, Alo Yoga. They’re an exercise brand. They developed a mindfulness experience. It’s beautiful, beautiful music. It’s about meditation and the importance of meditation. Within the first five days, we had eight million people come on and learn how to meditate. The feedback that we got from that was amazing. we got from children was unbelievable. There was one child who said, my parents are getting a divorce. I’m so anxious and I’m so upset. But when I come into this experience, this Alo Yoga experience, and I put on my headphones, I can shut all that out and I can find peace. So technology is an area where we can bring that to young people. We have a responsibility to opening up these worlds that are positive and good so that they can learn from them. And then the final pillar that we focus on in civility is digital literacy. And so, again, knowing how to respond to a scam, knowing how to identify a scam, knowing when to, again, have a healthy relationship with technology, to know yourself. Every single one of us sitting here is different, and our relationship with technology should be different. Maybe the amount of time that I spend online maybe is not as much as somebody like you. Maybe you can actually handle it, handle a little bit more. So not everybody is the same. So again, technology firms have the responsibility to continue to innovate. Congress is continuously innovating and making sure that we’re developing safety tools, mental health support tools to allow people to adjust based upon their situation. So I think that one of the things that we all have to recognize as we start focusing on bridging the gap, the digital divide, is also thinking about the education because we need to get that flywheel started now. We’re already behind. And so the fear that I have is that we won’t collectively as a world wake up to the necessity of prioritizing digital literacy, mental health, and safety before it’s too late. So I’m really glad we’re having this discussion now.

Timea Suto: Thank you so much for that. And I think you’re bringing it full circle from what we’ve been discussing in the past hour and a half together. And you’re also bringing in somehow to me the spirit of the IGF. Because as I listen to you talk, it strikes me that it’s not when you say Roblox does this or one company does that, it’s not about you going away and thinking about it by yourself. Because for you to be able to develop a curriculum, you have to work with the teachers. For you to be able to find the right partner to develop a mental health application, you have to talk to mental health specialists. You have to talk to the children themselves. You have to talk to the parents. We all have to have this thing that we come together and do at the IGF, where it’s the true meeting of the minds and the meeting of the perspectives from very different backgrounds for us to then realize what are the challenges that we have and how can we bring these unusual partnerships together to actually find a response, whether we are talking about a tool for agriculture or a tool for children to navigate their online lives. It’s very different perspectives, but it’s technology in all its different forms. And technology is clearly a challenge, but it can also be the solution if we know how to use it wisely. So on that, I’d love to turn over to the audience and see if they have any reactions to what we’ve heard from our last four speakers. Yes, please, we can hear you.

Audience: Okay. Très bien. Je suis honorable Dr. Alfa Abdullahi. Hello. I’m Dr. Abdullahi. Hello. I’m Dr. Abdullah. Hello. French channel is channel two. Thank you very much. So I’m Dr. Abdullah Yaloh. I work in the Parliament of Transition in Guinea and I’m very happy to participate in this forum. This is my first time. First, I would like to give my salutations of the Parliament of Guinea to all of you. And I would like also to salute the King of Saudi Arabia and the Crown Prince. And also I would like to salute all your panel and all the participants that are here today with us. I was very interested in all the comments, especially in what the Indian panelist was saying and also the rest of the speakers. It is very important to agree in one fact. It is true technology is very important, but I completely agree that what the colleague from India said, that the use of the technology is also very important. It is as important as technology. So it is very important today to the literacy. It’s very important today. And the reason for that is because today in Guinea, we are writing a new constitution. And the use of technology has helped us to disseminate the content of the new constitution to the population, but also to foreign countries. And this has been enabled with technology and with the platform that we created, with the interactive platform that was created. And today, I can say that all Guineans know the content of our constitution, thanks to technology. And the good use of technology allows also that population adhere and agree wherever they are. And so the population agrees with the constitution. So recently, in all our country and all our members of parliaments have traveled everywhere in the country, and they knew them. And that was thanks to all the videos that was on the platform that I was talking now. All the works of the parliament were broadcasted on this platform. So everybody in Guinea and outside Guinea could follow the works of the MPs. So I agree with you. So technology. is important, but the use of technology is even more important. And literacy in the use of technology will allow to multiply this positive side of technology. And also it will decrease its negative effects. And especially when we talk about young people, teenagers and children, we are very happy to participate to this forum. And I would like to request to all the panelists to give some examples regarding the good use of technology, above all with Internet, in your own countries. So we can share your experiences. So we could share all your good practices. Thank you very much.

Timea Suto: So what we’ve heard here is the importance of civic participation, which I think was something that the panel didn’t mention, but it clearly is one more element of where technology can be of help. And we were asked as panelists to give some examples that the rest of the world could learn from, some good examples of the use of technology in your regions, in your countries or in your organizations. So if anybody would like to take up that request from our speaker from the Parliament of Kenya.

Shivnath Thukra: Yeah, firstly, I want to thank my friend from Kenya for acknowledging some of the things that I talked about. I can give you many examples of successful use of technology, but I’m sure everybody’s much more competent than I am to talk about the successes. So I’ll give you a bit of a fun example if you, in the light of governance, for example. If you’re writing the new constitution, how about using AI tools to make it interactive? Ask them how they would be able to apply the principles of constitution in their real life, right? Just as an example, when you do law writing, when you write a new legislation, in India now, there is a trend that when they publish the law, they use illustrations. How will the law actually apply? I think it’s a commendable exercise for people to have that connect when you write a law. Otherwise, law is written by lawyers and then we only get to use it when it is challenged in the court. But if you suddenly start writing laws with illustrations of your day-to-day example of how that law would be applicable to you, that is one very interesting use of technology that one can do. But in terms of what you talked about, sir, in governance and how the parliamentarians, when they went to different parts of the country and people could connect to them, there are many such examples. One closer to my heart, which I really feel strongly about, obviously related to a meta platform, it’s on Instagram, is how you can take up your own causes of your country, which you want to highlight and have the creator ecosystem kind of showcase it. Tourism is a great example in India, where the creators actually run a competition. India probably would be the only country which has a recognized national creator awards. So creators are given issues and ideas and then they run a contest and creators showcase different locations in the country. Well, the marketing department of government of tourism could spend a lot of money, but if you have these creators with millions of followers showcasing different locations in the country, that goes a very, very long way. So there are many such examples, but more in the space of artificial intelligence, I would say there are examples where in the medical field you are able to create solutions on diagnostic health. So for example, we are trying to work with a firm where the initial assessment of somebody in a remote area doesn’t need immediate medical interaction. They can talk to a tool and asking them their symptoms, the initial assessment, so primary health care can be solved at a very fundamental level. So there are many such examples we can talk about. I mean India with a population of 1.4 billion, there are many of millions such examples, but I’ll pause there, but just to say, I mean what Tami said I think is so critical that if technology companies do not take up these challenges, who else will? Because we recognize that our products have immense upside, but certain challenges which we have to all work together, collaborate together, so to solve for safety, literacy, awareness in itself. For example, in Instagram, there are 50 tools for parents to kind of help children, but how do we make sure everybody gets to know it? And every time we talk to a policymaker and we tell them about it, they’re super happy that we are doing something. So I think it’s about taking responsibility and driving it.

Timea Suto: Thank you.

Tami Bhaumik: And I just like to add on to this and in terms of a recommendation. So a year and a half ago, we hosted a workshop with the digital wellness lab at Boston Children’s Hospital, Harvard Medical, and we worked on a hypothesis. In five to ten years from now, the online world can be safer and more civil than in real life. If we were to make that a reality, what would need to happen in technology, innovation, policy, and education? We invited over a hundred thought leaders from around the world, from safety NGOs, to academics, researchers, child psychiatrists, and industry, and we brought in teens. And we learned a lot. To cut to the chase. The one thing that came out so strongly was to include teens meaningfully through everything that we do. And I can honestly say I work for a technology company, and while we certainly have focus groups, things like that, we don’t actually, from beginning to end, include youth meaningfully. This year, from that workshop, we changed things. We’ve announced a teen council that we are integrating into our work. One of the funny things about when we were in this workshop, all of these smart people were talking about things that should be done on the internet. What should be done to make platforms safer? And this young 17-year-old woman started shaking her head. And she looked at us, and I looked at her and said, what’s going on? She said, that’s not how we use it. That’s not how we use the internet. We got it wrong, all of these smart people. So as you’re writing and drafting this new constitution, please remember children, please remember teens, and incorporate them meaningfully through the development of that framework.

Timea Suto: Thank you for that. Jose, then Gbenga, and then Alaa.

José Renato Laranjeira de Pereira: Thank you. Merci beaucoup pour cette question. Thank you for this question. It is easier for me to speak in French. Thank you. Thank you very much for the question. I will give two examples and then reflect a little bit about this issue as a whole. I think that the example that I’m going to give is once again of the homeless workers movement in Brazil, because I think that they have a very good initiative. Maybe one of the members here is in the audience, Ale Barbosa, which is Contrate quem luta, work hire who fights. I think that’s a good translation for it. And the idea was to create a platform linked to WhatsApp through which people could hire for services in their houses, services in their office, or even for delivery services. Hire people who were homeless and were working together and were part of the initiatives of this movement, which is very big throughout Brazil. So I think this is a great initiative. And one thing that they always discussed was we need to appropriate these technologies in a way that they also serves our benefits when we do not have the means to reach another platform, other platforms, other delivery platforms, for instance, or services as a whole. So this was a very important initiative. And another one was a platform that was built with by incorporation between a an NGO in Brazil which works on research in the Amazon. I don’t want to be unfair here, but it’s better that I don’t say the name because I’m not 100% sure who I can’t remember exactly the name of the organization. But they did this platform through which indigenous peoples themselves would include data on deforestation for them to have like a better assessment on the ground and that does not rely on satellite imagery to map deforestation sites in Brazil. So like this was a very important initiative which I think it represents not only co-creation but also self-governed data. And I would say as a whole, especially when we think about providing public services through technology, is that we always remember to keep the analog. Many people do not know how to use technology, many people don’t have access to it. We talked a lot about connectivity, that’s crucial. And also when they have access to it, we may face challenges regarding, for instance, language, which has already been talked about in this panel, or even the possibility of the capacity of explaining oneself, of understanding what one’s rights are. That’s why the human aspect is fundamental to be maintained throughout this process.

Timea Suto: Thank you for that. Gbenga?

Gbenga Sesan: Yes, thanks. I mean that’s a direct question, it’s as direct as it gets. And half of my work is in digital rights, human rights and digital age. And over the last few years, one of the most important uses that I’ve seen young people put technology to, you know, used to, is in political participation, in civic participation. I spend my time worrying about how the digital civic space is closing and I see young people do creative things, conversations that you can’t have on TV stations because of concerns, conversations you can’t have on the radio, you can have those conversations in safe digital spaces. And I think that the example of writing a constitution and getting feedback from young people is a perfect example of political participation. It’s not just about elections, it’s not just about choosing leaders, it’s about envisioning the future together, participating in it and making sure that young people are not, you know, involved in tokenistic examples, but they can actually participate in this. And we’ve seen that, you know, happen with a very good example that I was involved with is in 2011, the electoral agency at the time in Nigeria had said, you have to wait for the voting to finish and then for four days before you see the results. I’m not that patient. My parents may be that patient, but I want to see the results immediately. And so a group of us gathered, designed a mobile app. We used the acronym of what the Electoral Commission had used, it was Registered Voter Database. So we called it ReVoter. We created an app such that while we were on the queue and people were voting and the results were announced in each location, we were able to use that platform to aggregate and to see what the result was. And when the results were eventually announced, to say, OK, you know what? We think this is correct because the margin of error is not large. And that is where technology is useful in participation.

Timea Suto: Thank you so much. Ala?

Alaa Abdullah: I think the example that I want to give, it highlights what you have been mentioning. The question was, how can digital or technology help? And let us as the panelists share our learning and example, and I think as DCO, one of the things that we thought is the exact same thing. How can we enable governments and countries to share their successes and their digital solutions that they are using in their digital transformation? This is why we created a platform called Impact, where all our member states can list their digital solutions that they are using for their digital government for other countries to learn from, to share their experience. And why reinvent the wheel? If a solution is deployed, for example, a digital ID solution is deployed in one country that is successful, that has been working very well. Another country in need of such a similar solution, why do we have to redo? I think it’s very important for us to have a platform where we can share the experience of another country and just take it and deploy it. And this is why we created the impact. And I think this wouldn’t be possible without the technology and without having those platforms that you can share the experience. Another life example is that before conferences, if we do not have access to the internet, we have to do it online. It means that all conversation, all questions is being streamed to a million of people without being physically here. So this is a life example of how technology is enabling us to share our knowledge, to even hear different voices at the same time.

Timea Suto: That’s a great example. Sally, you had your hand up first. And then we go to you. Thank you.

Sally Wentworth: Thank you very much. I think this builds on the last two comments, and I’m really impressed by the way that you spoke about using technology to improve transparency and engagement in your policy development. And building on that, I think there are important lessons and opportunities through that, which is the technology can allow coalitions to develop. And I think that’s a really important example, and I think it’s a great example of the global encryption coalition, for example, which has over 400 members around the world who spot threats to encryption or identify opportunities to promote better online security, and, as you said, they compare and learn from each other. So where one stakeholder may have encountered a particular challenge and successfully advocated and worked in their own way to address that challenge, there are other challenges that are shared online through this coalition. This is almost all done virtually, to support activities in other communities. And we see that kind of civil society coalition building happening online in really powerful ways, and I think my advice to our colleague is to be open to that kind of advocacy that happens from civil of the transparency that you’re providing in support of your constitution is not just about consultation but about building together and leveraging your civil society that is able to organize online to be part of that conversation. And if we circle back to some of the comments earlier about connectivity, I think what you’re speaking about in terms of involving parents is every bit as important as when we think about connectivity solutions. Being able to engage those communities, giving them agency in the conversation about the solutions that will work for them in the languages they speak, consistent with the culture that they are coming from, is what will make the connectivity powerful for them. This is not a drop connectivity in and leave. This is about enabling those communities to be part of that solution. And I think if that’s the approach we take, we will go much farther than we’ve been able to go so far. And those communities will be then part of building the digital economy of the future and not being on the receiving end of it. Thank you.

Timea Suto: Thelma, you wanted to say a few words as well.

Thelma Quaye: Thank you. And I think I’d also like to commend our colleague from Guinea. At Smart Africa, what we do is to leverage what countries are doing well to, you know, show the other countries so there’s leapfrogging and you don’t fall through the same mistakes that they may have done. So one practical example, for instance, in the healthcare is what Rwanda is doing using zipline where they are using drones powered by AI and what this AI does is to measure and check and know where blood supplies are low, for instance. And the drone takes it directly to these remote areas. And these are places that are usually hard to reach. And this is a practical example within the healthcare. But also even on the policy side, we are starting to use AI to harmonize. It’s much easier when, you know, you have so many different policies on the same topic. You can always leverage AI to harmonize. In the same vein, countries can also leverage the same technology to learn on what are the shortfalls of my policy, for instance. So these are some of the things. There are so many other examples, but these are what I wanted to share. Thank you.

Timea Suto: Thank you very much. Dr. Imagawa. Yes.

Takuo Imagawa: Thank you, Chair. I was very inspired very much by today’s discussion among the panelists and also from the audience. And it seems to me that there are a lot of discussions about using the digital technology in school or education process. And I think it’s very important to build up some specific projects to involve a lot of stakeholders. Let me introduce an example in my country. not my ministry, but the Ministry of Education, and we introduced a specific project called the Giga School Project, and it distributes a PC to every student in the elementary school and junior high school students. In that way, the vendors, the industrial sector, vendors and telecom operators are incentivized to join the project, because they can get money from the government. And also, teachers and students are of course involved, and also parents should be involved, because the homeworks have to be submitted through the PC or tablet, and also parents have to prevent the students from making access to the illegal or harmful information. So I think a specific project can involve a lot of stakeholders, and it’s very important for the government, and also the industrial sector, civil society and academia to build up a very good project involving a lot of stakeholders. Thank you.

Timea Suto: Thank you very much. So we’re coming up to the end of our session, actually we have one minute left for the two hours that we’ve had together. So I’m going to ask the indulgence of the audience to maybe bear with us at our panel for a little longer. I understand we have another intervention.

Audience: Thank you very much, I would also like to express myself in French, if you don’t mind. I wanted to share the experience of Senegal, I am the coordinator of a fund that is dedicated to access to universal services in the areas of disinheritance. I don’t, ma’am, please, because I don’t think we have interpretation. Can you hear English? So I am Mrs. Job. I coordinate a fund that has a fund for kids for digital inclusion. What you mentioned today is very important when we speak about ethical access for Internet where we have a positive change, actually. We reach zones sometimes where we search for connectivity, and some teenagers find a way to connect. So the state services are very important today in this digital world. My friend from Guinea mentioned the services they guarantee, but also we have societies that are not well structured. Because of this new component, digitally, in addition to databases and usage that is not really known for the community, so these actually are changing the modalities of the society, and these new AIs ask us and put new challenges, and we ask ourselves where are we heading, where our societies are heading, if we are really serving them, what are we doing? So these questions related to training to women, women who are… forgotten, or when we speak of uncomprehensive model of internet usage by teenagers, it makes us ask how and what is the future of societies that are already traditional in their way of living. So we should not forget that these training are important. Experiences are very important, their feedback also, to know how can we actually keep up with these transformations and have a positive transformation in society without unstructured values and destruction of values, cultural values, especially that are important for our life together. So how can this be an ally to us? This is my remark. That’s it. Thank you so much.

Timea Suto: I wanted to ask our panelists to each share a word in takeaway, but I am being told that we are running out of time, so I think I will share one word myself. Actually, two words, and those two words are thank you. Thank you to all of you here who have spent the last two hours in conversation with us, to all the speakers for making your way here to Riyadh and sharing your expertise and knowledge, to everybody in the audience who has listened and participated. Thank you to the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory Group who pulled this session together, and the coordinators, Manny and Chris, for bringing us together and inviting us for the conversation. And thank you to the IGF for making this possible, and I hope we can have many more conversations like this together. So a big round of applause to the speakers and to all of you. Thank you.

Agreement Points

Importance of connectivity for development and access to services

Gbenga Sesan

Thelma Quaye

Sally Wentworth

Takuo Imagawa

Connectivity can be a matter of life and death, enabling access to healthcare and education

Only 40% of Africans are connected to the internet due to infrastructure and affordability challenges

Community-centered connectivity approaches can empower local communities to build and maintain their own networks

Japan has achieved near-universal connectivity through a mix of competition policy and government support

Speakers agree that connectivity is crucial for development, enabling access to vital services like healthcare and education. They emphasize the need to address connectivity challenges through various approaches.

Need for multi-stakeholder collaboration to address digital divide

Thelma Quaye

Sally Wentworth

Takuo Imagawa

Alaa Abdulaal

Government intervention and public-private partnerships are needed to connect underserved areas

Civil society coalitions can leverage technology to advocate for better policies

Multistakeholder cooperation is essential to address digital divide challenges

Digital platforms can help share successful digital solutions between countries

Speakers agree that addressing the digital divide requires collaboration between governments, private sector, civil society, and international organizations. They emphasize the importance of knowledge sharing and joint efforts.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers highlight the potential of technology to empower marginalized communities and address specific local needs.

