Uncategorized

Summary

This panel discussion focused on the complex interplay between technology, privacy rights, and child protection in the digital space, particularly concerning encryption and lawful access. Experts from various fields explored how to foster an online environment that respects human rights while prioritizing child safety.

The debate centered around the implementation of end-to-end encryption by major tech companies and its impact on law enforcement’s ability to access communications for child protection purposes. Panelists discussed legislation in countries like Australia and the UK that aim to provide lawful access to encrypted communications, while also acknowledging the need for robust safeguards and oversight.

There was disagreement on whether backdoors or client-side scanning could be implemented without compromising overall security and privacy. Some argued that these measures are necessary to combat child exploitation, while others warned of potential abuse and the risk of driving users to less regulated platforms.

The discussion highlighted the need for a multi-stakeholder approach to find solutions that balance security, privacy, and child safety. Panelists explored potential technical innovations, such as abuse-resistant lawful access mechanisms and homomorphic encryption, as ways to potentially address some concerns.

The conversation also touched on the global nature of the problem, the importance of considering victims’ perspectives, and the challenges of implementing universal solutions across different jurisdictions and cultures. There was a general consensus that continued dialogue and collaboration between governments, industry, civil society, and academia is crucial to addressing these complex issues.

In conclusion, while no definitive solutions were reached, the discussion emphasized the ongoing need for innovative approaches and balanced regulation to protect children online while preserving privacy and security for all users.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– The debate over encryption and lawful access, including recent legislation in various countries

– Technical challenges and potential solutions for balancing security, privacy, and child safety

– The role of different stakeholders (government, industry, civil society) in addressing these issues

– The impact of end-to-end encryption on law enforcement and child protection efforts

– Potential compromises or alternative approaches to enable some lawful access while preserving security

The overall purpose of the discussion was to explore the complex interplay between technology, privacy rights, and efforts to protect children in the digital space. The panel aimed to bring together diverse perspectives to discuss how to foster an online environment that respects human rights while prioritizing child safety.

The tone of the discussion was generally collaborative and solution-oriented, with panelists acknowledging the complexity of the issues and the need for multi-stakeholder cooperation. While there were some disagreements, particularly around the feasibility and desirability of backdoors in encryption, the tone remained respectful. Towards the end, there was a shift towards more urgency in finding practical solutions and determining who should take the lead in bringing stakeholders together.

Speakers

– Stewart Baker: Moderator, Washington D.C.-based attorney specializing in homeland security, cybersecurity, and data protection

– Dan Suter: Principal advisor to the prime minister and cabinet ministries in New Zealand on lawful access and cross-border data policy

– Mallory Knodel: Executive director of the Social Web Foundation, technology and human rights expert specializing in internet governance and digital policy

– Katie Noyes: Section chief for the FBI science and technology branches, Next Generation Technology and Technology and lawful access section

– Gabriel Kaptchuk: Assistant professor in the computer science department at the University of Maryland, College Park, focuses on cryptographic systems

– Mia McAllister: Introducer/facilitator of the panel discussion

Additional speakers:

– Andrew Campling: Trustee for the Internet Watch Foundation

Encryption, Child Safety, and Lawful Access: Balancing Priorities in the Digital Age

This panel discussion brought together experts from various fields to explore the complex interplay between technology, privacy rights, and child protection in the digital space. The conversation centered on the challenges posed by end-to-end encryption and the need to balance security, privacy, and child safety in an increasingly interconnected world.

Key Themes and Debates

1. Legislation and Regulation of Encryption

The discussion highlighted recent legislative efforts in countries like Australia and the UK to address encryption and lawful access. Dan Suter, speaking about Australia and the UK’s approaches, advocated for an incremental approach with safeguards, referencing Australia’s TOLA legislation and the UK’s Investigatory Powers Act. He emphasized the need for consistent engagement between governments and tech firms to develop effective solutions.

Mallory Knodel, from the Social Web Foundation, warned that overly restrictive laws could force companies to leave certain jurisdictions, citing the example of the Session app leaving Australia due to concerns about TOLA legislation. This exodus could potentially undermine both privacy and child protection efforts. Katie Noyes of the FBI noted that the EU is also exploring ways to provide law enforcement with access to data while respecting privacy rights, mentioning the G7 Romalion group’s lawful access working group.

Gabriel Kaptchuk, an academic expert in cryptography, cautioned against mandating backdoors or weakening encryption, highlighting the potential security risks associated with such approaches. He explained the crucial differences between software update keys and encryption keys for messaging, emphasizing the importance of understanding these distinctions in policy discussions.

2. Balancing Security, Privacy, and Child Safety

A central tension in the discussion revolved around the implementation of end-to-end encryption by major tech companies and its impact on law enforcement’s ability to access communications for child protection purposes. Katie Noyes emphasized that while end-to-end encryption protects users, it also hinders investigations into child exploitation. She provided concrete data from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children to ground the discussion in real-world impacts.

Noyes illustrated the importance of content access in investigations by discussing the Jordan Demay case, where access to message content was crucial in understanding the circumstances leading to a teenager’s suicide and identifying other potential victims.

Mallory Knodel stressed the importance of protecting children while respecting privacy rights, arguing for a nuanced approach that considers the diverse needs of users and platforms. Andrew Cummings, representing the Internet Watch Foundation, highlighted the scale of the child sexual abuse problem and criticized the tech sector’s approach, suggesting exploring client-side scanning of known child sexual abuse material (CSAM) as a potential compromise.

3. Technical Approaches and Innovations

The discussion explored various technical approaches to address the encryption debate. Gabriel Kaptchuk suggested investigating “abuse-resistant” lawful access mechanisms that could provide limited access without compromising overall security. He introduced the concept of “hotness” of keys, proposing systems that would make key theft detectable and thus deter abuse.

Katie Noyes mentioned the potential of homomorphic encryption and other emerging technologies to enable data analysis without fully decrypting information. She also proposed exploring prospective data-in-motion solutions that could target specific subjects rather than affecting all users.

However, Gabriel Kaptchuk also highlighted challenges with perceptual hashing and content matching techniques, emphasizing the need for robust safeguards and acknowledging the technical limitations of these approaches. The discussion touched on the potential of client-side scanning and age verification as possible solutions, though their effectiveness and privacy implications were debated.

4. Multi-stakeholder Approach to Solutions

There was broad agreement on the need for a collaborative approach involving government, industry, civil society, and academia to address these complex issues. Katie Noyes emphasized the importance of bringing together diverse stakeholders to find balanced solutions. Dan Suter called for leadership in bringing stakeholders together, while Andrew Campling expressed frustration with the lack of progress on implementing child protection measures.

Areas of Agreement and Disagreement

The panelists generally agreed on the need for multi-stakeholder collaboration and the importance of balancing security, privacy, and child safety. There was also consensus on the complexity of the issue and the need for innovative solutions.

However, significant disagreements emerged regarding the effectiveness and risks of encryption backdoors. The interpretation of recent security incidents, such as the “salt typhoon” hacks, revealed differing perspectives. Mallory Knodel suggested these incidents demonstrated the risks of built-in lawful access mechanisms, while Katie Noyes disputed this interpretation based on FBI investigations, emphasizing the need for accurate information when discussing such cases.

Unresolved Issues and Future Questions

The discussion left several critical questions unanswered, including:

1. How to implement effective age verification or limits on encrypted platforms without compromising privacy?

2. How to address the global nature of platforms and crimes while respecting jurisdictional differences?

3. What technical solutions can provide lawful access while maintaining strong security and privacy protections?

Potential areas for further exploration include:

1. Investigating prospective data-in-motion solutions that don’t affect all users

2. Developing abuse-resistant lawful access mechanisms

3. Improving content-based detection methods while addressing technical limitations

4. Allowing for diversity in platform approaches rather than mandating one solution for all

5. Focusing on known CSAM detection and user reporting tools as interim measures

In conclusion, while no definitive solutions were reached, the discussion emphasized the ongoing need for innovative approaches and balanced regulation to protect children online while preserving privacy and security for all users. The complexity of the issue underscores the importance of continued dialogue, technical innovation, and collaboration between all stakeholders in the digital ecosystem.

Mia McAllister: Today’s session aims to provide meaningful insights into the complex interplay between technology, privacy rights, and efforts to protect children in the digital space. As digital technologies continue to evolve, they offer both opportunities and challenges. Today’s panel brings together experts from diverse fields to explore how we can foster an online environment that respects human rights while prioritizing child safety. I’ll go ahead and introduce our panel today. Online, we have our moderator, Stuart Baker. I don’t think he’s joined just yet, but Stuart Baker is a Washington, D.C.-based attorney specializing in homeland security, cybersecurity, and data protection. He has held notable government roles, including serving as a first assistant secretary for policy at the Department of Homeland Security and general counsel of the National Security Agency. Stuart is also an author and host of the weekly Cyber Law Podcast. His vast experience in cybersecurity law and policy adds depth to this discussion on human rights and child safety in the digital age. Next we have Dan Suter. He is a principal advisor to the prime minister and cabinet ministries in New Zealand on lawful access and cross-border data policy. With a background as a criminal defense lawyer and a prosecutor specializing in serious organized crime, Dan has also served in international roles, including as the UK liaison prosecutor to the United States. He is a contributor to the UNODC Practical Guide for Requesting Electronic Evidence Across Borders and brings significant expertise in sustainable capacity building and cybercrime policy development. Next we have Mallory Nodal. She is the executive director of the Social Web Foundation. She is a technology and human rights expert specializing in internet governance and digital policy. Mallory is active in internet and emerging technical standards at the IETF, IEEE, and the UN. Her background in computer science and civil society brings a unique perspective to the intersection of technology, policy, and human rights. Next in the room we have Katie Noyes. She is the section chief for the FBI science and technology branches, Next Generation Technology and Technology. Thank you for joining us. and lawful access section. She serves as the organization’s lead on 5G, internet governance, and technology standards development. Katie is a senior strategic advisor for technology policy at the FBI with over 20 years of experience in the intelligence community, including service as an Army military intelligence officer and various roles with the Defense Intelligence Agency. Katie brings extensive expertise in security and policy development. Lastly, but certainly not least, we have Dr. Gabriel Kapchuck. Gabe is an assistant professor in the computer science department at the University of Maryland, College Park. Gabe’s work focuses on cryptographic systems with an emphasis on making provable secure systems practical and accessible. His expertise spans academia, industry, and policy, including work with Intel Labs and the United States Senate. Gabe’s insights bridge the technical and policy realms contributing to the development of secure online environments. So, as you all can see, today we have a wide range of experts, and I’m really excited for today’s discussion. We’ll have about 60, oh, perfect, okay. We’ll have about 60 to 65 minutes of moderated discussion, and then I’ll leave room for questions from both the audience and online. So, without further ado, and since Stuart is online now, I’ll turn it over to you, Stuart.

Stewart Baker: Okay, that’s great. Hopefully, I can turn on my camera as well. Yes, there we go. All right. Thanks, Mia. That was terrific and a great way to get started. I thought it would be useful to try to begin this by. talking a little bit about where we are today, what’s happened over the last year or so, that would give us a feel for the environment in which this discussion is occurring. Particularly because there’s been a lot of movement in Western democracies on this question, I thought it would be useful to ask Dan to start by giving us a feel for what some of the British Commonwealth countries have been debating, with respect to protection of children and the worries about undermining strong encryption. Dan, do you want to kick us off?

Dan Suter: Hey, thanks Stuart. Thanks to everybody over in Riyadh. Great to be part of such an esteemed panel today, all the way from New Zealand in the small hours over here. We’re only about one o’clock in the morning. So look, it’s really important at this point to highlight that I’m not, so I’m going to speak about Australia and the UK. I’m not a representative from those jurisdictions, but you are right, Stuart, the legislation in both countries, it really has been a point of discussion on how it can be used. But look, I really want to say there are practical implications on what can be achieved by regulation in this space. And a more meaningful strategy would be to consider how governments consistently engage with tech firms on the issue of child safety and lawful access. It’s really not enough simply to recognise the risk, as probably we have done as five countries. So I’m looking there at the UK, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the US. We need to really raise our ambition and develop a collective approach. engaging with each other and towards a safety by design ethos, including designed and lawful access that does not undercut cyber security or privacy. And certainly that’s exactly where those five countries are moving towards in relation to, and I may speak to this a bit later and others on the panel, in relation to 2023 and 2024 five country ministerial communiques. But look, one of the primary duties of a government is to keep their citizens safe from serious harm. And here we’re talking obviously about child safety as well. And carefully governed and exceptional lawful access should be a crucial part of those efforts to protect the public from harm. So when I speak about the legislation that follows, this primary duty is reflected there with very much an incremental approach, either through consultation or voluntariness. So in relation to Australia, so here we’re going to get a little bit more technical, but Australia has their telecommunications and other legislation amendment bracket assistance and access act 2018. So shortened to TOLA. And that introduced a framework for Australian agencies to make both voluntary and mandatory requests for industry assistance to gain access to encrypted data. Part 15 is the really important aspect of TOLA. And to emphasize this, it establishes a graduated approach for agencies in Australia to receive assistance by establishing three main powers. So one is a technical assistance request where agencies can request this voluntary help from designated communications providers, so industry where they are willing and able to give assistance. Secondly, technical assistance notices or TANs. agencies can compel designated communications providers to give assistance where they have already the technical ability to do so. And then a technical capability notice or a TCN. Agencies can require providers to build limited capabilities to help law enforcement and intelligence authorities. So these three powers, they can be used in secret with penalties for disclosing their existence. Therefore, customers of those platforms may not know if data has been requested or even accessed under TOLA. There is independent oversight that’s already there in Australia in relation to actions conducted by intelligence agencies by an Inspector General of Intelligence and Security and equivalent oversight for law enforcement agencies as well. And the operation of the act is subject to ongoing review by Australia’s Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, and that actually reports on how many orders have been issued. I can tell you in 2019-20, there were 11 TARs issued, 21-22, there were 30 technical assistance requests ordered. So let’s move on to the UK, and the UK passed its Investigatory Powers Act in 2016, and that includes an obligation on communication service providers to remove encryption or electronic protections on communications for investigatory purposes after service of a technical capability notice. And to really emphasize again, this is an incremental approach. So there’s a consultation phase in relation to those communication service providers before a technical capability notice is issued. So again, really robust safeguards. There’s a double lock mechanism, for example, with independent. oversight by the investigatory powers commission. And just very quickly in terms of my own jurisdiction as well, New Zealand, obviously most of the major communication service providers are based offshore. The main issue in relation to New Zealand, therefore, is extraterritoriality and enforcement. There are a couple of important provisions within our legislation, which be the Telecommunications Bracket Interception Capability and Security and Bracket Act 2013. Commonwealth jurisdictions, we often have really convoluted Act names, but there is a duty for service providers to assist with, and we’re talking about encryption here, decrypting telecommunications when there’s an execution of an interception warrant. So that legislation that’s used its shorter name, TICSA, its overriding objective is to ensure that communication service providers are ready to be able to intercept communications. And there is a provision for a minister to direct those communication service providers to be able to say, look, you need to be in a position to be intercept ready and accessible. And part of that duty will be in relation to decrypting communications. I’m not aware of that ever having been done, but the simple fact is that it’s really difficult to enforce for those over the top providers, such as Meta with WhatsApp and Facebook Messenger, for example, to be able to enforce any of those provisions through a ministerial direction. But look, again, just to complete this phase, is one aspect. And there have been those points of discussion with the use of these particular pieces of legislation and the provisions that they provide. But the real emphasis should be here. on what we can all agree and moving the debate on to ensure that we reach a position where we understand in terms of that safety by design ethos and progressing towards where we have commonalities in the debate. So passing back to you, Stuart.

Stewart Baker: Yeah, Dan, just one follow-up question. When the Investigator Powers Act and the Australian Bill were moving through parliament, there was considerable anxiety expressed by industry and civil society that these acts enabled the government to insist that encryption on a particular service be redesigned so as to allow for lawful access and in a way that might impact the security of communications. Do you think that’s a reasonable reading of those bills? And as far as we know, has there ever been an order or capability notice that required that kind of modification?

Dan Suter: Look, of course, in terms of the debate, there’s always gonna be focus on what the extremist point can be in relation to legislation. But I think it’s really important to, again, re-emphasize that there is that incremental approach in working towards in relation to a point where, and ultimately, it is for governments to determine in terms of the protection and the safety of their citizens. But built in within that legislation, of course, when we might have a debate about this, we’re not gonna focus on the intricacies because we haven’t seen this work through in terms of how it practically applies. But there are robust safeguards, safeguards that have been there for well-established in a long time as well. We’re not talking about safeguards that are just being plucked out for the benefit of government. These are safeguards that have been there and we know that work, the double lock mechanism, the IGES in terms of having oversight in relation to intelligence agencies. It has to be, in terms of any legislation, to ensure that there is that social license that these safeguards are built in. But there also has to be that balance in relation to ensuring that where the public do need to be protected, that power is available. But I can tell you from a New Zealand perspective, in terms of the legislation that I’ve referred to, there has to be a balance with cybersecurity and also privacy in relation to preventing any collateral intrusion in relation to individuals. And these have to be specific and targeted to ensure that there isn’t that collateral intrusion. And I think it’s really important that when we talk about this debate, we’re understanding that we are talking about the protection of citizens. We are talking about that being at a very last stage. But there has to be the power and the capability there, if needed, with those safeguards built in. But back to you, Stuart.

Stewart Baker: That’s great. Mallory, do you see this the same way that the English-speaking countries, other than the United States, have given themselves the authority to have a pretty dramatic impact on the encryption services that are provided? But have, for a variety of reasons, not gone to the full extent of their authority and have built in a number of protections for privacy and security?

Mallory Knodel: Right. So because we are in such a late stage of these debates and not a lot has changed on the regulatory side for a while, I’ll have to say no. And I think that’s not a surprise. I think we’ve obviously had a similar debate now for a very long time. I do actually think a lot of other externalities have changed besides government positions on this. And I’ll only mention, because we’re, of course, really short on time by now, that what’s relevant to what Dan was just saying is, Australia, because of TOLA, you now have one less privacy startup. So there’s an application folks were using called Session. Session is an end-to-end encrypted app. It’s interesting because it doesn’t use phone numbers or usernames in a persistent way, so it provides a little bit more pseudonymity when using the application. So that’s what kind of differentiates Session from maybe other apps. They’ve announced very recently that they have to leave. They’re going to Switzerland because they have been visited by the authorities and they’re quite worried that they’re going to be asked to backdoor it or to provide user information to the police. And that is exactly what private sector companies have said about the UK Online Safety Act. It’s unfortunate that Ofcom, the regulator, has been somewhat silent on how they would handle orders to backdoor, whether they would do it under a gag order, whether they would be transparent about that. But we have heard from Signal, at least, and certainly WhatsApp has not been shy about expressing Meta’s position on this, but that they would leave the UK before backdooring the software, for sure. And already, right, and this gets into more of the solution space, already there is data that can be obtained that can be provided and that is provided based on leaks from a few years ago and sort of, I don’t know, it was like a slide deck that the law enforcement community was using to explain which of these encrypted services have which metadata and how you can get it. These sort of already exist, right? So once an application decides to completely leave a jurisdiction or to completely not comply with requests like a backdoor. then you also lose access to that metadata as well. You also lose access to the helpful service data that you could have potentially used. So it’s not a great move for anyone, right, when this happens, but it will continue to happen because what is being provisioned in these laws amounts to mandated backdoors that change the software for everyone all over the world, not just for that jurisdiction, and it changes it in a persistent way so that that backdoor or that capability is always there, and it changes it for everyone who’s ever used the application, irrespective of whether or not they are suspected in a crime, and it’s just a much too overbroad piece of legislation. And yeah, and so that what you’re talking about, Dan, where we would rather complement regulation with the ability to work together and find solutions, you take that off the table when applications start leaving jurisdictions over your risky laws.

Stewart Baker: One question, Mallory, Sessions left Australia as its corporate headquarters. Maybe they also plan never to sell in Australia. I’m not sure we know that. Yeah, that’s potentially. But quite significantly, nobody else who provides end-to-end encryption has said we’re leaving. That suggests that maybe Sessions’ concern is over a capability notice that might have affected their efforts to make pseudonymous accounts.

Mallory Knodel: No, just to interrupt you, Stuart, because I know where you’re going with this question, it’s just because the law is about companies in Australia having to comply. So as Session leaves the jurisdiction, they are no longer swept up in this regulation, and also I’ll note that as far as I can tell, staff members have also had to relocate physically because they’re-

Stewart Baker: Because obviously they’re subject to jurisdiction, yes, okay. So this is a question of the Australians having limited their authority to people who are located in their jurisdiction as opposed to people who sell services in their jurisdiction, because it wouldn’t be hard to extend jurisdiction to people who are offering those services.

Mallory Knodel: I think it’s hard. I think it’s definitely hard. I think that’s what the UK wound up doing eventually, but TOLA was some years ago. And if you, I wanted to also mention that I think it’s interesting, we’re just basically talking about the Five Eyes countries because there is an obvious concerted and coordinated effort to work on legislation as a block. So you had Australia sort of doing the impossible, getting any kind of backdoor law on the books first, taking that hit, but kind of with some measured approach so that it wasn’t like every into an encryption app on the planet. It’s just the ones that within Australia’s jurisdiction. Now you have the UK coming in some years later, managed to put a backdoor on the books, but it’s again, like limited powers. Anyway, so I, and you see, you know, we’ve, we’ve all these countries, Canada has also managed to do something and just follows from there, but this is certainly an effort done. I think that Australia doing something more measured was a tactic to get something that people could live with. They probably would have rejected something a little stronger. So yeah,

Stewart Baker: I, you’re, you’re absolutely right. It feels as though people, the attackers are circling and taking occasional nips from their target without actually launching an attack. Why don’t we, why don’t we move just to focus on what’s happening in Europe as well? So we have a complete picture. Katie, can you give us a sense of where the debate is in Brussels?

Katie Noyes: Yeah. So first of all, let me just extend my gratitude. I wish you all were here in the room. We’ve got an awesome audience of folks here. You can’t see half of them, but you’re all missed here. We wish you were here. But I think really, let me just hit a tick before I get there, if you’re okay with it, Stuart, which is the whole goal of bringing this to the Internet Governance Forum was because we’re multi-stakeholder, we’re representative of that on this panel, and I’m really grateful for that. I will now bring this home, which is that’s what’s going to solve this problem. Candidly, I don’t think it’s going to be government, certainly not alone. It’s not going to be the private sector and the companies alone. It’s not going to be just civil society. It’s also going to include people at their kitchen tables. I absolutely want to make sure we bring this home for the audience in the room, who are very interested in policy. But I think we all want to know what does this mean in tangible terms? Going back to Brussels for a minute, and how this actually even affects the FBI is that these are global companies with global capabilities. We have global public safety challenges. There are global terrorism organizations. There are global fentanyl traffickers. There are global trafficking and child sexual abuse material networks that work across the globe. I think it’s key to highlight that first, that it’s not a European problem, it’s not an Asian problem, it’s not an African problem, it’s an all of us problem. Why do I say that? Because we all are trying really hard to learn from each other. I think that idea of trying to harness best practices is key. On this, the European Commission actually just put out a report, so it’s very timely, in November. They had commissioned a high-level group, and the group was specifically to look at, and I want to make sure I get the title right because it’s key here, it was Access to Data for Effective Law Enforcement. And if you get a chance to read the report, I highly recommend it, because I think what it goes to is some of the things we’ve been talking about. I guess I will take a slightly different approach and say, I think things are very different, and I think they’re very different around this conversation, because I was sitting in Berlin at the International… Governance Forum a few, you know, right before, like, I think a year before COVID. And the conversation was very different. It was, I’d say, very strict on the privacy side. There seemed to be, and please don’t take this as a pejorative comment, but there was a lot of trust in technology companies, and that they were solving civil society’s problems. And that sort of idea that public safety might come in and sort of mess that up or, you know, be a chilling effect. I have found the last two days I’ve been sitting in on multiple panels, it is a wildly different conversation. And the conversation is coming down to responsibility. What roles and responsibilities do each of us have? And again, I want to go right into the face of this narrative that somehow safety, security, and privacy are diametrically opposed. I think it’s a false narrative. If you go back to the UN rights, we’re at a UN organization, there’s a right to safety, a right to security, a right to justice, a right to privacy. There is an expectation that this all coexists, thus the name of the panel. So I think when you read the, you know, what they’re doing in the European Commission, it really does look to us. And it’s something we’re also trying to emulate with a partnership we newly have with UC Berkeley, where we had a summit to kind of have some of the same conversations, the major themes around responsibility. So it talks to what are the expectations of government in this realm? Is there an idea around incentivization? So it’s putting a more active role and a more active responsibility on governments as well to meet industry, to meet civil society, to meet the needs, because again, we do need to achieve that. And then take it one step further. Again, it is not up to government, and we all understand that, to prescribe a technical solution. And that’s not what we’re trying to do. But we do recognize it probably does take some government incentivization, some communication of priorities and needs. And I think there’s a lot of space there to achieve that. And again, going back to that report, it actually details out some of these approaches and fresh off the presses from November.

Stewart Baker: I understand all of this and there’s no doubt that the European Commission has proposed legislation that would clearly incentivize better access and more law enforcement insight into what’s going on on some of these services. But that proposal has really been stuck for a few years now due to strong opposition from some members of the European Union. Do you think that’s changing?

Katie Noyes: Yeah, you know, I can’t speak to how the process works there or take any bets on that, Stu, but let me kind of get to some of what we’re hearing. And we heard it out of the G7, by the way. I don’t know if folks are aware, but the G7 Romalion group actually commissioned a lawful access working group and it ran last year and they voted to renew it for this upcoming year as well with the Canadian presidency. I think it’s key and it’s key because I actually think the landscape has changed. And I’ll give you maybe two areas where I think it’s the combination of these two issues kind of intersecting. One is the threat landscape. We have solid data and it’s solid data not coming from law enforcement this time, it’s coming from outside non-government organizations. So many of you are familiar with the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, my colleagues around here in the room. It’s a U.S.-based non-profit that really takes tips and leads from the electronic service providers. Last year was the highest number of tips ever received by the electronic service providers, like META for Facebook and Instagram, if you’re wondering what an ESP is, but it was 36 million reports. Then, and NCMEC is very public about this, they take those tips and leads and they provide them as tips and leads to law enforcement all over the globe. So we in the FBI, we get a number of those and we start an investigation, at least looking into assessing whether there’s an active threat or not. So the threat environment is booming. Why is it booming? Because the technology industry is booming. You know, sitting around the table years ago as a teenager, I wasn’t talking, we weren’t talking about social media and gaming platforms where you are connecting to others. But that tech boom sort of comes with a little bit of a cost or a tax, which is the tech industry is moving at such a fast clip. And this is where I think some of the difference is. I think the multi-stakeholder environment, particularly civil society, as I’ve heard here, but I also heard it even from a few company representatives. They’re taking a slight pause to say, okay, and this is a good one to talk about, and it goes to sort of, I think, what Mallory was getting to as well, which is the focus, like when something has been deployed, well, we know Meta, Apple, all these companies have gone back now and they’re instituting technical remedies or ability for reporting. So a user can report when something has been assessed as harmful to them or a potential criminal activity. They’ve all now gone back and created reporting mechanisms. That’s very new, and a lot of that was announced at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in January. So I do think this landscape changing where more questions are being asked by legislators, and again, I’m using a US example, because I apologize, I haven’t quite followed the process in Europe as closely, although we’re seeing a lot more reporting and I think real push for some of these changes to bring industry and governments together to solve these challenges. So again, just a quick summary, I think the threat environment has changed. We see digital evidence in almost every single one of our cases. If you had asked me that question, even five, six years ago, I would have given you a very different figure, and then we’re seeing just the ubiquitousness of tech deployments, and now we’re seeing the ubiquitousness of adding that layer of end-to-end encryption that can’t be pierced. And so I think we’re seeing, and by default, by the way, so a user doesn’t get to decide for themselves anymore, now the company is deciding. And again, let me just, last point, and I’ll turn it back over to you. I think that’s the key point here. Maybe what we’re seeing is maybe this issue is really finally going to a multi-stakeholder conversation. I think with very prominent cases like sexual extortion, hitting, actually ending up with 17-year-olds and teenagers in the U.S. committing suicide, people wanna have this conversation because they’re seeing it in their neighborhoods and at their kitchen tables.

Stewart Baker: Back to you. Mallory, do you? Do you see this the same way that despite or maybe because of the fact that legislation hasn’t really gone to the ultimate point of mandating lawful access, that there is a better opportunity for more voluntary cooperation?