Shivnath Thukra

Jose Renato Laranjeira de Pereira

Open source technologies and AI can help bridge connectivity gaps and language barriers

Platforms connecting homeless workers to job opportunities show potential of appropriating technology

Both speakers emphasize the importance of empowering young people to engage safely and effectively in the digital world, whether for civic participation or general online activities.

Gbenga Sesan

Tami Bhaumik

Technology enables civic participation and political engagement for young people

Digital literacy and safety education are crucial, especially for children and parents

Unexpected Consensus

Importance of involving local communities and youth in technology development and policy-making

Jose Renato Laranjeira de Pereira

Tami Bhaumik

Sally Wentworth

Indigenous communities face both benefits and risks from increased connectivity

Digital literacy and safety education are crucial, especially for children and parents

Community-centered connectivity approaches can empower local communities to build and maintain their own networks

Despite coming from different backgrounds (academia, industry, and civil society), these speakers all emphasized the importance of involving local communities, especially youth and indigenous peoples, in shaping technology development and policies. This consensus highlights a growing recognition of the need for inclusive approaches in digital development.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The speakers generally agreed on the critical importance of connectivity for development, the need for multi-stakeholder collaboration to address the digital divide, and the potential of technology to empower marginalized communities. There was also consensus on the importance of digital literacy and safety, especially for young people.

Consensus level

The level of consensus among the speakers was relatively high, particularly on broad principles. This suggests a growing alignment in the international community on key digital development issues. However, there were some differences in emphasis and approach, particularly regarding the role of different stakeholders and the specific technologies to be prioritized. This implies that while there is general agreement on goals, there may still be debates on the best methods to achieve them.

Different Viewpoints

Approach to connectivity solutions

Sally Wentworth

Takuo Imagawa

Community-centered connectivity approaches can empower local communities to build and maintain their own networks

Japan has achieved near-universal connectivity through a mix of competition policy and government support

Wentworth advocates for a bottom-up, community-centered approach to connectivity, while Imagawa highlights Japan’s success through government-led policies and support.

Unexpected Differences

Focus on safety vs. connectivity

Tami Bhaumik

Thelma Quaye

Digital literacy and safety education are crucial, especially for children and parents

Only 40% of Africans are connected to the internet due to infrastructure and affordability challenges

While most speakers focused on increasing connectivity, Bhaumik unexpectedly emphasized the importance of digital safety and literacy, highlighting a potential tension between rapid connectivity expansion and ensuring user safety.

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement centered around the best approaches to achieve connectivity, the role of different stakeholders, and the balance between expanding access and ensuring safety.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among speakers was moderate. While there were different perspectives on how to achieve digital inclusion, most speakers agreed on the overall goal of increasing connectivity and leveraging technology for development. These differences in approach could lead to varied policy recommendations and implementation strategies for addressing the digital divide.

Partial Agreements

Both speakers acknowledge the potential of technology to bridge gaps, but Pereira emphasizes the need to consider potential risks and challenges, especially for indigenous communities.

Shivnath Thukra

Jose Renato Laranjeira de Pereira

Open source technologies and AI can help bridge connectivity gaps and language barriers

Indigenous communities face both benefits and risks from increased connectivity

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers highlight the potential of technology to empower marginalized communities and address specific local needs.

Shivnath Thukra

Jose Renato Laranjeira de Pereira

Open source technologies and AI can help bridge connectivity gaps and language barriers

Platforms connecting homeless workers to job opportunities show potential of appropriating technology

Both speakers emphasize the importance of empowering young people to engage safely and effectively in the digital world, whether for civic participation or general online activities.

Gbenga Sesan

Tami Bhaumik

Technology enables civic participation and political engagement for young people

Digital literacy and safety education are crucial, especially for children and parents

Key Takeaways

Connectivity is crucial for enabling access to healthcare, education, and economic opportunities in underserved areas

Community-centered and multistakeholder approaches are important for sustainable connectivity solutions

Digital literacy, safety education, and skills development are essential complements to connectivity

Open source technologies and AI can help bridge connectivity gaps and language barriers

Technology enables new forms of civic participation and political engagement, especially for young people

Collaboration between governments, private sector, and civil society is necessary to address digital divide challenges

Resolutions and Action Items

Create platforms for sharing successful digital solutions between countries

Integrate digital literacy into education systems from an early age

Develop safety tools and resources for parents and children using online platforms

Involve youth meaningfully in technology policy development processes

Unresolved Issues

How to make devices and connectivity more affordable in low-income areas

Balancing the benefits and risks of connectivity for indigenous communities

Addressing potential negative societal impacts of rapid digitalization

Ensuring equitable access to emerging technologies like AI across different regions

Suggested Compromises

Using a mix of government support and market competition to expand connectivity

Maintaining analog options for public services alongside digital solutions

Leveraging open source technologies to enable localized and sovereign digital solutions

Connectivity could be a matter of life and death.

speaker

Gbenga Sesan

reason

This powerful statement reframes connectivity as not just a convenience, but a critical necessity. It challenges the audience to consider the real-world implications of the digital divide.

impact

This comment set a serious tone for the discussion and emphasized the urgency of addressing connectivity issues. It led to further examples of how connectivity impacts education, healthcare, and economic opportunities.

We need government intervention now. It doesn’t have to be a private sector thing anymore. It has to be a PPP where government is now investing in infrastructure, for instance, and giving this infrastructure to the private sector to build upon.

speaker

Thelma Quaye

reason

This comment introduces a shift in thinking about how to address connectivity challenges, moving from a purely private sector approach to a public-private partnership model.

impact

This sparked discussion about the role of government in providing digital infrastructure and the need for collaboration between public and private sectors. It led to further exploration of policy frameworks and incentives.

Communities can connect themselves, I think is a powerful approach to this, and one that, again, as I said, the Internet Society has been committed to and will continue to be committed to.

speaker

Sally Wentworth

reason

This comment introduces the concept of community-centered connectivity solutions, challenging the top-down approach often taken in addressing the digital divide.

impact

It shifted the conversation to consider grassroots and local solutions, leading to discussions about empowering communities and the importance of local context in connectivity initiatives.

Today, it is possible using a program like NLLB 200, which Meta runs. It’s a program called No Language Left Behind, where almost 200 languages can be translated directly with each other.

speaker

Shivnath Thukra

reason

This comment introduces a concrete technological solution to language barriers, which is a key aspect of digital inclusion often overlooked in connectivity discussions.

impact

It broadened the conversation beyond physical connectivity to include linguistic accessibility, leading to further discussion on how AI and technology can address various aspects of the digital divide.

Parents have no idea how to guide their children in this new internet world. It is up to us collectively to make sure that we have the power to be able to educate parents so they can help their children to thrive, and that is through industry.

speaker

Tami Bhaumik

reason

This comment highlights the often-overlooked aspect of parental education in digital literacy, shifting the focus from just connecting people to ensuring they can navigate the digital world safely.

impact

It led to a deeper discussion on digital literacy, safety, and the responsibilities of tech companies in educating users. It also introduced the importance of intergenerational learning in the digital age.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by broadening the scope of the conversation from merely providing physical connectivity to addressing the multifaceted challenges of digital inclusion. They highlighted the need for collaborative approaches involving governments, private sector, and communities, while also emphasizing the importance of addressing linguistic barriers, safety concerns, and digital literacy. The discussion evolved from a focus on infrastructure to a more holistic view of creating a meaningful and safe digital experience for all users, regardless of their background or location.

How can we create a uniform digital framework for evaluating student examinations worldwide?

speaker

Arjun Singh Bjoria (audience member)

explanation

This question highlights the need for standardized assessment methods in education using digital technologies across different countries and education systems.

How can we meaningfully include teens and youth in the development of online safety policies and technologies?

speaker

Tami Bhaumik

explanation

This area for research emphasizes the importance of incorporating young people’s perspectives and experiences when designing safety measures for digital platforms.

How can we use AI tools to make constitutional drafting and legal processes more interactive and accessible to citizens?

speaker

Shivnath Thukra

explanation

This suggestion points to the potential for using AI to enhance civic engagement and understanding of legal documents.

How can we ensure that analog alternatives are maintained alongside digital public services?

speaker

Jose Renato Laranjeira de Pereira

explanation

This area for research addresses the need to cater to populations who may not have access to or the ability to use digital technologies.

How can we leverage AI to harmonize policies across different countries and identify shortfalls in existing policies?

speaker

Thelma Quaye

explanation

This research area explores the potential of AI in improving policy-making and international cooperation.

How can we ensure that digital transformation positively impacts traditional societies without disrupting important cultural values?

speaker

Audience member (Mrs. Job)

explanation

This question highlights the need to balance technological progress with cultural preservation in diverse societies.

Summary

This panel discussion focused on Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI) and its potential to be consumer-centric, particularly in the context of financial inclusion. The conversation centered around experiences from Brazil, India, and other developing countries. Panelists discussed the benefits of DPIs, such as improved financial inclusion and increased competition in payment systems, as exemplified by Brazil’s PIX and India’s UPI.

Key challenges were highlighted, including the need for meaningful connectivity, cybersecurity concerns, and the importance of effective grievance redressal mechanisms. The Indian experience revealed issues with fraud detection, language barriers in customer support, and the need for better digital and financial literacy among users.

Panelists emphasized the importance of transparency, accessibility, and user-friendly design in DPI systems. They stressed the need for clear communication about consumer rights and timely dispute resolution. The discussion also touched on the role of regulators and financial institutions in ensuring consumer protection.

The importance of a systemic approach to DPI implementation was underscored, with suggestions for integrating different DPI components (identity, payments, data) from the early stages of development. Panelists also highlighted the need for proper safeguards and policy frameworks before implementing DPIs.

The discussion concluded with recommendations for improving consumer-centricity in DPIs, including regular audits, effective monitoring systems, and building DPIs “in the open” with public consultation and feedback mechanisms. Overall, the panel emphasized that while DPIs have the potential to be consumer-centric, careful design, implementation, and ongoing evaluation are crucial to achieving this goal.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– The benefits and challenges of Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI), particularly for payments systems like Brazil’s PIX and India’s UPI

– The importance of meaningful connectivity and digital literacy for DPI adoption and use

– Consumer protection issues related to DPI, including fraud, grievance redressal, and dispute resolution

– The need for safeguards, transparency, and multi-stakeholder involvement in DPI design and implementation

The overall purpose of the discussion was to examine whether and how Digital Public Infrastructure can be made consumer-centric, using examples from countries like Brazil and India to highlight both successes and areas for improvement.

The tone of the discussion was largely analytical and constructive. Speakers acknowledged the benefits of DPI while also critically examining its shortcomings, particularly around consumer protection. There was an overall sense of cautious optimism about DPI’s potential, balanced with calls for more safeguards and consumer-focused design. The tone became slightly more urgent when discussing fraud and consumer grievances, but remained solution-oriented throughout.

Speakers

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

– Alexandre Barbosa: Researcher at the Weizenbaum Institute of the Berlin University of Arts

– Ritul Gaur: Policy Advisor for the Digital Impact Alliance (DIAL)

– Saroja Sundaram: Executive Director of Citizen Consumer and Civic Action Group

Additional speakers:

– Audience member: From Ethiopia, discussing digital ID development

– James (surname is missing): From Bloggers Association of Kenya

Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI) and Consumer-Centricity: A Comprehensive Analysis

This panel discussion explored the potential for Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI) to be consumer-centric, with a particular focus on financial inclusion. Drawing from experiences in Brazil, India, and other developing countries, the panellists examined the benefits, challenges, and necessary safeguards for effective DPI implementation.

Benefits and Implementation of DPI

The discussion began with an overview of DPI’s potential to increase financial inclusion and consumer welfare. Luca Belli, Professor at FGV Law School, highlighted three main categories of DPI: digital IDs, digital payments, and personal data consent managers. He emphasised that DPIs can help break monopolies and promote competition in financial services.

Successful implementations of DPI were showcased, with Alexandre Barbosa, Researcher at the Weizenbaum Institute, discussing Brazil’s PIX system. PIX has been instrumental in promoting digital payments in Brazil, with over 140 million users and processing more than 2 billion transactions per month. Barbosa highlighted PIX’s success in fostering financial inclusion, noting that it’s free for individuals and has low costs for businesses.

Similarly, Ritul Gaur, Policy Advisor for the Digital Impact Alliance, noted that India’s Unified Payments Interface (UPI) has enabled widespread digital transactions, constituting 80% of digital payments in India. UPI processes over 10 billion transactions per month, demonstrating its significant impact on India’s digital economy.

Challenges, Risks, and Consumer Protection in DPI Implementation

Despite the benefits, the panellists identified several challenges in DPI implementation and emphasized the need for robust consumer protection measures:

1. Meaningful Connectivity and Digital Literacy: Luca Belli stressed the necessity of meaningful connectivity for DPI adoption, highlighting that without proper infrastructure, the benefits of DPI cannot be fully realised. Saroja Sundaram, Executive Director of Citizen Consumer and Civic Action Group, pointed out that language barriers and lack of digital literacy hinder DPI usage, particularly in rural areas.

2. Cybercrime and Fraud: Ritul Gaur raised concerns about the increasing cyber crimes and frauds associated with UPI adoption in India. He described UPI as a “financial crime hotspot”, noting that the fraud helpline in India receives about 100,000 calls daily. This underscores the need for robust security measures and consumer education.

3. Consumer Redressal Mechanisms: Saroja Sundaram advocated for clear communication and user-friendly platforms for consumer redressal. She stressed the need for regular audits and monitoring of DPI systems to ensure they remain responsive to consumer needs. Sundaram also argued that ombudsman offices should be independent from regulators to ensure impartial handling of consumer complaints.

4. Online Dispute Resolution: Ritul Gaur suggested implementing online dispute resolution (ODR) for DPI-related issues, noting that this could provide a more accessible means of addressing consumer grievances without resorting to court proceedings.

Improving DPI Design and Implementation

The panellists offered several recommendations for improving DPI design and implementation:

1. Multi-stakeholder engagement: Alexandre Barbosa emphasised the importance of involving various stakeholders in DPI development and mentioned the UN DPI safeguards launched in September as a positive step.

2. Public consultation: Ritul Gaur suggested that DPI systems should be built openly with public consultation to ensure they meet user needs.

3. Digital literacy programmes: Saroja Sundaram called for customised digital literacy programmes for different consumer groups, recognising the diverse needs of various populations.

4. Proper safeguards: An audience member from Ethiopia stressed the need for appropriate safeguards and regulations to be in place before DPI implementation, citing their country’s experience with identity development driven by bank fraud concerns.

5. Integration of DPI components: Another audience member suggested integrating different DPI components (identity, payments, data) from the early stages of development to ensure interoperability.

Unresolved Issues and Future Considerations

The discussion left several issues unresolved, including how to effectively balance rapid DPI implementation with proper safeguards, address increasing cyber crimes, overcome language barriers in DPI usage and redressal mechanisms, and ensure the independence of ombudsman offices.

To address these challenges, suggestions included implementing a pre-legislative consultation policy for DPI-related regulations and creating a multi-stakeholder forum for ongoing discussions on DPI design and implementation.

Conclusion

The panel discussion revealed a cautious optimism about DPI’s potential to promote financial inclusion and improve consumer welfare. However, it also highlighted the need for careful design, implementation, and ongoing evaluation of DPI systems. The key takeaways emphasised the importance of meaningful connectivity, digital literacy, robust consumer protection mechanisms, and inclusive development processes in creating truly consumer-centric Digital Public Infrastructure. As countries continue to develop and implement DPI systems, addressing these challenges will be crucial for ensuring their success and maximizing benefits for consumers.

Luca Belli: update on our agenda. This session was supposed to be moderated by the… Oh yes, if we can also have the online participants on screen, that would be fantastic. So while we wait for the online participants to be put on screen, let me provide a little bit of update for our agenda. The session was meant to be moderated by the organizer of the session, Hannah Draper, that unfortunately had a last-minute impediment, so I will be taking over the moderation. My name is Luca Belle, I’m a professor at FGV Law School, where I direct the Center for Technology and Society at FGV. I was supposed to be a speaker of this panel, but I will also moderate it, together with me, Alessandro Barbosa, who is here with us in person, who is a researcher at the Weizenbaum Institute of the Berlin University of Arts, and with us online, we will have Saroja Sundaram, who is Executive Director of Citizen Consumer and Civic Action Group, which is a 39-year-old civil society organization based in Chennai, India, and then we will have Ritul Gaur, who is Policy Advisor for the Digital Impact Alliance, DIAL. Now, to start our conversation, let me just provide a little bit of introduction to the topic, and then I will directly provide a little bit of insight from Brazil and India, and then I will pass the floor to my colleague. and friend, Alessandro, and then we will have in order Ritu and then Saroja. What are we speaking about when we speak about digital public infrastructure, or DPIs, that became a very hot topic since the G20 in India last year, where the Indian presidency did a very interesting job in bringing to the international floor this concept of DPIs that have been implemented, debated, and studied in India for almost a decade in the context of the India stack, the digital transformation plan of India. And then they are spreading quite rapidly around the world with very good examples also from other countries, especially developing countries. We will see that Brazil has been not only experimenting, but implementing with a certain success some of these DPIs. And so DPIs are digital systems that are interoperable, they are designed to be supposedly secure, and they are built on open standards, on open specifications, so that they allow the provisions of public services, but also of private services, through this infrastructure, this digital infrastructure that is public. But also we will see that this conception of public really depends, and it is not universally defined what is public. And the difference that I’m going to illustrate between India and Brazil actually provide a very good illustration of this. Brazil has become very well known in DPI debates for PICS, it’s Digital Public Infrastructure for Payments. So usually there are three main categories. of digital public infrastructures, digital IDs, digital payments, and personal data consent managers. India has been experimenting and implementing them for several years, all three of them, and actually is now in the process of implementing another one, the online digital network for commons, the digital network for online commerce, which is a sort of grand bazaar online built on a digital public infrastructure. So we will see that there are several types of digital public infrastructure, but this specific workshop aims at discussing financial inclusion through DPIs. So the use of DPIs to build public infrastructure, digital public infrastructure for payments, right? And so here, my initial considerations that I’m blending with this introduction is that we need to have a systemic approach to this to understand how they function, what are their benefits, but also what are their limits? And I think that the cases from Brazil and India illustrates very well, and I wrote a paper about this last year for the G20 in India, for the T20, actually. And we co-authored with Hanna Draper, the organizer of this session, a T20 policy brief this year on digital public infrastructure, also stressing that the digital public infrastructure, especially DPIs for payment, could be very good example of good digital sovereignty. So of a country, but can also be not necessarily a country, could be also a regional or a municipal government, could even be group of individuals understanding the technology they’re using, developing it and regulating it in a way that is in the interest and put forward the interest, or at least should put forward the interest of the local community. Could be the municipal community, we have very good example in Brazil, for instance, the city where I live, Rio, has a very good… digital public infrastructure for taxis. There is a competitor of Uber, which is a digital public infrastructure for taxis. So you can hail a taxi through a digital public infrastructure built by a municipality. But again, here we start to, if we want to have a systemic approach, we start to understand that what is the first obstacle? To use DPIs, you need meaningful connectivity. If you are not connected, you cannot use a DPI. And I’m speaking about meaningful connectivity, not mere connectivity, because there is a lot of examples, especially in the global South, of entire countries and population that are connected through still today, through zero rating mechanism. So not meaningful connectivity, but it’s connected only through a very limited selection of apps that are sponsored, typically meta family of apps, social media. In this case, it is, even if you have the best possible DPI built by the government, people will not be able to access it. So the investment in it is thrown into the bin. And that is a very good, Brazil is a very good example of this, because 70% of the population that is now, or 80, that is now connected, almost 80 connected to the internet, only 20% of them, they have meaningful connectivity. And so when the PIX was launched during the pandemic, our digital public infrastructure for payment was created by the Brazilian Central Bank, which is an organ that understands very well these dynamics. So during the pandemic, when everyone was sort of locked down, WhatsApp wanted to launch WhatsApp payments ahead of our digital public infrastructure for payments. And the Brazilian Central Bank suspended the launch of WhatsApp payments for six months, because this would have created detrimental effect on privacy, data protection, competition, because having WhatsApp, a sort of monopoly of connectivity. everyone in Brazil is connected through WhatsApp, but very few people are connected to the rest. So it would have meant, if WhatsApp payment had been launched before our system PIX, that everyone would have used WhatsApp payment, no one would have used PIX. So understanding meaningful connectivity is key. And I think this is why when India adopted net neutrality regulations in 2016, they prohibited zero rating. Every people, especially at IGF circle, was discussing this as a tool, as a measure for net neutrality, for freedom of expression. But actually it was a digital sovereignty measure adopted by India, because they acknowledged that if they had allowed the entire population to be connected only to a certain specific set of apps, rather than the full internet, no one would have ever used both locally developed apps and also digital public infrastructure developed in India. So meaningful connectivity is key. And then when we adopt it, we can also foster competition and increase enormously consumer welfare. And here we enter the core of today’s discussion. Before PIX in Brazil, as in most other developing countries, online payments were only possible through Visa and MasterCard. So to foreign companies that charged between 3% and 5% per every transaction that happens. So the Brazilian consumer has had reverted into its pocket 3% to 5% Brazilian consumers and also sellers of goods or providers or services, they receive directly, thanks to this, 3% to 5% of what they pay for each transaction into their pockets. And this money is reverted to the national economy. And few people understand that also… So Visa and MasterCard, over the past 10 years, they have become big data companies. So most of their income does not come from the 3% to 5%, but comes from the personal data that they are collected about consumers and what they buy and when, and the profiling of them and building of artificial intelligence out of this. So why am I saying this? Because the benefit is not only a direct benefit for the consumer picks, it’s also an enormous competition boost that the competition authority would never have been capable of doing. It broke the duopoly of Visa and MasterCard and put into the picture a very new innovative solution that increased enormously consumer welfare and allowed everyone else in the field to build innovation on top of it. And this kind of competition measure would never have been possible through traditional regulation. Antitrust authority analyzing the duopoly and sanctioning, that would not have been possible. So we still also, we have to understand also DPIs. And I think that in India, this is a very present narrative. DPI is a tool of regulation. So not regulating by sanctioning, by creating a law, but regulating by creating an alternative. And this is a very powerful tool and aspect of DPIs. Of course there are limits. And again, here I don’t want to speak too much, but just to conclude, and a very final point that I want to stress is that the Brazilian experience in my perspective has improved the Indian payment, digital public infrastructure, UPI, because in India, this has been built and is currently still managed by a non-for-profit organization, the National Payment Corporation of India. And being not a public entity as in Brazil, which is managed by the Brazilian Central Bank, it’s much less transparent and accountable. If you’ve tried to file a request. to a freedom of access of information to a non-public entity, they will reply to you, I’m sorry, sir, this is not a public entity. So we are not obliged to reply to you. So if I in Brazil, I asked the Brazilian Central Bank to tell me, which data about me do you have? With whom you are sharing them? What are your security measures? They are obliged to reply to me. And if they don’t reply, I can sue them because they are a public body and they have an obligation to be transparent and accountable. But if in India, an Indian consumer asked to the National Payment Corporation of India, tell me which data about me do you have and with whom do you share them? They can perfectly reply to you, we are sorry, sir, this is not a public body. We are not bound by law to reply to you. So it’s very interesting to understand also the institutional context behind it. Of course, there is a rationale to have a non-for-profit building this. You can be suspicious of bureaucracies being very effective in building services. It’s not really their cup of tea. So they might have problem, but this also represents risks. Now, not to speak too much, let me give directly the floor to my friend, Alexandre Barbosa, to have his insight and then we can expand the conversation to our Indian friends.

Alexandre Barbosa: Thank you, Luca. Hello, everyone, both online and offline here present. Unfortunately, we don’t have here Hanna, the one who organized the session and also Jordan representing Co-Develop. Co-Develop is one of the main organizations behind this recent advancements of DPI worldwide. I mean, not speaking from a governmental perspective, but also from private and philanthropic services sectors. I will speak mainly regarding PICS in the Brazilian scenario, also considering all the dimensions beyond the design and the regulatory. aspects of payment systems. But I’d like to emphasise first this quite recent, as Luca clearly expressed here, boom of DPIs led by the G20 discussions in India, followed by Brazil this year, and likely to take place at South African presidency that just started a few weeks ago. So representing this IBAS, the India, Brazil and South Africa dialogues within this BRICS structure, kind of setting the scene for how DPIs are really taking place, especially in developing contexts. I think it’s clear how DPI brings to the table the role of the state when we think of technology development. And as an academic here, I must emphasise that despite at the policy international level, there is this, Rito is going to speak about it probably, like the sort of consensus around the three major DPIs that Luca mentioned. It’s worth highlighting the need to consider the physical and intangible material dimensions of infrastructure. I always want to talk about digital public infrastructure. So where this data is being processed, who controls this data processing infrastructures, where they are located, and so on. Indeed, BRICS succeeded, it enables payment 24×7, overcame debt cards and cash as the very first, the main payment method in Brazil. A few weeks ago, over 70% of the Brazilian population uses BRICS. It reached 10 days ago, 250 million transactions in a single day, accounting for over 120 billion Brazilian reais. And it’s worth mentioning that it is partially a result of a set of regulatory and policy measures within the National Council for Monetary Council that was kind of updating the financial system since the early 2010s. And I completely agree with Luca that it demonstrates that DPI can be popular, and in Latin America perspective popular here is mainly linked to massive. So it’s a massive, efficient, inclusive, and accessible alternative to private solutions without raising concerns about market concentration and the implication of the consumer rights and choices. And also regarding somehow to consumer rights, but more in a macro level, it’s the Brazilian Central Bank, the institution who develops and regulates PICS, stated that in September in Brazil, the Bolsa Familia beneficiaries, the major Brazilian social protection cash transfers program, which is recognized worldwide, the Brazilian Bolsa Familia beneficiaries spent three billion reais, actually three million, sorry, billion, indeed, in bets program softwares in August. So also thinking the extent to which these DPIs can enable better policies, and also a better comprehension of how the economic and socio-economic development of the country is taking place. Additionally, I’m not going too deep on that. It’s also a converging debate that we are taking place in FGV with Luca, within the CyberBRICS project. There is this convergence among DPIs and artificial intelligence that we can also think of the other way around. Also artificial intelligence properly. Yes. And also the way around artificial intelligence to DPI. Particularly in terms of embedding AI systems in a broader sense, also consider automated decisions, softwares. Last week, a Brazilian private bank, Nubank, announced that they’re gonna be the very first pigs with embedded AI, exactly to integrate, to interpret clients’ priorities and intentions and also enable these automated transactions. And also using AI to detect risky data patterns and so on, but without an explicit risk impact assessment of this combination of AI and DPI. So it’s something that we need to take a look in a forward implementation of the brand new, approved at the CNA, AI regulation last week. And also concluding here, I like to provide a reflection on the broader view on digital literacy and financial literacy. This convergence that also can be pushed and enabled through DPI implementations and regulations. When I speak here about digital literacy, I’m speaking in a broader sense. Brazil developed PNCC. It’s a national common curricular base that has among its main skills, competencies, pillars, both critical thinking and digital skills. skills, so not only being able to use a software or a digital tool itself, but knowing where this tool has been developed and who controls it, is also key here. And also, BMCC also encompasses different aspects of financial literacy, such as, it mentions different times in the document, like exploring historical, social and cultural dimensions of consumption, and so on, so there’s also room for thinking of this convergence of these two already in place that can be also adopted in other countries and scenarios, this convergence on financial and digital literacy through DPI regulations. But for this to actually take place, financial DPI promoters should also be promoters of educational DPIs, right? We also launched a T20 policy brief specifically regarding the need of developing these DPIs for education, not treating them as just sectorial application of DPI, but actually as key to promote this mention digital, critical digital literacy, and so on. And I have more here. Thank you, Luca.

Luca Belli: Excellent, Ale, and so we can now directly pass the floor to our online speakers. First, we have Ritul Gawbur. Please, Ritul, the floor is yours.

Ritul Gaur: Hi, Luca. Hi, Ale. Can you guys hear me?

Luca Belli: Yes, we hear you very well. Can we put also Ritul on screen? Can we put Ritul on screen?

Ritul Gaur: That’d be great.

Luca Belli: Thank you.

Ritul Gaur: Is it there? Should I start my address?

Luca Belli: You can start. We are not… We can hear you very well, our remote participation assistants are trying to have you on screen as well. Yes, we can see you now very well. Thank you. Go ahead.

Ritul Gaur: Perfect. Thank you so much. It’s unfortunate that I’m not there, but right there in the third row is my colleague Ibrahim. So if you guys feel that there is anything that I said, which is wrong or controversial, please catch him, and I’m sure he’ll have more answers. So I think I’m going to start my address on something very interesting I came across on Twitter, now on X few days back, is the co-founder of my first job, Think Tank, who recently tweeted that, who recently Xed that, I think there’s a need for a new consumer rights movement. Consumers have become so disempowered that there’s almost no way to seek address, and public policy has forgotten the consumer. And with that, it is so great to be on a panel where we’re actually talking about consumer and DPI in the same length and breadth. I’ve been in this world for over two years now, but haven’t really come across this in the same breadth. So I’m going to broadly talk about DPI first, and then dive into what does Indian DPI landscape looks like, particularly UPI, and then what does it mean to be a consumer in that sense. So Luca and Ale both talked about the benefits of DPI. We’ve seen how it has, in both Brazilian, Indian, Singaporean, a lot of African contexts, it has empowered users with giving them an identity. It has allowed them with the ability to transact in a fast and secure way. And most importantly, also allowed the storing and sharing of data and credentials to then avail a lot of other services. And unlike most other countries, India, Brazil, Singapore, etc. have done significantly well. But when we talk about India, it has not been an exactly easy journey, and much remains to be done in our digital journey. To lay out what remains to be done part of it, I think when we look at the Indian DPI story, we all know it works. And we’ve seen that well. But we don’t know what happens the day it does not work. The day my transaction fails, the day my authentication fails. We honestly do not know what is the grievance redressal mechanism because it’s layered through so many things. There’s the payment service provider, then there’s an app on top of it, and then there’s a grievance is done by somebody else. So we don’t really know what happens when this does not work. And I think it’s a big learning for countries who are designing who are just building out their systems. Think of it from get go that your population has enough faith that when things do not work out to be what really happens when it goes. So broadly laying out some challenges of UPI and what really does it constitute. UPI constitute 80% of digital payments in 2024 in India with billions of dollars being exchanged. It is fantastic. There’s a high amount of trust outside. There are ingenious solutions which includes small voice box that pops up every time a small payment is made. But at the same time, UPI is also a financial crime hotspot. And we do the extent that we don’t even know what we’re talking about here. There was a recent study by Dwara Research, a think tank in India, which highlighted the challenges in getting a grievance redress. And some of the findings were absolutely stark. Out of the six apps they surveyed, only four had a grievance redressal in-app grievance redressal mechanism. And India is a huge country with many, many languages. and only one out of four had tutorials or FAQs in their native languages. So essentially there’s a lot of grievance redressal mechanisms out there, but only in English for a population that does not understand English. So some very interesting finding was more men approach the grievance redressal mechanism than women. Apps almost have no support except in English, no vernaculars, all the FAQs are in English. Navigation issues. Grievance redress is hidden across multiple layers. It’s actually very difficult to find where it is. It’s not on your premium real estate where you can click and then actually go towards that. Documentation required. Sometimes the complaint mechanism is such that you can only lodge for a predefined complaint. You can’t really write your issue. So you have to pick from what’s out there. You can’t really write. So often it does not even capture all the issues and the modalities of it. You can’t do it via voice. You can’t do it via text, et cetera. Also severely constrained. Some of these apps didn’t even have a mechanism to track your ticket for the grievance that you had for. And now with this landscape, add on top of it that digital financial literacy is around 27% in India. UPI related frauds contribute to over 35% of the complaints to our National Crime Records Bureau. Can you believe it’s one third of our complaints to the National Crime Records Bureau is UPI related financial complaints. Incidents of domestic fraud in UPI rose by 85% as compared to the last financial year. So 85% jump. So, and I think if you look at it, it’s not just the payments have become easier. The payment system has become sophisticated. It is that the fraudsters have become really smart. Like they can clone a screen, they can clone an app. They can let you click on a particular thing from far away every day. In fact, in my hometown, in a tier 3 city, I hear somebody losing money, etc. So this has become all too very common. Now, I think it would be unfair to not talk about solutions. So I think from a very broad point of view, the two overall objectives on financial sector regulations are provide adequate consumer protection and protection against systemic risk. So consumer protection would depend on the speed with which fraud is detected, which is extremely important, and at the speed at which judicial process or whatever resolution arbitration takes place to make it work. And clearly, there have been some steps in India’s case which are working towards it. The central bank has integrated an ombudsman scheme which has integrated all ombudsmen so that if any complaint which is unresolved within 30 days, they can take it up to the ombudsman. In the payment system vision lineup, they have also introduced something called ODR, online dispute resolution, so that people don’t have to go to court for the smallest of the court cases because court cases in India are humongous. They go on for years and years, and people don’t really have an out if they actually get into a litigation affair. But sadly, much has not moved on this. There are a lot of other use cases for DPIs. As Ali was talking about, ONDC, which is essentially a big bazaar, has integrated online dispute resolution, but that has not happened in the case of UPI. There are various platforms, etc., which is launched by different ministries to just track and report what kind of financial crimes are happening. There is a national helpline that has been launched. It’s called 1930, where you can quickly report a fraud. And then there is a central bank that has also launched a central payment fraud information registry, which essentially keeps a track of all the frauds and then circulates it across all network participants. I think some updates on this, that the 1930 helpline has been getting 67,000 calls every day. 67,000 calls for frauds every day. The central bank tracker of the different complaints that the dashboard has over 1.1 million complaints on digital payment fraud, including for different channels. So I think there is some things which the state has been trying to do. There is no overarching, we don’t have a data protection rules out yet. We have a legislation, but there’s no rules out yet. So that hinders the consumer to actually avail that route. We don’t have a overarching financial sector regulation, which actually protects the consumer at the end of it, but we have these small tidbits of schemes, et cetera, which allows the consumer to be protected. Now, if you were to ask me that, what is it that the top three things that we should focus on in order to make consumer the focus of a robust financial DPI in India, I think the first would be work on ODR. Online dispute resolution is a very good mechanism to not go to court, but also find out a way out where the dispute can be resolved and consumer can get essentially a faster recourse to justice. Simplify user experience. I think all the apps, regardless of whichever app you use for UPI transaction, should have a similar kind of experience in reporting a fraud or financial transaction misplacing. Because if every app has a different mechanism, it’s very difficult for a large illiterate population, not illiterate, but large, not financially literate population to go and resolve for that out. So make sure it is a consistent experience throughout all apps. And I think more importantly than not, which is where I think a role of a lot of other players come into, the telecom, et cetera, improve fraud detection. If my way to actually. identify and report fraud is easy, then if there could be tags, etc. Other entities can also loop in and make it a robust way that fraud detection becomes easy. Crowdsourcing or fraud detection, suspicious activities can be detected and tracked and reported. I think that could lead for a robust financial DPI with the consumer at the center. That’s about it. Over to you guys.

Luca Belli: Thank you very much, Ritu. Very interesting points, especially regarding the booming cyber crimes and frauds in UPI, which clearly is an issue that must be addressed with further and more seriousness. Now, speaking about redress in terms of how can consumers try to cope with this kind of unfortunate situations and more, we have Saroja Sundaram, who has been dealing with this and other internet, digital literacy issues that can be also plugged into this discussion for some years. So please, Saroja, the floor is yours.