Mallory Knodel: Yeah, so I guess from my perspective, again, we’ve been having the same public debate for a while. It’s been a couple of years now that I’ve been on a stage with NECMEC and FBI talking about the same thing. It was an IGF, but it was a USA IGF. The conversation here has been the same. The externalities have changed. So around that same time, my then employer, Center for Democracy and Technology, put out a report suggesting that reporting and user agency features in Indian encrypted apps would be a good way forward. We also suggested metadata. And now companies are doing that. So civil society suggests it. Companies do it. Companies also have now expanded very significantly trust and safety as a whole area of work that all of them are concerned about. Because as we know, this problem of child safety exists far beyond the boundaries of indigent encryption. It is all over social media, in the clear, and it’s still a problem. And so working to clean that up has been a huge effort. And probably there’s a lot of explanations for why those numbers have been changing. We don’t know what those numbers mean. It doesn’t necessarily mean that there’s more threat or risk. It may mean that there’s a lot more reporting and there’s a lot more awareness of it. And we don’t even know how much of that is new versus old content, et cetera. So I think that, yeah, there’s a lot of really interesting solutions that are cropping up. I think the tragedy is that there’s a lot of us still stuck in this. this backdoor conversation that’s not really going where and it hasn’t for a long time. And it would be great to truly actually engage to the solutions. But I think that requires, which is what civil society and industry have done, a sort of acceptance of end-to-end encryption as a feature that users all over the world have required and wanted and requested and begged for because they want that protection. We didn’t see such a demand for end-to-end encryption until it was revealed that the Five Eyes countries were spying on everyone back in 2013. So there’s also that part of the story. But I think, again, if we can accept this as a sort of minimum requirement of secure communications for a lot of different reasons, right? Because encryption protects kids, because encryption protects businesses, et cetera, et cetera, then we can really build some cool stuff on top of it and try to fix this issue. So I’d love to see us get into that space. And then I’ll just add one more thing, which is we’ve also seen externally that backdoors don’t work too. So another thing that’s happened very recently is that for some communications that have been built in lawful access backdoors, I’m talking mostly the network layer. So this is where telecommunication services have encryption ostensibly, but it’s been by law backdoored. The law in the US is called CALEA. That was exploited just as sort of folks like Civil Society and other security and safety professionals were saying it would be. And that was the sort of salt typhoon hack. So I wanted to bring that into the conversation because we’ve seen both major successes in figuring out how to do trust and safety, child safety work on top of Indian encryption. We’ve also seen major fails where we’ve had insecure communications and how that’s been negatively affecting businesses and the security of all people using those networks.

Stewart Baker: Let me ask Katie if she wants to address that because I’m not sure everybody agrees. that that’s what happened with the salt typhoon hacks.

Katie Noyes: Yeah, we certainly don’t agree to that. We actually, you know, the media, quite frankly, got that one a little bit wrong. Can you all hear me? Yes. Going through? Okay, great. I can’t hear it on my own, so. But yeah, we’ve gone out publicly, by the way, to try to dispel this myth and correct the record. What we’re actually finding, because we are investigating, so Mallory, if you have direct access to the information, certainly would like to talk to you more, but from the investigation, what we’re actually learning, again, not to say that when we get through all of the investigations, because there are multiple here, that we won’t find there was some vector or something, but I can tell you right now, the investigation has not yielded that, that the CALEA and the lawful intercept capability was not appearing to be the target. And it actually, what we’ve seen in two specific targets, that the perpetrators of salt typhoon, the Chinese-backed salt typhoon group, actually had access to the network well before they actually accessed the CALEA capability. So that tells us it wasn’t the vector and it wasn’t the main target. We already do know, too, and we put this out very publicly, so if anyone is interested, we do have published awareness on our website, FBI.gov, you can find, but we certainly do not want that to be used or leveraged in this debate when it is erroneous. Again, does not mean that there shouldn’t be strong security. It doesn’t mean that there actually shouldn’t even be encryption. We are very supportive of encryption technologies. We just want them to be managed in a way, much like in the telecommunications. And again, I’m with everyone who says there should be stronger security and stronger security even around CALEA. Absolutely, we join those calls, but certainly wanna make sure the record reflects accuracy here that does not appear to be the target or the vector, but we did see access, so that is an actual truism.

Mallory Knodel: Yeah, I think, yeah, target. versus vector versus leveraged. The fact that widespread communications had this capability, I think, are maybe three different things, but still significant.

Katie Noyes: But it also matters that I think the general population is probably, I would say, as a citizen myself, I’m way more interested about what also else did they have? Because to everyone’s argument, most people were law abiding citizens. You don’t want any of the security to change for that. Well, those law abiding citizens wouldn’t have been in the CALEA data anyway. This is for individuals where we have some sort of predication or authorized access. Again, I’m not arguing that it’s not a terrible security problem. Don’t misunderstand me. It’s a terrible security problem. And it should be enhanced security. And again, go back to encryption is one of those, but also multi-factor authentication, strong passwords. I mean, all of that was a factor in a lot of what we’re seeing here. So it’s not, I don’t think isolating this to this one issue makes very much sense for this.

Mallory Knodel: No. So I was just going to say that I think there might be a lot of elements to it, but we are talking about encryption right now. And so of course, we’re going to only talk about the things that are impacting on the debate around encryption. I think that’s totally fair game.

Stewart Baker: So let me ask them about the encryption. Katie, one of the things that the FBI suggested people do if they’re concerned about the salt typhoon hacks, which are certainly a major security threat, was that they use strong encryption and I assume end-to-end encryption. And a lot of people in civil society have said, well, there you go. Why even the FBI thinks you ought to have strong encryption? And isn’t there some inconsistency between wanting to have lawful access and wanting people to use strong encryption to protect against very real threats?

Katie Noyes: So absolutely not. We, again, we’re back to, we think that we can achieve all of these things. Will there be trade-offs to some degree? Certainly. Will there maybe be differences for the way we approach the entirety of a population of a user base against perhaps looking at, you know, a scaled solution only for individuals where we actually have court authorization and our authorities warrant some type of access to content data? We’re very open to the conversation, but yes, please let me say for the record, the FBI supports encryption. This is the part of the debate that I think is also not new, and I’m very surprised that we continue to have to answer this question, but happy to do it again is that we are very supportive of that, particularly from a cybersecurity perspective. And the FBI is a user of encryption. But what we don’t do is willfully blind ourselves to all of the activities because there is a responsibility. Again, we are all responsible, and I think this is where the debate, I do feel it’s changed. Again, I go back to, I understand, I feel like we’re here today to talk more of an action plan. At least that’s what I’m here to do. I think the FBI’s point of view in this debate today, I’m hoping we’re going to get to that conversation of something that could be achievable because, agree with the UN, got to achieve all four of those. I think the discussion now needs to stop being, should we? And it now needs to be not that we accept we can’t and we just stop trying, but that we’re the best innovators in the world. We all represent countries and institutions that are the best innovators of the world. We didn’t say, oh, cancer’s a hard problem. Let’s not try to solve it. We don’t do that. So let’s-

Stewart Baker: No, that’s quite right, Katie. Dan has been quiet this whole time. He is going to have to bear the burden of representing the innovators of the world because he’s our technical expert cryptographer. And there have been some interesting suggestions about how to square or at least accommodate both security and lawful access, including the idea of scanning for objectionable material on the phones of the sender before it gets sent so that none of the private communications are compromised unless there’s a very, very good reason to believe a particular communication has objectionable material in it. Gabriel, if you could talk a little bit about both that proposal, which came up in the- you debate and any other technical approaches that you think are promising to get us out of what’s a pretty old debate?

Gabriel Kaptchuk: Yeah, thanks. It’s an interesting place to be in that some really core parts of the technical puzzle here have not meaningfully changed for a long time. And at the same time, we have cryptographic and we have computing capabilities that are a little bit different than they were before. And this allows for different types of processing to happen on endpoints. And so to pick up, I think, on something that Mallory was saying earlier, we’ve seen a lot of changes that are happening on what is available to users on their endpoints. So this is not shifting the, is there a backdoor? Is there not a backdoor in the actual encryption layer? But rather saying, can we put some kind of processing on the client’s device that locally processes and gives them some more information? And so one thing that came up a couple of years ago that was proposed by Apple was a proposal in which they were going to blur certain images, particularly for youth accounts. And then there was a kind of mechanism by which if the youth wanted to look at the thing, look at the actual image, it would notify an adult. And there was kind of two different things that were happening there, one of which kind of showcased the ability to do some kind of powerful stuff on the endpoint, and one of which showed the kind of brittleness of this type of approach. So on the one hand, we now have the ability to actually kind of process images on somebody’s phone and say, well, maybe we should blur this thing. Maybe this isn’t the type of thing that we should just show to people no matter what. And I think there’s actually a fair amount of consensus that this is not a radical idea. Maybe if I blurred every image that I got or ones that kind of locally were determined to be not something great, that would not be that problematic. Where there was a lot of pushback from the community, it was the fact that then there was kind of an automatic trigger of some kind of information pushed to another device or pushed to a server or pushed to something like that. That is to say, kind of breaking out this model of end-to-end encryption in order to alert somebody else of an event. And that’s actually where that proposal was found to be most objective. And so we have various different kind of like ways of thinking about this, right? If we’re able to process on the device itself and able to identify this is content that we’re concerned about. We can kind of give users a little bit more, maybe you could say push or maybe a little bit more usable type of ways to kind of control the information that they see or report the information they see. And that’s something we really know how to do. When it comes to kind of active scanning that then kind of pushes information off the device itself. This is where things start to get a lot more complicated and a lot more controversial and a lot more difficult to do. In particular, you kind of brought up in the EU, we’ve kind of seen a push, a concerted push to move away from kind of an old paradigm, particularly around child abuse material to kind of flag the known instances of child abuse material. So this is an image which matches another image that NCMEC has. And therefore we kind of with high confidence can say that this image is a problem image and kind of with confidence, I’m going to return to that in a moment, but with some degree of confidence that there’s a match there. And there’s been a push to shift away from that paradigm and towards detecting new images or new content or the solicitation of images or solicitation of content. And this is a much trickier problem. As a technologist, I don’t know how to write down a program that can on the client side with 100% certainty actually differentiate between this is a problem conversation, this is not a problem conversation. And when the ramifications of getting that wrong is that people’s information is going to get pushed to a server and it’s going to get kind of opened, that’s a really high risk environment to write that kind of program. That’s not a low risk kind of choice and it’s not the kind of thing that you want to get wrong. And this is kind of where it’s important to start making technical differentiations between the types of access that are being requested. If it’s detecting new content, that’s really, really difficult. And I don’t think we have the technical capabilities to actually meaningfully.

Stewart Baker: What about detecting old content that’s been tweaked in order to evade the algorithm?

Gabriel Kaptchuk: Right. So this is kind of this older paradigm, which is one that, again, there’s still more things to pull apart here, and it’s not just kind of one thing, right? So we have seen some work in doing what’s called perceptual hashing. This is where you take two images and you kind of run them both through an algorithmic function to determine whether or not they’re what’s called a semantic match, where this kind of semantics somehow capture what’s in the image, as opposed to the details of the image. And on the one hand, this seems like a promising way forward, right? Because this means that you could match two different images which have been had minor edits have been made to them, but are still kind of fundamentally the same. Unfortunately, the reality of it is that our modern perceptual hashing technologies do not live up to their task. In particular, in the aftermath of Apple’s announcement that they were going to be doing some amount of client-side scanning, they also released this neural hash, a particular hash function that was supposed to do this. And it took people, I don’t know, about a week and a half to reverse engineer it and start to find kind of ridiculous what are called collisions, or two images that match kind of according to the function, but are actually semantically wildly different from one another. And this is because, you know, this is a really hard computer vision problem to determine whether or not two images are the same. And, you know, you can kind of think about this going kind of out of the context of child stuff and thinking just back to kind of the way that the US thinks about pornography, right? I can’t define pornography, but I know what it is when I see it. That kind of says that people are the ones who are able to determine whether or not content is a match. And that’s even probably, there’s edge cases where they won’t agree. To get a computer to do that when humans actually have a difficult time doing that, that’s a problem. That means that you’re going to inevitably build functions that are going to do scanning of some variety, which are going to be overbroad. And they’re going to kind of have really obvious fail cases or really obvious ways to abuse them. Something like I can kind of manufacture images that look like, according to this kind of hash function, that they are child abuse. and send them to somebody else when in fact they’re not child abuse. It’s just that I’ve kind of exploited kind of relatively easy ways of modifying images so that they kind of look according to the algorithm like the same, but not to our eyes. And so that’s where we, that’s kind of where we are today. There is kind of a push for scanning on endpoints. In my opinion, there are ways in which this could potentially empower users to do, to have an easier time moderating the content that they see or making better decisions for themselves. At the point where that data then gets pushed off device, that starts to open up kind of a different type of like rights impact assessment that needs to happen. And we have to have a different kind of confidence level in the technology than we have it today.

Stewart Baker: But let me, let me ask you from a technical point of view, we’ve heard a lot of talk about how valuable it would be to have more conversations and to find common ground. But I wonder if with Signal having long been in this offered end-to-end encryption by default, Apple, WhatsApp having done the same, and now Facebook adopting the technology for its other services, isn’t this debate really over as a practical matter? The big companies that offer these services have all moved to default end-to-end encryption, and they’re showing no signs of saying, well, maybe we should look for common ground here. They’ve done it. And maybe I’m misunderstanding the impact in the market, but what’s the incentive to look for some mechanism to satisfy child safety and law enforcement, given what has happened in the market?

Gabriel Kaptchuk: Yeah, I mean, I guess if the conversation’s over, we can all go home and go on with our day. I don’t think it’s quite that simple. I think what we’re seeing is the deployment of end-to-end encryption technologies around on many, many communication platforms as being a very clear signal that this is what users want. Right? If nothing else, this is like, you know, we’re trying to fill a market need or a market want or something like that. And importantly, I want to pick up on a thread that I think popped up a couple of times in what Mallory and Dan and Katie all said, this question about like by defaultness and what is the value or the risks around by defaultness. And at least, you know, from a technical perspective, I like to think that by defaultness is kind of the only reasonable way forward because you want end-to-end encryption to protect the people who are not going out of their way to evade kind of surveillance of any kind. Those are the people you kind of want to protect. And if you don’t protect them, then you’re actually, your system is not getting you very much. Right? The ability to build encrypted communication platforms is something that we’ve seen criminals do for quite some time. And obviously, there’s kind of a lot of conversation around the ways that international law enforcement have tried to kind of approach those systems and whatever, putting those aside. We know that people are trying to evade surveillance. They’re going to build these systems. They’re going to use encryption. Right? You want encryption by default to make sure that it’s, you know, you, your spouse, your kids who are protected against somebody inside of a tech company stalking them. And this isn’t like a wild, like crazy thing to do. We’ve seen this happen before where people kind of elevate the powers that they have within or kind of take the powers that they have and abuse them within a tech company or a company is breached maybe by a foreign government that wasn’t supposed to have access to that system. Whatever it is. Right? So we really do want encryption by default in order to protect the people that you’re trying to protect. That’s kind of like an important part of the puzzle here. You know, I think in terms of whether or not we’re done with this conversation by kind of just, you know, simply because it’s being deployed everywhere, I think that that’s kind of like giving up on trust and safety. That doesn’t make any sense here, and I think that trust and safety is obviously going to be part of tech platforms’ responsibilities going forward. The question is, what are the tools that they’re going to use, and what are the capabilities that they’re going to build into their systems to ensure that users have the ability to protect themselves? Now, we get into some tricky waters in terms of exactly what the right thing to do there is. Obviously, I’ve kind of advocated to some extent through what I’ve been saying for this kind of user and ability to control the information that people are seeing and to report and stuff like that as being a powerful mechanism, as we’ve seen kind of deployed over the last couple of years. I’ll offer one more kind of piece of this puzzle, and maybe this moves us towards a different part of the conversation, is that when I think of the big risks of trying to kind of move forward in this conversation, and I think one of the pieces that’s new is trying to understand, is there any way beyond kind of an all-or-nothing capability? And this is something that I’m technically interested in, and I think is an important part of the conversation. In particular, lawful access or backdoors as a paradigm is fundamentally kind of an all-or-nothing from a technical perspective type of trade-off. Either there is a key somewhere that lets everybody into the communications, and there’s a bunch of protections, maybe those are social protections, about who gets access to that key. That’s one paradigm. Or there is no key. That key does not exist, and therefore can never be materialized. And I want to offer that this pushes us from a regulatory perspective into kind of an opportunity to get a worst-case scenario. If we mandate there must be a backdoor, that means that this key exists now, and that key is very, very dangerous, a very high-value target, and somebody is going to go after and get it. And whether or not the salt typhoon as a particular instance is evidence of something or another, it is evidence of a paradigm in which there is the willingness by international governments to put a lot of resources going after these capabilities. The minute there’s a key, that key is going to be a high-value target. And one thing that I think is interesting in this conversation is wondering if there is a way to create a key. key that only works for certain types of content. And that’s something in the cryptographic world that may or may not exist. And there’s kind of ongoing research. But as a paradigm, I think it is a different part of the conversation, which starts to shift us away from, we have to accept that there’s never going to be any backdoor, or we have to accept that there is going to be a backdoor, and saying, well, what is this backdoor for? If we want a backdoor, and we want to just talk about kids, can we talk about a specific, limited backdoor that doesn’t then make everybody else vulnerable at the same time, just because this mere key’s existence is kind of a vulnerability? This is a difficult paradigm to work with. It’s a hard design space. We don’t know much about it. But I think it is one potential way that we can start thinking about avoiding this worst case scenario of keys actually being created and software actually being made that’s

Stewart Baker: really, really vulnerable. OK, that’s the first suggestion I’ve heard, that there might be a way out of the all or nothing aspect of this debate. But let me ask Katie and Mallory to weigh in on whether a content-based lawful access mechanism is available. I suspect Katie’s going to say yes, and it’s a warrant. But so having previewed what I suspect Katie’s argument is, let me start with Mallory.

Mallory Knodel: Thanks. No, it’s OK. I’ll be really quick. I also wanted to connect what Gabriel was just describing to what Katie said earlier. Because I think this idea that what I’m putting forward, where we sort of accept the constraints of end-to-end encryption as sort of giving up, I think suggests that the goal is the back door, right? And I think that for technologists like Gabriel and myself and others, public interest technologists in civil society and in academia and industry. The problem space, the requirements, are we need to keep people safe, that includes kids, we need to make sure our communications are secure, and that is a wider frame. It’s a sort of you list the requirements and then you build the thing that meets the requirements. Maybe that’s a backdoor, but maybe it’s a whole lot of other things. So when we say like we are giving up on backdoors, and I suspect that is true, that that has been the goal all along. It’s also the UK tech safety challenge that was a few years ago was the same. They said it was about finding solutions to child safety. They created a brief for it that said it needs to be about scanning images in end-to-end encryption. It was a presupposed goal, and that really narrows the field in terms of what kinds of innovations you can get. So you got five different projects that all did the same thing to varying degrees of success, and the best one was not very good because perceptual hashing is hard. So I want to just say I think what Gabriel is describing is these are really interesting ideas. I have more of a technical background in the internet networking and encryption. I have less of a technical background in AI, but I’ve had to learn it in the context of this work because it’s similar to a paper that’s coming out very soon that I’m working on because there’s a lot of imagination around what you can do with this data. I think some of it could be very interesting and fun, like let’s think about how these secure online platforms are being used, a lot more like social media platforms, etc., and that’s great. That’s what people want. That’s where they feel safe expressing themselves increasingly in a world that seems kind of scary and that yet will still have some of these features, and can you do cool things with content that also allow users to protect themselves and allow the platforms to make sure the experience is enjoyable? That’s another incentive. Nobody wants to use a platform that has all kinds of unwanted or gross content on it. then yeah, we get into more of a solution space. So let’s live, let’s continue this conversation and live in that sort of innovation space. I think that’s a good idea.

Stewart Baker: Katie?

Katie Noyes: Agree more. I think that’s what we’ve been trying to do is get to the table and discuss. I do think, you know, the, and I think, I like it that this panel’s gone this way. I think we’ve all moved off of the absolutist point of views which is, look, there is going to be compromise around and a lot of innovation needed on how this all can actually be achieved and coexist. And for our part, we’re very willing to come to the table. This sort of giving up thing, I mean, I’m keen on it because I think the idea too of, you know, thinking through, I’ll just give a case example because I do, we haven’t talked a case example and I think it’s worthy for these types of conversations. And I’m gonna talk about a quick success but this is what we’re afraid of, right? So take the sextortion. I think many people are suffering this challenge which is why I picked this case because it’s a universal, it’s in many different countries and by the way, the actual subjects were Nigerian. And so if you haven’t followed this case, we have a case out of our Detroit field office, a young gentleman named Jordan Demay. So he, and again, I’m gonna kind of just pierce through to all these preventative measures even though we haven’t gone there, they’re wonderful. And please let me give a plus one to all the companies that are doing this great work. But here’s the challenge, right? The hacking thing, you’re right. If things are available and a criminal thinks they can benefit from it, they’re going to target it. So they targeted dormant accounts that were being sold on the dark web, dormant Instagram accounts, hijacked one of them, just changed the pictures of it, used the same name and enticed an individual who thought he was talking to a 16 or 17 year old girl, created a relationship and pretty soon explicit image was shared. And that’s when the extortion starts. Our young 17 year old Jordan paid the first ransom and couldn’t pay the second. And here’s what we mean by why content, because I know we on the panel understand this. I’m not sure everyone has been following this, particularly at IGF, the way that we are. So here’s why content matters. If the only information we had was metadata that Jordan’s Instagram, this Instagram account was talking to this fake Instagram account. There’s no real prosecution there. There’s victimization. We could see it because unfortunately, Jordan took his own life. And here’s the interesting part of this. The mother has gone out very publicly. So I only use this because she’s gone out publicly and she has told law enforcement she never would have known why her son committed suicide if the FBI was not able to gain access to the content which showed the communications and it showed this subject goading Jordan to take his own life. That added to the sentencing, it added to the prosecution. This is what is at stake and I really will push back too. We talk about this very academically and I do it too. So I’m castigating my own self. I think. people really do need to understand the design choices and the way they are affecting them, right? I think it’s key. I also resist this idea of a backdoor. I can’t stand the definition. As I tried to look, what’s the universal definition of a backdoor? And if you go back and look at it, what it was at least five, six years ago was the FBI and law enforcement having direct backdoor access to communications. That is not, I don’t want anyone to think that is what law enforcement is asking for. We’re asking for the technical assistance side. The other thing I also kind of resist a little bit on that is there’s this idea that you’re somehow in your own home and it’s a backdoor to your own home, but you’re not in your own home. You’re in a provider’s home and there are all kinds of backdoors. And yes, I’m wise to the fact all of these hashtag backdoors are not created equal, but there are a lot of access points. There are. And all of those access points are, could be vulnerable. And again, vulnerable for different reasons. I see Gabe laughing because we had this conversation. I’m not, again, I’m not saying that all of these accesses are equal, but they are there and they’re there for a reason and not a bad reason. They need to make sure they’re updating any vulnerability they actually find or one, by the way, we might find from seeing other victims and sharing that vulnerability that was identified as a tactic or technique or procedure by a criminal who’s using it here to prevent further victimization. So sorry, long winded, Jim, all over the place. But my quick answer is yes. And I, that there are absolutely solutions. We are willing. We know there has to be an active negotiation. We know it’s not going to be absolute access. And that’s, by the way, there have been some really interesting discussions around and I’ll just chuck them out there because we had great conversations at UC Berkeley with an academic institution who has a lot of cryptographers. Would love to talk more to Gabriel, too, but thinking about things like homomorphic encryption and some promise about, again, like you’re saying, Malia, identifying additional sort of, you know, categorizations of the data, right, and what it offers. But also this idea that someone raised to us, how about a prospective data in motion solution where you’re not affecting all of the users, but perhaps we’re affecting a specific subject’s designer architecture. I raise it. It’s been raised publicly. It’s in articles if you, in fact, I think, Gabe, it was in your article. And I think you even said abuse-proof lawful access. And we’re talking about the way that a prospective solution, meaning today forward and orienting that way, would also offer additional oversight. And we agree to that as well. So anyway, a resounding yes from us, Jim. We stand at the ready to start getting working on an action plan to get together and kind of start talking. What are the, taking our law enforcement operational needs and what we’re seeing from our cases and bringing it into the conversation with folks like this. And again, let me just go back to one quick hit again for the multi-stakeholder approach. This is the best way we solve these problems. Thanks.

Stewart Baker: So, Gabriel, do you think there is a abuse-resistant encryption?

Gabriel Kaptchuk: You know, it’s hard to say when you’ve written a paper called abuse-resistant law enforcement access mechanisms that you think they don’t exist. It’s difficult to quite put that back in the bag. You know, I think the work that we did in that paper was try to understand this design space more and try to think about, you know, if we are in a world where, you know, the folks who are using TOLA start issuing technical capability notices left and right, right, and suddenly there’s keys everywhere, right? That is the worst case scenario. How is it even possible to build a system that meets the technical, you know, requirements without being a total disaster? That’s what we’re trying to ask and that’s what we’re calling abuse-resistant. That’s not a global notion of abuse-resistance, right? We were actually very careful to say, like, we need to talk about what it means to be abuse-resistant. We need definitions on the ground, right? We need something on paper so that the cryptographic community can go back and actually answer a specific technical question instead of saying, aha, it’s abuse-resistant and that’s it. Right, no, we need something a little bit more formal to work with. And so the kind of, the particular notion that we worked with in that paper was trying to say, well, is there some way such that, you know, okay, you have warrants that are activating backdoors in some way, okay? And is there some way that, like, if that key gets stolen, at least we would know. At least we would all be able to tell. We would be able to say, like, something terrible has happened, right? A foreign government has taken this key and is just, like, rampantly using it to decrypt people’s stuff, right? If we’re in that world, like, can we at least detect it and say, we need to rekey the system right now, right? Something very bad is happening. And these are notions of abuse-resistance that I think haven’t been part of the conversation and we risk going towards really, really bad solutions if we don’t explore this space.

Stewart Baker: So let me push on a point that has always bothered me about, the argument that these keys are going to be everywhere, they’re going to be compromised, all of the communications are going to be exposed and that that’s a risk we can’t take. It does seem to me that everybody who has software on our phones or on our computers has the ability to gain access to that computer or that phone and to compromise the security of my communications on my phone. I am trusting every single provider of every single app that is on my phone. Obviously, that’s a worry, but we expect the manufacturer to undertake the security measures to prevent that from becoming the disaster we’ve been talking about here. Why doesn’t that same approach saying to the company that provides the communication service, you also have to have a mechanism for providing access, and we expect you to maintain that every bit as securely as you maintain the security of your patch update system. Why is that not the beginning of an approach here?

Gabriel Kaptchuk: Yeah. Let’s talk about this. Let’s start to split these into technical categories because there’s multiple things happening here. The first thing is whether or not I need to trust, I don’t know, Duolingo. They might have the ability to access my unencrypted messages. When you’re saying I need to trust every provider of every single app on my phone. Turns out Apple has done a really good job sandboxing these things so that it’s actually highly, highly non-trivial. They have made sure that we have to trust Apple, but nobody else. Great. Now, let’s talk about Apple for a moment. Let’s say there are these software update keys that is part of the ecosystem today for exactly the reasons that you mentioned. I think one really important part of this puzzle is thinking about the hotness of these keys. So this is maybe a little bit of a technical term, but like how much access does this key need? How live is it, right? For a software signing key, you’re not, that thing isn’t living on a computer that somebody has access to, right? That thing is living inside of a TPM offline, sitting somewhere. And if you want to go sign an update, you literally like have somebody get up and walk over and do the thing, right? And that reduces the amount of exposure of that key. And you’re not doing this every day, right? You’re doing this, how many, I mean, I don’t know how many updates, how many times I should be updating my phone, but we’re getting updates not that frequently from Apple. So it’s a very kind of slow and methodical capability that’s audited by a lot of people and there’s a lot of eyes on it. This is a very different world when we talk about getting access to people’s messages, right? You think that like, just if there is this key, it’s only gonna be asked for once in a while. Like, no, it’s gonna be fielding thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of requests from countries around the globe. And there’s going to be a lot of requests that come with very, very like short time turnarounds, right? We need this content decrypted in the next five minutes because there’s a kid somewhere and we need to find them. That is a request that we are going to see because we already see it for unencrypted information. And moreover, we see that capability has been exploited in practice, right? Verizon handed over a data to somebody who impersonated a member of law enforcement because they said, hey, I need this data right now. And they just handed them the data first and then we’re gonna kind of do the due process later. And that person was just like using an owned account of some kind, right? This happened, I think in 2013, I’m sorry, 2023, right? So the hotness of these keys makes a tremendous amount of difference because the number of times you have to access it really shift the dynamics around it. That’s one piece of the conversation. There’s more to unpack there, but I’ll stop there for now.

Stewart Baker: All right, so I wanna make sure we have left enough time and I’ll ask Mia to keep me honest here. Should we be moving to questions from the audience? And if we should, Mia, I’ll ask you to begin the process. of assembling them.

Mia McAllister: Yes, we have about 15 minutes left in the session. So let’s, questions in the audience, let’s move to the audience and then we’ll pivot online. I know there are already some in the chat.