Saroja Sundaram: Thank you, Luca. I think my colleague, my friend Ritu has covered most of the concerns that we are facing on the ground. And as he had rightly mentioned, there are several positive aspects to this, which has been, which was covered by him, actually. So we recently did a study of around 2000 consumers, of users of digital financial services from the rural areas. So the findings were actually quite interesting, because most of the people, even street vendors today use UPI systems. So digital transactions that way has penetrated to the lowest level. And like everyone, seem to like, enjoy using it because of its convenience. But then there are some challenges as well. As pointed out by Ritul, I think it is across the platform and especially from rural areas, there are specific challenges. And most of the, like the country is, the citizens are from these areas. And so it’s very important for the regulator and the government agencies to actually look at the ground scenario on what is actually happening on the ground, how consumers are like the regulations, the policies that they frame, how far, how effectively it reaches the last mile is something that they need to assess, I feel, before they assess to actually see how they could strengthen implementation of their policies and their regulations so that consumers stand to benefit, even from the remotest area of the country stand to benefit. So Luka, as you pointed out, in India, again, connectivity, as you mentioned, mindful connectivity, meaningful connectivity is very important, I feel, because network connectivity in rural areas appears to be a challenge. So UPI transactions, the chances of double transaction, and then difficulty in getting the money back, all these are some of the challenges that we saw when we spoke with the consumers, because the internet connectivity is intermittent or very poor, so they have challenges there. And also the other concern, as Ritul pointed out, is about the redress mechanism. People don’t know where to complain, actually. Even the first step as to where to go into the app, they know to make a transaction. So it’s only like a QR code scan or just enter the number and just the transaction is through. But then to make a complaint, how to register a complaint and how to take it forward in case someone helps them with registering a complaint to take it to the next level in case they don’t get an address, what happens? And again, they don’t have the content in vernacular language. So that proves to be a challenge. So especially from a country like India with multiple languages, it’s very difficult for consumers actually. So that is another challenge that consumers don’t know how to deal with. And digital literacy is very limited. So we need to have customized and tailor-made literacy programs for consumers. Only then it will be, and it should be a continued engagement. And only then consumers will know what they are up to and how they can get issues addressed. In fact, I wanted to suggest, I want to suggest a few steps that should be taken to improve this situation actually from the various stakeholders. First is actually about accessibility and transparency. Consumer, when we talk about address mechanisms, they should be easy to understand and should be accessible to consumers. And transparency about the process, about the timelines, about the eligibility criteria, and all these should be readily available to the consumer so that it builds the trust, consumer trust. And user-friendly, the platforms should be user-friendly. That is also very important. So consumers should be easily, readily able to file complaints, track the status of their case, and receive guidance. And any kind of complaint, they should be able to upload or inform someone about the, not everyone will be familiar with the typing or writing. So they should be able to, there should be some other process, way by which they could actually record their complaint so that they are, and they should have this multilingual support as well. And clear communication, actually, provide consumers with clear communication about their rights, the steps in the redress process, and the outcomes should be available to the consumers. Similarly, timely and effective dispute resolution is very important. If that is not there, time-bound redressal, if it is not there, then it is going to be very difficult for consumers, which is what is happening today, unfortunately. And we need alternative dispute resolution also. Under the consumer protection law, we have mediation as an option for consumers to actually seek redress. So I think, and India, the Indian government, the Ministry of Consumer Affairs is actively promoting mediation in all the consumer commissions, the consumer courts. Mediation centers are required to be made available so that consumers can, say, get redress through mediation. Similarly, something like this online, some alternative dispute resolution mechanism should be available for consumers so that they are able to quickly seek redress for their issues. And compensation also. If the consumer is entitled to compensation or reimbursement, then that should also be processed quickly so that they are not harassed further. They have already lost their money and they should not be harassed further. We do have certain regulations in place. It’s not that there is nothing at all. We do have, when it comes to online transactions, there is the zero liability. There are situations where the consumer is totally responsible. Limited liability of consumers. All these are there in place, but then it has to be time bound, whatever the mechanisms. They should not be further harassed is what I feel. And I think the service providers, the financial institutions also have a role to play. They need to be actually more proactive to ensure that the citizens, if they face a problem, their issues are addressed. They should come forward to actually help consumers in such scenarios instead of actually immediately going on the defensive. This is what happens. So this is a challenge that needs to be addressed. And ombudsman. So in India, we have this body. It’s supposed to be an independent body, but unfortunately, it acts as an extended arm of the regulator. And so it’s like not every consumer will be able to easily approach the ombudsman’s office. So this is another thing. They have to be independent. They need to stay away from the regulator, and they should not be housed inside the regulator’s office, which intimidates a common man, actually. So I think that is something that we should have. They sit separately, and they handle issues separately so that consumers feel confident and trust the ombudsman’s office to go and register, escalate their complaint. You cannot register a complaint before the ombudsman directly. So you need to exhaust all the other avenues, like approaching the branch or the service provider directly. And then there is this internal ombudsman mechanism as well, where they can escalate their complaint. And then as a next step, they can approach this integrated ombudsman, who’s available for the consumers. But then it’s very important that they are independent so that there is no bias. And another important thing that I feel is very important is the monitoring mechanism that needs to be in place. I think it’s very important to continuously assess the effectiveness of redress mechanisms by collecting feedback from consumers. Consumers, when I say consumers, the different category of consumers, urban consumers, rural consumers, businesses, the bigger companies, and also the small vendors on the streets. To everyone, we should be talking and we should be taking feedback on a regular basis. These regular audits and monitoring can ensure that the system remains responsive to the evolving challenges and are approved to be consumer friendly. So yeah, so these are some of the suggestions I think I would like to state. And when it comes to digital literacy, I think there are several awareness programs that are happening, several awareness materials that the regulator has come out with. And it is available on their website. And some programs happen haphazardly here and there. But I think we need to actually move from this situation to a more robust, more dedicated, customized digital literacy programs should be developed targeting the different stakeholders so that consumers are aware. As Ritu mentioned, the frauds that are happening, like people are taken completely unaware. They don’t even know what is happening. just like that they lose their money. Then it’s a big struggle, and many a time you don’t get your money back. This is the ground reality. So I think it’s very important to see how we actually educate at least to that extent. There are situations that go beyond control, but then there are situations where it could be the consumer’s fault and where we educate them and they know their rights as a consumer. So I think we need to organize these workshops and training programs, which should be a regular phenomenon. And of course we have the online platforms today, social media, where we should be actually reaching out to consumers. And there are several other ways also, street plays and other for rural consumers through those medium, board games and things like that, where we can reach out to school children, where we actually educate them on digital literacy and also engage through social media and community as I mentioned, and also incorporation of real life scenarios. If we could give examples, real life stories on how people lost money in case studies, including them in our campaigns so that people know actually how you could be, one could be cheated in this space. So this actually will help. Tailor-made literacy programs are very important for consumers to know, for them to understand what is the concern around the space and how they need to be careful. Digital lending is another major problem actually. Many people are losing, being threatened actually. When we were talking to consumers, especially women, they offer 10,000, 20,000, It was a small money without any documents. So women who are running small business or for some family reason, for purpose, they go and take this money without informing any other family member. I happened to come across these two cases, where this lady, in one case, particular case, this lady took the money, 10,000 rupees, small amount only. She borrowed this money without any papers for some personal use. Later, what happened was the fellow started threatening her, telling her that he’ll be posting her photo on social media and all. And so he kept taking money from her. She paid up to 60,000 rupees for the 10,000 that she had taken. And then, beyond that also, when he started demanding money, only then she realized that she couldn’t do anything more. And she went and told her husband about it. And then they went to the police. And these things happen. So I think this space needs to be regulated. It has to be addressed. Because there are many, especially women, many people who are suffering because of this digital lending problem. So yeah, with this, I would like to conclude. And if there are any questions, I’ll be happy to take. Thank you.

Luca Belli: Thank you very much. Thank you very much for this. And I’m sure there will be questions or considerations from the audience. We have here people in the floor that have been with us for the entire workshop. So if we have any considerations, questions, or even personal experiences that you would like to share to understand to what extent DPI can be consumer-centric or are not, or even to bring examples from your own countries, this is the moment, actually, where you can do so. So if you want, if anyone in the audience here in the room wants to contribute to the discussion, please. free to raise your hand and add your two cents or two rupees. Yes, sir. Yes, we have. Can we bring a mic to this gentleman here? Thank you.

Audience: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for the nice discussion in the nice presentations. I really like the way both speakers have managed to frame the consumer centricity demand of DPI and look at the experience of Brazil in terms of picks as well. It’s quite solid. Many countries in Africa are looking at the experience of PICS, which is, you know, the public part of public driven DPI development process, which is quite essential in terms of putting proper safeguards on time on from the onset. Some countries are actually going deeper into the DPI development without proper safeguards being in place, policy and regulatory processes being in place. So PICS has a lot to learn from that, a lot to share from that perspective. One potential practice for consumer centricity of DPI in Africa, and I’d like to relate to the country that I come from, which is Ethiopia, in the process of identity development, right? One of the driving factors for ID development, which gave it an extra momentum for consumer centricity is the level of identity fraud available or identity fraud attacks that banks in the country were facing. The major challenge being the lack of digitally verifiable identification system in Ethiopia, has led to the actual creation of a digital identification process. And the amount of money the banks were losing annually was quite huge to the extent that it has driven them to get together and invest in the early enrollment technology that was supportive of the government’s partnership, the government’s plan for digital identification. development. And this has actually been a sign of a commitment and be a collaborative work between public private partnership for DPI development, and it’s a solid case. Now, still, it has a challenge of having a proper safeguard. But for me, it’s a major indicator of consumers, consumer centricity whereby identity fraud is not only affecting the banks but also account holders and transactors. And thereby creating a very fertile ground to create consumer centric digital public infrastructure system. But the challenge being and then this is something that I would like the other speakers to actually also address is the fact that DPI approach process. So, usually there’s a single track siloed approach of implementing DPIs without putting proper safeguards and that’s one of the major challenge ID systems are facing at this point in time, payment systems are facing at this point in time. So there’s a need to create integration there’s a need to create interoperability, but also there’s a need to create from the onset from the beginning at the design stage issues related to safeguard so for me, it’s just a comment and a question. The first is the fact that a yes there are multiple examples of the consumer centricity from the design from the intention of DPI itself. But then again, there’s a need to actually bring all these DPI components together ID payment data from the early onset on onwards to make sure that they, they integrate and work closely and in partnership. Thank you.

Luca Belli: Those are excellent comments. Do we have any other other here otherwise, as we, yes we have another gentleman here. Yes, please go ahead. Introduce yourself. Yes.

Audience: My name is James from bloggers Association of Kenya, and yeah, I’m from Kenya. I, I just want to make a contribution it’s a, it’s actually a comment. It’s, it’s quite interesting that you’re having this conversation about DPS being consumer centric. consumer-centric because we have an opposite experience in Kenya and that’s what we’ve actually been trying to get the government to actually see basically the point of having something consumer-centric because what is happening is, so for instance, the president will go out there and let’s say go to Google or go to any IT company, ETC, or maybe like one of the ministers is approached and then they have what is called a top-down approach. So you just have a solution, just dump it on you and it doesn’t work for anyone. And then also something else, instead of going, let’s say the Brazil way where the, let’s say the regulator comes up with an idea and builds it from the ground up, you know, they just, I don’t know how to say this, but they just dump this thing that they don’t know if it’s going to work and then now they start putting, you know, they start putting sort of clusters as you go along. The whatever, I don’t know whether it’s the gentleman or the lady who said that, you know, customer care and being able to have your issues sorted is one of the ideal ways of building a customer, or rather consumer-centric DPI. So when it’s top-down, it’s even worse because now when you think about it, they actually building, they’re actually using a system that they have not involved any of the stakeholders and most importantly, the. public. And so what you have is just something that doesn’t work. From, you know, from a general perspective, I feel like maybe with DPS, and especially for countries that are starting to adopt this, like us, like Kenya, I feel like what you need to start with like policy, you have a policy in place. And then I’ll build from there.

Luca Belli: Thank you. Thank you very much for this excellent comment. Actually, it allows me to provide just a little bit of clarification. The I want to make clear that the goal of the panel is to assess whether and how DPS can be consumer centric, but it was none of the speakers intention to argue that they are by default consumer centric. So this last comment is actually very useful to clarify that they can be. And I believe that probably the Brazilian experience is one of the most of the closest to be consumer centric simply because it was it is one of the most recent. And so it could learn also from the mistakes of other I know that in Kenya, you have NPESA. It is very similar to the Brazilian peaks, but it’s also very different. And I also understand some of the difference maybe on how it has been proposed and implemented. So our colleagues from the remote assistance remind us that we have to to wrap up. So I would like to give to our my fellow panelists a final moment to provide their final thoughts. Maybe some some provocative remarks, final remarks in one minute, or some some hope for the future. Feel free to use the last minute that you have at your disposal as you want. So maybe we can go with Ale and then Rito and Sraja.

Alexandre Barbosa: Thank you, Luca. Thank you for the reflections as well. Quite quite quickly. Definitely, there’s the Brazilian experience, the Indian experience, it should not be like just replicated elsewhere. Brazil has a long trajectory in terms of civil society, engagement in digital rights and internet governance, indeed the multi-stakeholder and so on. And we need to think of the design of DPI is at least at two levels. One is this customization as the financial services provider level, but also at the architecture level. PIX is divided mainly into two. One’s the instant payment system, what it was built in already existing financial infrastructure, and also the decentralized identifier, which enables this portability of keys and so on. But I don’t have time to dig on that. And I also like to emphasize that PIX also has among its structure, the forum PIX, the PIX forum, which is also a multi-stakeholder, it’s space for deciding, discussing decisions upon the design and appreciate again the time here and take a look in the UN DPI safeguards that was launched just in September. It provides also interesting insights. Thank you.

Luca Belli: Thank you very much, Alessio. We can go to Ritu and then Suraj.

Ritul Gaur: Hi, I just wanna make one small point and thank you, Brian, for actually pointing that out about the safeguards thing. I think for any government looking forward to build, one of the most important thing is to build it in open. Every document, everything, if it’s published in open, even if it’s pricing, even if it’s small tweaks in regulations, et cetera, as much as you can allow the documents to be out and open, you allow the civil society to analyze, criticize, et cetera, and then make the feedback box welcome and open. I think building it open is something which is very critical. In India, in 2014, they launched something called PLCP. which is pre-legislative consultation policy for any legislation, any regulation, it has to be out in public for public comments for a minimum of 30 days. Otherwise, it cannot pass. So I think something like that, which if you’re planning to build, because it’s difficult to involve people like the scale of which democracies work in every small decisions. But if you can, at least build it in open, I think you allow for a greater amount of transparency in the system. So yeah, that’s it. Excellent. Thank you so much. This was a great experience.

Luca Belli: Saraju, please. Yeah.

Saroja Sundaram: So I think we need to have an effective monitoring system in place, especially looking at vulnerable consumers, the concerns, like if you’re going to have regular audits, do regular audits, then we will know where we stand in terms of being the sense the government agencies, the regulator, where they stand in terms of the implementation of their policies. And this will stand as a feedback for them to actually improve their system so that consumers stand to benefit. So yeah, this is what I think we need most.

Luca Belli: Fantastic. And I think with this word of optimism and hope for the future, we can close this panel. Thank you very much to all the participants. Very good discussion and hope you have an excellent IGF. Bye-bye. Thank you. Bye-bye.

Agreement Points

DPIs can promote financial inclusion and improve consumer welfare

Luca Belli

Alexandre Barbosa

Ritul Gaur

DPIs can increase financial inclusion and consumer welfare

Brazil’s PIX system has been successful in promoting digital payments

India’s UPI system has enabled widespread digital transactions

The speakers agree that Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI) systems like Brazil’s PIX and India’s UPI have successfully promoted financial inclusion and improved consumer welfare by enabling widespread digital transactions and reducing costs.

Consumer protection and redressal mechanisms are crucial for DPI systems

Ritul Gaur

Saroja Sundaram

Online dispute resolution should be implemented for DPI-related issues

Clear communication and user-friendly platforms are needed for consumer redressal

Regular audits and monitoring of DPI systems are necessary

Ombudsman offices should be independent from regulators

Both speakers emphasize the importance of effective consumer protection measures, including dispute resolution mechanisms, clear communication, and independent oversight for DPI systems.

Similar Viewpoints

The speakers agree that meaningful connectivity and digital literacy are essential for effective DPI adoption and usage, particularly in rural areas and among diverse populations.

Luca Belli

Ritul Gaur

Saroja Sundaram

Meaningful connectivity is necessary for DPI adoption

Language barriers and lack of digital literacy hinder DPI usage

Customized digital literacy programs are needed for different consumer groups

Unexpected Consensus

Importance of multi-stakeholder engagement in DPI development

Alexandre Barbosa

Ritul Gaur

Audience

DPI development should involve multi-stakeholder engagement

DPI systems should be built openly with public consultation

Top-down DPI implementation without stakeholder involvement can be problematic

There was an unexpected consensus among speakers from different backgrounds on the importance of involving multiple stakeholders, including civil society and the public, in the development and implementation of DPI systems. This agreement highlights a shared recognition of the need for inclusive and transparent processes in DPI development.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement include the potential of DPIs to promote financial inclusion and improve consumer welfare, the need for effective consumer protection mechanisms, the importance of digital literacy and meaningful connectivity, and the value of multi-stakeholder engagement in DPI development.

Consensus level

There is a moderate to high level of consensus among the speakers on the benefits and challenges of DPI implementation. This consensus suggests a shared understanding of the potential of DPIs to drive financial inclusion and economic development, while also recognizing the need for careful implementation, consumer protection, and inclusive development processes. The implications of this consensus are that future DPI initiatives are likely to focus on addressing these shared concerns, potentially leading to more robust and user-centric systems.

Different Viewpoints

Approach to DPI implementation

Luca Belli

Ritul Gaur

Audience

DPIs can increase financial inclusion and consumer welfare

Cyber crimes and frauds are increasing with UPI adoption in India

Top-down DPI implementation without stakeholder involvement can be problematic

While Luca Belli emphasizes the benefits of DPIs for financial inclusion and consumer welfare, Ritul Gaur highlights the increasing cyber crimes and frauds associated with UPI adoption in India. The audience member points out the problems with top-down DPI implementation without proper stakeholder involvement.

Unexpected Differences

Institutional structure for DPI management

Luca Belli

Saroja Sundaram

DPIs can help break monopolies and promote competition

Ombudsman offices should be independent from regulators

While discussing the benefits of DPIs, Luca Belli focuses on their ability to break monopolies and promote competition. Unexpectedly, Saroja Sundaram raises a concern about the institutional structure, arguing for independent ombudsman offices. This highlights a potential tension between promoting competition and ensuring effective oversight.

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement revolve around the implementation approach of DPIs, the balance between benefits and risks, and the institutional structures needed for effective oversight and consumer protection.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among the speakers is moderate. While there is general agreement on the potential benefits of DPIs, there are significant differences in perspectives on implementation strategies, risk management, and governance structures. These disagreements highlight the complexity of implementing DPIs effectively and the need for careful consideration of various stakeholder perspectives to ensure successful and inclusive digital infrastructure development.

Partial Agreements

Both speakers agree on the need for effective consumer redressal mechanisms, but they propose different approaches. Ritul Gaur suggests implementing online dispute resolution, while Saroja Sundaram emphasizes clear communication and user-friendly platforms.

Ritul Gaur

Saroja Sundaram

Online dispute resolution should be implemented for DPI-related issues

Clear communication and user-friendly platforms are needed for consumer redressal

Similar Viewpoints

The speakers agree that meaningful connectivity and digital literacy are essential for effective DPI adoption and usage, particularly in rural areas and among diverse populations.

Luca Belli

Ritul Gaur

Saroja Sundaram

Meaningful connectivity is necessary for DPI adoption

Language barriers and lack of digital literacy hinder DPI usage

Customized digital literacy programs are needed for different consumer groups

Key Takeaways

Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI) can promote financial inclusion and consumer welfare when implemented effectively

Successful DPI implementations like Brazil’s PIX and India’s UPI have enabled widespread digital transactions

DPIs can help break monopolies and promote competition in financial services

Meaningful connectivity and digital literacy are crucial prerequisites for DPI adoption

Consumer protection and robust redressal mechanisms are essential for DPI success

Multi-stakeholder engagement and open development processes are important for effective DPI design and implementation

Resolutions and Action Items

Implement online dispute resolution mechanisms for DPI-related issues

Conduct regular audits and monitoring of DPI systems

Develop customized digital literacy programs for different consumer groups

Ensure DPI systems are built openly with public consultation

Unresolved Issues

How to effectively balance rapid DPI implementation with proper safeguards and regulations

How to address increasing cyber crimes and frauds associated with DPI adoption

How to overcome language barriers in DPI usage and redressal mechanisms

How to ensure independence of ombudsman offices from regulators

Suggested Compromises

Implement a pre-legislative consultation policy requiring public comments before passing DPI-related regulations

Create a multi-stakeholder forum for ongoing discussions on DPI design and implementation

Brazil has become very well known in DPI debates for PICS, it’s Digital Public Infrastructure for Payments. So usually there are three main categories of digital public infrastructures, digital IDs, digital payments, and personal data consent managers.

speaker

Luca Belli

reason

This comment provides a clear framework for understanding different types of DPIs, which helps structure the rest of the discussion.

impact

It set the stage for more detailed exploration of DPIs in different countries, particularly Brazil and India.

The Brazilian Central Bank suspended the launch of WhatsApp payments for six months, because this would have created detrimental effect on privacy, data protection, competition, because having WhatsApp, a sort of monopoly of connectivity.

speaker

Luca Belli

reason

This example illustrates how government regulation can protect consumer interests and promote competition in the face of powerful tech companies.

impact

It sparked discussion about the role of government in regulating DPIs and protecting consumer interests.

UPI constitute 80% of digital payments in 2024 in India with billions of dollars being exchanged. It is fantastic. There’s a high amount of trust outside. There are ingenious solutions which includes small voice box that pops up every time a small payment is made. But at the same time, UPI is also a financial crime hotspot.

speaker

Ritul Gaur

reason

This comment highlights both the benefits and risks of DPIs, providing a balanced perspective.

impact

It shifted the conversation to focus more on the challenges and risks associated with DPIs, particularly in terms of consumer protection and fraud.