Andrew Cummings: Is this working? Yes. Hi, Andrew Cummings speaking. I’m a trustee for the Internet Watch Foundation. I should firstly say that there’s not agreement in civil society on this issue. There are lots of different points of view. That’s true of all of the different parts of the multi-stakeholder community. And there’s a lot of frustration, certainly for some of us, that the weaponization of privacy is being used to override the rights of children and other vulnerable groups, completely forgetting that privacy is a qualified right. And all of the human rights of children are being transgressed up to and including their life as we heard just now. So I think we just need a reality check on that. And also we shouldn’t use encryption interchangeably with security. They’re not the same, they’re quite different. And when we start to encrypt indicators of compromise and other metadata, A, we weaken security and therefore we completely trash privacy anyway. And it’s generally a bad practice. The scale of the problem we haven’t talked about, so just to give some non-abstract sense to this, we’re looking at about 150 million victims of child sexual violence per annum around the world. And we are seeing at the moment over 100 million reports of CSAM images and videos being reported per annum. That’s three every second. This is something which has been greatly magnified by the internet. This is a tech sector problem, not something which is a societal problem. It’s on us to fix this problem. And end-to-end encrypted messaging apps are widely used to find and share CSAM. There’s an enormously large sample size of research which is available to back that up. So we know that the messaging apps are a big part of the problem space here. We don’t need to backdoor them. Client-side scanning would immediately stop the sharing of known CSAM and it has no impact on privacy if it’s known CSAM images and it certainly doesn’t break encryption either. And also, simple things like age estimation or verification would at least keep adults off of child spaces and vice versa. So there’s some easy steps we could take here with known technology which would immediately affect this problem. And then finally, let’s not forget the sector is hugely hypocritical here. A lot of these problems apply in. democracies, they don’t apply in other types of states. So as a trivial example, Apple private relay is not available in China because it’s illegal in China. They care a lot less about the negative impacts of some of these technologies in democracies, but concede to the autocratic states and trade it for market access. So we’ve got a sector here, which is very hypocritical. And then finally, Vint Cerf in a session earlier this week said, sometimes we do need to pierce the veil of anonymity for law enforcement. And I think that’s absolutely the right approach. Yeah, we can’t treat privacy as an absolute right when that’s wrong in law and has serious consequences. So I’m not sure there’s a question there, but with the conversation so far, let’s talk about some of the victims. There are fixes here, and some groups are stopping us from making progress when progress could be made tomorrow if there was a willingness to do the easy things. Thank you.

Stewart Baker: All right, well, let me, that is sort of a question in the sense of a long set of propositions followed by the words, do you agree? So let me ask Mallory, if she does agree, there were a lot of ideas there that anonymity needs to be limited. I’m not sure that it is raised by the encryption debate because you can have encrypted communications that are fully attributable, but the client scanning would be a straightforward approach to this, that to age limits on access to communications services would be worth doing. And that we’re a bit too high on our horse when we say encryption is about privacy because it’s certainly. also becomes a vector for transmission of malware that wrecks people’s security. So it’s a double-edged sword. So Mallory, with those thoughts uppermost, what do you find in that that you can agree with?

Mallory Knodel: Well, that’s an interesting way of phrasing the question, Stuart. Thank you. It’ll challenge me. But first I wanted to just say, I’m particularly frustrated by the fact that the EU Child Protection Regulation has been stalled for years because of the encryption mandate. If that were removed, that whole piece of legislation that has all kinds of aspects of child safety could have moved forward ages ago. The fact that this is the one thing that’s been holding it back, I think should infuriate everyone who cares about child safety. So again, maybe it’s not worth saying these folks have held this issue back or these folks have held this issue back. Because again, what we’re trying to do is come up with a list of requirements and constraints. And that’s going to differ per jurisdiction. That’s going to differ per culture, et cetera. We’re in different places in the world. I think we can all agree that’s sort of the promise of the interconnected internet is that we all kind of come with our own version of that and interconnect and that’s the whole idea. One size fits all platforms are not going to be, I don’t think they’re the way sort of moving forward. I would certainly agree with that. I think there’s some of the things in there that have been said that then accommodate these kinds of other design ideas. But the issue is that backdoors or whatever you’re calling it, these measures have been then mandated for everyone at scale. So if we can start to chip away at that idea, then I think you get all kinds of different messaging apps that can thrive, to varying degrees of encryption, varying degrees of scanning, but that you would mandate everyone to do that the same, that you would mandate everyone to do that the same for everyone. Those are the problems. And if you look at, for example, the statement about the EU mandated backdoors and chat control from the Internet Architecture Board, they get to the heart of that, right? It’s something Gabriel said before. That doesn’t exist. People are going to use it. Even if you were able to sweep up, say, the largest providers, like you could sweep up WhatsApp and then, well, I think you’d just get it with WhatsApp, right, wouldn’t you? So you just sweep up WhatsApp. Everyone else could kind of do what they want. Then you’ve just disenfranchised all the WhatsApp users. And that would be a change. That would be a fundamental change to the software that everybody downloaded. When they downloaded WhatsApp, you might get migration to the other services then that aren’t swept up in that piece of legislation that do provide stronger encryption and don’t provide kinds of backdoor access just to kind of game this out. So I’m up. I am all for a very plural world in which we have lots and lots of different communications providers. What I don’t think is fair or what we actually want, right, is then requiring them all to work exactly in the same way and requiring them all to have struck the same balance when it comes to user privacy versus content moderation, because different users and different jurisdictions do want a different answer to that. OK.

Stewart Baker: Mia, do you have more questions or do you want to go back to other panelists?

Mia McAllister: Yeah, Dan, I want to bring you in. Are there any questions? There’s a lot of we see we have someone online from Germany. Any questions you want to address in the chat, Dan?

Dan Suter: It looks like. Hey, look, Mia, I can see that there are a lot of comments there from Ben from. Andrew. We’ve obviously heard from Andrew and equally in relation to Leah. I think the thing that’s really coming over and obviously we know this in terms of how this is a really difficult space. We often hear in terms of well we need to be regulated from industry but equally then we hear about well then we’re going to have companies that are going to leave and go offshore and there’s so much that can be done and we need to move to that place where we are actually doing it and look these are thorny issues, wicked problems as former Prime Minister Adern in New Zealand used to say and that requires people to come into the room and to discuss and understand our commonality because often there are points here where we do have a common approach. I hear absolutely everything that Andrew just said in terms of this question and answer session and believe you me as a former defence lawyer, as a prosecutor absolutely here in terms of we should be speaking more about the victim’s voice. We really should be here. It’s so important and equally to say look from a New Zealand legislation point of view we need the content. We have a high court ruling that says we cannot prosecute without the evidence of the content in relation to child sexual abuse matters. We have no choice here. Do we change the legislation and say well actually we can convict people on the basis of metadata? Is that really where we want to go to? I don’t think that’s the case and that’s when I say in terms of whether regulation pushes into this space to ensure that we can make children safer online and do you know what we are being pushed into a place where there’s self-reporting that equally isn’t a good space to be in as well. I can’t see my 15 year old child we talked about the sextortion case. Is he going to be self-reporting in relation to that case? Should we be pushing the responsibility onto my 15 year old or other children? Again, I don’t think we want to be in that space, but I’m sure we would also hear that there is agreement in relation to that. So that’s why we need to absolutely come together. But who’s going to lead that? And that’s a big question that is left hanging here, because I can really see the positivity coming out in terms of this panel. But who is going to take the lead? Is it where most of the service providers are located? Is that what’s required? Is it required in terms of a multilateral institution? And we know how that can be particularly difficult. Having taken part in the UN Cybercrime Convention negotiations, it’s not easy, right, in terms of multilateral process as well. But we really do need somebody to come to the fore and say, right, we’re going to get the right people in the room. We need the technologists. We need the academics. We need civil society. We need the NGOs. We need governments. And we need to come together to do this, because we do have the victims. We do have people who are dying. We need to move this point on sooner rather than later for all the good reasons that we’ve all discussed today. But passing back to you, Mia.

Mia McAllister: Thank you, Dan. We have time for one more question in the room. I’ll look to this side. Oh, oh, thank you. Is your hand? Okay. It looks like no more questions in the room. We’re going online. Any more questions online? You could just come off mute. All right. Not seeing any.

Stewart Baker: Yes. Well, then we can give the audience back three minutes of their life. They go to break early. I do think that our panel has done a great job of enlightening us about the nature of the considerations that are driving this debate and why it has been so prolonged and so difficult. And so I hope the audience will join me in thanking Mallory and Dan and Kate for their contributions and Gabriel. Thank you. Thanks, everyone. It was a pleasure moderating. Appreciate it.

Agreement Points

Need for multi-stakeholder collaboration

Dan Suter

Katie Noyes

Mallory Knodel

Need for consistent engagement between governments and tech firms

Need for collaboration between government, industry and civil society

Need to focus on broader solutions beyond backdoors

The speakers agree on the importance of collaboration between various stakeholders, including governments, tech firms, civil society, and academia, to address the challenges of encryption and child safety.

Importance of balancing security, privacy, and child safety

Dan Suter

Mallory Knodel

Katie Noyes

Incremental approach with safeguards in Australia and UK

End-to-end encryption protects users but hinders investigations

EU exploring access to data for law enforcement

The speakers acknowledge the need to balance security, privacy, and child safety concerns when addressing encryption issues.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers express concerns about the potential negative consequences of mandating backdoors or weakening encryption, including security risks and the possibility of companies leaving certain jurisdictions.

Gabriel Kaptchuk

Mallory Knodel

Risks of mandating backdoors or weakening encryption

Laws could force companies to leave jurisdictions

Both speakers suggest exploring innovative technical approaches to address the challenges of encryption and lawful access, such as homomorphic encryption and abuse-resistant mechanisms.

Katie Noyes

Gabriel Kaptchuk

Potential of homomorphic encryption and other technologies

Exploring abuse-resistant lawful access mechanisms

Unexpected Consensus

Recognition of the complexity of the problem

Dan Suter

Mallory Knodel

Katie Noyes

Gabriel Kaptchuk

Need for consistent engagement between governments and tech firms

Need to focus on broader solutions beyond backdoors

Need for collaboration between government, industry and civil society

Exploring abuse-resistant lawful access mechanisms

Despite their different perspectives, all speakers unexpectedly agree on the complexity of the encryption and child safety issue, acknowledging that there are no simple solutions and that a nuanced, collaborative approach is necessary.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement include the need for multi-stakeholder collaboration, the importance of balancing security, privacy, and child safety, and the recognition of the complexity of the issue. There is also some consensus on exploring innovative technical solutions.

Consensus level

Moderate consensus with significant implications. While there are differences in approach, the speakers generally agree on the need for collaboration and innovative solutions. This consensus suggests potential for progress in addressing encryption and child safety challenges, but also highlights the ongoing complexity and need for careful consideration of various perspectives.

Different Viewpoints

Effectiveness and risks of encryption backdoors

Mallory Knodel

Katie Noyes

Gabriel Kaptchuk

Laws could force companies to leave jurisdictions

Need for collaboration between government, industry and civil society

Risks of mandating backdoors or weakening encryption

Mallory Knodel and Gabriel Kaptchuk emphasize the risks of mandating encryption backdoors, including potential exodus of companies from jurisdictions and security vulnerabilities. Katie Noyes, while acknowledging these concerns, advocates for a collaborative approach to find solutions that balance security and privacy needs.

Approach to regulating encryption

Dan Suter

Mallory Knodel

Incremental approach with safeguards in Australia and UK

End-to-end encryption protects users but hinders investigations

Dan Suter supports an incremental regulatory approach with safeguards, as implemented in Australia and the UK. Mallory Knodel, while acknowledging the need for balance, emphasizes the importance of end-to-end encryption for user protection and expresses concerns about regulatory approaches that could undermine this protection.

Unexpected Differences

Interpretation of recent security incidents

Mallory Knodel

Katie Noyes

End-to-end encryption protects users but hinders investigations

EU exploring access to data for law enforcement

There was an unexpected disagreement about the interpretation of the ‘salt typhoon’ hacks. Mallory Knodel suggested it demonstrated the risks of built-in lawful access backdoors, while Katie Noyes disputed this interpretation, stating that the FBI’s investigation did not support this conclusion. This highlights how even technical incidents can be interpreted differently by various stakeholders in this debate.

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement revolve around the effectiveness and risks of encryption backdoors, the appropriate regulatory approach to encryption, and the interpretation of security incidents. There is also disagreement on the balance between user privacy and law enforcement needs.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among the speakers is significant, reflecting the complex and contentious nature of the encryption debate. While there is some common ground on the need for innovative solutions and multi-stakeholder collaboration, the fundamental differences in approach and priorities suggest that reaching a consensus on encryption policies will remain challenging. This implies that future discussions and policy-making in this area will likely require careful negotiation and compromise among various stakeholders.

Partial Agreements

All speakers agree on the need for innovative solutions to balance security, privacy, and child safety. However, they differ on the specific approaches: Katie Noyes advocates for closer collaboration with law enforcement, Mallory Knodel emphasizes user-centric approaches and diverse platforms, while Gabriel Kaptchuk proposes exploring abuse-resistant lawful access mechanisms.

Katie Noyes

Mallory Knodel

Gabriel Kaptchuk

Need for collaboration between government, industry and civil society

Need to focus on broader solutions beyond backdoors

Exploring abuse-resistant lawful access mechanisms

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers express concerns about the potential negative consequences of mandating backdoors or weakening encryption, including security risks and the possibility of companies leaving certain jurisdictions.

Gabriel Kaptchuk

Mallory Knodel

Risks of mandating backdoors or weakening encryption

Laws could force companies to leave jurisdictions

Both speakers suggest exploring innovative technical approaches to address the challenges of encryption and lawful access, such as homomorphic encryption and abuse-resistant mechanisms.

Katie Noyes

Gabriel Kaptchuk

Potential of homomorphic encryption and other technologies

Exploring abuse-resistant lawful access mechanisms

Key Takeaways

There is ongoing tension between protecting privacy/security through encryption and enabling law enforcement access to combat child exploitation

A multi-stakeholder approach involving government, industry, civil society and academia is needed to find balanced solutions

Technical innovations may offer ways to enable limited lawful access without fully compromising encryption

There is frustration with lack of progress on child protection measures due to encryption debates

Different jurisdictions and users have varying needs/preferences regarding privacy vs. content moderation

Resolutions and Action Items

Continue exploring technical solutions like client-side scanning and abuse-resistant lawful access mechanisms

Engage in more collaborative discussions between stakeholders to find common ground

Consider approaches that allow for diversity in encryption/privacy levels across platforms rather than one-size-fits-all mandates

Unresolved Issues

Who will take the lead in organizing multi-stakeholder collaboration on solutions?

How to balance user privacy/security with need for content access in investigations

Whether and how to implement age verification or limits on encrypted platforms

How to address global nature of platforms/crimes while respecting jurisdictional differences

Suggested Compromises

Explore prospective data-in-motion solutions that don’t affect all users

Consider content-based or limited lawful access mechanisms rather than full backdoors

Allow for diversity in platform approaches rather than mandating one solution for all

Focus on known CSAM detection and user reporting tools as interim measures

We need to really raise our ambition and develop a collective approach engaging with each other and towards a safety by design ethos, including designed and lawful access that does not undercut cyber security or privacy.

speaker

Dan Suter

reason

This comment shifts the framing from an adversarial stance to one of collaboration, suggesting a more holistic approach that balances multiple priorities.

impact

It set a more constructive tone for the discussion and introduced the idea of ‘safety by design’ as a potential path forward.

Already there is data that can be obtained that can be provided and that is provided based on leaks from a few years ago and sort of, I don’t know, it was like a slide deck that the law enforcement community was using to explain which of these encrypted services have which metadata and how you can get it.

speaker

Mallory Knodel

reason

This comment introduces nuance by pointing out that even with encryption, some useful data is still available to law enforcement.

impact

It challenged the binary framing of the debate and suggested that existing capabilities may not be fully utilized.

I think what we’re seeing is the deployment of end-to-end encryption technologies around on many, many communication platforms as being a very clear signal that this is what users want.

speaker

Gabriel Kaptchuk

reason

This comment reframes the debate in terms of user demand and market forces rather than just policy considerations.

impact

It shifted the discussion to consider user preferences and the practical realities of the technology landscape.

We have solid data and it’s solid data not coming from law enforcement this time, it’s coming from outside non-government organizations. So many of you are familiar with the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, my colleagues around here in the room. It’s a U.S.-based non-profit that really takes tips and leads from the electronic service providers. Last year was the highest number of tips ever received by the electronic service providers, like META for Facebook and Instagram, if you’re wondering what an ESP is, but it was 36 million reports.

speaker

Katie Noyes

reason

This comment introduces concrete data from a neutral source to illustrate the scale of the problem.

impact

It grounded the discussion in real-world impacts and statistics, moving beyond theoretical arguments.

And is there some way that, like, if that key gets stolen, at least we would know. At least we would all be able to tell. We would be able to say, like, something terrible has happened, right?

speaker

Gabriel Kaptchuk

reason

This comment introduces a novel technical approach to mitigating risks associated with lawful access mechanisms.

impact

It opened up discussion of more nuanced technical solutions that could potentially bridge the gap between privacy and law enforcement needs.

Overall Assessment

These key comments helped move the discussion from abstract policy debates to more nuanced considerations of technical realities, user preferences, and practical impacts. They introduced new frameworks for thinking about the issue (safety by design, abuse-resistant mechanisms) and grounded the conversation in concrete data and real-world examples. This shifted the tone from adversarial to more collaborative, exploring potential middle-ground solutions and acknowledging the complexity of balancing multiple priorities.

Has there ever been an order or capability notice that required modification of encryption to allow for lawful access?

speaker

Stewart Baker

explanation

This is important to understand the real-world impact of legislation like the Investigatory Powers Act and TOLA on encryption and privacy.

Is there a way to create an encryption key that only works for certain types of content?

speaker

Gabriel Kaptchuk

explanation

This could potentially provide a middle ground between full encryption and lawful access, addressing both privacy and law enforcement concerns.

How can we develop a collective approach among countries for engaging with tech firms on child safety and lawful access?

speaker

Dan Suter

explanation

A coordinated approach could lead to more effective solutions and consistent policies across jurisdictions.

What are the possibilities and limitations of homomorphic encryption in addressing the encryption debate?

speaker

Katie Noyes

explanation

This technology could potentially allow for data analysis without compromising encryption, offering a new avenue for balancing privacy and security.

How can we design prospective data-in-motion solutions that affect only specific subjects rather than all users?

speaker

Katie Noyes

explanation

This approach could potentially provide lawful access while minimizing the impact on overall user privacy and security.

Who should take the lead in bringing together stakeholders to find solutions to the encryption debate?

speaker

Dan Suter

explanation

Identifying a leader or organizing body is crucial for moving the conversation forward and implementing practical solutions.

How can we better incorporate victims’ voices into the encryption and child safety debate?

speaker

Andrew Campling

explanation

Understanding the real-world impact on victims is crucial for developing effective policies and solutions.

What are the potential impacts of client-side scanning on privacy and encryption?

speaker

Andrew Campling

explanation

This technology has been proposed as a potential solution, but its implications need to be thoroughly examined.

How can age estimation or verification be implemented effectively in online spaces?

speaker

Andrew Campling

explanation

This could potentially address some child safety concerns without compromising encryption.

Summary

This discussion focused on women’s participation in the video game and app development industries, as well as policies and tools to support their involvement. The panel featured industry leaders, policymakers, and experts who shared insights on the current state of gender diversity in gaming and technology.

Speakers highlighted the growing importance of the video game industry, noting its significant economic impact and cultural influence. They emphasized that while gaming audiences are diverse, with women making up a large portion of players, the industry still lacks gender parity in development roles. Several panelists shared personal experiences of breaking into the male-dominated field and the challenges they faced.

The discussion addressed the need for policies and initiatives to encourage women’s participation in tech and gaming. Examples included mentorship programs, targeted funding for women-led businesses, and efforts to improve education and skills training. Speakers also stressed the importance of creating inclusive work environments and addressing issues like online harassment that can deter women from the industry.

WIPO representatives outlined various resources and tools available to support game and app developers, particularly focusing on intellectual property protection. These included educational materials, online courses, and networking platforms designed to help developers navigate IP issues throughout the game development process.

The panel emphasized the value of diversity in driving innovation and creativity in the gaming industry. They noted that including more women and underrepresented groups in development roles can lead to more diverse game content and expand the industry’s reach. Speakers concluded by encouraging aspiring women developers to pursue their passions and take advantage of available resources and support networks.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– The video game industry is a major economic force and cultural influence, with growing diversity among both developers and players

– There is still a significant gender gap in tech and gaming, with women underrepresented, but progress is being made

– Policies, education, funding and support are needed to increase women’s participation in gaming/tech

– IP protection and resources are important for game/app developers, especially women and startups

– Addressing online toxicity and harassment is crucial for making gaming more inclusive

Overall purpose:

The goal of this discussion was to highlight the achievements of women leaders in gaming/tech, discuss policies and tools to support more women entering these fields, and emphasize the importance of diversity and inclusion in the gaming industry.

Tone:

The tone was largely inspirational and optimistic, with speakers sharing personal success stories and emphasizing the progress being made. There was also a sense of urgency about addressing remaining challenges. The tone remained positive and encouraging throughout, focused on opportunities and solutions.

Speakers

– Ryszard Frelek: Moderator

– Kristine Schlegelmilch: Second moderator from WIPO

– Kate Edwards: 31-year veteran of the video game industry, geographer, former executive director of the International Game Developers Association

– Tami Bhaumik: Vice President of Civility and Partnerships at Roblox

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

– Meaad Aflah: CEO of Starvania, an award-winning game studio in Riyadh

– Julio Raffo: WIPO economist leading work on the innovation economy and innovation and gender research

– Michele Woods: Leader of WIPO’s Copyright Law Division

Additional speakers:

– Christine: Online moderator (likely the same person as Kristine Schlegelmilch)

Women’s Participation in the Video Game and App Development Industries: A Comprehensive Discussion

This panel discussion brought together industry leaders, policymakers, and experts to explore women’s participation in the video game and app development industries, as well as policies and tools to support their involvement. The conversation highlighted the significant economic and cultural impact of gaming whilst addressing the persistent gender gap in tech and gaming sectors.

Current State of the Gaming Industry

Kate Edwards, a 31-year veteran of the video game industry, emphasised that gaming has become the world’s largest form of entertainment, surpassing film and music combined in terms of revenue. This underscores the industry’s massive economic and cultural influence. However, despite the diverse player base, which includes people from all walks of life, there remains a significant lack of gender diversity in development roles. Edwards noted that women comprise only 15-20% of the video game industry workforce, highlighting a stark disparity.

Julio Raffo, a WIPO economist, corroborated this point by presenting research from WIPO’s World IP Report 2024 on women’s participation in inventions and creative activities. While there has been an increase in women’s workforce participation over the past 20-50 years, gender parity specifically among inventors is projected to occur only around 2061, indicating a long road ahead for achieving equality in tech and innovation.

Challenges and Opportunities for Women in Gaming

The panellists discussed various challenges faced by women in the gaming industry, including:

1. Underrepresentation in development roles

2. Online harassment and toxicity in gaming communities

3. Balancing creative passion with business considerations

4. Complexity and cost of game development

Despite these challenges, speakers highlighted several opportunities and positive developments:

1. Emerging technologies like generative AI lowering barriers to entry

2. Platforms like Roblox enabling easier game creation and publishing

3. Growing recognition of the value of diverse perspectives in driving creativity and innovation

4. Increasing efforts to combat toxicity in gaming communities, with Kate Edwards emphasizing the importance of community management

Policies and Initiatives to Support Women in Tech and Gaming

Alaa Abdulaal, Chief of Digital Economy Foresight at the Digital Cooperation Organization, highlighted the need for policies to encourage women’s participation in tech and gaming. She cited a UN report showing that only 33% of jobs in the top 10 technology companies are held by women, emphasising the importance of empowering women to transition their businesses online.

The discussion touched on several initiatives and resources aimed at supporting women in the industry:

1. Mentorship programmes

2. Targeted funding for women-led businesses

3. Education and skills training initiatives

4. The Digital Cooperation Organization’s “We Elevate” program and digital economy navigator tool

5. Industry efforts like Thriving in Games to combat toxicity in gaming communities

Intellectual Property and Resources for Game Developers

Michele Woods, leader of WIPO’s Copyright Law Division, stressed the importance of intellectual property (IP) protection in game development. WIPO provides free IP resources for game developers, including:

1. Educational materials and online courses

2. The “Quest for IP” project, which gamifies IP learning

3. A LinkedIn community for IP in video game development

4. An upcoming eSports project

These resources are particularly valuable for women and startups entering the industry.

Personal Experiences and Cultural Impact

Meaad Aflah, CEO of Starvania, an award-winning game studio in Riyadh, shared her personal journey in starting her game studio. She emphasized the need to balance creative and business aspects of game development, including IP management. This balance is crucial for the long-term success and sustainability of game development studios, particularly those led by women.

The panel agreed on the significant cultural and economic impact of the gaming industry. Kate Edwards described games as cultural artefacts and a form of artistic expression. Tami Bhaumik, Vice President of Civility and Partnerships at Roblox, highlighted how games can be used to tell diverse cultural stories. Julio Raffo noted the substantial economic activity generated by the gaming industry globally and emphasized the importance of international collaboration in game innovation. Meaad Aflah discussed Saudi Arabia’s emerging gaming ecosystem as an example of the industry’s growth in new markets.

Future Outlook and Unresolved Issues

While the overall tone of the discussion was optimistic and focused on progress, several unresolved issues were identified:

1. Achieving gender parity in game development, which is projected to take over 40 years at current rates

2. Fully addressing toxicity and harassment issues in gaming communities

3. Balancing creative passion with business considerations in game development

The panellists encouraged aspiring women developers to pursue their passions and take advantage of available resources and support networks. They emphasised the value of diversity in driving innovation and creativity in the gaming industry, noting that including more women and underrepresented groups in development roles can lead to more diverse game content and expand the industry’s reach.

In conclusion, the discussion highlighted both the challenges and opportunities for women in the gaming and tech industries. While progress has been made, there is still significant work to be done to achieve gender parity and create a more inclusive environment in these sectors. The panellists’ insights and recommendations provide a roadmap for continued efforts to support and empower women in gaming and technology.