We need to have customized and tailor-made literacy programs for consumers. Only then it will be, and it should be a continued engagement. And only then consumers will know what they are up to and how they can get issues addressed.

speaker

Saroja Sundaram

reason

This comment emphasizes the importance of consumer education in making DPIs truly consumer-centric.

impact

It broadened the discussion to include the need for consumer education and literacy programs as a key component of successful DPI implementation.

Some countries are actually going deeper into the DPI development without proper safeguards being in place, policy and regulatory processes being in place.

speaker

Audience member

reason

This comment from an audience member brings attention to the risks of implementing DPIs without proper safeguards.

impact

It reinforced the importance of regulatory frameworks and safeguards in DPI implementation, leading to further discussion on this topic.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by providing a comprehensive overview of DPIs, their benefits, and challenges. The conversation evolved from a general introduction to DPIs to a more nuanced exploration of implementation challenges, consumer protection issues, and the need for regulatory frameworks. The comments highlighted the complexity of implementing DPIs in different contexts and emphasized the importance of consumer-centric approaches, including education and robust grievance redressal mechanisms. The discussion also touched on the role of government regulation in ensuring fair competition and protecting consumer interests in the face of powerful tech companies.

How can online dispute resolution (ODR) be effectively implemented for UPI transactions?

speaker

Ritul Gaur

explanation

ODR was suggested as a key solution to address consumer grievances without going to court, but its implementation for UPI is not yet realized.

How can the user experience for reporting fraud and financial transaction issues be simplified and standardized across all UPI apps?

speaker

Ritul Gaur

explanation

Inconsistent complaint mechanisms across apps make it difficult for users, especially those with limited financial literacy, to seek redress.

What methods can be developed to improve fraud detection in UPI transactions, potentially involving multiple stakeholders like telecom providers?

speaker

Ritul Gaur

explanation

Improving fraud detection is crucial given the high incidence of UPI-related frauds reported to the National Crime Records Bureau.

How can digital literacy programs be customized and tailored for different stakeholder groups, especially in rural areas?

speaker

Saroja Sundaram

explanation

Customized digital literacy programs are needed to address the specific challenges faced by different groups of consumers, particularly in rural areas with limited connectivity and literacy.

How can the independence and effectiveness of the ombudsman system for addressing consumer complaints be improved?

speaker

Saroja Sundaram

explanation

The current ombudsman system is perceived as an extended arm of the regulator, potentially intimidating consumers and limiting its effectiveness in resolving disputes.

What mechanisms can be put in place to continuously assess the effectiveness of redress mechanisms through consumer feedback?

speaker

Saroja Sundaram

explanation

Regular audits and monitoring based on diverse consumer feedback are needed to ensure the system remains responsive to evolving challenges.

How can proper safeguards and policy/regulatory processes be implemented from the onset of DPI development?

speaker

Audience member (unnamed)

explanation

Some countries are developing DPIs without proper safeguards in place, which could lead to issues later on.

How can integration and interoperability between different DPI components (ID, payment, data) be ensured from the early design stages?

speaker

Audience member (unnamed)

explanation

There’s a need to bring all DPI components together from the early onset to ensure they integrate and work closely in partnership.

How can a bottom-up, stakeholder-inclusive approach to DPI development be encouraged, especially in countries where top-down approaches are prevalent?

speaker

James (audience member)

explanation

Some countries are implementing DPIs without involving stakeholders or the public, leading to systems that don’t work effectively for consumers.

Summary

This discussion focused on the role of citizens in informing and maintaining e-government systems. Panelists explored various aspects of citizen participation, including creating secure channels for engagement, building trust in e-government initiatives, and addressing human rights concerns.

Key points included the importance of secure digital identities and data exchange networks for effective e-government. Panelists emphasized the need to involve citizens as co-creators rather than just end-users of these systems. They discussed strategies for engaging youth and marginalized communities, such as leveraging religious centers and civil society organizations.

The conversation highlighted the importance of proactive government services, where systems anticipate citizen needs rather than requiring complex application processes. Panelists also stressed the need for legal frameworks to support e-government initiatives and protect them from political changes.

Accessibility was a major theme, with suggestions for designing systems that cater to elderly and disabled users. The role of the international community in advising on e-government was debated, with some cautioning against imposing external solutions.

Challenges discussed included data quality issues, the digital divide in rural areas, and the need to build digital literacy. The panel concluded that while progress is being made in many countries, there is still significant work to be done in creating inclusive, secure, and effective e-government systems that truly serve all citizens.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– Creating secure channels for citizen participation in e-government design while addressing security concerns

– Building citizen trust in e-government initiatives, especially in places without existing systems

– Forms of citizen participation beyond just using e-government systems (e.g. digital petitions, online voting)

– Including citizens as stakeholders to address human rights concerns around data collection/processing

– Designing e-government systems to address needs of vulnerable populations

The overall purpose of the discussion was to explore ways to meaningfully involve citizens in the development and implementation of e-government systems, while addressing key challenges around security, trust, and inclusion.

Speakers

– Sienna Byrne, Moderator

– Florian Marcus, Head of Sales and Partnerships at Cybernetica

– Noha Abdel Baky, Instructor at the Pan-African Youth Ambassadors for Internet Governance

– Asha Abinallah, Founder and CEO of Tech and Media Convergency (TMC)

– PeiChin Tay, Senior Policy Advisor on Government Innovation at Tony Blair Institute for Global Change

– Dr. Adel Abdel-Sadek, Director of the Arab Center for Cyberspace Research-ACCR

E-Government and Citizen Participation: A Comprehensive Overview

This discussion explored the critical role of citizens in informing and maintaining e-government systems, focusing on various aspects of citizen participation, security concerns, trust-building, and addressing human rights issues. The panel, comprised of experts from diverse backgrounds, offered insights into creating effective and inclusive e-government initiatives.

Creating Channels for Citizen Participation While Addressing Security Concerns

The panelists discussed various strategies for involving citizens in e-government initiatives while maintaining security:

1. Secure Digital Infrastructure: Florian Marcus, Head of Sales and Partnerships at Cybernetica, emphasised the crucial importance of secure digital identities and data exchange networks as the foundation for effective e-government systems.

2. Secure Participation Channels: Marcus recommended implementing secure digital petitioning and online voting systems to increase citizen participation.

3. Balancing Security and Participation: The panel acknowledged the challenge of finding the right balance between security concerns and increased citizen participation in e-government design.

4. Legal Frameworks: Dr. Adel Abdel-Sadek, Director of the Arab Center for Cyberspace Research-ACCR, stressed the need for political support and modernised laws to facilitate digital transformation.

Forms of Citizen Participation Beyond Mere Use of E-Government Systems

The discussion highlighted several ways citizens can actively participate in e-government initiatives:

1. Co-creation: All speakers concurred that citizens should be viewed as partners and co-creators in e-government design, rather than just end-users.

2. Youth Involvement: Noha Abdel Baky from the Pan-African Youth Ambassadors for Internet Governance and Asha Abinallah, Founder and CEO of Tech and Media Convergency, both stressed the importance of youth as primary users and influencers of e-government tools. They advocated for giving youth leadership roles in these initiatives.

3. Engagement Platforms: Asha Abinallah suggested creating platforms to engage citizens and explain the importance of their participation.

4. Digital Feedback Loops: Pei Ching Tay from the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change proposed using technology to create digital feedback loops between citizens and government.

Including Citizens as Stakeholders to Address Human Rights Concerns

The panel discussed approaches to ensure e-government systems respect human rights and include all citizens:

1. Stakeholder Identification: Asha Abinallah emphasised the importance of identifying stakeholders and engaging citizens from the start of any e-government initiative to build trust.

2. Human-Centred Design: Tay and Abinallah both advocated for a human-centric design approach to policymaking, emphasising the importance of understanding and addressing specific stakeholder needs from the outset.

3. Integrating Youth Considerations: Abinallah stressed the importance of integrating youth considerations into national ICT policies.

4. Addressing Potential Risks: An audience member from Russia raised concerns about the potential risks of e-government systems in non-democratic countries, highlighting the need to consider human rights implications in different political contexts.

Designing E-Government Systems for Vulnerable Populations

The panel discussed various approaches to ensure e-government systems are accessible and inclusive:

1. Universal Design: Florian Marcus suggested making interfaces accessible by default for elderly and disabled users.

2. Proactive Services: PeiChin Tay advocated for proactive services to reduce administrative burdens, particularly for vulnerable populations. Marcus provided an example from Estonia, where the government proactively offers services to new parents.

3. Rural Infrastructure: Noha Abdel Baky highlighted the need to improve digital infrastructure access in rural areas to bridge the digital divide.

4. Engaging Marginalised Youth: In response to an audience question, Asha Abinallah discussed strategies for engaging marginalised youth in Tanzania, mentioning current digital infrastructure challenges and government initiatives.

5. Digital Literacy: The panel acknowledged the challenge of making e-government systems accessible to those with low digital literacy.

Role of the International Community in E-Government Development

An interesting point of disagreement emerged regarding the role of the international community:

– Florian Marcus advocated for minimal international interference, cautioning against imposing external solutions.

– Noha Abdel Baky saw a significant role for the international technical community in creating innovative solutions tailored to local needs.

This difference in perspective highlights the complex balance between leveraging international expertise and respecting local autonomy in e-government development.

Throughout the discussion, panelists emphasized the importance of ongoing citizen engagement, adaptive policymaking, and collaboration with civil society organizations to ensure e-government systems meet the diverse needs of all citizens and contribute to more responsive and effective governance.

Sienna Byrne: Thank you so much for joining us for Workshop 86, the role of citizens informing and maintaining e-government. I’m here today joined by panelists Asha Abinalla, founder and CEO of Tech and Media Convergency, Florian Marcus, head of sales and partnerships at Cybernetica, Noha Abalbaki, instructor at the Pan-African Youth Ambassadors for Internet Governance, Dr. Adele Abel-Sadeq, director of the Arab Center for Cyberspace Research, and PeiChin Tay, Senior Policy Advisor on Government Innovation at Tony Blair Institute for Global Change. To kick things off, I would like to pose our first question relating to how we can most effectively create channels for citizen participation and the design of e-government systems while still addressing security concerns. So the way that this panel will work is ideally as a roundtable. So panelists are going to engage in conversation and we’ll leave time at the end also for questions from the audience and input or thoughts on what we shared. If anyone would like to start by addressing that first question. I mean, considering the very square nature of this table, we will try to make it a roundtable so we’ll do our best.

Florian Marcus: So I guess if we want to talk about secure participation of citizens in all echelons of digital government or what I would prefer to call a digital society, we need to talk about secure digital identities which are universal so that I can be sure that when I am logging into my bank or into my digital state portal that the government actually knows who it is talking to as well and that I get the services to which I am entitled. So to make it more personalized as a platform. as a service provision for me. And then also, based on that, data exchange, of course, is super important that you have a secure, decentralized data exchange network where all the different government authorities can talk to each other and exchange data to provide the services that you deserve. But beyond that, I think I would leave it to my participants first, and then potentially chime in if we go into further details.

Sienna Byrne: Great, so on that first question, how we can effectively create channels for citizen participation in the design of e-government systems while still addressing security concerns. Noha, do you want to talk about youth involvement?

Noha Abdel Baky: Thank you, Sienna. I’m Noha Abdel Baky. So youth are the main users of, like, they are the primary users of any tech solutions or any digital tools provided for them. So we are the first responders, the ones who influence other age groups to use these tools. So if we are going to tackle the security perspective of it, it needs to be done through secure channels, not necessarily social media. Even if it’s done through social media, it needs to be done maybe anonymously or by using multi-factor authentication or just to verify that it’s not a scam. Or like in Egypt, we have verified accounts for each ministry or governmental body on all social media channels. So as youth, it’s our role to raise the awareness for the other citizens on how to communicate effectively and securely with the governmental bodies through the available channels. For example, in Egypt, there is also a hotline where you can call the digital Egypt. initiative and raise your concerns or open a ticket with them so it’s not only through social media but yeah we need to raise like the security precautions when we communicate with the government.

Sienna Byrne: Now jumping to Asha – I’d love to hear your answer on question one as well bringing your perspective. You can hear your own voice through the headsets for everyone who is taking them off.

Asha Abinallah: I love the fact that the feedbacks are complimentary but for me I would like to remind as an when I look at my country and the state of development where it is the first channels will be creating all those platforms and to make sure that proper channels and platforms understand that there is this mechanism when the mechanism is being created because we now have a state where the government is creating mechanisms to bring people on board not necessarily strategically focusing on different groups but just generally so the first step would be creating platforms for the youth and citizens to be interested in and understanding why it is important for them to engage and also enticing the way that we can reach where our fellow participants are that now they can create a community of youth who can sort of bring other people or other youth on board or in the peer group to be able to use the e-governance system. Thank you.

Sienna Byrne: Thank you. I know we’ve had some technical difficulties but I’m hoping that PeiChin Tay are you online with us? I’ll repeat the question again but we would love to hear your response to to question one, how can we most effectively create channels for citizen participation in the design of e-government systems while still addressing security concerns?

PeiChin Tay: That’s great. The audio works on my side. Hi, everyone. Sorry, I can’t be there with you in person. I hope you’re all having a great time. So I’m PeiChin Tay from the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change. We do a lot of research around e-government. And I think technology definitely brings a lot of opportunities for civic engagement now, because it really does reduce barriers to scale and creating digital feedback loops that are really important for policymakers. There are a number of online tools these days, such as government portals, e-petition platforms, systems, and so on. All these different tools allow citizens to voice their opinions and to contribute to decision-making without physical barriers, which is a key challenge in some of the countries. And governments are also developing and launching open data initiatives and using technology to release data publicly. And this really empowers citizens to be able to access data, to be able to analyze, critique, and to hold officials to account. So in terms of the actual channels, I think we need to leverage on technology to ensure that there is inclusive input and to create platforms that would allow citizens to provide input anonymously and or securely. So I think POLIS is an example of a really popular consensus-generating platform that crowdsources ideas from the public. And bearing in mind that a lot of social media does have that polarizing effect, POLIS is there generate consensus. And this has actually led Taiwan to help policymakers in issues such as how do we regulate Uber and so on. I think in addition to security and privacy, I think generating consensus is a really important part of that journey, and I think encouraging citizen participation is one side of the equation. But equally, it’s helping policymakers to make better decisions and to achieve regulatory outcomes.

Sienna Byrne: Thank you. That’s a great answer. Dr. Adel will be speaking in Arabic and Nohal will be providing a brief translation afterwards.

Dr. Adel Abdel-Sadek: Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much for this invitation. Because of this subject is very, very important for to re-understanding the real network between or relationship between citizens and the government. I will translate into Arabic. I will translate into Arabic. in the process of improving the government’s decision-making and improving the idea of governance or government governance. Then, the process of designing programs for the electronic government should look at the citizen as a partner and owner, as well as a controller and a practitioner of constitutional rights in compliance with the government and executive bodies. To draft the framework of creating secure and transparent communication channels between the citizens and the governmental bodies, and to consider the opinion and feedback of the citizens when designing the tools, the e-governmental tools and services, as the citizen’s right to be a partner in creating those tools.

Sienna Byrne: Thank you for that translation, Noha. Just building off of question one, one thing that I want to pose to the panelists is, going back to what you said earlier, Asha, how can we build citizen trust and e-government initiatives in places where we don’t have these systems up yet, and where this is really a future opportunity and something that we’re really having to build from the ground up? How do we introduce this? How do we get stakeholder buy-in? And more importantly, what metrics should citizens be basing their trust in e-government on? Thank you. Anyone who wants to take that, please feel free.

Asha Abinallah: So I think the first thing that we take for granted is the understanding of individuals. I would say the first step is instead of just going into doing that by having the metrics of their understanding, their perspective, if they’re positive, if they’re negative, because I think that it’s the best way of introducing a new aspect into the community, especially when it has to do with technology. You know, sometimes as the governments, when they bring on solutions, they bring on initiatives and introduce it to the communities, they know that the government have decided. They don’t feel like they’re part of it. So the first step would be you have to make sure that the citizens are engaged. And I know sometimes it’s very confusing when you talk about citizens. We are, at Tanzania, we are over 65 million, 65 million in population. And the active internet users is just 35 million. So people who’ve registered. So when it comes to active, you might find it’s lesser than that. So how do you reach all these participants? Then you go to the next step, identify the stakeholders. Which stakeholders, which platforms has the target audience you’re reaching? In most cases, sometimes we tend to forget maybe the religious centers. You know, religious, for us as Tanzanians, and I think in most communities, religion is a very important aspect. If you could find ways to find youth through religion, especially as in, especially maybe when it comes to whether it’s mosques, whether it’s churches, you find the youth who would reach a larger number of youth. I think that’s a plus. When you go to universities, you go to CSOs that work with the youth, I think that’s the best way. So how do you reach that? You do a stakeholder mapping. You just don’t. Maybe you just don’t draw a list and say, as long as we’ve reached this category, then that is fine. The key metrics, going to the key metrics, it should be you need to identify a group which, by the time you’ve done engaging with them, you can measure their understanding, their influence, their interest. And that is very easy. We have social media right now. If the citizens are not talking about it, if the users are not talking about it, they are not aware. Because if they are aware, they will in one way or another, whether it’s memes, whether it’s joke, however way they would do that. The other challenging thing is we consider research very, very academically. And I know we have a PhD on board, but when it comes to research, usually it’s just taking something like you just have to go to the academic, have a study on something, and shelf it. How can research be incorporated in a way that it could be friendly and guide their overall process of engagement?

Florian Marcus: Yeah, if I could take it from there. One of my research projects that we just finished up is called EGoff for Youth. You can Google it as well. We just published an over 60-page report. It’s been very fun, basically identifying how youth actually want to be interacting with the government. And what we found extremely low interest in was outreach via social media, because youth don’t want to be talked down upon. They don’t want, I don’t know, economic ministry for kids version on Facebook or something, where they speak to everybody like they’re 15 years old. What you already mentioned as well was that citizens want to feel like they are being heard. And right now that is not the case because most countries don’t account for citizen opinion in their processes. I’ll give a very simple example. If a ministry in most countries decides that it wants to digitalize a service, then usually it will just go ahead and do that. In Estonia and some other countries where public-private partnership is extremely strong, there is a stipulation that says, hey, if there is a project that goes in the direction of service development, you must involve stakeholder groups. If it goes in the direction of e-health, you must talk to patients, to social insurance, to the hospitals, to the nurses, and so on and so forth. So you just have to bake that into your procurement procedures. And if you don’t, well, then that’s probably where one of the problems lies. And the last point that I would add is if we expect citizens to care about the services that government provides, then they should probably be good. And truth be told, in most countries that is not the case right now. And especially if we talk about youth being the ones that bring other generations into the fold, well, youth have to be convinced first. And if youth think of stuff like Amazon that predicts the next thing that they want to buy, or on Instagram within, like if you scroll through Instagram or TikTok, within five minutes the algorithm knows exactly what you want and, you know, what interests you and what you scroll through. And so based on that, they will make recommendations for the next, well, for the rest of your life actually. And government doesn’t do that. Government says, here’s a PDF online, print it out, please fill it out, scan it back and send an email. That’s not user-friendly, that’s like 1998, right? So what we have been doing in Estonia for the last five to ten years is what we call proactive government services, where, I can give a personal example, we have a baby daughter, she’s almost one and a half. half years old. She was born, she got a personal code like a citizen’s number the day that she was born. Her citizen’s number gets connected to my citizen’s number and the one of my wife because we are the legal guardians, the parents. And then the next day we get a notification on the state portal that says congratulations on the birth of your child. We know that by our own laws you are entitled to child benefit payments. To which bank account do we send the money? There is no more application, there is no more searching for the right authority blah blah blah blah blah. So it’s it’s about trying to not even copy the private sector but just get a tiny bit closer than we are at the moment because government will always be slower than private sector. It has to be because of ethical guardrails. That’s fine but we don’t have to be 20 years behind. That’s a quick thought from my side.