Ryszard Frelek: the event together with Christine, who’s joining us from Geneva Online, and Christine will take over the moderation after Ala will speak. It’s a great, again, it’s a great pleasure to be here, and congratulations, of course, to all the organizers of the IGF for putting in place all of these excellent arrangements. This session is hosted by the World Intellectual Property Organization, in short WIPO. For those who might not know yet, we are the UN agency that serves the world’s innovators and creators, ensuring that their ideas travel safely to the market and improve lives everywhere. We do so by providing services that enable creators, innovators, and entrepreneurs to protect and promote their intellectual property across borders and acting as a forum for addressing cutting-edge IP issues. Our IP data and information also guide decision-makers the world over, and we, of course, as well have impact-driven projects and technical assistance to ensure that everyone, everywhere, benefits from the intellectual property system. Now, we, of course, in the opening session, as well as throughout all the past days and upcoming days, the issue of the gender divide was echoed across. We are very happy to be here with our amazing speakers from across the world, and who will be speaking about, first of all, the inspiring stories they have as women leaders in the gaming and app development sector. Second, we will also showcase the different policies that can help others join these innovative and creative industries, and we’ll tell you also about our IP tools from the World Intellectual Property Organization that can be used by anyone in order to successfully manage your intellectual property in the gaming and software sector. Finally, if time allows, of course, we’ll be happy to pick up any questions you might have from the audience, both online as well as on-site here as well. In order to save time, we will not be giving the full bios of all the amazing speakers. It will take an hour each for all the CVs that we have here gathered with us, but in this case, allow me just to very quickly, already now, turn to the first speaker, Kate Edwards, who, for those who are in the gaming space, does not need any introductions. She’s a legend in the industry, and Kate, over to you. Okay, well, thank you very much. It’s

Kate Edwards: great to be here, and thank you for coming to our session. I’m going to take this off while I’m speaking because I don’t want to hear myself. So, yeah, so basically, I’ve been working in the video game industry for 31 years, currently finishing up my 31st year. I’m a geographer, and I’ve been doing what I call culturalization work on games. So, I started doing this work at Microsoft many, many years ago, in which I found a way to apply my skills, both as a geographer and cartographer, helping initially on mapping products at Microsoft, but then as the games started being developed there, I worked on all of their games, and I basically helped make sure that the game developers are not making cultural and political mistakes that get them in trouble, and therefore limit the distribution of their IP, limited the distribution, and also that, you know, their IP could be actually tainted by a political or cultural issue that they got wrong. And that happened a few times over the years, and so that was my main job. I left in 2005, and I’ve been self-employed as a consultant in this area ever since, but in addition, I became the executive director of the International Game Developers Association, and ran that organization for five years, which is the world’s largest association for people who develop games, when it has chapters all around the world. And then I also, at one point, also was the executive director of the Global Game Jam, which is the world’s largest game creation event. It happens every January, happens right about a month from now, in which we have about 50,000 people in over a hundred countries making games at the exact same time, around the same weekend, all around the same theme, which gets announced every year. And then I do a lot of other stuff. I’m on the board of TakeThis.org that deals with mental health in the game industry. I’m on a Girlsteam Institute organization board as well. And so basically, there’s a lot of work I do that is about the cultural adaptation of the content, and then there’s also about the culture of the industry. How can we make this industry more inclusive? How can we make it more diverse? Because one thing that we know very well is that, you know, this industry currently, if you look from place to place, it generally is 15 to 20 percent of the workplace are women working in the game industry, and we would like to see that be vastly improved. Because we know that essentially, you know, the people who play games today are pretty much anybody. It is the world’s largest form of entertainment. It makes far more money than film and music combined. A lot of people of younger generations, their eyes are looking at our screens, the game screens, more than they are looking at television, more than they are looking at film. And so that is a huge area for influence. It’s an area for inspiration. So I travel about 75% of the year. I visit a lot of places around the world, including a lot of emerging markets, and I meet phenomenal talent from all kinds of walks of life, and all kinds of backgrounds. I meet a lot of women, a lot of other underrepresented groups who are working on games and making games, because for them, games are their favorite medium, and it also is an artistic form of self-expression. So they’ve chosen to look at games as a way to express themselves, express their own story, express their own culture stories, which is something where games are really unlocking for a lot of people the ability to tell the story that’s local, that people have never heard before. And that to me is very exciting. We of course see that in other creative media. We’ve seen it in film and TV and other forms, but games are very personal. You often have like one or two people working together, making a game together about, say, something based on their local mythology, or based on their own personal life journey. And we’ve had this over and over again. And so it’s something that has been very inspiring, and we see it as a gateway that a lot of people, especially young women who are interested in getting into tech and getting into the creative fields, they see games as, I guess, one of the easier paths to do. Because oftentimes in a lot of locations, if you want to become like a software engineer or a, you know, software developer, the path to get to that point is, it can be tough. And I don’t mean tough from a schooling standpoint. I mean tough from a cultural standpoint. Because of course in a lot of markets today, the parents may say, no, that’s a job for boys. It’s not a job for girls. They may discourage their daughters or discourage their girlfriends or others from going that path. And yet, we’ve seen the talent. There are so many fantastic examples of young women I’ve met around the world who have chosen that path, and they’ve been very successful at it. I know AI engineers, because we use AI quite prevalently in video games, to control non-player characters and other aspects of the game world. I know a lot of people who are software engineers. They’re artists. They’re amazing writers. And these are people, a lot of women, who come from different backgrounds from around the world. And so, it’s this assumption that we make, oftentimes, that the typical game player is like this young teenage boy, in their parents’ house, who’s yelling at the screen. But that has not been true for many, many years. Because the fastest-growing demographic of games, on a global average, has been 30 to 40-something women. They’re the ones who are playing the games more than the young teenage boys. And why is that? Well, because games are a great distraction from everyday life. I mean, especially mobile games, especially the easy kind of like casual games, as we sometimes call them. Because we often don’t have time to sit down and play a game for six hours at a stretch. I would love to do that, but I’m too busy working on games. So, a lot of times, we’ll play something really simple. Like, I play Pokemon Go every single day. Because why not? It’s something I can do very quickly. So, I think it’s really important that we realize that games are a cultural force. They’re a cultural artifact. And more and more governments that I talk to on a regular basis are starting to understand that that’s what games really are. They’re not just a toy. They’re not just a form of entertainment. They are an artifact of the culture in the same level as literature, art, film, television. They are an artifact that we now need to embrace. And so, it’s encouraging to me that more and more governments are starting to see games that way. But more importantly, they need to see who are actually making the games and make the investment in the young people, especially the underrepresented young people, especially women, and give them a chance to get into this space. Because, as I said, we know that pretty much everyone today is playing games of some form. And the challenge is that we want those who make games to better represent those who play them. And the only way we can do that is to open more doors and allow young women and people who are underrepresented to have an opportunity to have the chance to make games. And so, that’s essentially what I will end with.

Ryszard Frelek: Thanks so much, Kate. and you’re one of the people I could be listening for hours and hours. But time is flying, so thank you so much. And let me now kindly move to Tami, who is the Vice President of Civility and Partnerships in Roblox. Tami. Yes. The floor is yours.

Tami Bhaumik: Thank you so much for allowing me to participate with this amazing panel of women. So I lead an area at Roblox called Civility. And what we do is we work on closing the education gap between the generations. We want to empower all of our community in order to have the tools and the knowledge to be able to thrive, not just on Roblox, but online in general. I’ve been at Roblox for eight years, and I’ve seen tremendous changes in terms of the community, not just the players, but also the creators and the developers on the platform. I’ve had the pleasure of meeting and working and talking to a lot of girls and women who have found Roblox to be their creative outlet. They have chosen to spend time on Roblox because it’s a connection point for their friends. They just have fun on it. Roblox, for those of you who are unfamiliar with it, it’s a technology platform that allows you to use free tools to create games and experiences and publish it out to millions. We now have close to 90 million daily active users on our platform. We have six million active developers and tens of millions of games on Roblox. And the experiences that are created are really inspiring. I’ll tell you a little bit of a story of one of the developers that I came to know that was just, it really inspires me. She started to play, her name is Mistra. She started playing Roblox when she was 12 years old, and she was full of energy, creative ideas, and she just, she kept seeing all of these different games, but it wasn’t quite what she was interested in. So she started making friends on Roblox who were developers. She started becoming really inspired and started designing clothes, digital items, that started to really take off. And this was quite a few years ago. This was about six years ago. Over time, she taught herself to program on Roblox. She started to develop games on the platform that took off, that now have close to a billion plays. And so she has inspired, she has now become an inspiration for other girls on the platform. She’s created her own studio with girls and women, inspiring them to create. Her latest game was a game about mermaids. And it was, it just, it again, was such an easy, safe place for girls and women to come to be able to be together. And I think that’s such an important goal of these experiences. When people think of games or programming a game, I think that it can be very, very intimidating. I think that many girls think that they have to learn how to program, they have to be good at math, and it sometimes can intimidate them. But now I’m very optimistic, because with the advent of generative AI, you don’t have to become this expert programmer. You can really, really use your imagination to be able to create worlds and experiences without the cumbersome fact of learning how to program. So what I’m excited about is it’s going to bring so many more people into the ecosystem from developing countries, from underrepresented communities to genders. And it’s not the typical, as you say, Kate, the traditional, you know, boys that you think are creating games. It’s really going to open up and diversify the storytelling. I’m also on the advisory board for the Gina Davis Institute, which is an institute, are you familiar with the Gina Davis? So I’m on the advisory board of the Gina Davis Institute. And it’s all about storytelling. It’s all about inserting the narrative of women and telling a story in film, in entertainment, and in gaming to make sure that the story of women are truly inclusive and representative of what women really are. So again, there are tools, there are playbooks available that teach developers how to create experiences that are truly gender inclusive.

Ryszard Frelek: Thanks so much, Tammy. And I’m definitely also another person I would love to continue on listening to, but time goes on and now we are coming back to Riyadh and I would kindly like to ask Matt, who’s the CEO of an award winning studio Starvania here based in Riyadh. And I think my next game I will be playing will be Bahamut. Over to you, Matt.

Meaad Aflah: Thank you so much for having me today. I feel actually very humbled to be among veterans in the gaming industry. It’s my pleasure to be here. I personally started game development since 2013, where there was no gaming industry back then in the region, like purely self-learning. There were like few developers out there, but you have no idea where to find them exactly. So it was very hard to start a gaming industry at that time because no one was taking this industry seriously and it was very hard to take this even as a career path. So I wanted to build my own game studio long time ago, but I couldn’t. My boring job as a project manager in a tech company was taking a huge part of my time and effort. And sorry for all the project managers out there, don’t take it personally, please. So my job was really taking a huge part of my time and effort and I couldn’t really focus on building my studio. Then at one day, the Ministry of Communication and Information Technology actually launched their very first gaming incubator and accelerator program in Saudi. And once I saw this glimpse of hope, I immediately went to my boss, resigned from my job for the sake of my passion and basically being fully dedicated and focused on building my dream. At that time, I even relocated to Riyadh because I’m originally from Jeddah. Back then, I remember I told my parents, hey, I resigned from my job and I’m relocating to Riyadh to start my business. It was all of a sudden. The good thing was my parents was very supportive at that time and I even told them, just give me one year and if it didn’t work out, I’ll just come back. And since then, I never came back and officially settled in Riyadh because a lot of things happened since then. It was a very risky step for me at that time because I wasn’t quite sure what’s hidden for me, where the industry in Saudi Arabia is actually going and how would it be in the next few years. But I also believe that sometimes you need to take some brave steps in order to make a change in your life. And I feel like that was one of the best decisions that I’ve had, honestly, because a lot of things happened since then. So I joined the program. It was over a year long and I’ve been mentored under experts from Nintendo, DigiPen Institute of Technology, and they even elevated my experience and knowledge in the gaming industry in general from both the game development aspect and also the business side of it. So I graduated from the program and at that time, I founded Starvania with my other co-founder. I joined another program, which is also an incubator program. It’s a global one by GameBCN. It was also collaborated with MCIT, the Minister of Communication and Information Technology. I finished the program. I jumped to another accelerator program, which is GameFounders, where I met Kate actually for the first time. I was literally jumping from one accelerator to another because I was trying to expand my knowledge and experience in the gaming industry as much as I can, maximizing my opportunities and connections, and also accelerating and growing my business as fast as I can. At that time, I started to feel that like after joining three accelerators, one after another, I started to feel more confident and I felt like, yes, I can stand by my own. I can stand with my feet on my feet. And then at that time, Neom came and invested in us. And they only picked four companies out of like over 20 to relocate to the Lion City. once it gets ready and I was very proud to be part of this. We were the first cohort and now, by the way, they have the second cohort as well. And we grew a lot since then. We only started with four members and currently we are 15. We traveled around the world to participate in many global events. We have been in Germany, UK, in the US, Dubai, Jordan and many other countries as well. So I feel like we really grew a lot since the investment of NEOM. And even though we only started like two years and a half ago or almost three years now, but I’m very proud to see that my studio and myself started to be recognized very fast among the local and the global gaming industry. Like the games, our games have been featured in multiple game awards, media and press releases started to talk about the game and the studio. And we recently even awarded the best game startup award in the MENA region. And I was very proud of this huge achievement and recognition. And also the game awarded a Defcon Indie award. And that was a very big global recognition. And I felt like that was an achievement, wasn’t like for the studio or the game specifically or myself, it was literally an achievement for the entire Saudi ecosystem that we started to hit the globe, right? Within a very short period of time. And even when they handed me the award, they were saying we were the first gaming studio from Saudi Arabia that is being part of the Defcon Indie award. And I was very proud to represent my country with this huge achievement. So, and that’s literally what we’re trying to do in Starvania is to really build high quality games that can resonate and meet the global standards and show the world that we can actually develop games that can compete within a global scale. Because in the gaming industry, it’s all about like creating great IPs, right? Like I always say that we believe in creating an entertainment experiences beyond the horizon. I know this might sound a bit cliche, but like what I mean by beyond the horizon is that, you know that feeling when you finish a game or a movie, it’s called post game or post movie depression. You feel so happy and satisfied that you have finished a good experience, but at the same time you feel sad and empty that you have finished it and you feel like so what now? Now you need more, but there’s actually no more. That’s exactly what I mean by the horizon. The horizon here is the game itself. It’s the original IP. That’s what you are seeing immediately in the horizon. And what’s beyond that, we build a very rich content that can be used with different entertainment mediums using the original IP. So as a longterm vision, we don’t wanna only make games. We wanna grow and build our IPs by creating comics, animation and merchandise to support the game itself, to deliver a complete and extended entertainment experiences through the games that we make or through the original IP. So yeah, at the end, I would say, as you can see, the industry is growing massively in Saudi, and I’m very proud to be part of this wave, especially to be one of the pioneers in the gaming industry in Saudi as a woman-led studio. And I hope that I could inspire other women like me to pursue their passion, even dream big and go crazy. So thank you, thank you so much. Thank you, Med. This is really excellent and inspiring. And I was also, by the way, joking with some of the participants here that one of the good ideas is I would love to have announced that after our event, you will have the possibility to play Roblox, you will have the possibility to play Bahamut, and you will have the possibility to play Indiana Jones in that case with Kate. But we have to move on. In this case, we have the next part of our event, which is going to be focusing on policies. And here, if I could kindly turn to Alla, who is the Chief of Digital Economy Foresight in the Digital Cooperation Organization. By the way, congratulations to the Secretary General for the amazing speech in the beginning opening of the IGF. And of course, for all the great cooperation we also received from DCEO. Alla, the floor is yours.

Alaa Abdulaal: Thank you so much. I’m very honored to be here in this panel beside amazing women with such an achievement on different level and specifically related to technology by itself. At the Digital Cooperation Organization, our mission is making sure that there is a fair opportunity for everyone. And when we say everyone, including women, definitely. And when we look at the numbers, it’s really disappointing. Based on the UN, one of the UN reports, we only find that 33% of women are in jobs in technology in the top 10 technology companies. 33 is a very disappointing number. And I know for a fact, someone coming from a very technology background, and I know around me, there is a lot of amazing women who have their computer and science STEM in them, and they are going into that field. So having that reflection really make us look at what is the problem. Looking at that there is a one trillion, if I’m, yeah, one trillion of missed opportunity from a GDP perspective for omitting women and not making, giving them that opportunity to participate in the digital economy. This is a loss, a loss for the globe overall. And this really makes us, even in the organization, really think behind what, why. Why is this happening? What do we need to do? On different levels, not only from policy perspective, but policy, education, skills, funding, that full enablement and empowerment to make sure that women is part of this growth of the digital economy. One of the things that we recently, not this year we have launched, we worked on a unified framework for women participation in ICT and through ICT. The objective of this unified framework is to enable and empower not only countries, but businesses, to really start creating impactful initiatives. We are seeing a lot of initiatives that are targeted for women, but again, we always get that, what can we do? Where is the need? How can we measure it? How it can be, those initiatives can be tailored in a very impactful way. So we created this framework. It’s like a tool that will help in the creation of actionable initiative, looking at different categories, different sectors. For example, which region are you targeting? Is it a country? Is it a region? Is it a specific group age? Is it for people, women who are employed or unemployed? Which sector exactly? We are talking about women who are already have education in the ICT sector, or how can they use the technology to empower them in the industries that they are already working in? Whether they are lawyers, whether they are doctors, we believe that technology would be a huge enablement and empowerment for those women who are working in those industries. So this framework will really help in creating those tailored, targeted initiatives that also will be helping in, how can we measure their impact later on? This is one of the things that we have launched at the beginning of the year. Another thing, we said, okay, let’s put our hands on the ground, and let’s actually not only providing toolkits, but let’s have an initiative to really enable women. And we have what we call We Elevate. It’s a full program to help and empower women to transition from regular businesses to be there online. And this would open a full horizon. We are making them not only execute or work in their national jurisdiction, but going and being open and available online. It means cross-border. It mean in this world of digitalization. And you can see how this would not only have that economic impact, but even reach and showcasing those women-led businesses. And we already started. We are targeting to have 300 businesses in, we started launching in Rwanda, targeting having by next year 300 businesses to transition them fully online. And not only that, we are supporting them by giving them the right skills with specific training to help them be, there is a full supply chain, full knowledge that they need to have to really operate online. This is, so we are taking it a full fledge from giving the education, giving the opportunity, giving the fund, giving. them the floor and platform to be there online. Again, there is also a lot of our Secretary General, she always, to be honest, since she’s a woman, she really likes to empower women, and in every country where we go, she has those lead meetings, mentorship sessions, where she talks to women, shares her story, and and this is always open a new horizon, and when you listen to other women, their successful story, like my colleague beside me, we really see that, yes, the numbers are disappointing, but there is a lot of hope. Only just by giving the floor, having such a session to share the stories of amazing women, led by businesses, and even them being in the field, this is really inspiring, and this is even what we are trying to do in DCO in different occasions. Also, we have launched our digital economy navigator. It is a tool that helps in assessing the maturity level of the digital economy, and one of the major aspects and indicators that we are capturing, and we believe that it is really one important aspect, is gender equality in different sectors, in different levels, in the private sector, and even in the government, and we captured that indicator as part, a key component in this tool that we have produced, and when we look at the numbers, and we see how much we are behind, it shows us how much we need to work together to make sure that we are giving the opportunity and empowering women in every level. Again, I don’t think that this is something that women can do alone. If we do not have also the male empowerment from the other side, then we are not looking for, we will not achieve this success. I wish, as a woman, to have that day where we don’t need to talk about this issue. We don’t need to talk about women empowerment, because it will be our nature, it will be the common sense. So, again, as the digital cooperation organization, I believe there is a lot to be done from a policy perspective, building the right initiative to support the empowerment of women, having the right incentives in place, having the right funding to fund the businesses led by the women, having targeted programs to give them the right skills to be in this digital world. It’s still a big journey and a big number that we want to see increased, and we hope by the cooperation between different stakeholders and different sectors, we will achieve that soon.

Ryszard Frelek: Thank you, Ella, and if I can say that the inspiration, the hope is very, very condensed in this room, and thank you very much for providing all the support that you have in all the different areas of your work. Now, let me perhaps then turn to our second moderator, to Christine, who is joining us online. I see Christine, I see you. I don’t know if I’ll be able to hear you. Hi, everyone. I can

Kristine Schlegelmilch: hear you. Go ahead, Christine. Thanks so much, Richard, and a big thank you, Ella, for opening us up on the part of our session where we are discussing the policies and tools that are crucial to understanding and helping to close those gender disparities in the tech sector that you just mentioned. I’m really pleased to introduce my colleague, Julio Raffo, who is WIPO’s economist leading work on the

Ryszard Frelek: innovation economy, as well as our innovation and gender research at WIPO, and Julio, we’re looking forward to learning from you about your team’s research into understanding the gender gap in innovation and IP, as well as your recent analysis of the video game industry. So, right over to you. Thank

Julio Raffo: you, Christine. Thank you, Richard. Thank you to the IGF for organizing this very important session and event, so I’m very happy to be here. And as mentioned, I’ll be talking today about our World IP Report 2024, we can see here in the background, which has a full chapter dedicated to the innovation capabilities in the video game industry. The video game industry, I think it’s not gonna be a surprise for most of you, is a significant contributor to global economic activity, and you may know it generates almost double in revenue than the movie industry, so that can give you a little bit the measure of how big it is. More importantly, video games, as I think Kate was saying a bit earlier today, it’s no longer that person hidden with a computer, especially a teenager, but actually they span in many platforms. We have mobile, console, PC, and browser games, to name a few. Some of the titles are really big budget, right, they’re blockbusters, and they compete with the blockbuster films that we are, you know, more used to, especially if you are my age, they are more used as a figure, as an example. The industry also offers high-paying jobs, with workers sometimes earning up to three times the average wage in many countries, for instance Finland, Japan, Poland, US, to name a few that we have discussed in our report. And of course, very importantly, we have three billion people around the world that plays video games, and actually in many places, basically half of them are women, which is a very important link that we’re trying to establish here in this session. So this means that diversity actually is an intrinsic part of the video game industry, and this is what I’m going to try to discuss a little bit by relying on that chapter I mentioned before, and then bring back of why it’s very important that we have women, but also diversity incorporated into the gaming industry. So I’m gonna say some trivial things, but especially for the non-gaming community, it might be important, the video game industry includes game development, publishing, hardware, eSports, but also the community of gamers around them. So it’s a very diverse community, and if you want to look at the video game supply chain as a whole, the key players are of course the developers in terms of creativity, they are the ones who create the games, but also the other key players are the publishers who finance and promote the games and bring all those games to the market, a very important element in innovation, right? It’s not only the creation, but also the commercialization so we can have access to them. We are noticing that as games become more and more complex, which they are if you have been playing games, Richard was mentioned a few just some minutes ago, and they’re becoming more complex because both the development costs and their development risks are increasing over time, and this means that we need to be very creative, but also very diverse in terms of the skills of how we tackle them. For instance, just to give you a very concrete example, they’re going to be linking to gender later on, the average development team size has doubled in only one decade, right? And this is a clear connection to the higher cost and complexity that should develop a new game is required. So it’s not surprising that in response to that many publishers have actually virtually integrated, right? The big publishers have been acquiring smaller studios to streamline operations and manage expenses. As such, also the industry is increasingly relying on sophisticated skills like graphic design, software development and storytelling, just to name a few, but of course many of these they overlap with other sectors like computing and entertainment, right? We have an industry that is increasingly using the talent from many other industries, it’s merging that talent in a very creative way, but also in a world that has less and less resources. It’s important also to note that innovations in virtual reality and artificial intelligence and mobile technology have enhanced the gameplay and accessibility of games all around the world in a very impressive way, and also this means that we have trends like cross-platform playability that have expanded to many markets now. In the past, games were developing in a very few countries and for a very few countries, now it is a global endeavor. The global supply chain of video games demonstrate also this significant interdependence, right, of different industries. We see also talent going from one industry to the other industry, and at the same time we observe also that things that arise from the video game industry, they can go all the way to entertainment. We see many films now, many movies being done from video games. So, diverse capabilities are the fuel of this industry. We have a lot of evidence suggesting that international collaboration in game innovation is a key to successfully developing new technologies. We know that there is a lot of interdisciplinary collaboration. We know that either for 3A titles, right, the blockbuster titles, but also the indie games, the sector will encompass diverse roles such as programmer, artists, marketers, and user experience experts. So, diversity is a key of this, and this diversity has expanded over time to meet consumers’ expectations for sophisticated cross-platform games, the ones I was mentioning before. So this means that innovation in related fields, for instance, artificial intelligence or virtual reality, they continue to expand the industry. Now this is a sector that is extremely interconnected with other industries also driving innovation to them or from the gaming industry. So the success in one segment of this very complicated supply chain or global value chain expands poor growth in related areas. We can see game development success developing hardware sales or vice versa. Or one example is we have the virtual reality headsets, which initially they were just niche products. Now they’re essential for some gamers’ experience, but also they can export to other fields. For instance, the industry’s complexity is also very evident in the ability to create synergies across disciplines, let’s say from art to technology, but also from technology to medicine, just to name a few. So let me link this back to gender so I do not pass too much of my time. First it’s important that we ensure equal opportunities for women in innovation and IP, because it’s not only a matter of fairness, but also essential for tapping into the full potential of our human resources. Women bring diverse perspectives that drive creativity and problem solving. In WIPO we have been researching this, particularly on the IP participation, but not only, and we have noticed that there is an increasing workforce participation of women, especially in inventions or other creative activities over the past, let’s say, 20, 50 years. However, it’s very important that we say also that gender parity in inventors is only projected to happen in around, let’s say, 2061, so in at least 40 years. This participation of women, of course, varies a lot by region and by industry. The highest inclusion, for instance, usually is in life sciences, and the lowest in some very traditional engineering, like mechanical engineering, but ICTs and the gaming industries are not far from life sciences, which is the good news, however, they are very far from parity, and this is very important. So I would like also to highlight that women are rarely part of a team of inventors, sorry, women are rarely the majority in an inventors team, right, they often work actually on male dominated teams, very unlikely they’re going to work in all women teams. So in order to tackle this, we need to have the inclusion of women, and unfortunately, a lot of the improvement that we observe in the women’s participation in inventions, it has to do that we’ve mentioned that the teams are growing, and more men are participating, more people are participating together, which increases the likelihood of a woman participating, but we observe that very unlikely for a woman to participate in women only or women dominated teams, they always stay one extra venture in a team, which is not enough. Let me start concluding here before Christine tells me that I’m running out of time, which clearly I am. So I would like just to say that the video game industry’s evolution illustrates the complexity and the reliance on technology and creative innovation, but it’s only through talent and entrepreneurship and interdisciplinary collaboration is that we’re going to be able to see vibrant gaming hubs, and of course, increasing gender balance and diversity will certainly be part of the key to success for this vibrant and innovative industry, and I would like to stop here.

Kristine Schlegelmilch: Thank you so much, Julio, and thanks for helping us kind of get a sense and understanding for the importance of starting to look at developing IP indicators that can contribute to how women are getting involved in the tech sectors and growing that involvement. That is really going to be key to informing strategies and actions for improving women’s inclusion in the digital economy, as Alaa mentioned earlier. So let’s turn now to Michelle Woods, who leads our Copyright Law Division at WIPO, and Michelle is going to share with us the growing range of tools and resources that WIPO has created to assist video game and app developers with everything from understanding relevant IP protections to using IP to help your business succeed. So over to you, Michelle. Thanks a lot, Christine, and everyone. So I’m going to try and quickly run through some of the tools we have here at WIPO for

Michele Woods: women gaming and app developers. One of the key messages is there’s really, at least in the area of IP, no need to reinvent the wheel. There’s lots of great tools and information out there, in many cases developed by our experts to help you get started or up your game on the essentials of IP for gaming, going through all stages of development of video games and model apps. So I’m going to do a quick tour of some of what we have available here, and I know that Richard is going to share some links at some point, and would definitely suggest exploring our website because there’s more there, but we can only do so much in the short time we have. So first of all, I want to highlight a very exciting project that Richard and others were involved in that wrapped up last year, but where we have all the materials on video game development, the Quest for IP, and this is a five-stage quest to build IP skills through all levels of video game development, concept phase, development phase, launch phase, investments and acquisitions phase, and then a special module on IP in eSports, which as I’m sure you all know is a growing area of gaming with growing importance economically and in terms of overall participation. So in each level, we have podcast interviews with leading gaming company representatives, plus we have checklists with key IP takeaways for each stage of game development, and there’s a network of game developers from all over the world that developed in the course of this quest going strong, and so people are really working with each other, mentoring each other, helping each other, all as part of this quest. In addition, we have a number of other publications and resources, including a training tool on business and legal issues for video game developers called Mastering the Game, a study on the legal status of video games done for our Copyright Standing Committee. Then if we look at mobile apps, there’s also been a lot of work done here, including in the development context. We have a committee on development, and that committee has asked for some work on mobile apps. So there are useful tools for three phases of the app development lifecycle from the IP point of view, covering conception, development, and commercialization, monitoring, and enforcement. And we also have an IP toolbox for mobile app developers that covers all areas of IP and enforcement of rights, which of course is a lot. And once again, this does have a specific development focus, and this one can pick and choose those parts of the toolbox that are most useful, or of course, look at the whole thing. We also have a reference handbook on IP in mobile apps. And then we have a course on, oh, sorry, we have a role, a publication on the role of mobile apps in the game industry, covering basics to new challenges, the metaverse, AI, all of these interesting areas that we’re all working in, plus there’s a short course specifically on IP law for app developers. So if you need guidance on starting and growing your startup business from the IP angle, we have six stages of navigating IP as a startup, an infographic, very detailed, and then IP for startups, more detailed publication in our IP for business series. We have some IP resources for women innovators and entrepreneurs as part of a development project for them on increasing their role in innovation and entrepreneurship. We also have an IP diagnostic tool, a self-assessment tool where you put in information about your business and the tool is designed to identify IP assets you may want to focus on and monetize, tailoring the resources to your situation. This can also serve as a tool for an IP audit. A general version of this IP diagnostic tool is available now, and a more specific version

Ryszard Frelek: for video gaming and mobile apps is underdeveloped. and should be issued soon, along with the project I’m pleased to be working on, on eSports. So we have an extensive project mapping the eSports landscape and producing a toolkit covering all major regions and of course the involvement of women developers. So that should be issued this year. I understand that Richard will kindly share a slide with all the links. I know that’s a lot I just ran through, so please go check them out. Back to you, Christine.

Kristine Schlegelmilch: Super. Thank you so much, Michelle, for walking us through some of the important considerations and resources that are available for protecting video games and apps. And it’s important to also note that WIPO’s resources are free and they are all easily available on our web page website. I thought I’d also mention two more resources that might be useful for those who are interested in IP, learning more about IP for a game and app development. WIPO has an online learning academy that offers a lot of IP related courses, not necessarily specific to gaming or app development, but that could be coming in the future. And then also I wanted to mention there and encourage you to check out the IP for video game developers LinkedIn community where developers, entertainment lawyers and others in the video game industry can network and share resources and learn more about IP by and for video game developers. And Richard, I think you played a big part in starting that group up and I saw this morning there

Ryszard Frelek: were nearly 950 members in that community. Thanks, Christine. Yes, exactly. We’ll be reaching 1,000 very shortly and I’m sure that will be a great opportunity to celebrate. Now, if I could now have that moment, if there’s any questions to our amazing speakers, both those who are online and I’m looking around the room. Yeah, I’ll give you my microphone, I think.