Sienna Byrne: Thank you for that response. Would anybody else like to answer this question? I think we have time for about one or two more responses before we move on to our next question. Yes. Feel free to go ahead Dr. Adel.

Dr. Adel Abdel-Sadek: Yes yes. Thank you very much for this information. I think if we wanted to have a good effective channel to design the e-government system, I think we can take in our consideration many aspects such as the e-government system should be coupled with the national need and what is there people need to have or what is the real hopes, real needs to development in the future. Also I think there is also a very important item in this how to know the challenge. What is the challenge we have? What is the opportunity? I think it is very important to have a good solution to solve our problem, to connect with the citizen, to apply e-government. So we are now to transfer from e-government to smart government. I think it is very important to have a smart government to have ability to use as many of technical tools, especially with the rise of AI to apply with and how to handle with the citizen and how to use the boots and AI to deal with the citizen. I think also it is very important to have a good connection between citizen and the government. Also, I have also other item considered on, we should have one national strategy to e-government or smart government. It is very important because it is a make a connection and compromise between the old views, the old idea and how to move our vision to have a development by apply the e-government system. Also, I think also the political support, I think is a political support, especially in our developing countries, it is very important because of it easier to be easy, the tools and easy to apply. And also it is very important to support the leaders to apply the e-government system. Also, I think the e-government and the digital transformation, it is a big challenge to the laws. How to modernize the laws we have, how to make laws and organize the activities on cyberspace because it is related with the trust, as a citizen, if he has the trust in the ecosystem of digital development and digital transaction, it is very important to encourage citizens to deal with the e-government service. Also, especially in our countries like Egypt, we don’t focus on the service by e-government, it is just a service, not to control the citizens. I think it is very important to make a comparison between the service by government, it is the duty for the government, or it is the control on the citizen. I think it is very important to have a culture of digital transformation, it is very good to encourage people to have their inputs about the service and to use many tools. Also, the government should be available many tools, like focus groups, like conferences to raise awareness about what the e-government system has.

Sienna Byrne: Thank you so much Dr. Adel, we really appreciate your response to that. We’re going to have to move on to question two now. Question two is, what form should citizen participation in e-government take beyond the mere use of e-government systems? This goes back to what Florian was talking about earlier regarding proactive government service delivery. Florian, if you would like to take this first question. Yes.

Florian Marcus: Yeah, I mean, there are several things that we can do. Number one, what you could have is something like a digital petitioning system. So right now we’ve got online petition systems all around the world where, I don’t know, you enter your email address and then you can sign whatever, the problem with that system that is being used around the whole world is, of course, that you can create many email accounts. Many of us have several email accounts and we can create 10 more within 10 minutes. And then we can give 10 signatures for whatever petition we care about. And if there is ever a petition that you actually do support but maybe government doesn’t like, they will always be able to put into question like the legitimacy of the number of signatures that you have collected. We have seen this in countries all around the world. This is not one specific kind of government that does this. And the way that we can circumvent this is to say, well, as I said at the start, you all need a universal electronic identity with a digital signature that we can all sort of understand that this person truly gave the signature at this point in time and you can’t hack it somehow. And as a result, the politicians will be able to see that yes, there are legitimately 20 million signatures from 20 million real people for this kind of petition. So this will be a good start. Number two, some experience from Estonia perhaps, what we also see being experimented with in other countries at the moment is online voting. So we had a discussion yesterday and another workshop about the topic a tiny bit already as well. In Estonia, you can vote online since 2005 with your electronic identity. Again, the whole source code for the system is open source. If you have any worries about how your vote is being counted or not then you can check the source code online and that makes it very transparent for international observers as well. So we have international observers in our country not just for the physical counting of votes but also for the digital counting of votes. And then yeah last but not least what I said already about public-private partnership that just forces the companies to get stakeholder groups into the room and ask them how they would like the services to develop. I think that’s a good good good direction.

Sienna Byrne: Thank you Florian I think I would also like to offer Paige in the opportunity to respond to this question since I know this is really in your realm of expertise. What form should citizen participation in e-government take beyond the mere use of e-government systems?

PeiChin Tay: Yes okay yeah so I think policymakers really need to see citizens as co-creators and not just end-users because there’s a lot of complex challenges and governments do not have all the answers. So you know especially when we look at we did a lot of research in the gig economy or digital platform economy for example and that is where we really see government lagging behind because they don’t really have the tools to regulate for new businesses and don’t really know how to deal with it apart from relying on the tools you know of the 20th century. So for instance Uber entered the market in the US in 2011 and it wasn’t until almost a decade later that there was any regulation taking place. So I think there are two main things here which is governments need to gain insight in order to frame the problem in a more accurate manner especially when it relates to new models and new services and new challenges and secondly they need to have the right tools to be able to approach some of these complex policy issues. And this is where citizens can come in really useful as co-creators of solutions, and to contribute ideas and feedback in the development of new policies, perhaps. And this is why we at the Tony Blair Institute have been working with human-centered design agencies on very specific worker-centered projects. Because one of the things that came out as a key challenge in the gig economy is that the workers often do not have a voice. They’re often just at the receiving end of new technologies and algorithms that is there to sort of determine their pay and experience and so on. Which is why sort of taking a worker-centered and human-centered approach in policymaking has been really fruitful.

Sienna Byrne: Thank you. Thank you. Would anybody else here, or Florian, would you like to go ahead and respond to that?

Florian Marcus: Actually, I wanted to ask a question to Pei-Qin. You mentioned at the very start that the citizen needs to be understood as a co-creator. And I totally agree the question is not whether, yes or no, but how. I mean, we have a million working groups and a million multi-stakeholder everythings, and it’s all great. And we have a million reports that come out of all the different working groups and nobody reads it and nobody cares. So the question is like, how do you actually want to effectuate change in that sense? To give you perhaps also like something that failed in Estonia. We had a discussion in government roughly 10 years ago about whether we can tie the success of, or failure of digital service delivery to the salaries of public servants. So guess what? If you make a new tax declaration and you get the budget to develop it as you see fit, but if it’s off. then maybe you should get punished for that and if it does really well and all of like within the next two years 100% of people do it online because it’s so good then maybe you deserve a raise as well beyond the regular inflation or whatever adjustment so even in Estonia that was shut down for obvious political reasons but but like how do we make sure that politicians are forced to listen to what we say?

Sienna Byrne: PeiChin, I’ll give you the opportunity to respond to that if you have any suggestions on that.

PeiChin Tay: Yeah, in the ideal world we’ll be able to force politicians to do the things that we will love to do but it’s a sort of you know organization that is sort of part think-tank I think there is a number of influencing methods that we use and in our research we take as I said a very strong sort of human centered approach so we engage workers and not just kind of giving them a survey right I mean I think one of the risks here is also the survey fatigue and people don’t really know what you do at the end of that survey and how it’s being implemented so the sort of close feedback loop is often not there so how we engage workers is really taking the very strong ethnographic approach you know it could be even things like you know we shadow them because they may not always be able to express that sort of full breadth of their insights in a survey form and I think it’s very important that we take a very sort of open view initially when we’re trying to scope up the problem statement because most of the time we don’t know what the problem is or it could be you know there are a thousand problems staring in our face and we don’t really know how to prioritize them so I think kind of taking a very open approach especially in the beginning we use the sort of a double diamond methodology and then we sort of converge that to identify some of the key challenges again together with workers and not just typical stakeholders such as government and private sector. We give workers at the seat of the table when it comes to suggesting solutions together with all these different stakeholders. And this is where the sort of core design and methodology really comes to life. And it really sheds useful insights that we wouldn’t be able to uncover otherwise. And then obviously we use these insights to try to influence policymakers.

Sienna Byrne: I think we’re okay. In the sake of time, we’re going to move on to question three now. How might citizens be included as stakeholders in the design of e-government systems to address human rights concerns surrounding the collection and processing of citizen data? And I think we’ve touched on this briefly kind of in earlier responses, but I would love to hear a little bit more specifically any ideas or design initiatives that have given greater transparency or even kind of ideas that people are having on this topic. Yes. I think the first thing… Okay. I think Asha is going to respond to this one, Dr. Adele, and then we’ll move to you afterwards. So Asha, go ahead.

Asha Abinallah: The first thing we are supposed to do is give them leadership roles. According to attributes, like identify them and give them leadership roles. And I would say in most cases, leadership, when it comes to youth, it really has to be something they are passionate about. As in, not because I’m here, I’m at IGF, I go back home, I take my son to be the leader of maybe an initiative which I think there is an opportunity. You know, when we talk about responsibility, we normally point fingers at governments. But in normal cases… if you are here, like if you are in this room, I think you are a step ahead of so many people in your country, so you are a leader already. So as a leader, how are you making responsibilities and decisions to engage the youth? I think that’s a very important question, not just the government. But the other aspect I would like to point out is that there are so many global platforms that are there. And when we are in our own countries, we are sort of, you know, you live like kindergarten toys. You want to start an initiative about youth, which is brand new. How do you map out, as a country, as a government, as a working group, how do you map out the existing relevant bodies and platforms of the youth and make sure that it is shattered in your organization as well? Because that way, when you start something, when you branch out something which is new in the community, I’ll just give an example. There is youth IGF, there is AI, there is artificial intelligence. Again, there is maybe youth artificial intelligence. So how do you make sure that, as a leader, you start the same initiative identifying, as a government, you start the same initiative, identify which, maybe which hub is there or which community is there that can establish that kind of platform, which would be instrumental. The reason I’m emphasizing on that is because there are mechanisms. There are youth chapters which are successful in other countries, not successful in other countries, and when you branch out, these youth tend to learn from one another. Like, it is easy to fast-track their intended goal instead of starting with something entirely brand new. The other aspect I would like to talk about is legal framework. I think we shouldn’t take it for granted. When the government decides, because a certain leader understands the importance and it is not integrated in the legal framework, then when they leave, everything goes out, everything falls. So they need… So, I would say, you know, we have to consider the digital transformation from a kid has to consider the youth. It needs to be in policies, policies when you talk about the national ICT policy, the youth have to be there and I’m really glad that my country, Tanzania, has considered that. When you talk about the digital transformation from a kid has to consider the youth. So, I would say those are some of the ways that could be done and implemented. Thank you. Thank you. So, I would say, you know, we have to consider the digital transformation from a kid has to consider the youth. So, I would say those are some of the ways that could be done and implemented and implemented. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, e-colon. Good afternoon, everybody. Yesterday, I’m really proud of where we are as a country. The government system is very, very impressive. I’m personally very impressive, with the e-governance system. But, when you have a government that is very well informed and really understands how the e-governance system works, you have to have an active civil society community. You have to have an active civil society community. So, now, the civil society is a very important actor when it comes to propagating human rights. So, you want to propagate for human rights, whether it’s digital human rights or human rights in general, you really have to have an active civil society community. The active civil society community will hold the government accountable. They’ll hold them accountable when it comes to accessibility. So, all of these issues are going to come together, so we need an active civil society community and if you are not an active civil society, then we’re going to try to take action. We have to make sure that the infrastructure is not only for the person with disabilities, but for the person with disabilities, and especially in technology, we are talking about the blind and the deaf, if they’ve been considered in the infrastructure of the e-governance which has to be accessed to. We have to make sure that there are mechanisms that can tangibly point out the challenges and opportunities, and that there are not actors, whether private or CSOs that are holding them accountable. They’re comfortable. They do anything and everything because they know that they’re doing okay, and they’re doing right. I would say, and speaking for Tanzania, I would say the ICT ministry is one of the ministries which is so very lucky to do whatever they want, because the space when it comes to CSOs, I think it was we were not as active as that, and I’m really glad that in 2024, we launched the Internet Governance Working Group to address that. So I think that’s a very important aspect. But the second one, I wish that we take it for granted when it comes to corporate companies, especially mobile companies, or maybe banks. When you have banks and mobile companies that are very close to the government, as in like their bodies, the youth people, they use the citizens, it’s become very dangerous, because then you just provide data, just provide information, and, you know, it may, as petty as it might seem, somebody can just go there and want to access information about their husband or their wife, you know, sometimes they can be in danger. Those are things which are so much taken for granted, but they cannot be sorted by the government themselves, so we need an active civil society that makes sure that it has identified the challenges that are there. entered into the space, but not only identified, capacitated itself to the extent that it understand what it needs to address. Thank you.

Sienna Byrne: Thank you. And Noha, would you like to go? I think we’re gonna open for questions in about five minutes. I think we’ll have to get through the conversation. Oh, go ahead. If you would like to ask a question, then we can address, of course. We’ll go ahead and pass you a microphone.

Audience: Okay, thank you very much. I would like to answer your previous question. I’m from Russian Federation. I’m completely not related to the government, but I would like to answer your question about how to protect citizens in not very democratic countries. I would like to say this is very difficult, because even in non-democratic countries, digital services might be very well-developed. Russia is a rich country. It has very well-developed state services portal, which celebrates for 15 years today. By the way, but the greater example is that if a government or ministry is not accountable, they could even randomly, not on bad will, not on a will of abuse their citizens, they could easily violate human rights. The best example we have that’s, maybe you still remember that’s COVID passes, which was usually been like QR codes, which was very fine or something like. Once Russian state services portal decreased by two times from one year to health year, all such COVID passes. It definitely was kind of bug. And actually, it was required for pressurizing for people to extend it back to one year. Government and ministry and developer are not accountable in any way. Maybe it’s reasonable not just to work with civil society because well on this. And this way in your political activities are not very well accepted, but in this case you have to be very political active. Also to push your government. So civil society is not enough. You have to work with your politicians. You have to work with elections. Thanks.

Sienna Byrne: Going off of what you just said I I want to ask what do we think the role of the international community and particularly the international? Technical community who’s providing advising services and expertise to governments as they seek digital transformation What is their role? Kind of ensuring that these systems are not, you know conducive to human rights abuses?

Florian Marcus: I may not be saying what you’re expecting me to say. I remember very clearly from my bachelor studies in political science a wonderful course about American democracy promotion abroad and people not being a big fan of it in some countries understandably. I would say that we have to stay the hell out of whatever country is whatever it wants. Yes, of course, there’s a consideration for human rights and so on but that’s table can turn very quickly and then Western countries, which are also not perfect democracies either in some sense. So I would say what we can do as the technical community both on a private sector basis, but also non-for-profit and international organizations is just to give guidance and provide forums like this one to exchange ideas to share what has worked in our country. It may not work in your country, but it can and and to just use that as a as a forum for for cultural exchange first and then technical implementation second. The truth is also that there is no one-size-fits-all solution, so I’m very relaxed about the conversation, perhaps more than some others might be at the table.

Sienna Byrne: Noha, would you like to share your perspective on this?

Noha Abdel Baky: Yeah, so yeah, the technical community of course has a big role to create innovative and new solutions tackling on-ground problems, like they can work in parallel with entrepreneurs or civil society organizations to understand the local need or the real problems that need to be addressed and put them in context of the emerging technologies that can be effective in resolving those issues and offer these solutions for the government to implement. For example, we in Egypt, we have a great initiative created by the government, it’s called the Governmental Innovation Lab, where they encourage entrepreneurs to recommend solutions or create new solutions in the e-gov sector. So yeah, the technical community can help with integrating AI, data science, blockchain and other technologies with these solutions of course.

Sienna Byrne: Moving now to our last question, in the sake of time before we open up to further discussion and further questions from the audience, how might e-government systems be designed to address the needs of vulnerable members of the population? And this goes beyond just human rights concerns, we’re talking about people who I think have different abilities in terms of using e-government systems, people who may be hearing challenged or visually challenged, things like that. Does anyone want to start by addressing that?

Florian Marcus: I would say one thing before just because of the last point that you mentioned, one problem for politicians is also that they are often being driven by their populations to adopt the latest buzzword technology. You mentioned blockchain AI, IoT, why do we use AI, why do we talk about the implementation of AI if the data quality of most governments around the world is so bad that AI cannot make any good decisions? You know, trash in, trash out, that’s very simple. So just sometimes government is also being driven in some sense in the wrong direction. About accessibility and an inclusion of people with disabilities and so on, for example, if you think about the health care portal, it would be primarily used by people who have trouble reading because they are elderly and so on. So why not make the default font for users over 65 just automatically ten times as big? Why not make those areas where people with disabilities would be primarily users, why not focus proactive services there? So as an example, if I know that you get a retirement or disability benefit, why don’t I make that proactive first, that you don’t have to apply, that you don’t have to go to the bank to cash the check or something, so that you make that as low interaction as possible. So that would be one way that we can do this.

Sienna Byrne: Thank you. I think, why don’t we move now to PeiChin. Would you like to address this question for?

PeiChin Tay: I actually had a similar point around proactive services, because I remember when I was working in the London regional office before this role and basically the job was around how do we skill up the population, you know, that had a very low literacy rate. And we were always very concerned about the people who were so-called hard to reach. But then we had this conversation with the colleagues. Basically, the hard-to-reach people are the people who need public services the most. And these are people often categorized as low-income and those who have disabilities, or very low digital literacy, or living in remote areas. And they often encounter barriers that would prevent them from fully benefiting from government programs, you know, such as not having a digital ID in the UK, or not even having bank accounts and so on. So for them, the government considers them hard to reach. But actually, the discussion basically pivoted the whole point, which is, for these people, the government is hard to reach. So therefore, the whole idea of private services is really important, because we need to reduce the administrative burden on these people. They don’t have time to navigate, you know, a web of bureaucratic intricacies. And even sometimes for myself, when I used to live in the UK, it was very difficult to actually understand what I am eligible for and how I apply for it. And I would consider myself to be somebody who is quite digitally literate. So actually, we need to be really radically thinking about that, and kind of reducing all these barriers and hurdles, especially for people who need it the most.

Sienna Byrne: Thank you so much. I think we are about at time here now. But I think we have time maybe for one or two questions from the audience to close things out. I see we have someone back here. Let’s hear it.

Audience: Yes. Yes, hello, good afternoon. My name is Matilda Moses Machauri from the PAYAG and from Tanzania. I have a question. So, we talk about this e-governance and everything, but what are the strategies that you are going to use to engage the youth, especially from the marginalized group, to engage themselves in this e-governance that you’re talking about? So, if we start to get this digital governance, what are the strategies that you’re going to use? And especially for this marginalized group, of course, I want to know, for it to be sustainable for everyone to use, you know, for sustainable for everyone to be able to engage in it, especially for African youth mostly, marginalized community completely. Thank you.

Sienna Byrne: I’ll pass it off to the panelists who wants to take that.