Audience: Hello, it’s a nice presentation by everyone and it’s very inspiring to know each one of yours story and the courage and the braveness each one of have put in into the new industry and it’s very inspiring. I don’t have much question but like I would like to know all the the LinkedIn, the last LinkedIn page that mentioned, I couldn’t note it down if that could be repeated would be very nice. Now it’ll work. If you will go to the link which is up there, video games HTML, from there you will also have the link directly to the LinkedIn group and I highly encourage it because it’s becoming a very active even more in the recent time. So we’ll be definitely also looking forward to your participation. Thank you so much. Please. Hello, my name is Ahmad Karim, I’m from UN Women regional office for Asia and the Pacific and thank you so much for the inspiration and the great work. My question is mostly related to also technology facilitated violence in the gaming industry and how have you been dealing with this with the, you know, before there was a very long attacks on female gaming players and how from your perspective in the design process have you been going through that area where

Ryszard Frelek: you can encourage female players to come into the gaming industry? Kate?

Kate Edwards: Yeah, so I can speak both professionally and personally of this because when I was running the International Game Developers Association I was one of their primary targets of GamerGate. So I existed with death threats and harassment for over two years because I was a woman running in a game association, a global game association, so I understand this very well. There’s both the community aspect which many, many companies because of GamerGate, because of that whole episode about ten years ago and that really got them to wake up to dealing with toxicity in their communities and building better community management. That’s really where we started to see community management emerge as like an actual another kind of job in the game industry that sort of existed but now it’s very formalized and it’s something that most companies have. But in addition to that they’ve been employing a lot of like AI tools and other ways to deal with this like how do we detect toxicity, how do we detect certain behaviors, but more importantly it’s not just about the negative it’s about the positive. So a lot of companies like Microsoft, EA, others they’ve got they’ve got efforts called like gaming for everyone, player inclusion and a lot of these efforts are aimed at making sure that all the games that are made on their platform or released on their platform are open for everybody. That they watch how representation is, they make sure that the community features are built in. So there is an awareness especially a self-awareness that I think that has truly arisen over the last five to ten years that just simply did not exist and to me that’s encouraging. So there is a group called Thriving in

Tami Bhaumik: Games and it was start, is this working? Can you hear me? Thriving in Games and you can probably find it online but it’s a consortium of probably 200 gaming companies some of the largest ones. Roblox was actually one of the founding companies early on with, it was used to be called the Fair Play Alliance and it was an absolute awareness, it was a wake-up call to the industry. So is it solved yet? No. But are we moving in the right direction? Yes. So Thriving in Games is all about using research to identify things like pro-social behaviors that we can start integrating into gaming, innovating in the technology to make sure that we’re identifying, we’re hearing about toxicity, we’re giving reporting abilities and then also detecting toxicity before it even starts, right? We can start using AI to start detecting patterns. So we are moving in that direction. Thank you very much Kate and Tami.

Ryszard Frelek: If I could kind of turn to each of the speakers who are here on site for their final key message within 20 seconds because we’re already running out of, we’ve already ran out of time but 20 seconds. So really quickly, please, please, please, we need your stories as women, we need your stories. So go to create roblox.com, dot roblox.com, take a look at our resources and start getting involved and start creating. And I would just reiterate what I said earlier, it’s like don’t underestimate games as an artistic and cultural artifact and not only just the games as a medium but who’s creating them and where are they being created because I travel to all corners of this planet and everywhere I go there are people making games of all

Alaa Abdulaal: kinds of backgrounds so never assume. So maybe I would like to give a message for other game developers like me because we’re very passionate about what we are doing. Sometimes we, I would say, forget about the business side of it. We are in that kind of bubble of developing our dream games and then when the game hits we figured out that, oh, we have to do this, this and that, including the IPs which is very important. So I feel like we definitely need to put that in consideration and not like overseeing the business side of the gaming industry.

Meaad Aflah: I think what I want to conclude is that the power is within every and each one of us. We hold our own destiny to really empower ourselves and not wait for other forces to change. We are the force of change and even as DCO we are committed to make sure that not only women are included but at the forefront of innovation and the only thing that will make this happen is collaboration and working together. Thank you very much and congratulations to everyone for the

Ryszard Frelek: great present. And for those who would like to we are inviting you for a family photo.

Agreement Points

Importance of women’s participation in the gaming industry

speakers

Kate Edwards

Julio Raffo

Alaa Abdulaal

Meaad Aflah

arguments

Gaming industry lacks gender diversity

Women bring diverse perspectives that drive creativity

Need to empower women to transition businesses online

Importance of sharing success stories of women in gaming

summary

Speakers agree on the need to increase women’s participation in the gaming industry, highlighting the benefits of diverse perspectives and the importance of empowerment and representation.

Games as cultural and economic force

speakers

Kate Edwards

Julio Raffo

Meaad Aflah

arguments

Games are a cultural artifact and form of artistic expression

Gaming industry generates significant economic activity globally

Saudi Arabia’s emerging gaming ecosystem

summary

Speakers recognize the significant cultural and economic impact of the gaming industry, emphasizing its role as a medium for artistic expression and its contribution to global economic activity.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize the potential of games as a medium for cultural expression and storytelling, allowing creators to share personal and cultural narratives.

speakers

Kate Edwards

Tami Bhaumik

arguments

Games are a cultural artifact and form of artistic expression

Games can be used to tell diverse cultural stories

Both speakers highlight the increasing complexity of game development and the importance of considering both creative and business aspects in the process.

speakers

Julio Raffo

Meaad Aflah

arguments

Games are becoming more complex and costly to develop

Need to balance creative and business aspects of game development

Unexpected Consensus

Importance of IP protection in game development

speakers

Michele Woods

Meaad Aflah

arguments

WIPO provides free IP resources for game developers

Need to balance creative and business aspects of game development

explanation

While coming from different perspectives (legal and developer), both speakers emphasize the importance of intellectual property considerations in game development, which might not be an obvious focus for creative developers.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement include the importance of increasing women’s participation in the gaming industry, recognizing games as a significant cultural and economic force, and the need for resources and support for game developers, particularly in areas like IP protection.

Consensus level

There is a high level of consensus among the speakers on these key issues, which suggests a shared understanding of the challenges and opportunities in the gaming industry. This consensus implies a strong foundation for collaborative efforts to address gender disparities, promote cultural expression through games, and support game developers with necessary resources and knowledge.

Different Viewpoints

Approach to addressing gender disparity in the gaming industry

speakers

Kate Edwards

Alaa Abdulaal

arguments

Gaming industry lacks gender diversity

Need to empower women to transition businesses online

summary

While both speakers acknowledge the gender disparity in the tech industry, they propose different approaches to address it. Kate Edwards focuses on increasing women’s participation directly in the gaming industry, while Alaa Abdulaal emphasizes empowering women to transition their existing businesses online.

Unexpected Differences

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement revolve around the specific approaches to addressing gender disparity in the gaming industry and the emphasis placed on different aspects of the industry’s development.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among the speakers is relatively low. Most speakers share similar goals of increasing women’s participation in the gaming industry and recognizing its cultural and economic importance. The differences mainly lie in the specific strategies and focus areas each speaker emphasizes. This low level of disagreement suggests a general consensus on the importance of addressing gender disparity and promoting the gaming industry’s growth, which could lead to more collaborative efforts in achieving these goals.

Partial Agreements

Both speakers agree on the importance of increasing women’s participation in the gaming industry. However, Kate Edwards focuses on the current low percentage of women in the workforce, while Julio Raffo emphasizes the value women bring to innovation and creativity in the industry.

speakers

Kate Edwards

Julio Raffo

arguments

Gaming industry lacks gender diversity

Women bring diverse perspectives that drive creativity

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize the potential of games as a medium for cultural expression and storytelling, allowing creators to share personal and cultural narratives.

speakers

Kate Edwards

Tami Bhaumik

arguments

Games are a cultural artifact and form of artistic expression

Games can be used to tell diverse cultural stories

Both speakers highlight the increasing complexity of game development and the importance of considering both creative and business aspects in the process.

speakers

Julio Raffo

Meaad Aflah

arguments

Games are becoming more complex and costly to develop

Need to balance creative and business aspects of game development

Key Takeaways

The gaming industry lacks gender diversity, with women underrepresented in development roles

Games are becoming more complex and costly to develop, requiring interdisciplinary collaboration

Gaming is a significant cultural and economic force globally

There are growing efforts and resources to support women and diverse perspectives in game development

Intellectual property protection is important for game developers to consider

Resolutions and Action Items

Encourage more women to get involved in game development through platforms like Roblox

Utilize WIPO’s free IP resources for game developers

Join industry efforts like Thriving in Games to combat toxicity in gaming communities

Leverage DCO’s framework to create initiatives supporting women in tech

Unresolved Issues

How to achieve gender parity in game development, which is projected to take 40+ years at current rates

Balancing creative passion with business considerations in game development

Fully addressing toxicity and harassment issues in gaming communities

Suggested Compromises

None identified

We know that essentially, you know, the people who play games today are pretty much anybody. It is the world’s largest form of entertainment. It makes far more money than film and music combined.

speaker

Kate Edwards

reason

This comment challenges common assumptions about who plays video games and highlights the massive economic and cultural impact of the gaming industry.

impact

It set the stage for discussing the importance of diversity and representation in game development, given the broad audience.

Now I’m very optimistic, because with the advent of generative AI, you don’t have to become this expert programmer. You can really, really use your imagination to be able to create worlds and experiences without the cumbersome fact of learning how to program.

speaker

Tami Bhaumik

reason

This insight points to how emerging technologies like AI are lowering barriers to entry in game development.

impact

It shifted the conversation to focus on new opportunities for diverse creators to enter the field, rather than just discussing existing challenges.

Based on the UN, one of the UN reports, we only find that 33% of women are in jobs in technology in the top 10 technology companies. 33 is a very disappointing number.

speaker

Alaa Abdulaal

reason

This statistic provides concrete evidence of the gender gap in tech, grounding the discussion in data.

impact

It prompted discussion of specific policy initiatives and frameworks to address the gender imbalance in tech and gaming.

Women bring diverse perspectives that drive creativity and problem solving. In WIPO we have been researching this, particularly on the IP participation, but not only, and we have noticed that there is an increasing workforce participation of women, especially in inventions or other creative activities over the past, let’s say, 20, 50 years. However, it’s very important that we say also that gender parity in inventors is only projected to happen in around, let’s say, 2061, so in at least 40 years.

speaker

Julio Raffo

reason

This comment provides a nuanced view of progress in women’s participation in innovation, acknowledging improvements while highlighting the long road ahead to parity.

impact

It deepened the conversation by introducing a long-term perspective on gender equality in tech and innovation, prompting discussion of sustained efforts needed.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by broadening the scope from just gaming to the wider tech industry, highlighting both progress and persistent challenges in gender equality. They moved the conversation from describing problems to exploring solutions, including policy initiatives, AI-enabled opportunities, and the need for sustained long-term efforts. The comments also emphasized the economic and cultural significance of gaming, underlining the importance of diversity in this influential medium.

How can we increase the percentage of women working in the video game industry beyond the current 15-20%?

speaker

Kate Edwards

explanation

This is important to ensure better representation and diversity in game development, reflecting the diverse player base.

How can generative AI be leveraged to make game development more accessible to underrepresented groups, including women?

speaker

Tami Bhaumik

explanation

This could potentially lower barriers to entry and diversify storytelling in the gaming industry.

What specific policies and initiatives can be implemented to increase women’s participation in the digital economy?

speaker

Alaa Abdulaal

explanation

This is crucial for addressing the economic loss from women’s underrepresentation in tech and closing the gender gap in digital industries.

How can we accelerate progress towards gender parity in inventors, which is currently projected to happen around 2061?

speaker

Julio Raffo

explanation

Achieving gender parity sooner is essential for tapping into the full potential of human resources and driving innovation.

How can the video game industry continue to improve its handling of technology-facilitated violence and harassment targeting female players?

speaker

Ahmad Karim (audience member)

explanation

Addressing this issue is crucial for creating a safe and inclusive environment for all gamers, particularly women.

How can game developers better balance their passion for game creation with the business aspects of the industry, including IP management?

speaker

Meaad Aflah

explanation

This balance is important for the long-term success and sustainability of game development studios, particularly those led by women.

Summary

This discussion focused on the future of Internet governance models and the challenges facing digital policy. Panelists from Germany, Kenya, and India shared perspectives on their countries’ approaches to Internet governance. Key themes included the importance of maintaining a multi-stakeholder model, addressing the digital divide, and increasing youth engagement.

The German representative emphasized preserving the multi-stakeholder approach and the central role of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). Kenya highlighted challenges like the urban-rural digital divide and cybersecurity threats, while noting opportunities in government support for startups and youth engagement. India stressed the need to communicate the value of Internet governance to policymakers focused on economic development.

Participants agreed on the importance of bottom-up, inclusive approaches and international cooperation. However, resource constraints and unequal participation across countries remain challenges. The discussion touched on ways to strengthen the IGF, including empowering its Multistakeholder Advisory Group and increasing funding for the Secretariat.

Youth engagement emerged as a crucial topic, with panelists advocating for meaningful youth participation beyond tokenism. The digital divide was identified as a persistent issue, particularly for rural and marginalized communities. Innovative approaches and capacity building were suggested to address these gaps.

Overall, the discussion highlighted the complex landscape of Internet governance and the need for continued evolution of governance models to meet future challenges. Participants expressed optimism about the IGF’s future while acknowledging the need for reforms to enhance its effectiveness and inclusivity.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– The importance of maintaining and strengthening the multi-stakeholder model for Internet governance

– Challenges of digital divides and inequalities in Internet access and participation, especially in developing countries

– The need to engage youth and marginalized communities in Internet governance processes

– Potential improvements to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), including strengthening its mandate, secretariat, and outputs

The overall purpose of the discussion was to explore current Internet governance models and how they can adapt to address growing digital policy challenges, as well as identify best practices to enhance trust in digital governance processes.

The tone of the discussion was generally constructive and forward-looking, with panelists sharing perspectives from their countries and experiences. There was broad agreement on the value of the multi-stakeholder model, but also recognition of its limitations and areas for improvement. Toward the end, the tone became more urgent and critical regarding the need to evolve and strengthen Internet governance institutions, particularly the IGF.

Speakers

– Luiza Ferreira: Moderator

– Keith Andere: Executive Director of the Center for Climate Research and Information, Chair of the Kenya Youth IGF

– Rudolf Gridl: Director General of the Central Department of BMDB, the German Ministry for Digital Affairs and Transport

– Amrita Choudhury: Director of the Cyber Cafe Association from India

Additional speakers:

– Bertrand de la Chapelle: Internet and Jurisdiction Policy Network

– Wout de Natris: Consultant, representing the Dynamic Coalition on Internet Standards, Security and Safety

The Future of Internet Governance: Challenges and Opportunities

This discussion, moderated by Luiza Ferreira, brought together experts from Germany, Kenya, and India to explore the future of Internet governance models and the challenges facing digital policy. The panel included Rudolf Gridl, Director General of the Central Department of BMDB, the German Ministry for Digital Affairs and Transport; Keith Andere, Executive Director of the Center for Climate Research and Information and Chair of the Kenya Youth IGF; and Amrita Choudhury, Director of the Cyber Cafe Association from India.

National Perspectives on Internet Governance

The discussion began with panelists sharing their countries’ approaches to internet governance. Rudolf Gridl emphasized Germany’s commitment to the multi-stakeholder model, stating, “For us the future of Internet Governance is a multi-stakeholder one. It’s a multi-stakeholder process. It used to be and it should remain one.” He also stressed the importance of international cooperation, noting, “The bottom-up, the multistakeholder approach. Then our experience is, and it’s a very blunt experience, but it’s important, you need to take your money where your mouth is.”

Keith Andere highlighted Kenya’s challenges, particularly the digital divide between urban and rural areas. He emphasized the country’s vibrant youth population and their eagerness to engage in internet governance discussions. Andere also noted innovative approaches in Kenya, such as using community networks to bridge connectivity gaps and involving youth in digital literacy initiatives for older generations.

Amrita Choudhury discussed the complexities of implementing multi-stakeholder processes in the Asia-Pacific region, particularly in India. She noted the challenges of engaging diverse communities and the limitations of consultative processes in countries with varied backgrounds and literacy levels.

Multi-stakeholder Approach and Current Challenges

While the panelists agreed on the value of the multi-stakeholder model, they acknowledged significant challenges, especially in developing countries. The persistent digital divide not only affects access to the Internet but also impacts participation in governance processes. Choudhury emphasized the need for more contextualised approaches to address these challenges effectively.

Youth Engagement and Digital Literacy

A crucial theme that emerged was the importance of youth engagement in Internet governance. Keith Andere showcased Kenya’s efforts in involving young people in these discussions. However, Amrita Choudhury cautioned against tokenism, stating, “We should move away from tokenism. We just don’t, you know, many times you will see you need woman representation, so you put in a woman in a panel.” This called for more meaningful inclusion of youth and underrepresented groups in governance processes.

The panelists agreed on the need to enhance digital literacy programmes for marginalized communities, with youth playing a vital role in bridging the digital gap for older generations.

The Future of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF)

A significant portion of the discussion focused on the future of the IGF and potential improvements to its structure and processes. Several suggestions were made to strengthen the IGF:

1. Renewing and potentially updating the IGF’s mandate

2. Institutionalizing its structure with a clear charter

3. Strengthening the IGF Secretariat with more human and financial resources

4. Empowering the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) to play a more effective role in agenda-setting and structuring the IGF

5. Improving the recognition and promotion of IGF outputs

Bertrand de la Chapelle, from the audience, provided a critical perspective, noting, “Being somebody who was at the summit, like many people here, I must confess that in the last 20 years, we haven’t invented much. The last two innovations were the creation of ICANN before the summit, and the creation of the IGF.” This statement prompted reflection on the need for innovation in Internet governance structures.

Wout de Natris, also from the audience, suggested finding a ‘Goldilocks zone’ for the MAG’s role in agenda-setting and enhancing the IGF’s output mechanisms without adopting a formal UN-style negotiation process.

Addressing Inequalities and Capacity Building

The panelists discussed various approaches to address inequalities in Internet governance participation. Keith Andere emphasized the importance of tackling basic issues like literacy and infrastructure in developing countries. Amrita Choudhury called for innovation in digital public infrastructure to increase accessibility.

Capacity building emerged as a crucial theme, particularly for policymakers in developing countries. Choudhury highlighted the challenge of communicating the value of Internet governance to policymakers focused on economic development, stating, “When you just say Internet governance, they may not understand the value. They value an Internet governance forum. They’ll never oppose it, but it’s not priority. That’s why you will not find high, you know, top officials coming here.”

Conclusion

In their final remarks, the panelists offered diverse perspectives on the future of internet governance. Rudolf Gridl emphasized the need for concrete projects and funding to support cooperation. Keith Andere stressed the importance of addressing basic infrastructure and literacy issues while leveraging youth engagement. Amrita Choudhury called for more inclusive and contextual approaches to internet governance, particularly in developing countries.

The discussion highlighted the complex landscape of Internet governance and the need for continued evolution of governance models to meet future challenges. While there was broad agreement on the value of the multi-stakeholder approach, participants recognized the need for significant reforms to enhance its effectiveness and inclusivity. The conversation underscored the importance of addressing digital divides, meaningfully engaging youth and marginalized communities, and strengthening key institutions like the IGF. As Internet governance continues to evolve, these insights provide valuable direction for policymakers and stakeholders working to shape a more inclusive and effective digital future.

Luiza Ferreira: My name is Luisa, and I’ll be moderating the session today called Next Steps in Internet Governance Models for the Future. And today we will explore the current Internet Governance Models and how they can adapt to the growing challenges that the digital policy poses to us, and also how we can identify best practices to enhance trust in digital governance process. And to do this, we have here our wonderful speakers with a lot of experience in Internet Governance, so let me introduce them to you. On my left side, I have Keith Andere. He is Executive Director of the Center for Climate Research and Information and also Chair of the Kenya Youth IGF. We have Dr. Rudolf Gliedl. He is Director General of the Central Department of BMDB, the German Ministry for Digital Affairs and Transport. And we have Amrita, Director of the Cyber Cafe Association from India. And our event will be composed of two sessions of two round questions for each speaker. And then we will open the floor for a quick Q&A afterwards. So if you are joining us via Zoom, you can just send the questions and then we will forward them to the speakers. So, considering we have a pretty tight schedule, I ask you to keep your answers to two or three minutes. And since we don’t have a timer, just excuse me if I have to jump in. So, let’s start to open our discussion. I would like to invite our panelists to share their perspectives from their countries. And because digital policies have evolved so much and there are different models everywhere, so it would be really nice to hear how your countries have adapted to it. So, first question for you, Dr. Gliedl. So, from the perspective of BMDB, what emergency priorities do you see for Germany in the future of Internet Governance, especially concerning the intersection with European and global markets?

Rudolf Gridl: Can you all hear me? Okay. So, thank you very much and thank you for having me on this distinguished panel. I would start with the obvious but I think very important sentence that for us the future of Internet Governance is a multi-stakeholder one. It’s a multi-stakeholder process. It used to be and it should remain one. Secondly, it’s also very important for us to have the IGF as the cornerstone and the central piece of this multi-stakeholder process of Internet Governance. We are very well aware that there are also at European level, of course, but also on the international level, new developments and new aspirations. But we see them and we participate and we are, of course, also active in the European Union, we are active in the United Nations. But also, we are active with an aim and our aim is to integrate most of what’s going on in these fora into the IGF world. Because, as I said, this for us is still the centerpiece. And when I’m looking inside Germany, we have a German IGF, we have the youth, we have many multi-stakeholder processes within Germany. And we would really not like to lose this momentum and this very active community by putting the whole questions on an intergovernmental level. So, it should stay on the multilateral level. On the multi-stakeholder level, it should not go to the multilateral level. That’s for us the most important future question nationally, European level and international level.

Luiza Ferreira: Thank you so much for your answer, Dr. Gridl. And I couldn’t agree more, especially concerning the renovation of the IGF mandate next year. So, Keith, now next to you. In your vision, what are the unique challenges and opportunities of the Kenya Internet Governance Ecosystem? And how does this specific challenge influence your ideal model of Internet Governance, please?

Keith Andere: Thank you so much for having me. It’s indeed a pleasure to share some experience from Kenya. So, the Kenya Internet Governance landscape presents several unique challenges and opportunities that inform the ideal model for Internet Governance. I’ll mention some challenges, but I’ll also mention some of the opportunities that this presents. So, in terms of challenge, I think there are three challenges. One is the digital divide. The next is data privacy and protection and cybersecurity threats. I think on the digital divide, despite the progress that we’ve seen in the country, there remains a significant gap in the Internet access between urban areas and rural areas. So, when you go deep into the rural areas, you find that the access is still an issue. So, this limits opportunities, especially for young Kenyans, to participate fully in the digital economy and access essential services, given that a lot of government services have also been put online. So, you find there’s a huge challenge when the issues of access and affordability at rural areas for somebody who wants to access government services, including even something as basic as renewing a driver’s license, for example. The second one, which was on data privacy and protection, we have enacted the Data Protection Act in 2019. So, we already have a fully functional independent office of the Data Protection Commission, and this highlights the need for a robust framework to safeguard personal data. However, there are some challenges that persist in ensuring compliance and public awareness regarding data rights. So, we don’t know rights versus responsibility. I think many of the times we focus more on the rights, but never look at the responsibility. So, data processor, data handler, what are my responsibilities as an individual or as an organization? So, I think that still needs a bit of awareness. On cyber security threats, we’ve also seen an increased number of incidents, especially on cyber bullying. Hate speech has also gone up, especially around political processes and participation, and data breaches, of course, still pose very serious risks. And this is a risk both to individuals and organizations, you know, necessitating enhanced cyber security measures and public education on online safeties. So, on opportunities. Again, I’ll just very quickly go down on three of them. So one, we have some government support on startups. This has seen that there’s growing recognition from government regarding the importance of fostering innovation and entrepreneurship, which leads to initiative that supports startup growth in digital transformation journey. And then the second one is on youth engagement. Kenya has a very, very, very vibrant and innovative youth population, many of whom are eager to engage in Internet governance discussions, and that speaks to the youth IGF. We know we have a community of over 500 youth IGF community, and also from the Kenya School of Internet Governance, we’ve seen a lot of interest for the young people to actually take this School of Internet Governance to the extent that KikTernet has made this a paying module, so young people are even willing to pay to actually go through this school, and the model is actually growing, and these young people are beginning to now come and shape the policies. Then lastly is collaboration among stakeholders. The establishment of a forum like Kenya IGF, like I’ve said, have fostered the collaboration among stakeholders, government, civil society, academia, in a multi-stakeholder approach to address digital governance challenges. So I’ll stop here.

Luiza Ferreira: Thank you so much. I feel like the challenges you said are very common to several countries of the global South, for my country Brazil, for example, it’s the same. And now back to Emirates. So when it comes to participatory process in digital governance, we can mention the consultative process that the telecom regulator authority have concerned during the last years, and I’d like to ask you what are the main lessons learned from these processes, and what are also the main limitations of consultative participation, especially in a country with such diversity backgrounds as in India.

Amrita Choudhury: Thank you so much, and thank you for having me. I’ll also try to answer something which you have been asking the other participants. So India initially was more for a multilateral process, but later endorsed the multi-stakeholder process. And one, I would say, example where the consultative process works is with the telecom regulatory authority, who looks after mostly the telecom services. So they have a consultative process wherein they have a consultation, stakeholders put in their comments, it is put up on the website, you can counter-comment on them within a particular stipulated time, they may have open houses where you can, you know, counter-interact with each other. That’s one good thing, which the transparency and accountability is something which is open, which normally in many of the processes we don’t see. But what needs to be done more there would be the lack of understanding apart from the people who are participating in the consultation, and many may not even know what the consultation paper, for example, is all about. It can be on, say, you know, spectrum, but it may also affect the community networks, the smaller ones, who may not even know that it may impact them. So the outreach or the capacity or even letting all the others know about it is one of the limitations in a country wherein you have various education levels, various languages, different terrains. So I think that’s a work in progress. It may be in many other developing countries. Now coming back to where the initial question you asked about, you know, Internet governance, India does have an Internet governance forum where things are discussed. However, in a developing country, when you talk about Internet governance, that may not be the priority of all the countries because the governments want to provide access to everyone. That is their first priority. They want jobs. They want technology to leapfrog. So if I’m looking at India, they would be more interested in having manufacturing of chipset in the country or access or even using AI as startups. When you just say Internet governance, they may not understand the value. They value an Internet governance forum. They’ll never oppose it, but it’s not priority. That’s why you will not find high, you know, top officials coming here. I think they need to know more about Internet governance forum is just not about names, numbers, protocols, or the traditional Internet governance things because a lot more is discussed from the developing world, which would impact them. So I think the narrative to them has not been expanded, that this is just not this. There is more discussed, and there is value for them to come. So I think that narrative is important, and I think it is important for most of the developing countries.

Luiza Ferreira: Thank you, Amrita. Again, as you just said, regarding developing countries, I feel like this is pretty much a reality for Brazil as well, especially concerning digital divide and access to the Internet and equipments. So thank you, all of you. We’ll now go to our next slide, and it’s concerning multi-stakeholder approaches. So Keith, I’ll go with you first. And so you mentioned in your answers the access to Internet in rural or marginalized communities. So I would like to ask you where access disparities remain a challenge, and what additional steps could the multi-stakeholder model take to address the needs to bridge the digital divide, ensuring that the government’s policies reflect the needs of this population, not leaving them behind of the process.

Keith Andere: Sure, sure. Thank you so much. Yeah, so one is to enhance the digital literacy programs. And here, KiktaNet is currently involved in digital scaling for over 10,000 community digital champions in two marginalized counties. So we have the national government, and then we have county governments. So we’ve picked two counties that are of marginalized communities where we are already doing the community digital champions there. And this will, of course, further open to other counties as we continue. And so this collaboration is together with the UK government. We will also be doing the same for women in 10 counties in Kenya under the Women in Digital Economy Fund. By improving digital skills, we see that the community can better engage with online services and participate also in Internet governance discussions. There’s need to increase investments in essential infrastructure, such as reliable electricity. We see that this is a challenge where we don’t have reliable electricity and power and energy needs as it is when you’re talking about just transition. And telecommunication networks as well. We’ve also noticed that these marginalized counties do not have coverage because for many telecommunication companies, they don’t see these counties as opportunities for them to make business case in that sense. So again, collaborating with government and private sectors, stakeholders can help develop a robust framework for expanding connectivity and ensuring equitable access to digital resources. And lastly, to facilitate community engagement platforms, creating platforms for community members to voice their concerns and perspective in Internet governance issues, engaging local leaders in the decision-making process. We’ll also ensure that policies are informed by unique challenges faced by rural communities. So we think that these steps aim to empower marginalized communities, but it will also improve access to digital resources and ensure that their voices are integral in shaping Internet governance policies in Kenya.