Asha Abinallah: Yeah, for the Tanzanian government, you know, it’s very strange. I did say that they’re doing very well and this is an excellent example. When it comes to infrastructure, internet and digital infrastructure, Tanzania is covered by 60 percent, 60 to 65 percent. Like, it’s covered, we’re talking about fiber, but the infrastructure is only accessible at 38 to 40 percent. It’s telling a lot that, one, the people are not really literate. Secondly, the infrastructure is not there to be consumed by the community. Secondly, the government, through a regulator, they have a program known as UCSAS. It is intended entirely to reach out to the rural. So, I will say, we were talking with this conversation, digital transformation, it started in 2021 when we had the funds from World Bank and EU. I would say we are in progress, we are getting there. It’s not perfect, but it is something that is being worked upon. The newly launched is also has also identified the intent and when it and and the government is also they also want to make sure every Tanzanian has a digital identity and this they wanted by by end of 2020 for which I know won’t work I think I think I think they will have to move it forward so yes it is not perfect but something is being done I wish I could explain further and we can talk about it because the time is limited

Sienna Byrne: thank you so much and yes unfortunately the time is limited and we are now at time but thank you so much for that question and it was a pleasure hearing everyone’s ideas and speaking with everyone today you you.

Agreement Points

Importance of citizen engagement in e-government design

Florian Marcus

Noha Abdel Baky

Asha Abinallah

PeiChin Tay

Dr. Adel Abdel-Sadek

Secure digital identities and data exchange are crucial

Youth should be primary users and influencers of e-government tools

Creating platforms to engage citizens and explain importance of participation

Leveraging technology to reduce barriers and create digital feedback loops

Viewing citizens as partners and owners in e-government design

All speakers emphasized the importance of actively involving citizens in the design and implementation of e-government systems, recognizing them as key stakeholders and partners rather than just end-users.

Need for proactive and accessible e-government services

Florian Marcus

PeiChin Tay

Develop proactive government services that predict citizen needs

Provide proactive services to reduce administrative burden

Both speakers advocated for proactive government services that anticipate citizens’ needs and reduce administrative burdens, particularly for vulnerable populations.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the crucial role of youth in e-government initiatives, advocating for their active involvement as primary users, influencers, and leaders in the design and implementation of these systems.

Noha Abdel Baky

Asha Abinallah

Youth should be primary users and influencers of e-government tools

Give youth leadership roles in e-government initiatives

Both speakers stressed the importance of creating a robust legal and technological framework to support e-government initiatives, emphasizing the need for secure digital identities and updated laws to build trust in the digital ecosystem.

Florian Marcus

Dr. Adel Abdel-Sadek

Secure digital identities and data exchange are crucial

Ensure political support and modernize laws for digital transformation

Unexpected Consensus

Human-centered approach to e-government design

PeiChin Tay

Asha Abinallah

Take a human-centered design approach to policymaking

Identify stakeholders and engage citizens from the start

Despite coming from different backgrounds, both speakers emphasized the importance of a human-centered approach to e-government design, focusing on understanding and addressing the specific needs of various stakeholder groups from the outset of any initiative.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement among speakers included the importance of citizen engagement in e-government design, the need for proactive and accessible services, the crucial role of youth in these initiatives, and the necessity of creating robust legal and technological frameworks to support e-government systems.

Consensus level

There was a high level of consensus among the speakers on the fundamental principles of e-government design and implementation. This consensus suggests a strong foundation for developing effective e-government strategies that prioritize citizen engagement, accessibility, and security. However, the specific approaches and implementation details may vary depending on local contexts and resources.

Different Viewpoints

Role of international community in e-government development

Florian Marcus

Noha Abdel Baky

I would say that we have to stay the hell out of Whatever country is whatever it wants Yes, of course, there’s a consideration for human rights and so on but that’s table can turn very quickly and then Western countries, which are also not perfect democracies either in some sense

Yeah, so yeah, the technical community of course have a big role to create innovative and new solutions tackling on-ground problems, like they can work in parallel with entrepreneurs or civil society organizations to understand the local need or the real problems that need to be addressed and put them in context of the emerging technologies that can be effective in resolving those issues and offer these solutions for the government to implement.

Florian Marcus advocates for minimal international interference in a country’s e-government development, while Noha Abdel Baky sees a significant role for the international technical community in creating innovative solutions.

Unexpected Differences

Approach to citizen engagement in e-government design

Asha Abinallah

PeiChin Tay

Give youth leadership roles in e-government initiatives

Involve citizens as co-creators in policymaking, not just end-users

While both speakers advocate for citizen involvement, their approaches differ unexpectedly. Asha Abinallah focuses specifically on giving youth leadership roles, while PeiChin Tay proposes a broader co-creation approach involving all citizens. This difference in focus was not anticipated given their shared goal of citizen engagement.

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement revolve around the role of international community in e-government development, the specific approaches to citizen engagement, and the focus of proactive government services.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among the speakers is moderate. While there are some differences in approach and focus, there is a general consensus on the importance of citizen participation, proactive services, and addressing the needs of vulnerable populations in e-government design. These differences in perspective can potentially lead to a more comprehensive and nuanced approach to e-government implementation, as they highlight various aspects that need to be considered.

Partial Agreements

Both speakers agree on the importance of proactive government services, but they differ in their focus. Florian Marcus emphasizes predicting citizen needs for efficiency, while PeiChin Tay focuses on reducing administrative burden for vulnerable populations.

Florian Marcus

PeiChin Tay

Develop proactive government services that predict citizen needs

Provide proactive services to reduce administrative burden

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the crucial role of youth in e-government initiatives, advocating for their active involvement as primary users, influencers, and leaders in the design and implementation of these systems.

Noha Abdel Baky

Asha Abinallah

Youth should be primary users and influencers of e-government tools

Give youth leadership roles in e-government initiatives

Both speakers stressed the importance of creating a robust legal and technological framework to support e-government initiatives, emphasizing the need for secure digital identities and updated laws to build trust in the digital ecosystem.

Florian Marcus

Dr. Adel Abdel-Sadek

Secure digital identities and data exchange are crucial

Ensure political support and modernize laws for digital transformation

Key Takeaways

Secure digital identities and data exchange are crucial foundations for e-government systems

Youth should be primary users and influencers of e-government tools

Citizens should be viewed as partners and co-creators in e-government design, not just end-users

Proactive government services that predict citizen needs can improve user experience

Human-centered design approaches are important for developing effective e-government policies

E-government systems need to be designed with accessibility in mind for vulnerable populations

Building trust in e-government initiatives requires engaging citizens from the start and ensuring transparency

Resolutions and Action Items

Implement secure digital petitioning and online voting systems to increase citizen participation

Give youth leadership roles in e-government initiatives

Develop legal frameworks to institutionalize youth participation in e-government

Improve digital infrastructure access in rural and marginalized areas

Unresolved Issues

How to effectively engage citizens from marginalized groups in e-government initiatives

Balancing security concerns with increased citizen participation in e-government design

Addressing data quality issues in government systems before implementing AI solutions

How to make e-government systems accessible to those with low digital literacy

Suggested Compromises

Focus on proactive services in areas primarily used by people with disabilities or elderly to balance accessibility needs

Use a mix of online and offline engagement strategies to reach both digitally connected and marginalized populations

Collaborate with civil society organizations to hold governments accountable while still promoting e-government adoption

So if we expect citizens to care about the services that government provides, then they should probably be good. And truth be told, in most countries that is not the case right now.

speaker

Florian Marcus

reason

This comment cuts to the heart of why many e-government initiatives fail to engage citizens – the services themselves are often not user-friendly or valuable enough.

impact

It shifted the discussion from theoretical ideas about engagement to the practical reality of service quality. This led to further discussion of proactive government services and user-centered design.

Policymakers really need to see citizens as co-creators and not just end-users because there’s a lot of complex challenges and governments do not have all the answers.

speaker

PeiChin Tay

reason

This reframes the entire relationship between citizens and government, suggesting a more collaborative approach to policymaking.

impact

It sparked discussion about how to meaningfully involve citizens in policy design, beyond just surveys or feedback forms. It led to examples of human-centered design approaches in policymaking.

The first thing we are supposed to do is give them leadership roles. According to attributes, like identify them and give them leadership roles.

speaker

Asha Abinallah

reason

This comment proposes a concrete way to empower citizens, especially youth, in e-government initiatives.

impact

It shifted the conversation from theoretical discussions of participation to practical strategies for empowerment. It led to further discussion of how to identify and support youth leaders in digital governance.

For these people, the government is hard to reach. So therefore, the whole idea of private services is really important, because we need to reduce the administrative burden on these people.

speaker

PeiChin Tay

reason

This insightful comment flips the perspective on ‘hard to reach’ populations, highlighting how government systems often fail to serve those who need them most.

impact

It reframed the discussion around accessibility, leading to more focus on proactive services and reducing barriers for vulnerable populations.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by moving it from theoretical concepts of e-government to practical considerations of implementation and user experience. They highlighted the importance of quality services, citizen co-creation, youth empowerment, and accessibility for vulnerable populations. This led to a more nuanced and practical conversation about how to design e-government systems that truly serve and engage citizens.

How can research be incorporated in a way that could be friendly and guide the overall process of citizen engagement?

speaker

Asha Abinallah

explanation

This is important to make research more accessible and actionable for improving e-government initiatives.

How do we make sure that politicians are forced to listen to what citizens say?

speaker

Florian Marcus

explanation

This is crucial for ensuring that citizen input actually influences e-government design and implementation.

How can we address the needs of people with disabilities in e-government systems?

speaker

Sienna Byrne

explanation

This is important for ensuring e-government systems are accessible and inclusive for all citizens.

What are the strategies to engage youth, especially from marginalized groups, in e-governance?

speaker

Audience member (Matilda Moses Machauri)

explanation

This is crucial for ensuring e-government initiatives reach and benefit all segments of the population, including those who may be currently excluded.

How can we address the lack of digital infrastructure in rural areas?

speaker

Audience member (Matilda Moses Machauri)

explanation

This is important for ensuring equal access to e-government services across all geographic areas.

Summary

This transcript covers a session by the Internet Society Foundation at the Internet Governance Forum, focusing on their grant programs and impact. Sarah Armstrong, the Executive Director, presented an overview of the foundation’s work since its establishment in 2019. The foundation has committed over $60 million in grants across 1,030 projects in 121 countries, aiming to connect more people to the internet and its benefits.

The foundation operates 11 different grant programs, including Beyond the Net, Connecting the Unconnected, and Skills for digital literacy. They highlighted their impact in 2023, such as connecting over 93,000 individuals through and supporting 25 national and regional internet governance initiatives.

Several grantees shared brief overviews of their projects. These included disaster risk resilience work in Kyrgyzstan, rural library digitalization in Armenia, and providing internet connectivity to tea garden workers in India. The foundation plans to commit $12 million in grants for 2025, continuing their mission of making the internet accessible and beneficial for everyone.

The session also addressed questions from attendees about research grant criteria, child online safety programs, and initiatives for empowering women and building infrastructure in Afghanistan. The foundation encouraged interested parties to explore their website for detailed information on various funding opportunities and eligibility criteria.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– Overview of the Internet Society Foundation’s grant programs and impact

– Examples of funded projects from grantees in different countries

– Criteria and application process for various grant programs

– Focus on connecting underserved communities and empowering people through internet access and skills

Overall purpose:

The purpose of this discussion was to introduce the Internet Society Foundation, highlight its grant programs and impact, and provide an opportunity for networking among attendees interested in internet development projects.

Speakers

– Rigdzin Collins, Associate Program Officer at the Internet Society Foundation

– Sarah Armstrong, Executive Director of the Internet Society Foundation

– Brian Horlick-Cruz, Associate Program Officer at the Internet Society Foundation

The Internet Society Foundation Session at the Internet Governance Forum

Introduction:

Rigdzin Collins opened the Internet Society Foundation session at the Internet Governance Forum, introducing the foundation’s work and the session’s structure. The event was designed to provide an overview of the foundation’s grant programmes and impact, featuring presentations from key speakers and grantees. Collins outlined three networking sections focused on infrastructure, training, and ISOC chapters.

Overview of the Internet Society Foundation:

Sarah Armstrong, the Executive Director, presented a comprehensive overview of the foundation’s work since its establishment in 2019. She highlighted the foundation’s mission to support internet development and accessibility through various grant programmes. Armstrong emphasized the foundation’s significant impact, mentioning that they had connected thousands of individuals through their programmes and supported numerous national and regional internet governance initiatives. She also noted that impact reports were available at the back table for attendees interested in more detailed information.

Examples of Funded Projects:

Several grantees shared brief overviews of their projects, illustrating the diverse range of initiatives supported by the foundation:

1. Talant from Kyrgyzstan discussed projects focused on IoT for disaster risk resilience and the development of an early warning system for mudflows. He also mentioned initiatives related to smart agriculture and air quality monitoring.

2. Christina from Armenia presented a rural library digitalization project. She explained how the project aims to preserve cultural heritage by digitizing rare books and manuscripts, making them accessible online and creating digital skills training programs for librarians and community members.

3. Osama Manzir from the Digital Empowerment Foundation in India highlighted two projects:

a) Providing internet connectivity to tea garden workers in Assam, addressing both connectivity and social justice issues. The project aims to connect 50 tea gardens and empower women through digital literacy.

b) Implementing a disaster communication system in the Himalayas, creating a network of information centers to improve disaster preparedness and response.

Grant Application Process and Q&A:

During the Q&A session, Rigdzin Collins addressed several questions:

1. Research Grants: Collins mentioned that specific criteria for research grants are available on the foundation’s website.

2. Child Online Safety Projects: Collins confirmed that grants are available for projects focused on child safety online and encouraged interested parties to explore the foundation’s website for more information.

3. Infrastructure and Connectivity Programmes: Collins noted the availability of programmes supporting infrastructure development and connectivity initiatives.

4. Empowering Women: The Skills programme was highlighted as focusing on empowering women through digital literacy and skills training.

Networking and Engagement:

Collins encouraged attendees to network with each other during the session, fostering collaboration and knowledge sharing. Participants were invited to visit the ISOC Foundation and ISOC booths near Workshop Room 1 for more detailed information on various funding opportunities and eligibility criteria. An icebreaker question about attendees’ first internet use was suggested to facilitate engagement.

Brian, the online moderator, noted that there were online participants but no questions had been received from them.

Conclusion:

The Internet Society Foundation session provided a comprehensive overview of the organisation’s grant programmes, impact, and future plans. By showcasing diverse projects and addressing various aspects of internet development, the foundation demonstrated its commitment to bridging the digital divide and empowering communities worldwide through internet access and skills.

Rigdzin Collins: If you, if you have different sections, because we are gonna do a bit of a breakout for networking. So the first section would be infrastructure and connecting the unconnected. The second section is training, if you feel like you would like to meet people involved in this area, it’s number three. And the third section is for ISOC chapters who would like to meet other people in ISOC chapters. Can you, is it okay? It’s working, I can hear it. Hear me? Can everyone hear me? Okay, they can hear me. So I was just saying if you would like to sit in a section, we have three different sections. A section for infrastructure and connecting the unconnected, a section related to digital literacy and training, and a section for ISOC chapters, or if you’re interested in ISOC chapters, you can sit on this side. Sorry, it’s cutting out a bit. You do not have to sit in those areas, but it’s just if you want to be during the networking section. So I think we’re ready to start now. Sorry, we’re starting a bit behind. Can everyone hear? Great. So my name is Rigzin Collins. I’m an Associate Program Officer at the Internet Society Foundation. I’m so happy you joined us today. We want to thank the IGF for letting us have this session. It’s our first session as a foundation, as the ISOC Foundation at the IGF. I, today, am joined by Sarah Armstrong, who’s our Executive Director. Hello. And my colleague, Brian Horlick-Cruz, who is another Associate Program Officer, who I think many of you work with. And so today, we’re just going to do a bit of an overview of our work at the foundation. And then we really hope that this session will give people a chance to meet each other. We’re gonna hear from a few grantees, hopefully. We’re gonna put a few grantees on the spot. I see some people who have just walked in. And to break up, exchange information, and then meet back for some questions. You have a note card on your table. If you have a question that you would like to ask us, please feel free to write this. We might not be able to get through all of the questions, but we will try to get through some, and we can try to answer questions you have after. I also want to say thank you to the people online, and our moderator will also be taking your questions. Sorry. So now, I would like to turn it over to Sarah.

Sarah Armstrong: Good afternoon to everyone in this room, and good morning or evening to those who are online. We are very pleased to have the opportunity to have this session, and to meet all of you, and to share with you information about funding Global Connection. We want to really focus on connection. And when we say connection, it’s not just a matter of getting people access and connection to the internet, but also a connection to the benefits of the internet, and the way in which it can change lives. So we’ll be talking about the foundation itself, and then we’ll also share some stories about what our grantees are doing, as that is the first thing that’s referred to us. So I will start just by sharing with you, well, here’s the name, and as I said, focusing on the word connection. Our vision for the internet, or our vision is that the internet is for everyone. And this is a statement that we share with the Internet Society, and the idea here is to make sure that we get the internet to as many people as possible, and as we know, we still have a challenge. There’s over 2.5 billion people. So we wanna continue to find ways to make an internet for everyone. We are a supporting organization. The Internet Society Foundation is a supporting organization for the Internet Society, and specifically what we’re doing is making sure that we work together to secure an open, globally connected, and trustworthy internet for all. So that’s a real focus for us. And then I just wanna mention that what you’ll be hearing about today is the philanthropy efforts of the foundation, and what that means is grant giving, or is administering grants, managing grants, managing relationships with grantees, and that’s what we do all day long every day with a lot of passion. Go, thank you. Okay, so in 2019, we began looking at how to form a foundation, and then really got kicked into gear in 2020. And that year, yes, the year of the pandemic, we started this foundation, was our first full operational year. And we are now in our fifth full operational year, almost concluding, because we’re so close to the end of the year. And as you can see, since I’ve committed over $60 million in grants, we have committed 1,030 grants over this time that we’ve been involved. And then we are working, or have worked, in 121 countries. So we’ve really grown quite a bit, quite rapidly, and feeling very good about the progress that we’ve made. And we’ve done this because of the types of grantees that we have been able to in our programs, and yeah, work together in making an internet for everyone. So here is a slide that shows for you what our different program areas are, and our program of them right now, as you can see. I’m not gonna talk you through every single one of these, because I think we want some time for everybody else to talk. And yeah. I just want to say the table in the back, the very back table, you’ll see our impact reports. I know there are not enough seats, so people might be sitting there, which is fine. But if people want more information about the programs, they can take a glance on their way out of the back table. Yeah, and also we’ll talk about where you can find things on the website, because there’s an awful lot of information on all these different programs. But the different ones that you can see, include Beyond the Net, which is a chapter program. We have one called Connecting the Unconnected. We do a Global Encryption Day. We’ve got Research. We have a program we call Skills. And the purpose of Skills is to make sure that once people are online, that they’re benefiting from that access, and working in the education and in economic opportunities arena, to see what they can do with the skills that we can help provide through our grantees to change their lives. Sustainable Peering Infrastructure, focused on IXPs and Sustainable Technical Communities. We know what those are. So that’s just a quick snapshot of the 11 program areas that we fund. Here’s some examples. Rixon just mentioned our impact reports. We are now going to be doing an impact report for our program areas at the end of each year, and produce them in the beginning of the year. Right now on the table, you’ll see program impact statements and impact briefs, and that will be covering 2023. And now, right now, we’re developing ideas for how to share impact for 2024, and that we will be able to share with you sometime in the first quarter. Kind of keeps coming out. Sorry about that. I’m not sure what I’m doing here. So Beyond the Net is a program, as I mentioned, for Internet Society chapters. In 2023 how many people we connected and how many training skills trainings were delivered to how many individuals. Additionally we have a program called BOLT and that stands for Building Opportunities Leveraging Technologies and that is targeted to registered nonprofits. We do have a requirement that our organizations that we fund through some of these programs are 501c3 or equivalent. So that’s just something to know if you’re considering applying to some of our grant programs you’ll see that that is a requirement. You can see with the bridging technology BOLT which is an effort to find innovative ways to connect people. We’ve connected again this is the 2023 impact 93,000 individuals and 538 internet access points. And then we have internet governance forums. We fund internet governance forums on the national, regional, and global level. So we’re helping to support this meeting that we’re all sitting in now. And then also we digs so schools of internet governance so people can apply for funding and you can see what we did in 2023, 25 NRIs and 629 participants in the SIGs that we funded. So going on to a couple more programs just to share with you. Resiliency is a program that we run because we know that all communities now are more vulnerable to disasters because of what’s happening with the climate. We felt it was important to have a program where we could help communities be more prepared for what it is that might happen and how they can get connectivity up quickly. So this program called Resiliency is all all have been having trainings ahead of time making sure people know what to do when a hurricane, when a landslide, when an earthquake, when in anything hits them. So we’re working now in this case you can see across 41 countries and making a big difference in getting people ready so when these things happen they’re more prepared. Research is a program that we have that has a number of different themes to it. Again we’ll refer you to our website with more information. And finally Skills I mentioned earlier is a program where we are taking people who have access and helping them in the areas of education and economic opportunities. So in this case you can see we trained a lot of people on internet use for economic opportunities. So those are just some quick highlights from 2023 from six of our programs out of the eleven. And then I’m just going to give you a couple of brief examples of organizations that we’ve worked with and the work that they’ve produced. So you can see here Skills a grantee spotlight right here. This is the one it’s one of our programs in Indonesia. So Skills works in six different countries Indonesia and Bangladesh in the APAC region. It works in Senegal and Ghana in the African region. And in the Latin America Caribbean region it works in both Brazil and Colombia. So we have an example here of them training and really empowering women with disabilities. I’m just going to read you a little quote from someone who was part of the program. The Skills grant program has been instrumental in advancing our mission to support the aspirations and needs of women with disabilities to become economically independent and confident in their abilities and to foster an exclusive inclusive and safe environment where everyone can thrive. So you can see that it’s really a life-changing type program. And then the other one I just want to highlight is a Kyrgyzstan chapter. The Internet Society for those who are not familiar they have chapters throughout the world and they’re well over a hundred and they are all almost all eligible to apply for grants. And when they apply for grants they can get one with the Beyond the Net but they can also get a research grant if they have the qualifications. And the Kyrgyzstan chapter did get a research grant and they are one of those areas that are really really vulnerable to landslides. So they developed a program where they were able to put together an Internet of Things infrastructure in order to make sure that we could detect they could detect when mudslides or landslides might be coming and and prepare that way. So this is just another innovative way that one of our grantees has decided to use the funding that was provided. And then we support IGFs, NRIs, and SIGs as I mentioned earlier. And just to give you by the numbers for this year so this isn’t 2023 this is this year. And we have supported 67 initiatives and provided well over $500,000 U.S. to you know to make sure that those are all running well and and we’ve had a lot of good success. And then this is a location map for where our different 67 sponsorships in 2024 were located and you can see the global is highlighted because we are supporting this meeting. And then you can see we really hit a good amount of areas around the world. So what are we going to do in 2025 based on all that stuff that I just shared with you? Our plan is to commit 12 million USD in grants and that’s something that we feel really confident that we are going to be able to do. And then operationalize everything. And what we do when we operationalize everything is that we make sure that we are really in sync with the Internet. All about as we were talking about the Internet is for everyone. Making sure more people are connected in a secure safe way and affordable of course very important as well. So that’s the direction that we plan to go for 2025. Those are some examples of the programs that we fund. And then I just want to say that we believe together we can amplify our impact and create solutions to connect more people to the Internet. And when we say together we mean people in this room in passion we do for this. And of course we mean really working hard and having great relationships with the grantees because they’re the ones who really pull everything together and do impressive work. So I will end with the slide of how you can connect with us. There are many different ways. You can scan our QR code and get our newsletter. And then of course we’re all over social media. So what we’d like to do now since you’ve just seen an overview and I can take questions later. But what we want to I think right wait or we’re very lucky. Sorry my headset is a little long. Thank you Sarah for that for giving us

Rigdzin Collins: This wonderful presentation. We have actually the Kyrgyzstan chapter present. And so I wanted to put we have a few of our grantees here and I just wanted to ask them if they could maybe if they don’t mind very briefly just tell us a little bit like very short explanation of their current project. So I have three grantees here that I’m going to pick on and I’m just going to ask if you could maybe tell people a little bit about your current work and I guess maybe your experience working with the foundation or you don’t have to say that but your current work just so people know the kind of projects that are being done. But I would ask if we could can keep the responses a little bit short, because we have another few sections. So my first person is Talant, if you don’t mind. Sorry. Do you want to come up? It’s working, yeah?

Talant: So I want to say thank you to ISOC Foundation for this grants provide. And indeed, as mentioned, we have actually a couple of grants that we are implementing. One is a research grant on using IoT LoRaWAN technology for disaster risk resilience. And another project that we’re implementing is a Beyond the Net grant on digital skills and digital hygiene trainings for rural communities. And all of our work is focused on rural communities in the local language, and with the emphasis on opportunities for girls and women in rural communities. And we’d like to thank you for all these opportunities. Thanks.

Rigdzin Collins: Thank you so much, Talant. So we also have present two more grantees that I’m just going to briefly pick on. Sorry, I can’t hear. So I hope this is working. We have Christina from the ISOC Armenia chapter. And they’ve been doing some wonderful Beyond the Net projects.

Christina: Hello, everyone. We are working with ISOC Foundation in the scope of rural libraries project. And it is very great project we are doing with ISOC Foundation. We are supporting rural libraries for digitalization process, and make their books and their, let’s say, magazines, et cetera. All stuff they have, we are supporting them to create a program. Actually, we create a program for them. And they are digitalizing their old stuff. I read them, I mean, in my network. And they created a hub for all people in rural areas. And they are coming to these hubs and doing their work, gaining money, or just for the information they are gaining from these libraries. And it is very great. Thank you very much for your support and for your continuous work with us. Thank you very much.

Rigdzin Collins: Thank you. Thank you, Christina. And thank you for sharing your thoughts with us last minute. And then we finally have Osama from the Digital Empowerment Foundation. And he is not, I don’t know if you’re an ISOC member. But this is an example of someone who is not an ISOC chapter affiliate, but is an outside organization that we’ve been able to work with on several projects. So I know you have very interesting work. If you want to tell us a little bit about your current project or anything you want to share with people.

Osama: Yeah, thank you very much. I’m Osama Manzir from Digital Empowerment Foundation. And there are three relationships. One is that I remember since we have been associated with ISOC for a very, very long time, I remember when before even ISOC Foundation, there was a whole feedback session that used to happen. Is that should we create a foundation? Should we create a grant making organization? And I was very actively involved in that, that yes, we should. Because they wanted to have community intervention to hear from, whom it will benefit directly. So that was that. But for the foundation, and we are granted three times, actually. And one was Bolt. And very interesting project that we did is that, I don’t know how many of you know that there are tea gardens, hundreds of thousands. There are 5,000 tea gardens in Assam and North Bengal in India. And most of these tea gardens employ almost slave-like workers. And they all are indigenous communities. And they work like slaves. And without any internet connectivity, complete violation of their daily wages, or their wages, and so on and so forth. And then this grant was basically to provide internet connectivity in the middle of the garden, bypassing all administrative and bureaucratic hassles. And we could do 50 in the first one. And it was so successful that ISOC Foundation asked for next proposal. And now we have 100 tea gardens having connectivity, and access, and education, everything available in a community level, managed by the community member on a sustainable basis. So it’s like 100 tea gardens. And it is replicating every year. So that’s one. The second is that you know Himalayas. Everybody want to go to Himalayas for tourism, for adventure, for everything. But they also live in very, very strong disaster zones. So there is this one project that we are doing where we are working in an area where there is. So we are establishing a communication system, along with a community center, which is connected through data. And to have a 24 by 7 connectivity in a disaster zone, so that you are always next to the data connectivity for informing anything. So these are a couple of things. I can go on and on. But yeah.

Rigdzin Collins: Thank you, Osama. Brian, I know you’ve been moderating online. And we don’t want to forget the people online. And since we are in person, maybe we can, in the interest of time, take some questions from online people. Sure thing, Rigsu. We do not have any online questions at this moment. But we’ll see if any come in. Does anyone here have any questions they would like to ask? Otherwise, we can break out. OK. Oh, I think I saw your hand, professor. Yeah. What are the criteria for a research grant? So in this case, we definitely encourage you to go to our Am I not on? You are. Am I on? You’re good. OK. I’m on. Thank you. We encourage you to go to our Internet Society Foundation website, because it can give you all the information. It will also provide you with the different themes that we’re funding. We have the internet economy, we have a decolonizing internet and we also have the green internet. So those are four different categories under which you can apply for research grants. If you’re an individual, you could certainly apply. If you’re with an organization, an academic institution, you can certainly apply. And you’ll see there are various levels of funding, depending on the type of person or application that we’re getting. So at ISOCfoundation.org, which is our website, and I think you’ll see there’s a tab right on the home page that says funding areas. So you can certainly get all of the different criteria for what we need. And as I mentioned, in some of the cases, it absolutely has to be a 501c3 or equivalent if it’s an organization. So yeah. OK. Who is next? Right here? OK. OK. Can you hear me? All right.

Mary: My name is Mary Uduma. I’m from Nigeria. I belong to the Nigerian chapter of the internet. Specifically, I’m asking about child safety, online, and protection. Because we have a foundation that is specializing in child safety. on that and engaging parents and engaging teachers and working with children, young people, whether the grants were eligible to be able to apply for a grant to do this work. Nigeria is a large country and so many schools. This year we had a summit and we had the children and other stakeholders around. And so that’s what I chair is focusing on. So I wanted to know whether it would be eligible to apply for a grant. Thank you.

Rigdzin Collins: Yeah, absolutely. What we would encourage you to do again is to go and look at what the different programs are and see what the work of your foundation does, how it matches up. And because we’re just about to turn a new year, many programs are starting to open up and launch again. We have a number of them launching in January. And you’re with a chapter as well, or you would be applying as the foundation, your foundation? Applying as the foundation, not the foundation. Okay, yeah. So certainly you can see if we can, because we are doing some of this work already with some of our grantees. So I would encourage you to get more information from the website. Yes. And I think we need to maybe have one more quick question and then we are going to do a breakout. But what we can do is, so if you want to meet people within your section, please feel free to do that after this question. And we will stay here. If other people have questions, they can come to us. So I think just to make it fair.

Atikullah: My name is Atikullah. I came here from Pakistan. So my question, based on it, only 7% area have access to internet. It’s breaking up a little bit. Maybe if you. This way? Okay. I hope my question didn’t got lengthy. My question is that, based on area percentage, only 7% area have power. Population people have access to internet. And as the current government of Taliban is day by day banning education on women. So is there any special program from international society side for empowering Afghan women? First question. And second, based on infrastructure, is there any special program building infrastructure up internet in Afghanistan from international society sides?

Rigdzin Collins: Thank you. Yes. So we have a number of programs that focus specifically on building infrastructure. Yes. Connecting the unconnected is one of the programs. Yes. And that’s all about that. It’s mainly. It’s mainly networks. So that’s an option. As I mentioned earlier, the BOLT program is all about innovative ways to connect people. So there’s funding available there as well. So we have at least a couple of programs where we can do that. And you can certainly, again, rather than going into all kinds of long criteria and what the objectives of the program are and how you have to match to support the mission of ISOC, these are all requirements that you will see if you go to our page. But I would start with those two programs, looking at BOLT and looking at connecting the unconnected. And what about the empowering Afghan women? Is there any special program for empowering Afghan women? Well, yes. I mean, our skills program is really very focused on that. So that’s another program that’s worth. It depends on what country in which you’re working because right now we’re working in just six countries, but we do plan to look at expanding that in 2025 and 2026. Thanks. Okay. Thank you so much for your questions. So now I think what we can do is do a little bit of networking with each other. So if we want to take a few minutes the rest of the session maybe, we can meet back at the end. But we just wanted to maybe pose a question. You’re sitting in an area that you chose when you came in. I know some of you just sat down. Thank you so much. So our question is, if you want to go and talk to people, you can either ask them why they chose to sit in this area, tell them a little bit about yourself, your project, or if you feel shy doing that, we have another icebreaker that we really like to do at the foundation. Find someone and ask them their first time they remember using the Internet or showing someone how to use the Internet because I know some people are very young and they never knew a life without Internet. So we encourage everyone now to meet. We also will walk around. If you have questions for us, please come up and talk to us. And also just a reminder, our booth, our ISOC booth, the ISOC Foundation and ISOC booth is down. I don’t remember the exact number. It’s near Workshop Room 1. It’s in front of Workshop Room 1. So we will be there all week. If you have other questions or want to come by and say hi, please do. We want to thank everyone for joining us today because it’s really great to have so many people here. So now we really encourage everyone to make the most of this networking session and meet some new people. Yeah, we wanted to be sure you networked in the networking session. If you feel like it. If you want to do that and just get to know some of the people with whom you’re sitting, that would be great. And if that doesn’t feel like something everybody wants to at least try, we can certainly… Sure, we can take more questions. Take more questions. Yeah. We encourage you to talk to other people. What do you think? Ask that question. Ask that question. Yeah. When was the first time you remember using the internet? Oh, a long time ago. Thank you.

Agreement Points

Importance of connecting underserved communities

Sarah Armstrong

Speaker 1

Speaker 2

Speaker 3

Foundation’s vision and mission

IoT for disaster risk resilience in Kyrgyzstan

Rural library digitalization in Armenia

Internet connectivity for tea garden workers in India

All speakers emphasized the importance of connecting underserved communities to the internet and providing digital skills training.

Focus on empowering women and girls

Sarah Armstrong

Speaker 1

Rigdzin Collins

Grant programs and funding areas

IoT for disaster risk resilience in Kyrgyzstan

Focus on empowering women through Skills program

Multiple speakers highlighted the foundation’s efforts to empower women and girls through various programs and projects.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the significant impact of the foundation’s work in connecting large numbers of people and improving their lives through internet access.

Sarah Armstrong

Speaker 3

Impact and reach of foundation’s work

Internet connectivity for tea garden workers in India

Unexpected Consensus

Disaster preparedness and resilience

Speaker 1

Speaker 3

IoT for disaster risk resilience in Kyrgyzstan

Disaster communication system in Himalayas

Despite representing different regions and organizations, both speakers highlighted projects focused on using technology for disaster preparedness and resilience, indicating a shared recognition of this important application of internet connectivity.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement centered around the importance of connecting underserved communities, empowering women and girls, and using technology for social impact and disaster resilience.

Consensus level

There was a high level of consensus among the speakers regarding the foundation’s mission and the importance of its work. This strong agreement implies a unified approach to addressing global connectivity challenges and suggests that the foundation’s priorities align well with the needs identified by grantees and partners in various regions.

Different Viewpoints

Unexpected Differences

Overall Assessment

summary

There were no significant disagreements observed among the speakers. The discussion was primarily informative and collaborative, focusing on the Internet Society Foundation’s mission, grant programs, and examples of funded projects.

difference_level

Very low. The speakers presented a unified message about the foundation’s work and its impact. This alignment suggests a cohesive approach to addressing internet connectivity and digital empowerment challenges globally.

Partial Agreements

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the significant impact of the foundation’s work in connecting large numbers of people and improving their lives through internet access.

Sarah Armstrong

Speaker 3

Impact and reach of foundation’s work

Internet connectivity for tea garden workers in India

Key Takeaways

The Internet Society Foundation has committed over $60 million in grants across 121 countries since 2020

The Foundation has 11 program areas including connecting the unconnected, digital skills training, and supporting Internet governance forums

Examples of funded projects include disaster resilience in Kyrgyzstan, rural library digitalization in Armenia, and internet connectivity for tea garden workers in India

The Foundation plans to commit $12 million USD in grants in 2025

Grant applications can be made through the Foundation’s website, with different criteria for various programs

Resolutions and Action Items

Attendees encouraged to network with each other during the session

Participants invited to visit the ISOC Foundation booth for more information

Unresolved Issues

Specific details on expanding the Skills program to new countries in 2025-2026

Exact criteria for eligibility of child online safety projects for grants

Suggested Compromises

None identified

We are now going to be doing an impact report for our program areas at the end of each year, and produce them in the beginning of the year.

speaker

Sarah Armstrong

reason

This comment is insightful because it demonstrates a commitment to transparency and accountability in the foundation’s work. By producing regular impact reports, the organization is showing its dedication to measuring and sharing the results of its programs.

impact

This comment set the tone for the presentation, emphasizing the foundation’s focus on measurable impact and data-driven decision making. It likely increased audience interest in the specific outcomes of the foundation’s work.

We have supported 67 initiatives and provided well over $500,000 U.S. to you know to make sure that those are all running well and and we’ve had a lot of good success.

speaker

Sarah Armstrong

reason

This comment is thought-provoking because it provides concrete numbers that illustrate the scale of the foundation’s impact. It gives the audience a clear sense of the organization’s reach and financial commitment.

impact

This statement likely sparked curiosity among the audience about the specific initiatives supported and may have led to follow-up questions about the types of projects funded.

We are supporting rural libraries for digitalization process, and make their books and their, let’s say, magazines, et cetera. All stuff they have, we are supporting them to create a program.

speaker

Christina from ISOC Armenia chapter

reason

This comment is insightful because it provides a specific example of how the foundation’s work is impacting local communities. It illustrates a practical application of technology to preserve and share cultural resources.

impact

This real-world example likely made the foundation’s work more tangible for the audience and may have inspired others to think about similar projects in their own communities.

And now we have 100 tea gardens having connectivity, and access, and education, everything available in a community level, managed by the community member on a sustainable basis.

speaker

Osama Manzir from Digital Empowerment Foundation

reason

This comment is particularly thought-provoking because it highlights a unique and impactful project that addresses both connectivity and social justice issues. It demonstrates how internet access can be leveraged to improve working conditions and empower marginalized communities.

impact

This example likely broadened the audience’s perspective on the potential applications of internet connectivity projects and may have sparked discussions about similar initiatives in other industries or regions.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by providing concrete examples and data that illustrated the real-world impact of the Internet Society Foundation’s work. They moved the conversation from general statements about the foundation’s mission to specific, tangible outcomes. This likely increased audience engagement and understanding of the foundation’s role in promoting internet access and digital empowerment globally. The diversity of projects mentioned, from rural libraries to tea gardens, demonstrated the wide-ranging applications of the foundation’s support and may have inspired attendees to consider new possibilities for internet-related initiatives in their own contexts.

What are the specific criteria for a research grant?

speaker

Unnamed professor

explanation

Understanding the criteria is crucial for potential applicants to determine their eligibility and prepare strong proposals.

Are grants available for projects focused on child safety online?

speaker

Mary Uduma

explanation

This information is important for organizations working on child protection to know if they can access funding for their initiatives.

Are there any special programs for empowering Afghan women?

speaker

Atikullah

explanation

Given the current situation in Afghanistan, targeted programs for women’s empowerment are particularly relevant and necessary.

Are there any special programs for building internet infrastructure in Afghanistan?

speaker

Atikullah

explanation

With only 7% of the population having internet access, understanding available support for infrastructure development is crucial for improving connectivity in the country.