Luiza Ferreira: Thank you so much. Thank you so much and also for pointing out the participation of citizens in DPI. I feel like this is not really talked about enough when developing services. I’ll go now to Dr. Grindel. So Germany has been very active in multilateral discussions on Internet governance and digital governance in general, as well as in bilateral dialogues. So I’d like to ask you, what role do you envision for international cooperation in Internet governance, and how can countries and organizations better work together to address these global challenges?

Rudolf Gridl: Yes, thank you. Yes, we are actually very active on a multilateral, multistakeholder and also on a bilateral level. My personal experience or our experience is that the more we exercise a bottom-up approach, the more fruitful it becomes. becomes for everybody. So when we’re having our bilateral digital dialogues with countries around the world, from the global south, but even from the north, we always aim at having participation of all the stakeholders. In some kind of way, we don’t have one-size-fits-all solution. But that’s something which is very important to us, to have this bottom-up, not to have like one government or two governments sitting together and then imposing on the community what they have decided that’s not going to work. And we do it on a bilateral level. And we believe that we should also not do it on a multilateral, international level. So the bottom-up, the multistakeholder approach. Then our experience is, and it’s a very blunt experience, but it’s important, you need to take your money where your mouth is. So if you’re only talking, it’s fine. But it’s not enough. So if you want to really get into real cooperation, you need to have concrete projects. You have to have money from the development corporation, or as in our case, for instance, we are funding the IGF Secretariat also for the next year with 250,000 euros. So we really think the talking is important, but it’s not sufficient. Well, that’s another lesson learned. And we are trying to convince our fellow European and international partners to follow suit. And some of them do, as you know. And that is also something that we are bringing into the discussion with the WESIS plus 20 process next year, where we see many voices on the table and some tendencies of centralization, of having power projected from top to down. And we don’t like what we are seeing there. And we are working quite actively with our partners that are like-minded to guide this discussion and these negotiations that will come into a good direction.

Luiza Ferreira: Thank you very much for your answer. As a part of the Secretariat of the International Digital Dialogue, I’m very proud of the work we have been doing. And I really believe that this bottom-up approach is the only solution, to be honest. So now, Amarita, you have been a very great advocate for youth engagement, both in India and in the IGF as a general. And from your perspective, what should policymakers do to ensure that the youth can actively contribute to internet governance, both in their respective countries and globally as well?

Amrita Choudhury: So we should move away from tokenism. We just don’t, you know, many times you will see you need woman representation, so you put in a woman in a panel. That happens many places. You know, many times you need to show women, so you have someone in the board. You have that kind of a thing. So many times you’ll see you want to have a youth, so you put a youth. But I think you have to take them seriously. We were having a discussion today, like what the narrative should be. I think you have to reach out to the youth in the way they work. For example, they are on messages, they are on videos, et cetera. Talk to them about what they think is the internet, how it should be shaped in the future, what they perceive are the challenges, or try to explain it to them that, look, what you take for granted today may actually hurt you. And obviously, build their capacity just like you do with the other politicians or the others. Is it better now? OK. So I think you have to talk to them in their language, try to understand them, not patronize them. That’s one. And also explain to them what is at stake. Give them the opportunities to come. You know, if they have to come, present, build their capacity, and also make them accountable. Simply, for example, if you have rules or regulations on online gaming coming and you want age gating, have you actually spoken to 16, 17-year-old young adults how they would want it? Are you giving them some amount of responsibility on how they could do it? I think that’s important. The youth IGF initiatives in the countries should be encouraged. Wearing my IGF support associations hat, we try to support them. And I’m sure many governments are also supporting those initiatives. Not only the discussions out there. Try to have more tangible discussions on, you know, I would say key takeaways, which they can implement, et cetera. Could be one way of looking at it. And whatever they have in their respective countries in terms of learnings, they push it back to the youth IGF, at the IGF. And whatever messages come, they are percolated down. Just before the session, I was speaking that the messages which come out from the IGF needs to reach everyone. Are we ensuring that happens? So even the youth initiatives have a lot of discussions which happen. Do the messages actually go to all the governments? I think those are certain things. If we do, at least baby steps can help.

Luiza Ferreira: Thank you so much. As we have actually three panelists here that are kind of engaged with the youth. So this is a happy coincidence. And I feel like the first phrase that you said about don’t tokenize in people, this is actually the key role. So now we are going to an audience interaction section. So I’d like to know if we have any questions here in the room. No? Doesn’t seem like it. OK. Please welcome self and Judy to the microphone.

Audience: Thank you very much. I was looking at the topic itself. The next steps in internet governance into looking for modules for the future. I would like to contribute by saying the multistakeholder model will persist. At least for now, I don’t see any alternative. So like the presenter in the middle mentioned, it’s a multistakeholder compared to multilateralism. We have already seen the problems with multilateralism quite recently with the UN treaty. We have a lot of challenges being mentioned about it, yet it was negotiated in multilateral conditions. So I see internet governance persisting to be under multistakeholder situations. And the multistakeholder model itself has evolved. And I think the way it has evolved is that it has gone regional and it has even gone national. We now have national IGFs, but they are not enough. So in future, I’m looking at a situation where we will have more national IGFs, but also operating under the multistakeholder model.

Luiza Ferreira: Thank you very much for your comment. Does anyone would like to comment?

Rudolf Gridl: Thank you for this intervention. I think it’s very, very relevant. We do have in Europe the EuroDIG, which is a regional European IGF. I myself have been to many meetings of the EuroDIG and what you’re saying is completely right. It is another perspective. It is a more comprehensive view about the challenges that people in the same region face regarding to internet governance. And I would, from my experience, wholeheartedly support this intervention.

Amrita Choudhury: Coming from the Asia-Pacific, I chaired the Asia-Pacific Regional IGFs and where that happened, explain. So we have something called a synthesis document which we release after each, you know, annual event. The challenge in Asia-Pacific is we have very diverse countries. We have the big ones like India, China. You have the small Pacific islands. You have the landlocked countries like Nepal, Afghanistan, not to forget. So we have various diverse countries with different sensitivities, et cetera. We do pass it, but it’s very difficult to come to a common ground on certain things. So yes, you need to have these dialogues within the country so that you can even influence your own governments wherever possible, even if you cannot do it from a regional perspective. Also, for example, we had our Asia-Pacific in Taiwan. Taiwan is not recognized in UN, so none of the UN people came there, you know, even the IGF. So those are hard facts which we face in our region, but they are very involved in it. So those are certain things we have to look at various places, and also the other thing is, you know, we are seeing all stakeholders. You may have, say, for example, I come from civil society. We may be working, we may be actively contributing, but when decisions are made, are civil society given that much of value? For example, when discussions on artificial intelligence is going on, yes, private sector has a bigger stake, and they are more involved, whereas there may be some people from civil society who understands AI or the issues. I’m not saying everyone, but at least people understanding. Are they taken into consideration then? Is, during this so-called multi-stakeholderism, some stakeholders given more power than others? I think those are also certain things we need to consider, but I completely agree with you, but reality at times is very skewed.

Luiza Ferreira: So we have a question online, and if it’s via chat, or you can open your mic and just go as well, please. Are you with us, at the beginning? Okay, so I’ll just pass to the room. Please open mic. Can the tech room open his mic, please? I think, I feel like he’s not able to open it. Just a second. Okay.

Audience: Okay, thank you, colleague. Do you hear me? Yes, we can hear you. Okay, thanks. Thanks a lot for the discussion. So, formats and approaches are highlighted during the discussion, have so many, how to say, different modalities, that it’s very difficult to say how such experience can be applied for future internet governance. Since we have a topic, next steps of future approach for internet governance. So, but we still see a big inequality in terms of, how to say, contribution of all countries for the moment to the global internet governance. Moreover, some multi-stakeholder approach, in one hand, how to say, provide a wide possibility to involve any actors, but in other case, we see that’s a, how to say, it brings the voices of business and other actors, who, how to say, frankly speaking, has to represent a global minority. My question, understand it’s maybe a more philosophical question, how we can avoid dictatorship, force it, push towards formats agreed by an active minority, but this minority which have maximum resources for research development, think tanks, in one case, and for practical implementation, use a governance approach in other case. How avoid this possible mis-equality? Thank you.

Luiza Ferreira: Thank you for your question. Does anyone want to like to answer? Okay.

Keith Andere: Yeah, thanks. I think this inequality is really not going to be there for as long as, one, we have issues of access, because then that in itself is a barrier. Second thing that I think, you know, would still exhibit these inequalities is actually the issues of resources, and resources here speak both to technical and financial resources, because then, even just participating online, like the colleague has already done, if you don’t have resources to buy, for example, you can’t do it, that enables you to be here. That in itself stifles this. However, borrowing from some of the experiences of Global South, I think we are seeing a lot of governments also coming in very strongly to support and make it a priority, you know, for digital infrastructure and other ecosystem that support digital infrastructure. Things like energy, for example, is one of the things that we’re seeing government already working very hard to ensure that there’s last mile connectivity. If I was to compare Saudi and Kenya, for example, Kenya, I think, is one of the leading countries as far as renewable energy is concerned, right? And so we have a lot of potential in terms of just using clean, renewable energy, but only about 30% of the population is connected to the grid, whereas in Saudi Arabia, I hear it’s over 90%, almost 100%, despite the fact that this is a desert. In all intents and purposes. So you’d think that Kenya would, and Saudi Arabia would be the other way around. We have geothermal, we have all these things, but the things that are already pushing out these people, you know, to be connected and to be part and parcel of this kind of conversation. But I think now we need to start unlocking these inequalities by even just tackling the basics. Literacy, you know, in Global South is a challenge. So if literacy is a challenge, then how do we curb digital literacy in itself, yeah? Because at least you need to be able to read and write before you can actually operate a computer. My grandmother, for example, we got her a phone while she can do the basic reading and writing. So we got her a feature phone. But then she feels left out, that she also wants. However, as much as she really wants to be on WhatsApp, and when I’m here, she tells my cousin, oh, where is my other grandchild? Tell him to send me a WhatsApp. So I sent her a picture of me in this session. But then she says, oh, has she sent it? Open, open for me. Now, you see, that in itself is a challenge, because whereas a lot of these services and government issues are coming on to the digital platforms, there’s a risk of having a middleman, you know, who then can swindle some of them, all of these ideas. When we send them, in Kenya, M-Pesa is very popular. So when I send her a little money, she has a way to just know that that is a text message. So read it for me. Is it M-Pesa? Can I look at the numbers? And then after that, she can’t quite remember what was the balance. She just knows it was a 953, you know? So sometimes they go and remove maybe 100 shillings, and then it’s 853. Then she’s like, oh, there’s a 53, so that’s fine, you know? Just, you know, to conclude, how can we curb these inequalities? I think the next generation that is coming are the generation that are going to bridge the gap, you know, towards the generation that has been left behind with this digital journey, I mean, train that has already left. So my grandmother, just to sum it up, is now connected because she has grandchildren who can now read and write, who are technologically savvy. And so she’s able to navigate the terrain because of the people that are around her. So who do we support from the places and the communities we come from to hold and sort of handhold them and ensure that they’re also not left behind? So I think the honors is on us, really.

Luiza Ferreira: Thank you very much. Another example of the importance of the youth, actually. Amrita, would you like to compliment?

Amrita Choudhury: I kind of agree, especially with senior citizens and people who are very new to the internet, using these technologies where you have been thrown. today, many of the government service, et cetera, is on internet, so you have to use need-assisted service. Assisted service always is not bad, because language also may be a problem. For example, many things may be multilingual, but when the payment comes, it may be English. So those are there. But if you look at it, there is innovation happening. Today, for digital public infrastructure, whatever, in India, even a fruit seller who can’t read can take money. And they do understand it. When they see value, they use it. They will scan, and they will write in their own language, send it to you. You can choose what you want. You pay to them. We don’t even have to talk. They are illiterate, but they know how to use it. So if they see value, and if you can put it in pictures or in audio, it works where people do not speak. And that is where the innovation comes in. But yes, there is a difference between the digital divide and the digital and technological divide is increasing. If you talk about AI, et cetera, coming in, the divides will increase further. And I think that’s where somewhere the GDC scores a point, at least in text. It talks about transfer of technology. Whether it will happen in reality, that’s a different thing. But it talks about it. And that’s what developing countries are also asking for. So I think there are a lot of capacity building which is done, and I do know German government has done it during the GDC also, building capacity in developing countries. I think those kind of capacity building can help to at least train parliamentarian or people who are in power to understand what is happening, what is not, and also others who are interested to build with judiciary. UNESCO is doing those work. So it is work in progress. You can’t change everything, but definitely things may change.

Luiza Ferreira: Thanks. Okay. Please go ahead. Is it working? It is.

Audience: Apologies for my sore throat. It’s not that I participated in so many panels, but I have a bad cough. I’m Bertrand de la Chapelle from the Internet and Jurisdiction Policy Network. And I want to address the question of the future and the institutions. In 2004, during the summit on the Information Society, Kofi Annan said something that has been quoted very frequently since then, which is, in designing the governance, I paraphrase, but in designing the governance mechanism for this internet, we need to be as innovative as the ones who invented it. Being somebody who was at the summit, like many people here, I must confess that in the last 20 years, we haven’t invented much. The last two innovations were the creation of ICANN before the summit, and the creation of the IGF. And if you are sincere, the IGF that we know here was entirely built because of two people, Nitin Desai and Markus Kummer, who are just like a blank state. And they invented this thing. They invented the MAG. They invented the chair of the MAG. There was a role of a secretary. We had a deputy secretary general of the United Nations who was a former minister of India who had a lot of weight. And we’ve been running on this since then without inventing much, apart from the national and regional IGFs, which has actually spread. But we are at the moment, 20 years later, where we are failing in our responsibility to invent what the next step is. The IGF, as it is, has all the components that it needs to be successful. And each of them is failing. Each of them is just not what it could be. The MAG is, for anybody who follows it, is not playing the role of a real agenda-setting and conference-structuring manner. The chair of the MAG is not empowered sufficiently to give a direction because the mandate is not sufficient. The secretariat has no resources, human or financial. All the building blocks are there, but each of them need a little bit of a push. To finish, we will have the WSIS Plus 20 review. We will not solve this problem, unfortunately, in 2025 because we will have the two co-facilitators that will be nominated God knows when. They will be running the consultations in the very traditional way. They will lead to, most probably, a roadblock at the end because I take personally the reconduction of the IGF for granted. There should not even be a question about the reconduction. The question is, how will it go and evolve? And there are two questions. One, do we revisit and update the mandate of the IGF? And two, do we institutionalize the structure with a charter of sorts? Same building blocks, but clarifying the roles and responsibilities. And to finish, the problem is that it was possible to create ICANN in another time, but it is still a not-for-profit based in one country in the US because you have only two ways to do things. Either you anchor something in one country and give it an international footprint, or you create an intergovernmental organization. We do not have, in our international system, a way to create a non-intergovernmental transnational institution. And if we wanted to create what is needed, i.e. to incorporate the IGF as a multi-stakeholder international organization, we don’t have the tool to do this. And that’s one of the challenges.

Luiza Ferreira: Thank you very much for your input. We have another question there, and then we pass to the speakers, okay? Thank you.

Wout de Natris: My name is Wouter Natris. I’m a consultant in the Netherlands and here representing the Dynamic Coalition on Internet Standards, Security and Safety. And I would like to add something to Bertrand that what came out of the IGF are also Dynamic Coalition’s best practice fora that are delivering content. But for the rest, you almost took everything away that I wanted to say, but I would like to add one particular thing. I think that the IGF has the capacity already to decide what its output should be, except we don’t make choices on it. And we have to start making choices. And the coalitions are really advocating making their outputs more recognized, perhaps even with some sort of a sanction of the IGF that it’s a good process, et cetera, but that we show the world what we’re actually doing and that we’re not a talk show, but everybody says we are. We are not a talk show anymore because a lot is coming out of it, but we need to promote it. And that’s what’s horribly wrong at this moment, that it’s hardly promoted what these outputs are. And as Dynamic Coalitions, we are going to fight for that, I think in 2025 to make this better known. So from your point of view, what should the MAG help here and what should change in the MAG to actually make that happen? What is your view there? Thank you.

Rudolf Gridl: May I? Yes. Thank you, Bertrand. Thank you, Wout. For those of you who do not know me, I’m not only at the moment in the Ministry for Digital Affairs, the Director General for Central Affairs. I used to be responsible for the organization of the Berlin IGF in 2019. And in this capacity, I was also a member of the MAG. So these are really very relevant. These are really very relevant questions that you are asking. And I think that we have now some months to find answers. We won’t probably find all the answers in that time, but we can open up some ways to continue. For this, I think the first thing in my view, and I have said it, but I think it’s really important and it goes without saying, the IGF is there, it will continue, and it will be the cornerstone or the central piece of the multilateral internet governance world. Now, what is the role of the MAG? Having been member of the MAG, I know that there have been really intensive discussions about the question, do we have the capacity? Do we have the mandate to set an agenda? Is this something that we can impose on the multi-stakeholders? Who are we? What is our legitimacy as a MAG? And now we have this process which is established, which is working, but it’s a little bit cumbersome and it’s not very like, and it’s, yeah, it could be improved. of asking to the community and bringing back the ideas and then setting the agenda. I have no solution, but I know that as soon as you start a discussion of the mag being some kind of front runner or agenda setting body, this will most certainly bring a great discussion on the table with uncertain outcomes. The second question was, I think about the Secretariat and the funding, I think that is something we have to tackle in human resources and in financial resources. The Secretariat is doing an incredible job. These are incredible colleagues and they are really, I mean, from the bottom of my heart, I thank them until this day for everything that they have done in 2019 and all the years before and after and it’s a great team, but they are really at the edge of what they are able to do. We need to, as a community, as a multi-stakeholder community that’s what I was saying, we have to put the money where our mouth is, we have to strengthen the Secretariat. That’s very, very clear. And then there have been ideas and the dynamic coalitions are one of them and there are others. We have to have not a negotiated declaration, not some cumbersome UN kind of style document, but something that gives the inspiration that we are receiving and that we are all encompassing here to the world, to the decision-making bodies, telling them, okay, listen, you have a negotiation on I would say AI and human rights, there are many very good ideas that have been discussed here and that’s more or less the framework in which you are positioning yourself. And that should be possible, I think, without having like a UN style negotiation. I stop here.

Audience: Yeah, maybe and thank you very much for giving me the floor for two fingers. As you mentioned, Rudolf, the discussions within the MAG on what is the extent of its mandate is an ongoing discussion. I always answer with a joke. The joke is you don’t have a bottom-up if you don’t have an app. And a bottom-up process is a Goldilocks zone. It’s basically you need to have something that is participatory, but we all know that if it’s uniquely participatory, you go nowhere. There’s no closure. If on the other hand, you consider as a MAG member and as a group that you have the absolute authority to set the agenda, you’re too far on the too hot for too cold. And I think the discussion is what is the right balance so that the input is being taken into account. But I wouldn’t be offended at all if the MAG in its own thinking were saying, we think that next year there should be three tracks that we put on place. There can be others that are produced entirely by the community, but on those three tracks, we would like to cluster the different workshops so that you have a structured agenda. And this Goldilocks zone is probably the approach for many of the things. And I agree with Wood. I mean, the dynamic coalition, the high-level panel, all of these are components, as I said, that are part of the architecture that we should build upon, but they’re not sufficient the way they are.

Luiza Ferreira: Thank you. Amrita, before passing to you, I would like to, when you do your answer already, do your final remarks, please, because we only have five minutes. Thank you.

Audience: Thank you. I think most of the people in this room agree that the IGF needs to be renewed, as in, of course, right, that’s taken for granted. It has to have more teeth. Again, shamelessly talking about the working group strategy, many of you are there in the group. We prepared a vision document of how to strengthen the IGF and make it more strategic. I would suggest that if you can look at it, it’s on the IGF website. There are various things which have been written which could make it more strategic, more appealing, and yes, empowerment of the MAG, of the secretariat is very important. The MAG doesn’t even know how these workshop rooms were done up. People think those 300 sessions which are happening here is something which the MAG did. Unfortunately, no. It is about 84 which they decided upon. Rest comes to, they come to know as we come to know. So that’s the hard reality here. So I think we need to preserve what we have and enhance it. I would stop at that.

Rudolf Gridl: Thank you. My finishing words. We have a interesting, important year in front of us. We should stay focused. We should stay optimistic. And we should try to give our best, to have the best internet governance forum or the best internet governance mechanism that this 21st century needs. And last thing, no duplication of structures.

Keith Andere: Thank you. I do agree with my fellow panelists by looking into the future, especially for us from the Global South, whom we played catch up with IGF process. You’ll find that many national IGFs came into play maybe the last 10 years or so. So a lot of countries from Global South, this is just when they are settling in. Knowing the IGF, sometimes it takes a few years to convince the government officials at national level that this is a space that they need to come as stakeholders and not to come to be criticized. So I see, I remain very optimistic that the IGF will possibly be extended if not the mandate to be renewed. But I also look at the future of IGF in the sense that it should be characterized by increased decentralization. We’ve seen a lot of countries being very expansive in terms of geographical. And so maybe this decentralization should actually go below national level so that we are even contextualizing things at the very local grassroot. I think one of the speakers here spoke about bottom-up approach. And so this national level shouldn’t be And secondly, I see collaboration as a very, very important and significant thing among diverse stakeholders. And I also see that balancing innovation with the needs of security and inclusivity in a rapidly evolving landscape as a very, very key thing because this landscape is changing almost every second. And resources must be put into the processes. Again, about even the secretariat not being capacitated with the resources. So I think the resources must come. And lastly, I think also I’m being very biased but without apology that Afghans must also be allowed managing and controlling these resources because technically we don’t. Thank you.

Luiza Ferreira: Thank you everyone for participating. I feel like we had a really great debate. I feel sorry for the colleague in the back that I couldn’t take her answer but we have a tight schedule. And thank you everyone for participating in the debate and everyone online as well. Yeah, and have a nice rest of the IGF. Thank you. Excellent, thank you so much. Thank you. Picture? Yeah. Yeah, because he has a microphone. Okay. Thank you for the excellent moderation. That was great. Thank you. Thank you for jumping in. Thank you. Thank you.

Agreement Points

Importance of multi-stakeholder approach in Internet governance

speakers

Rudolf Gridl

Keith Andere

Amrita Choudhury

arguments

Multi-stakeholder approach is crucial for Internet governance

Need for decentralization and grassroots engagement in IGF processes

Consultative processes have limitations in countries with diverse backgrounds

summary

All speakers emphasized the importance of a multi-stakeholder approach in Internet governance, advocating for inclusive participation and decentralized processes.

Need for strengthening IGF structures and processes

speakers

Rudolf Gridl

Amrita Choudhury

arguments

Importance of strengthening the IGF Secretariat and MAG

Need for concrete projects and funding to support cooperation

summary

Speakers agreed on the necessity to strengthen IGF structures, including the Secretariat and MAG, through increased resources and concrete projects.

Addressing digital divide and enhancing digital literacy

speakers

Keith Andere

Amrita Choudhury

arguments

Digital divide remains a significant challenge in developing countries

Need to enhance digital literacy programs for marginalized communities

Need for innovation in digital public infrastructure to increase accessibility

summary

Speakers highlighted the persistent digital divide in developing countries and emphasized the need for digital literacy programs and innovative infrastructure to increase accessibility.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the importance of tangible actions and resources to support Internet governance initiatives, particularly in developing regions.

speakers

Rudolf Gridl

Keith Andere

arguments

Need for concrete projects and funding to support cooperation

Need to enhance digital literacy programs for marginalized communities

Both speakers stressed the crucial role of youth in Internet governance and the need for meaningful youth engagement beyond tokenism.

speakers

Keith Andere

Amrita Choudhury

arguments

Youth can help bridge the digital gap for older generations

Importance of moving beyond tokenism in youth engagement

Unexpected Consensus

Importance of regional and national Internet Governance Forums

speakers

Rudolf Gridl

Audience member

arguments

Multi-stakeholder approach is crucial for Internet governance

National and regional Internet Governance Forums are important

explanation

There was unexpected consensus between a government official and an audience member on the importance of regional and national Internet Governance Forums, highlighting a shared recognition of the value of localized multi-stakeholder processes.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement included the importance of the multi-stakeholder approach, the need to strengthen IGF structures, addressing the digital divide, and enhancing youth engagement in Internet governance.

Consensus level

There was a moderate to high level of consensus among the speakers on key issues, particularly on the multi-stakeholder approach and the need for concrete actions to support Internet governance. This consensus suggests a shared vision for the future of Internet governance, emphasizing inclusivity, resource allocation, and capacity building. However, there were some variations in the specific focus areas and approaches suggested by different speakers, reflecting the diverse challenges faced in different regions and contexts.

Different Viewpoints

Approach to addressing digital divide

speakers

Keith Andere

Amrita Choudhury

arguments

Need to enhance digital literacy programs for marginalized communities

Need for innovation in digital public infrastructure to increase accessibility

summary

While both speakers address the digital divide, Keith Andere emphasizes digital literacy programs, while Amrita Choudhury focuses on innovative digital infrastructure solutions.

Unexpected Differences

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement revolve around specific approaches to addressing the digital divide and strengthening Internet governance processes.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among the speakers is relatively low. Most speakers agree on the fundamental issues but offer different perspectives or emphasize different aspects of solutions. This suggests a general consensus on the importance of multi-stakeholder approaches and the need for improvement in Internet governance, with variations in proposed strategies based on regional experiences and priorities.

Partial Agreements

Both speakers agree on the need for capacity building and resource allocation, but Gridl emphasizes concrete projects and funding, while Choudhury focuses specifically on capacity building for policymakers in developing countries.

speakers

Rudolf Gridl

Amrita Choudhury

arguments

Need for concrete projects and funding to support cooperation

Importance of capacity building for policymakers in developing countries

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the importance of tangible actions and resources to support Internet governance initiatives, particularly in developing regions.

speakers

Rudolf Gridl

Keith Andere

arguments

Need for concrete projects and funding to support cooperation

Need to enhance digital literacy programs for marginalized communities

Both speakers stressed the crucial role of youth in Internet governance and the need for meaningful youth engagement beyond tokenism.

speakers

Keith Andere

Amrita Choudhury

arguments

Youth can help bridge the digital gap for older generations

Importance of moving beyond tokenism in youth engagement

Key Takeaways

The multi-stakeholder approach remains crucial for Internet governance

Digital divide and access disparities are still major challenges, especially in developing countries

Youth engagement is important but needs to move beyond tokenism

The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) needs to be strengthened and renewed, with more resources for the Secretariat and MAG

There is a need for more decentralization and grassroots engagement in Internet governance processes

Capacity building for policymakers in developing countries is essential

Resolutions and Action Items

Review and potentially update the mandate of the IGF

Strengthen the IGF Secretariat with more human and financial resources

Explore ways to make IGF outputs more recognized and promoted

Unresolved Issues

How to effectively balance bottom-up participation with agenda-setting in the IGF

How to address the growing inequality in global Internet governance participation

How to create a non-intergovernmental transnational institution for Internet governance

How to make IGF outputs more impactful without becoming a negotiated declaration

Suggested Compromises

Finding a ‘Goldilocks zone’ for the MAG’s role in agenda-setting – balancing community input with structured planning

Allowing the MAG to propose key tracks for the IGF while still permitting community-driven sessions

Enhancing the IGF’s output mechanisms without adopting a formal UN-style negotiation process

For us the future of Internet Governance is a multi-stakeholder one. It’s a multi-stakeholder process. It used to be and it should remain one.

speaker

Rudolf Gridl

reason

This comment set the tone for the entire discussion by emphasizing the importance of maintaining a multi-stakeholder approach to internet governance.

impact

It framed the subsequent conversation around how to improve and evolve multi-stakeholder models rather than considering alternatives.

Kenya has a very, very, very vibrant and innovative youth population, many of whom are eager to engage in Internet governance discussions, and that speaks to the youth IGF.

speaker

Keith Andere

reason

This highlighted the importance of youth engagement in internet governance, especially in developing countries.

impact

It shifted part of the discussion to focus on how to meaningfully involve youth and build capacity in developing nations.

When you just say Internet governance, they may not understand the value. They value an Internet governance forum. They’ll never oppose it, but it’s not priority. That’s why you will not find high, you know, top officials coming here.

speaker

Amrita Choudhury

reason

This provided important context on why internet governance may not be prioritized in developing countries facing more immediate challenges.

impact

It prompted reflection on how to make internet governance more relevant and valuable to developing nations.

The bottom-up, the multistakeholder approach. Then our experience is, and it’s a very blunt experience, but it’s important, you need to take your money where your mouth is.

speaker

Rudolf Gridl

reason

This emphasized the need for concrete action and funding to support multi-stakeholder initiatives, not just talk.

impact

It shifted the conversation to consider practical ways to strengthen and resource internet governance efforts.

We should move away from tokenism. We just don’t, you know, many times you will see you need woman representation, so you put in a woman in a panel.

speaker

Amrita Choudhury

reason

This called out superficial inclusion efforts and pushed for more meaningful engagement of underrepresented groups.

impact

It prompted discussion of how to ensure authentic representation and participation, especially for youth and women.

Being somebody who was at the summit, like many people here, I must confess that in the last 20 years, we haven’t invented much. The last two innovations were the creation of ICANN before the summit, and the creation of the IGF.

speaker

Bertrand de la Chapelle

reason

This provocative statement challenged the status quo and highlighted a lack of innovation in internet governance structures.

impact

It sparked a critical examination of current models and discussion of potential reforms and new approaches.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by repeatedly emphasizing the importance of meaningful multi-stakeholder engagement while also critically examining current models. They pushed the conversation to consider practical ways to strengthen internet governance, make it more inclusive and relevant to developing nations, and potentially reform existing structures. The discussion evolved from general principles to specific challenges and potential innovations needed to adapt internet governance for the future.

How can the IGF mandate be updated and its structure institutionalized with a charter to clarify roles and responsibilities?

speaker

Bertrand de la Chapelle

explanation

This is important to address the need for innovation in Internet governance mechanisms and to improve the effectiveness of the IGF.

How can we create a non-intergovernmental transnational institution for Internet governance?

speaker

Bertrand de la Chapelle

explanation

This is crucial for developing a more appropriate organizational structure for global Internet governance that goes beyond current limitations.

How can the IGF’s outputs be better recognized and promoted?

speaker

Wout de Natris

explanation

This is important to demonstrate the value and impact of the IGF beyond being perceived as just a ‘talk shop’.

What changes should be made to the MAG (Multistakeholder Advisory Group) to improve its effectiveness in agenda-setting and structuring the IGF?

speaker

Wout de Natris

explanation

This is crucial for enhancing the IGF’s ability to address key issues and produce meaningful outcomes.

How can the IGF Secretariat be strengthened in terms of human and financial resources?

speaker

Rudolf Gridl

explanation

This is important to improve the IGF’s capacity to organize and manage its activities effectively.

How can the IGF produce output documents that provide inspiration and guidance to decision-making bodies without resorting to cumbersome UN-style negotiations?

speaker

Rudolf Gridl

explanation

This is crucial for increasing the IGF’s impact on global Internet governance processes.

How can the IGF process be further decentralized to reach sub-national levels, especially in the Global South?

speaker

Keith Andere

explanation

This is important for increasing participation and ensuring that Internet governance discussions are contextualized at local levels.

How can youth be more meaningfully involved in Internet governance processes beyond tokenism?

speaker

Amrita Choudhury

explanation

This is crucial for ensuring that the perspectives of younger generations are genuinely incorporated into Internet governance discussions and decisions.

How can the digital divide be addressed more effectively, particularly in terms of access, literacy, and capacity building in developing countries?

speaker

Multiple speakers (Keith Andere, Amrita Choudhury)

explanation

This is important for ensuring more equitable participation in Internet governance processes and the digital economy globally.

Summary

This discussion focused on the governance of emerging technologies in various regions, with a particular emphasis on bridging the digital divide between developed and developing countries. Participants from different countries and organizations shared their experiences and perspectives on implementing and regulating new technologies such as AI, blockchain, and 5G.

Key themes included the importance of collaboration between governments, private sector, and civil society in developing inclusive policy frameworks. Several speakers highlighted the need for capacity building, particularly in developing countries, to ensure equitable access to and utilization of emerging technologies. The role of regional Internet Governance Forums (IGFs) in facilitating knowledge exchange, trust-building, and policy discussions was emphasized.

Participants discussed strategies for responsible deployment of technologies, including the development of ethical guidelines, data protection measures, and cybersecurity standards. The importance of adapting governance approaches to local contexts while adhering to international standards was stressed. Some speakers noted the challenges of balancing innovation with regulation and user safety.

The discussion also touched on the varying levels of technological advancement across regions, with some countries still focusing on 4G implementation while others are moving towards 5G and even 6G. The need for inclusive policy-making processes that involve multiple stakeholders was highlighted as crucial for addressing these disparities.

Overall, the discussion underscored the complex nature of governing emerging technologies in a rapidly evolving digital landscape, emphasizing the need for collaborative, flexible, and context-sensitive approaches to ensure equitable technological progress globally.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– The role of emerging technologies like AI, blockchain, and 5G in driving innovation and economic growth, especially in developing countries

– Strategies for ensuring equitable access and responsible governance of new technologies

– The need for laws and regulatory frameworks to keep pace with rapidly evolving technologies

– Mechanisms for knowledge exchange and collaboration between developed and developing countries

– Balancing innovation and regulation to protect user safety and privacy

Overall purpose:

The goal of this discussion was to exchange experiences and best practices around the governance of emerging technologies from different regional and national Internet Governance Forums (IGFs). Participants aimed to explore ways to bridge the digital divide and ensure developing countries can fully participate in and benefit from technological progress.

Tone:

The overall tone was collaborative and solution-oriented. Participants shared insights from their regions in a constructive manner. There was a sense of optimism about the potential of new technologies, balanced with pragmatism about the challenges of implementation and regulation. The tone became more interactive and energetic during the Q&A portion at the end as audience members engaged with the panelists.

Speakers

– Ahmed Farag: Chair of the North African IGF, member of Arab Mag and African IGF MEG

– Renata Mielli: Coordinator of the Internet Steering Committee in Brazil

– Eliamani Isaya Laltaika: Judge of the High Court of Tanzania, academic at Nelson Mandela African Institution of Science and Technology

– Ano Jawhar Abdulmaseeh Abdoka: Minister of Transportation and Communication in Kurdistan region Iraq

– Chin Lin: Director of China Mobile Research Institute, Department of User and Market Research

– Qusai Al-Shatti: First UNHCR Chair in the Arab region, from Arab IGF community

– Judith Hellerstein: Online moderator

Additional speakers:

– Ali Miro: Representative of a leading telecom company in Kurdistan region

– Lillian Chamorro: Works with Black IGF (Latin America IGF)

– Omar Sharaf: From Libyan IGF

– Kossi Amessinou: From Ministry of Economy and Finance in Benin, chairperson of NGO Women Be Free

– Dr. Hosein Badran: Member of Canadian IGF and Arab IGF

Expanded Summary of Discussion on Governance of Emerging Technologies

This discussion, featuring speakers from diverse geographical and professional backgrounds, focused on the governance of emerging technologies and strategies to bridge the digital divide between developed and developing countries. The dialogue covered a range of topics including artificial intelligence (AI), blockchain, Internet of Things (IoT), 5G technology, and the role of Internet Governance Forums (IGFs) in shaping policy and facilitating knowledge exchange.

Key Themes and Discussion Points

1. Governance Frameworks for Emerging Technologies

The speakers emphasised the need for comprehensive governance frameworks to address the challenges posed by rapidly evolving technologies. Ano Jawhar Abdulmaseeh Abdoka, Minister of Transportation and Communication in Kurdistan region Iraq, stressed the importance of developing inclusive policy frameworks that address ethics, privacy, and security concerns. He also highlighted the need to balance government regulation with private sector innovation, advocating for governments to focus on regulation rather than operation in the technology sector.

Eliamani Isaya Laltaika, Judge of the High Court of Tanzania, called for the enactment of strict laws to protect consumers and the environment, highlighting the need to balance innovation with regulation. He introduced the “PEST” formula (Political, Economic, Social, Technological) as a practical framework for advocating technology adoption to policymakers, linking it to tangible social and economic benefits.

Chin Lin from China emphasized the importance of formulating user-centric policies and strengthening public feedback mechanisms. This approach aims to ensure that governance frameworks remain relevant and effective in addressing the needs and concerns of end-users.

2. Bridging the Digital Divide

A significant portion of the discussion centred on strategies to reduce the technological gap between developed and developing countries. Ano Jawhar Abdulmaseeh Abdoka emphasised the importance of investing in high-speed infrastructure and nationwide broadband expansion, viewing connectivity as a foundation for other digital innovations. He shared the Kurdistan region’s experience with 4G deployment and plans for 5G, highlighting challenges faced due to federal government regulations.

Eliamani Isaya Laltaika proposed promoting public-private partnerships for technology development and investing in STEM education and research centres. This approach aims to build local capacity and foster innovation within developing countries. He also discussed Tanzania’s approach to technology adoption and governance, emphasizing the importance of updating curricula to prepare for emerging technologies.

Renata Mielli, Coordinator of the Internet Steering Committee in Brazil, shared information about Brazil’s initiatives in AI research and development, highlighting the country’s efforts to stay competitive in emerging technologies.

3. Role of Regional and National IGFs

The speakers highlighted the crucial role played by regional and national Internet Governance Forums in facilitating policy discussions and addressing local contexts. Qusai Al-Shatti, First UNHCR Chair in the Arab region, emphasised the focus on capacity building and facilitating policymaking within these forums. He also mentioned the upcoming Arab IGF meeting in Amman, Jordan, highlighting its importance for regional discussions.

Renata Mielli viewed IGFs as platforms for multi-stakeholder dialogue, promoting knowledge sharing and consensus-building. Lillian Chamorro, representing the Latin America IGF, stressed the importance of addressing region-specific technology needs and contexts, highlighting that there is no one-size-fits-all approach to internet governance.

Dr. Hosein Badran shared insights about the Canadian IGF’s approach to policy discussions, emphasizing the importance of inclusive dialogue and diverse perspectives.

4. Challenges and Opportunities of 5G Technology

The discussion on 5G technology revealed both enthusiasm and caution among the speakers. Ano Jawhar Abdulmaseeh Abdoka viewed 5G as a necessity for development rather than a luxury, emphasising its potential to drive economic growth and innovation. However, he also highlighted the challenges faced by Iraq and the Kurdistan region in deploying 5G due to federal government regulations.

Renata Mielli considered 5G as essential infrastructure for digital applications, while Eliamani Isaya Laltaika stressed the need for equitable deployment of advanced technologies to prevent widening the digital divide.

Kossi Amessinou from the Ministry of Economy and Finance in Benin pushed the discussion further by advocating for more advanced technologies like 6G for precision services, highlighting the varying levels of technological ambition across different regions.

Areas of Agreement and Disagreement

The speakers largely agreed on the importance of multi-stakeholder collaboration in addressing the challenges of emerging technology governance. There was a consensus on the need for capacity building, knowledge sharing, and investment in infrastructure to bridge the digital divide.

However, there were differences in emphasis and approach. While some speakers focused on comprehensive frameworks across technologies, others emphasized specific aspects such as ethics, privacy, and security. The perception of 5G technology also varied, with most speakers viewing it as crucial for development, while Kossi Amessinou unexpectedly argued for leapfrogging to 6G technology.

Thought-Provoking Comments and Future Directions

Several comments stood out for their potential to shape future discussions and policy directions. Renata Mielli’s proposal for guidelines to encourage local technology infrastructure and reduce dependence on foreign platforms, while also considering environmental impacts, broadened the scope of the discussion beyond mere technological adoption.

Eliamani Isaya Laltaika’s “PEST” formula provided a practical framework for advocating technology adoption to policymakers, linking it to tangible social and economic benefits.

Kossi Amessinou’s impassioned plea for immediate access to advanced technologies in developing countries injected a sense of urgency into the discussion, prompting reflection on the pace of technological adoption and distribution.

Unresolved Issues and Follow-up Questions

The discussion left several issues unresolved, including how to balance innovation and regulation for emerging technologies and ensuring equitable global access to advanced technologies. Questions were raised about the optimal role and influence of IGFs in policymaking processes and how to resolve tensions between federal and regional governance approaches.

Follow-up questions highlighted the need for further exploration of strategies to ensure equal access to new technologies in resource-limited countries, mechanisms for knowledge exchange between developed and developing nations, and ways to promote accountability for global tech platforms operating in specific regional contexts.

Conclusion

This discussion underscored the complex nature of governing emerging technologies in a rapidly evolving digital landscape. It emphasised the need for collaborative, flexible, and context-sensitive approaches to ensure equitable technological progress globally. The dialogue highlighted the importance of balancing innovation with regulation, addressing regional disparities, and fostering inclusive policy-making processes that involve multiple stakeholders. As emerging technologies continue to shape our world, the insights and challenges raised in this discussion will undoubtedly inform future governance strategies and international cooperation efforts.

Ahmed Farag: Thanks a lot. Yes. Channel 4 and they will bring the headsets. Channel 4, yeah. Maybe they will bring it. We are on channel 4. Let me first thank you for attending this NRI collaborative session. Today we will focus on our regional experience on the governance of emerging technology. Let me first introduce myself. I’m Ahmed Farag. I’m chair of the North African IGF. I’m a member as well in Arab Mag, as well as the… African IGF MEG. Today we will talk about the new and emerging technology which hold positive promises for the driving innovation, economic growth and sociality advancement on the global scale. However, the benefits of the offer are not unfortunately distributed with the developing countries often facing a barrier to accessing and efficiently utilizing this technology compared to their developed counterparts. The digital divide increases the existing inequality and hinders the ability of developing nations to fully participate in the digital economy and realize the potential benefits of technology progress. Through today’s session we will exchange our experience, our practice, okay, with our different regional, sub-regional, national IGFs, okay, and share together to focus on comparing the existing practice regarding ways emerging technology and govern and implementation of the society. This session are co-organized by about 40 NRIs. Today we’ll talk about EPR IGF, Arab IGF, Bangladesh IGF, Benin IGF, Cameroon IGF, Caribbean IGF, China IGF, Colombia IGF, Czech IGF, Dominican Republic IGF, Ecuador IGF, Ethiopian IGF, I will move IGF, okay, France, Ghana, Ghana youth, okay, Hong Kong, USA, Iraq, Italy, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Maldives, Mozambique, North Africa, Pakistan, Biro, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Iraq, Sudan, Tanzania, Gambia, Togo, Uganda, youth of the Columbia, youth of DRC, youth of LAC, IGF, and youth of Pakistan IGF. Forgive me if I miss any initiative. You missed Kurdistan. Kurdistan IGF. The most important one. Sorry. Okay. Today we have our distinguished speakers. Let me start first with Ms. Renata Mili. She’s the coordinator of the Internet Steering Committee in Brazil. Okay. Mr. Elimani Latikla, Judge of the High Court of Tanzania. His Excellency Mr. Anu Jawahar, Minister of Transportation and Communication in Kurdistan region Iraq, and Ms. Lin Lin, Director of China Mobile Research Institute, Department of User and Market Research. Thank you, and thank you for participating us today. Also, I would like to thank our online moderator and rapporteurs, Ms. Karol Nudassi, Ms. Judith Hellerstein, Ms. Aliko Matula, Ms. Umit Bajaro. Let me start our first question to His Excellency Mr. Anu. Okay. He will talk with us about what emerging digital technology are priorities for the Kurdistan region, and how you can see the wide gap between developed and developing country.

Ano Jawhar Abdulmaseeh Abdoka: Thank you very much, Mr. Ahmed. Thank you for all of you. I think my Arabic and your Arabic is better than our English, but we are obliged to speak English today. First of all, I want to extend my gratitude to the leadership and the people of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for supporting and organizing such a world-class event. I’m thankful for their hospitality and dedication to build bridges with all nations worldwide. Also, I want to extend my gratitude to IGF Secretariat and to IGF Kurdistan Region and Iraq, CAG Ramadan, and his dedicated staff for their efforts. Thank you very much. As Kurdistan Region Government, and especially after the declaration of KRG’s Digital Transformation Strategy and the vision for 2025 of His Excellency Prime Minister Masroor Barzani, which is a comprehensive strategy aimed to creating a digitally inclusive society, through this initiative, we are focused on advancing technologies such as AI, blockchain, 4G, hopefully 5G and IOT. A cornerstone of our work has been the development of high-speed infrastructure, including nationwide broadband expansion and the deployment of 4G and full preparement for 5G networks. This ensures that both urban and rural communities have equitable access to high-speed internet and digital opportunities. Our high-speed internet network of fiber optic cables has reached the villages, even the remote areas. The collaboration of the public sector with the private sector in Kurdistan Region has created… …reliance upon government budget, and as I mentioned earlier, supported our private sector companies to… to be more efficient and successful. Our focus on emerging digital technologies aims to bridge gaps, enhance infrastructure, and foster sustainable development. And our key priorities include providing high-speed internet connectivity, which serves as a backbone for other digital innovations. Connectivity ensures progress in sectors like education, health care, commerce, and et cetera. E-government platforms, digitalizing public services, and strategic priority is a strategic priority to enhance efficiency, transparency, and citizen engagement. Systems such as digital IDs, e-payment platforms, and service portals aim to streamline bureaucracies’ processes. Artificial intelligence and data analytics. AI is being prioritized for its potential to optimize urban planning, traffic management, and public safety. Harnessing big data will drive informed policy decisions and developed strategies. But we must confess that we are still in our very early stages. Cyber security and digital safety, building robust cyber security infrastructure, is essential to secure digital system and protect citizens and businesses from emerging threats. There is an excellent cooperation between private sector and public sector alongside the law enforcement agencies in this matter. Smart infrastructure and IoT, internet of things. Integrating IoT in transportation, logistics, and public utilities will facilitate smart urban management and reduce inefficiencies.

Ahmed Farag: Even this sector is brand new to Kurdistan and Iraq, but efforts are ongoing in this regard. Thank you. Minister. And now we will go to Ms. Renata. She will talk with us about how strategies can be implemented to ensure equal access and responsible governance of the new and emerging technology practically in the countries with limited resources and infrastructure.

Renata Mielli: Thank you very much. Thank you for the invitation, for being here to discuss this important theme. I believe we are at a particularly challenging moment to discuss the governance of emerging technologies such as AI, quantum technologies, IoT, among others. My first point is that it would be a mistake to start building governance structures for each type of technology, because if you want to be inclusive, if you want to be all the stakeholders, having voice in the structures of the governance of all this kind of technology, if we fragmented this for each kind of technology, we are difficult in the participation and incidence of all these stakeholders in this process. In this regard, we made significant progress at NetMundial Plus 10 that occurred in Brazil, Sao Paulo in April, by seeking to define a new framework for the scope of the governance, such as internet governance and digital policies and emerging technologies. Why not? In practice, this is what we have been doing for years, by including a variety of workshops and sessions that address these topics in the discussions of both here in the IGF and the regional forums. In Brazil, our regional forum, the Brazilian Internet Forum, are discussing this kind of new technologies in terms of governance and how to build safe, secure, and trustworthy new technologies for the good of people since, I don’t know, since the beginning of our IGF. Well, in this regard, we also, the CGI.br, are investing knowledge and investments in terms of money in trying to address the gap in knowledge and innovation about AI. We have invested funds in ten applied research centers for artificial intelligence. We already had seven sessions discussing this topic at the last two editions of our Brazil National IGF. We also lead discussions on the impacts of… discussion about the necessity of diversity in multi-language systems of AI. In our CGI.br, we also host the Brazilian Observatory of Artificial Intelligence, bringing into the CGI this discussion on the development and employment and use of AI in Brazil, besides other activities studying the impact of artificial intelligence. on the web, led by Ceweb, alongside other technologies, sovereignty and sustainability, that have the role to promote multistakeholder discussions and analysis of public policies focused on the development of emerging technologies, applications and innovation, emphasizing their impacts on digital sovereignty and autonomy, sustainability and Brazil’s economic development. We are proposing guidelines, we are going to propose guidelines, plans and actions to encourage the development and adoption of local technology infrastructure and applications, as well as reducing dependence on foreign platforms and solutions, and facilitate debate on the environmental impact of emerging technologies, such as artificial intelligence, cloud computing and IoT devices, and propose solutions to minimize energy and resource consumptions. For now, we are fostering partnership between academia, government and the private sector to encourage research and development of emerging technologies and software and hardware solutions. This approach aims to promote national technology production and strengthen Brazil’s global competitiveness and also collaboration with other countries in this regard. Monitor global and regional trends in the development of emerging technologies and their applications, identifying opportunities and risks for Brazil, and propose mitigation measures to safeguard the technological autonomy and environmental sustainability. That’s it, thank you very much.

Ahmed Farag: Thank you so much for sharing your thoughtful thoughts and updates, and let me now I would like to move to Mr. Ilyamani, who is a high court judge in Tanzania and as a law expert, let me ask you, how can laws and regulatory frameworks keep pace with the rapid evolution of the emerging technology such as AI, blockchain and quantum computing?

Eliamani Isaya Laltaika: Okay, thank you very much, Facilitator. Like I was introduced, my name is Ilyamani Laltaika. Apart from being a judge, I’m actually an academic. I teach at the Nelson Mandela African Institution of Science and Technology. That’s what I was doing before Her Excellency President Samia Suluhu Hassan, President of our country, appointed me a judge and many people now are forgetting that I was a teacher before and in many capacities I’m invited as a former professor. My intervention will centre not only as a judge but also as an academic and I will give the interventions we are doing first from the academic point of view and second from the legal point of view. First, we know that the way of getting these technologies as part of African development is to bring them to the young people through science. So, Africa has invested heavily in STEM science, technology, engineering and mathematics and the Nelson Mandela Foundation has assisted Africa to establish four centres of excellency in art, religion, technology, engineering and And there are four universities spread across Africa, in Nigeria, in Tanzania, in Ouagadougou, and in South Africa. And these are all named after Nelson Mandela, and they are pioneers, they are really cutting-edge universities when it comes to research. So far, quickly, at Nelson Mandela African Institution of Science and Technology in Arusha, AI has been used in agriculture. Nowadays, it is very easy to predict the harvest, it is very easy to just get a leaf, put it on your phone, and know which kind of medicine you need, or which kind of fertilizer is needed. Artificial intelligence has been used to improve health, access to health. The students at Nelson Mandela in Arusha have developed a number of apps that assist women in detecting sicknesses and what time to reach to the hospital. Artificial intelligence has also been used to count wildlife and get the real number of problem animals. It has also been used to detect whether a lion is about to come to a village or not, and that is brought about safety. Legally, the African Union has its own mandate. After establishing in 2000, it is an instrument establishing the African Union. The African Union has pioneered enactment of laws that address emerging technologies. the Malabar Convention was adopted by the African Union to protect data and personal data protection even before this was very common. At the moment, we are launching a center for artificial intelligence, like we heard yesterday from the United Nations Commission for Africa that there are deliberate efforts to ensure that such a technology goes down. How do we quickly enact a law to address and keep pace with the emerging technology? The formula is a pest. Like the honorable minister from Kurdistan has said, connectivity is everything. If you get connectivity and your internet is okay, that is when you can now say you want blockchain, you want internet of things, you want, so first is connectivity. Now, our biggest tool, or can see that a lot of people are coming to assist us in getting a law that has been used in some country and customize it with our own and it moves on. Another way that we use is first to sensitize the politicians. Like I said, the formula is a pest. P stands for political. If politicians are well educated, they know that this is blockchain. We need this blockchain in order to enable women to access finances. We went to enable, to empower women to use their cell phone to access bank services. They will agree to enact a law that E is economic. We must tell them that you have the power to generate more money through data than even agriculture. For example, in Tanzania now we have a law to sell spectrum and we are putting spectrum of frequencies on the market and people come and say I need to buy frequency in order to run my radio or my television and they pay the government more money than farmers. So we tell them that economically it is important. S is social. We tell them that socially you can reduce women empowerment, crime against women if you use these technologies, we will detect people who are oppressing women and finally is technologically. This technology does not replace people. We are very careful not to tell, the minister will tell you that they don’t like technology that makes massive unemployment and a politician doesn’t want to hear that people will become unemployed. So we want to balance between employing people and adopting technologies.

Ahmed Farag: And now we will go to Ms. Lin Lin and let me ask you Ms. Lin, based on your experience as a user and market researcher, what mechanism can be established to facilitate knowledge exchange and trust building initiatives between developed and developing countries?

Chin Lin: Okay thank you. I think one way is to set up a joint laboratory. Just like AI joint laboratory to bridging the AI gap. There are mainly three aspects to consider when setting up the joint library. First, all the partners involved need to make clear their common goals. Such questions as, do we focus on the research and the breakthrough of specific technologies, or on promoting and improving the existing experience, and so on. Second, give full play to the unique advantages of each party. For example, leading technology enterprises can export technology and R&D capabilities, while local enterprises can make use of their market insights or advantages in labor costs. Third, set up a fair and reasonable cooperation with them, include their inter-correlation methods and resource input and sharing with them, and resource transformation, matching them, and so on, to guarantee the rights of all parties in the joint library. China Mobile has signed a deal with Indonesia’s senior mass group to establish an AI joint library. The benefits of setting up joint libraries, for one thing, it can be speed up the spread and transfer of technical knowledge a lot. Many technologically advanced countries have gained plenty of practical experience in computing power, data, and many other aspects. With joint libraries, this experience can be passed on to less advanced countries in a more direct way. and efficient way. For another, it boosts international scientific research, collaboration, and innovation to collaborate to unite force from all walks of life, such as research institutes and universities in different countries, breaking the boundaries of scientific research among countries. That’s my answer. Thank you.

Ahmed Farag: And now, let me go back to Mr. Anno. And I would like to ask him about how can governments and private sectors and all stakeholders actually collaborate to ensure accountability and transparency in the governance of emerging technology? And I appreciate if you can keep our answer in three minutes. Thank you so much.

Ano Jawhar Abdulmaseeh Abdoka: Of course, the public’s approach involving government, private sector, active civil society, and international organizations. Collaboration should focus on one. Developing inclusive policy framework, governments must establish clear, inclusive, regulatory framework that defines the ethical use of technologies. These frameworks should address privacy concerns, cybersecurity standards, and guidelines for emerging technologies like AI and blockchain. Two, public-private partnerships, PPPs, as my honorable judge and a skillful academic could understand as a unique and positive example, as I mentioned earlier. The gap that is really is created is that governments in developing countries interfere in nation, interfere in operation, interfere in the market, and that leads to the suffocation of the private sector. But here also could be seen as an exception. PPP policy is a priority. We have one example, not post-Iraq, past-Iraq, present here. They just informed me that they have maxed the record based on SEO factors. It’s the best operators for providing internet. And also, they are working toward establishing a tier 4 data center, spans over 12,500 square meters. This is the policy of Kurdistan region and the policy of Prime Minister Barzani for the collaboration between private sector and leveraging technology for transparency. Emerging technologies such as blockchain and AI-driven monitoring systems can improve transparency by reducing corruption, automating processes, and ensuring accurate tracking of public funds and services. Five, multi-stakeholder dialogue, establishing forums for regular dialogue among governments, tech developers, civil society, and academia can ensure that all voices be heard. This dialogue should be prioritized, aligning innovation with ethical principles and sustainable development goals. In this, we depend on our young creative partners in Kurdistan, such as the IGF Kurdistan Group, Kaak Ramadan, Tableau and Nassim Khan, Ahmed and Mateen, and their colleagues. Thank you.

Ahmed Farag: Thank you so much. Let’s go back to Miss Renata. And I will ask her about how are the new emerging technology can be governed in different regions, and what is the role of regional and international organizations? What is the role that they can play to assure a fair governance of this technology?

Renata Mielli: Thank you so much. Thank you. Are you listening? Thank you very much. As I said before, I think we have to find a way, first of all, to connect all these spaces because we need to be more collaborative, to be more strengthening our regional IGFs in terms of how we can address, discuss and achieve consensus about the core values that have been taken into account when we are talking about governance of emerging technologies. Of course, we need to have important focus on that data governance, because all these technologies at the end of the day are using our data, and we have to build transparency, we have to build a trustworthy environment in the way that 5G and 5G and others, blockchain, in a safe, secure and trustworthy way, because this is in the center of the agenda. I think government has a pivotal role in this regard, because the governance is a space to build consensus and to deliver outcomes pointing the very important issues, but governments have the responsibility to transform these kinds of recommendations into laws and regulations, so I think that’s the role of the IGFs, regional IGFs. and the governance, be a space where everybody can stay together to talk about these things, trying to achieve something that is in the best of the public interest.

Ahmed Farag: Now I’m back to Mr. Ilemani, and I will ask him about how can the policy and decision maker make the balance between innovation of the regulation and laws, between technology progress and the end user safety. You know there is always benefits and challenges and risks. How can we make this balance?

Eliamani Isaya Laltaika: Thank you very much. First is to subscribe to international standards. No country is an island. So if we say ITU, International Telecommunication Union, has said this is the standard for radio receivers, we should all follow. That is how we can protect our consumers. Secondly, we very much need to train our people. I am so much pro-training. I don’t know if I were not a judge, I was probably going to be appointed the Minister of Education. No, I’m joking. But I believe so much in empowering, in taking young people to study engineering in Europe, in America, in Arab countries. They will build the next generation of our scientists. But also coming to laws, we need laws to be there. For example, I want to talk about counterfeits. If you don’t have laws in your country, the market is growing. Someone will come and sell you very cheap things, but they are just dumping wastes, including hazardous wastes. You think someone is giving you computers for free for schools, but looking closely, these are hazardous wastes which cannot be used. be dumped in Europe, they pretend they are giving an NGO in your country, and then you bring them and they become hazard to the health of your people. So you need very strict laws, including international conventions to protect people. And for us in the court, we don’t take things for jokes when it comes to protecting the health and the environment of the people. We want laws which are very strict. If they are not strict enough, I can borrow a judgment from Iraq, from Pakistan, from USA, which has explained a concept about human rights and the environment, and use it to make sure that my government also enacts laws. We should not use poverty as an excuse to raise the standards of safety of the consumer and our people. Thank you.

Ahmed Farag: Now I will go back to Ms. Lin Ling, and I will ask her about how can we ensure the responsible and end-user-centric deployment of emerging technology, and what is the role of the end-user in this process?

Chin Lin: Okay, I think to answer this question, we have to know that to set up a user-centric deployment is a collapsible problem. First, it calls for the engagement of multiple stakeholders and the procession of consensus. At the same time, international organizations should play a leading role in working with different countries and stakeholders in their formulation of price imports and standards, and establish a globally unified ethical price port and technical standard, powering such as key demonstrations and fairness, transparency, security, and privacy protection. And the second focus is on the construction of the domestic governance system. At the national level, it’s significant to formulate and improve relevant policies, laws, and regulatory frameworks while maintaining flexibility. Additionally, a professional risk assessment should be built. Third, promote enterprises to take social responsibility. In the process of product design and development, enterprises should revolve around users’ needs, expectations, and behaviors, and develop comprehensive policies to protect users’ rights. These policies should include regulations on the legal use of user data, technical security, and product quality control. Furthermore, it’s indispensable to strengthen the public feedback mechanism. Through various channels, we can timely collect users’ openings and suggestions on their application of emergency technologies and popularize basic knowledge, potential risks, and benefits of such technologies to users. Thank you.

Ahmed Farag: Thank you so much. And now I would like to go to the floor. This is the interactive part of the session, the fun part actually, the part that you are playing the most important thing that you are sharing with us your experience or sharing with us your question for our discussion balance. So let me give you the floor. Okay. If you have any comment, intervention, anything that you would like to share about your experience in your region or sub-region, national.

Audience: Hello. My name is Ali Miro. I am here as a representative of one of the leading telecom companies in our region, which is called Kursan region, northern of Iraq. We are providing one of the latest services of technology, which is the 4G advanced. And as His Excellency Mr. Ano mentioned that we are now the leaders of the telecom services in our region by SEO. We presume to continue for more. Maybe we can provide the newest technologies such as 5G in our region. Also, as His Excellency mentioned, we as a new telecom, as we are working on to produce a tier 4 data center, which is for the first time in Middle East. This data center is 12,500 square meter, which is one of the biggest in the area. And we can provide more services such as cloud to not only internal, but international telecommunication or other companies which are in this field. And we’re really proud of what we are doing at the moment. And as I said, we keep continuing for the best and providing and cutting edge technologies, of course, by using the Excellency’s support and connecting our private sector to the public, which really helps and shows the way that our company wants to provide the services to the area. Thank you so much.

Ahmed Farag: Thank you so much for sharing this information with us. Thank you very much. And now we’ll go to Mr. Qusayesh Shati. Mr. Qusayesh is the first UNHCR Chair in the Arab region. Qusayesh Shati from the Arab IGF community.

Qusai Al-Shatti: First, let me commend you all on such activities and initiatives that we heard. We at the Arab IGF, if I were to talk from the start and where we reach right now, and let me take this opportunity to announce that we are going to have our next meeting in Amman, Jordan, between the 23rd and 26th of February. This is where the next Arab IGF will convene, hopefully. We saw the nature of our activity. It’s a mix between capacity building, taking initiatives, facilitating policymaking, and really bringing the community as all stakeholders together. As good as it looks, it’s a diverse role for the NRIs, or the regional IGFs, between capacity building, taking initiatives, policymaking, or let’s say advocacy, or bringing the community together. But from your experience, and from how you saw your NRIs develop, what do you see specifically talking about NRIs or regional IGFs rather than a global IGF? Is it more into facilitating policymaking, or more into capacity building, or taking initiatives, or we need to focus on bringing the community or the stakeholders together? Where do you see we should more focus or we should more put our efforts in rather than going into a diverse activity? It’s just a hypothetical question, too.

Ahmed Farag: Thank you so much.

Eliamani Isaya Laltaika: Thank you very much. I’ll give a perspective from Tanzania. For us, we very much focus on capacity building, but recently we have started initiatives to break the gap between the poor and the not-so-poor, the rural and the urban, take the unreached by bringing connection. Our president or vice… won an award and also got projects to take internet to secondary schools in very, very rural areas. So we are not yet very good in policy influence. We are more capacity building and also projects that empower community at grassroots.

Renata Mielli: Thank you for the question. I think in Brazil, and I talked a little bit about the regional, like IGF too, but in Brazil we are focusing in capacity building, but also in sharing perspectives and seeking for how to understand the different approaches of each sector regarding some specific and important topics like the regulation of artificial intelligence, for example. We are dealing with this in our IGF, regional IGF, besides we don’t use our IGF to do policy making, but at the end of the day, all the discussions we have has an impact on policy making, not only the regional IGF, but other initiatives we have in terms of, we have data protection seminar, for example, all the discussions we made for 15 years built a consensus in the community, private sector, government, civil society. society and academia that contribute to approve data protection law in Brazil. So I think these two things work together, hand by hand. And regarding the regional IGF, the Latin American IGF, I think we are in this moment focusing more on capacity building. But I am certain that we are going to move for the next level briefly. Thank you.

Ano Jawhar Abdulmaseeh Abdoka: Okay. Mr. Aziz, regarding this topic, I would like to answer you in Arabic, for every article, for every news story, and for every era, a country and men. We, with our IGF in Iraq and in Kurdistan region, and also the Middle East and Arabic IGF, we are also more focusing on capacity building and also for regulations. What they can do, as I mentioned, there are some difficulties in our countries, as not specifically to Kurdistan region, but to other parts of our country, about what’s the rule, the main rule of government, is regulation or operation. And as our partners mentioned, in our region, it’s more government going toward regulation and then operation, giving the private sector companies, such as Nowruz, Fastlink, Dell, Seven Net Liars, SART, and other companies, the other applications. So yes, we need IGFs, regional and also national IGFs, and their role is very important. Thank you.

Ahmed Farag: Now I’ll give the floor for our colleagues from the internet, online participation. Questions here?

Judith Hellerstein: We’ve got a couple of questions here. Oh, sorry. We have a couple of questions here. Oh, and this is not, it’s Judith Hellerstein,, not Carol Nadosi. Okay. We have a couple of questions here. First, from Iyab in Ethiopia, who’s interested in finding out the… strategy to advance 5G in Africa. And then also from Tahid, he was interested in finding out how do geopolitical tensions impact the safeguarding of critical infrastructure beyond borders? And if we could add one more, which you could choose also answer is, do you have any recommendations for local and regional IGFs to better follow the themes from policy makers?

Eliamani Isaya Laltaika: Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you. I will address that from the DOSI on Africa. Like I said, we in Africa, our biggest tool is PPP, sorry. Always on PPP because I’m an academic and I prepare presentations. But really, we invite anyone who wants to invest and I’m happy Kurdistan is here, the minister is here with investors, is a wonderful picture. I think our ministers should learn from you that you are doing it practically, you can show that these are the guys who are doing it. And so that is one, we are inviting everybody. I want to be specific to my country. Last week, our president, Dr. Samia Suluhu Hassan, made a small reshuffle to our cabinet. And she said specifically to the minister of communication that I’m reducing information or journalism issues in your ministry to allow you to focus. on ICT, so it is a whole ministry on ICT. And the minister is here, I think you will see him around. He has been tasked by our president to explore every possible means to bring us cutting edge technology, be it G5 or blockchain or IOT, anything that will catapult us to be a part of the global economy. And I know the minister is a young lawyer, very energetic. If he comes and rub shoulders with a fellow minister here, I’m sure something may happen. We may probably be visited by my brother there to take us to G5. Thank you very much.

Ahmed Farag: Thank you.

Ano Jawhar Abdulmaseeh Abdoka: Something 5G, and by the way, you have an open invitation to Kurdistan. Yeah, thank you. All of you. Concerning 5G in Iraq and in Kurdistan region, we still have different perspectives. Kurdistan region government believes that the government must be more pro-regulation than operation. This is not the case with our partners in Baghdad. In Kurdistan region, we are ready for deployment of 5G technology since two years ago and until now. But unfortunately, we are banned from deploying 5G technology because of regulation from the federal government in Baghdad. Even this is not a constitutional decision. The constitution of Iraq as a federal country does not give the authority of this field only to the federal government. What is now known to us is that there’s a federal decision by the federal government for creating the fourth company of telecommunication, and it will be run by the government, which is really 100% different from our perspective in Kurdistan region. In Kurdistan region, we support, we empower to have a powerful, big private sector with powerful, small public sector that is regulating and supervising the private sector. So there are different perspectives. Still, we are negotiating that with our partners in Baghdad.

Ahmed Farag: I’m sure this situation will be solved soon, Shalva.

Renata Mielli: Hello. Hello. Just about the questions that mentions the geopolitical tension, the words, and how can we, as internet governance, digital governance, and the governance of emerging technologies, how we deal with this context. I think, first of all, we have to find ways to build some recommendations and consensus regarding these aspects in this kind of space like IGF. That’s maybe a starting point about how we build some common ground and framework to bring to our government and to multilateral spaces regarding the risks and the opportunities in terms of regulation and development and use of these technologies. And I think we have our own problems in our countries. Each country has its particularities in terms of political, cultural, and social. aspects, and we have to have the wisdom in how to use this common ground that we built together and to, in the benefit of a good best practice and use of this kind of new technologies.

Audience: You hear me? Good. Thank you so much everyone for the excellent presentations and I think it was a very good opportunity for everyone to share experiences and we have been learning actually from other contexts. There will be a lot of lessons learned to incorporate into our system as well. I had one question to His Excellency Dr. Anno regarding the promoting accountability for the companies like Meta, TikTok for example, that they usually run the platforms remotely because they have regional offices oversighting the operations in Iraq. And now as per the latest data, the percentage of Iraqis having access to internet is 70% with 65% like around that number using social media. And so there are a lot of issues with content moderation, there’s a lot of issues with fact checking and all those platforms somehow, especially for Kurdish language, which is our region, Kurdistan region. I wanted to ask His Excellency how he’s visioning the promotion of accountability in the future and engaging them in addition to the federal government to promote that in the future. Thank you. Thank you.

Ano Jawhar Abdulmaseeh Abdoka: Thanks to our colleagues at IGF Kurdistan and Iraq, our national IGF, and his colleagues, we had a very productive meeting with representatives, with regional representatives of TikTok. And as they informed me, approximately 25 million users, active users, in Iraq and in Kurdistan region. I asked them to visit Kurdistan region and to start negotiations with our law enforcement agencies and also with the ministry in order to address the challenges that you mentioned. So of course it’s important to speak, to have relations with the platforms of social media in order to protect the challenges, to protect our people, the privacy of our people, and also to address the challenges that’s coming with the spread usage of social media. Thank you.

Audience: Thank you so much, and now we’ll take a look at it. Thanks. Okay, now, if it’s possible, I want to ask a question from the different regions that are sitting there for the presentation. First of all, thanks for this great presentation. My question is more about the internal relation between health and the real internet, let’s say the 4G. Because now I’m not talking about the 5G because it’s all around the world. So I believe that now it’s been 10 years that 4G technology is officially working around the world. So we are, from our, let’s say, country, we are facing some problems that some people are thinking that this type of technologies, this type of frequencies are not good for their health. So I want to know that it is the same case in other regions, if it’s possible, if one of them, if any of them has seen any of these situations in their region.

Ahmed Farag: Thank you so much. Can you give us a reason? Oh, oh. for all different regions here?

Renata Mielli: Well, I think it’s important to understand the 5G as an important infrastructure to make, to have more quality in regards to access the digital applications and the infrastructure and even the internet and connecting all these devices. And I think it’s central and we have to understand the role of, because in the Brazilian perspective, I need to say that we have a structure, a governance structure that we have an agency to deal with the infrastructure and telecom infrastructure and we have another body to discuss what have been in the surface of this infrastructure. So I think this is a very important thing and thank you, but we are now, we have a very important we are developing this 5G and this technology, but in case of the internet governance, we don’t deal with this a lot in Brazil.

Eliamani Isaya Laltaika: Like you said, 4G is the current valuable resource really. And for us, we only get to hear about 5G from investors and big companies, telecom companies. companies, otherwise 4G is quiet enough for middle-income companies, for academics, for everyone. So the war of attracting 5G does not affect most of Africa so much because even 4G is not well spread. So we are waiting but we are hoping that there will be equitable, there will be justice, the geopolitics will calm so that this device or these facilities are deployed everywhere. It’s becoming an essential facility so every community from Kurdistan to Yassaland to Botswana everybody should be freely able to deploy 5G and continue its development. That’s what I wish that the international community starts looking at the Internet as an essential facility for human development and not for some patches because that will increase the gap between the poor and the rich. It will concentrate powers in one area so I’m hoping that future IGFs will discuss this so that we can have equity.

Ano Jawhar Abdulmaseeh Abdoka: As a government we don’t look to 5G as a luxury, we look to it as a necessity. Our people, Kurdistan region people deserve to have 5G Internet for transportation and many other services to countrymen in Kurdistan region. So what we think after good consideration with the Ministry of Health, yes it is safe to deploy 5G in Kurdistan because our people deserve to have 5G connectivity in Kurdistan. That’s the the legal and the official position of our ministry. Thank you.

Chin Lin: Okay, in China, I think this is not a typical problem because we have provided 5G service more than five years to their customer. I think nobody concerned about the health of the 5G. So I don’t think it’s a typical problem. And this topic discussed in ITOD department is a topic. We have some research results to support the input to the ITOD department.

Ano Jawhar Abdulmaseeh Abdoka: Mr. Ali, you need to get her contact information and get the reports, please.

Kossi Amessinou: Okay, we have more three questions. One, two, three, okay. Thank you, Ahmed. I’m Kosi. I’m a Sunni, I come from Benin. I come from Ministry of Economy and Finance in Benin. I’m also the chairperson of one NGO called Women Be Free. For me, when we talk about emerging technology, I don’t know if it is normal to talk about 4G. 4G, for me, is good. We need to talk about 6G. 6G, for me, is the emerging technology, not 5. 6G is our emerging technology. We need it for precision. We need today to have our women being very freely for us. When I’m a ski, I have… I have some problem with my doctors or school somewhere. In school, in hospital, in agriculture, I need precision in everything I need to do with technology. It’s not normal to have agriculture like we are doing since 100 years before now. It’s not normal. We need today technology we have today for our women being today. It’s not for tomorrow, it’s for today. Please, call our technology to be available for every person in developing country, in developed country, today, not for tomorrow.

Lillian Chamorro: Thank you so much. Okay, this is more a comment about the question. My name is Lillian Chamorro, I work with Black IGF, that is the IGF of Latin America. We want to say about that it is also for capacity building and also for bringing community together and that it has an impact in policymaking and despite it, we are not creating policy there, but I think it has an impact, but it would have something that is just what we are speaking. Each country have a different view of the technology. We listen now, we are thinking in 4G, we are thinking in 5G, we are thinking in 6G. Yes, then I think that the energy. the IGF in each country, in each region, have that capacity to take some technology and I said, like, make ground, like, have that technology, but in our context. And what is what is important for each country? What is what we want to discuss about that technology? That technology is affecting our country. Then is, I think that the NRIs countries, I mean, are a kind of appropriation of that technology, because there is where we find the opportunity to discuss what is important for each space. Just that. Thank you.

Audience: Go to my friend, Omar. As-salamu alaykum. This is Omar Sharaf, Libyan IGF. It’s more a comment than a question, but the guy who is, you know, concerning this comment is Mr. Qusay Shati. He is, he was asking about the role of the NRIs and, you know, the benefit of having such platforms. In our point of view, the local, at least in Libya, the local IGF was a tool just, not just for the capacity building or for the awareness campaigns regarding the emerging technologies or the, but it was the, you know, the platform for making the multi-stakeholders aware of the policy process. So we like a lot of, you know, policies to regulate our internet ecosystem in the country. So we had to have this platform to make the policy process more easy and more convenient for our stakeholders. Thank you. Thank you, Omar, for your information and your work on this. Thank you. And I just want to talk about the context of Africa. Yes, a number of things have happened in continent, looking at way back where we started from, or let me just say just from 2011 up to now, there has been a lot of improvement. We need to do more, and IGF have contributed a lot within the continent of Africa. We know how technology is growing very fast, and then we also have to adapt to that changes. So to adapt to that changes, the first thing that we need to be doing is to look at our educational sector. That is where I think transformation should begin from. The next generations that are coming are all coming from the educational sector. We need to have a kind of programs, or let me say syllabus updates, that when students are coming out from the universities or schools, and then are feeding into the workforce, then that transfer of knowledge is there. So when they get into that workforce, the changes that we are looking for will happen. Now the other side of it is the regulations and all of that. Now we have emerging technologies coming. Governments in our part of the world are quick to formulate rules and regulations and all of that, and also sometimes they tend to forget about the innovation part of that technology that is coming. So we should also look at that. We are not saying government should not regulate. Government can just look at that particular technology that is coming, look at it carefully and see which part of that needs to be regulated. If you take AI for example, privacy concerns is one. We all know we have our cultural concerns and all of that. So those are the areas government can look at. Now things of national security, those are the areas that government can look at and then begin to think, okay, let’s regulate. And those aspects that need to go to the community, should go to the community to promote innovation and all of that.

Ahmed Farag: Thank you so much. And now we will take Dr. Hosein Badran, our last speaker.

Dr. Hosein Badran: Thank you, thank you so much. My name is Hussain Badran. I’m a member of the Canadian IGF, but also a long-time member of the Arab IGF. From a Canadian perspective, and this could also be something to get input from the panel on, we have seen the IGF community quite interested in having a say in policy or proposed policies that the government, federal government, intends to put together. For example, regarding AI governance, there is already a governance structure in place, but how will this impact the internet? How this can be deployed? What are the ramifications? It’s something that we have been discussing with experts in Canadian IGF meetings for the last two and a half years to three years. The recent framework on online harms, which is an area to try to regulate and minimize the effect on content, on social media, on online in general. child abuse, terrorism, pornography, and so on. There’s regulation being proposed in Parliament, so IGF. Kenya IGF is a platform where experts convene and we invite parliamentarians, we invite, in some cases, ministers to come and have an open conversation. Youth IGF in Canada recently also invited the Minister of Justice to come, and he’s a champion of the online harms bill, to come and discuss the details and how we can collaborate in perhaps getting the concerns from civil society, from academia, from the private sector addressed. This kind of forum, is this something that is acceptable or this can be promoted for the communities in the respective countries? This would be a question, thank you.

Ahmed Farag: Excellent. Yes, okay, now we will give the floor in 30 seconds. 30 seconds, yes, for each one, okay. I will give you my service, you have one, you take it.

Chin Lin: I’m very glad to share and learn more from the session, I hope to have more coordination in this IGF.

Eliamani Isaya Laltaika: Let’s work together, and welcome to Dar es Salaam for Africa IGF next year.

Renata Mielli: I appreciate what Lilian brings, exactly, I completely agree, and the Canadian, yes, the regional IGFs needs to be all these things together but fits on the each country reality, each region reality. That’s the wisdom we have to share with each other. There is no model, I think that’s the. message. There is guidelines, but there is no model that fits all. That’s it. Thank you.

Ano Jawhar Abdulmaseeh Abdoka: To sum up, the magical word is collaboration and mutual understanding. And it must always be a win-win situation.

Ahmed Farag: Thank you so much. Yes, indeed. I think the collaboration between all the stakeholders is the key word, and keep the dialogue channels between all stakeholders. It will be the only exit door for any situation that we are facing. Thank you so much. Thank you so much for joining us today. Thank you so much for attending. Can we take a photo for the banner, please? Thank you. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Agreement Points

Importance of multi-stakeholder collaboration

speakers

Ano Jawhar Abdulmaseeh Abdoka

Renata Mielli

Eliamani Isaya Laltaika

arguments

Establish forums for regular dialogue among stakeholders

Serve as a platform for multi-stakeholder dialogue

Promote public-private partnerships for technology development

summary

Speakers agreed on the importance of collaboration between different stakeholders, including government, private sector, civil society, and academia, to address challenges in emerging technologies governance.

Focus on capacity building and knowledge sharing

speakers

Renata Mielli

Eliamani Isaya Laltaika

Chin Lin

arguments

Promote knowledge sharing and consensus-building

Invest in STEM education and research centers

Establish joint laboratories to facilitate knowledge exchange

summary

Speakers emphasized the importance of capacity building, education, and knowledge sharing initiatives to bridge the gap in emerging technologies between developed and developing countries.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the importance of investing in and equitably deploying advanced technologies and infrastructure to bridge the digital divide between urban and rural areas, as well as between developed and developing countries.

speakers

Ano Jawhar Abdulmaseeh Abdoka

Eliamani Isaya Laltaika

arguments

Invest in high-speed infrastructure and nationwide broadband expansion

Focus on equitable deployment of advanced technologies

Both speakers highlighted the importance of regional IGFs in addressing specific technology needs and contexts, emphasizing that there is no one-size-fits-all approach to internet governance and emerging technologies.

speakers

Renata Mielli

Lillian Chamorro

arguments

Address region-specific technology needs and contexts

Serve as a platform for multi-stakeholder dialogue

Unexpected Consensus

Importance of 5G technology for development

speakers

Ano Jawhar Abdulmaseeh Abdoka

Renata Mielli

arguments

View 5G as a necessity for development, not a luxury

Consider 5G as essential infrastructure for digital applications

explanation

Despite representing different regions and contexts, both speakers agreed on the importance of 5G technology for development, viewing it as essential infrastructure rather than a luxury. This consensus is unexpected given the different levels of technological advancement in their respective regions.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement among speakers included the importance of multi-stakeholder collaboration, focus on capacity building and knowledge sharing, investment in infrastructure, and addressing region-specific needs in technology governance.

Consensus level

There was a moderate level of consensus among the speakers on key issues, particularly on the need for inclusive and collaborative approaches to emerging technology governance. This consensus suggests a growing recognition of the importance of multi-stakeholder engagement and context-specific solutions in addressing the challenges and opportunities presented by emerging technologies. However, there were also some differences in emphasis and priorities, reflecting the diverse contexts and experiences of the speakers.

Different Viewpoints

Focus of regional IGFs

speakers

Qusai Al-Shatti

Renata Mielli

Eliamani Isaya Laltaika

arguments

Focus on capacity building and facilitating policymaking

Serve as a platform for multi-stakeholder dialogue

Focus on capacity building, but recently started initiatives to break the gap between the poor and the not-so-poor, the rural and the urban

summary

Speakers had different views on what should be the primary focus of regional IGFs, ranging from capacity building to policymaking facilitation and multi-stakeholder dialogue.

Approach to emerging technology governance

speakers

Renata Mielli

Ano Jawhar Abdulmaseeh Abdoka

arguments

Focus on comprehensive frameworks rather than technology-specific governance

Develop inclusive policy frameworks addressing ethics, privacy, and security

summary

While both speakers advocate for inclusive frameworks, Renata Mielli argues for a more holistic approach across technologies, while Ano Jawhar focuses on specific aspects like ethics, privacy, and security.

Unexpected Differences

Perception of 5G technology

speakers

Ano Jawhar Abdulmaseeh Abdoka

Kossi Amessinou

arguments

View 5G as a necessity for development, not a luxury

Push for more advanced technologies like 6G for precision services

explanation

While most speakers focused on the importance of 5G, Kossi Amessinou unexpectedly argued for skipping directly to 6G technology, which was not in line with the general discussion about current technological needs.

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement revolved around the focus of regional IGFs, approaches to emerging technology governance, and the prioritization of different generations of mobile technology.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among speakers was moderate. While there were differing opinions on specific approaches and priorities, there was a general consensus on the importance of technological development, inclusive governance, and bridging the digital divide. These differences highlight the complexity of addressing technological advancement in diverse regional contexts and the need for flexible, context-specific solutions.

Partial Agreements

Both speakers agree on the importance of infrastructure development, but Ano Jawhar emphasizes government-led initiatives, while Eliamani Isaya Laltaika advocates for public-private partnerships.

speakers

Ano Jawhar Abdulmaseeh Abdoka

Eliamani Isaya Laltaika

arguments

Invest in high-speed infrastructure and nationwide broadband expansion

Promote public-private partnerships for technology development

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the importance of investing in and equitably deploying advanced technologies and infrastructure to bridge the digital divide between urban and rural areas, as well as between developed and developing countries.

speakers

Ano Jawhar Abdulmaseeh Abdoka

Eliamani Isaya Laltaika

arguments

Invest in high-speed infrastructure and nationwide broadband expansion

Focus on equitable deployment of advanced technologies

Both speakers highlighted the importance of regional IGFs in addressing specific technology needs and contexts, emphasizing that there is no one-size-fits-all approach to internet governance and emerging technologies.

speakers

Renata Mielli

Lillian Chamorro

arguments

Address region-specific technology needs and contexts

Serve as a platform for multi-stakeholder dialogue

Key Takeaways

Comprehensive governance frameworks are needed for emerging technologies rather than technology-specific approaches

Bridging the digital divide requires investment in infrastructure, education, and public-private partnerships

Regional and national IGFs play important roles in capacity building, facilitating policy discussions, and addressing local contexts

5G and advanced connectivity are seen as necessities for development, not luxuries

Collaboration between stakeholders and maintaining open dialogue is crucial for addressing challenges

Resolutions and Action Items

Establish forums for regular multi-stakeholder dialogue on emerging technology governance

Develop inclusive policy frameworks addressing ethics, privacy and security

Invest in STEM education and research centers to build local capacity

Promote public-private partnerships for technology development and deployment

Strengthen public feedback mechanisms on emerging technology applications

Unresolved Issues

How to balance innovation and regulation for emerging technologies

Addressing health concerns related to 5G and advanced connectivity technologies

Resolving tensions between federal and regional governance approaches (e.g. in Iraq/Kurdistan)

How to ensure equitable global access to advanced technologies like 5G/6G

Determining the optimal role and influence of IGFs in policymaking processes

Suggested Compromises

Focusing regulation on specific aspects of technologies (e.g. privacy, national security) while allowing innovation in other areas

Using public-private partnerships to balance government oversight and private sector innovation

Adapting governance approaches to fit local contexts while adhering to international standards

Balancing capacity building efforts with policy influence activities in IGFs

We are proposing guidelines, we are going to propose guidelines, plans and actions to encourage the development and adoption of local technology infrastructure and applications, as well as reducing dependence on foreign platforms and solutions, and facilitate debate on the environmental impact of emerging technologies, such as artificial intelligence, cloud computing and IoT devices, and propose solutions to minimize energy and resource consumptions.

speaker

Renata Mielli

reason

This comment introduces a comprehensive approach to technology governance that considers local development, reducing foreign dependence, and environmental impacts.

impact

It broadened the discussion beyond just technological adoption to include sustainability and local empowerment, influencing subsequent speakers to address these aspects.

The formula is a pest. P stands for political. If politicians are well educated, they know that this is blockchain. We need this blockchain in order to enable women to access finances. We went to enable, to empower women to use their cell phone to access bank services. They will agree to enact a law that E is economic. We must tell them that you have the power to generate more money through data than even agriculture.

speaker

Eliamani Isaya Laltaika

reason

This comment provides a practical framework for advocating technology adoption to policymakers, linking it to tangible social and economic benefits.

impact

It shifted the conversation towards the importance of educating politicians and framing technology in terms of concrete societal benefits, influencing later discussions on policy-making and stakeholder engagement.

Collaboration should focus on one. Developing inclusive policy framework, governments must establish clear, inclusive, regulatory framework that defines the ethical use of technologies. These frameworks should address privacy concerns, cybersecurity standards, and guidelines for emerging technologies like AI and blockchain.

speaker

Ano Jawhar Abdulmaseeh Abdoka

reason

This comment emphasizes the need for collaborative, inclusive policy-making that addresses ethical concerns and security standards.

impact

It steered the discussion towards the importance of multi-stakeholder collaboration in technology governance, influencing subsequent comments on public-private partnerships and international cooperation.

We need today technology we have today for our women being today. It’s not for tomorrow, it’s for today. Please, call our technology to be available for every person in developing country, in developed country, today, not for tomorrow.

speaker

Kossi Amessinou

reason

This passionate plea highlights the urgency of making advanced technologies accessible to all, especially in developing countries.

impact

It injected a sense of urgency into the discussion and shifted focus towards the immediate needs of developing countries, prompting reflection on the pace of technological adoption and distribution.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by broadening its scope from mere technological adoption to encompass issues of local empowerment, sustainability, policy-making strategies, ethical considerations, and urgency of implementation. They fostered a more holistic view of technology governance that considers social, economic, and environmental impacts, while also emphasizing the need for inclusive, collaborative approaches that bridge the gap between developed and developing nations. The discussion evolved from technical aspects to more nuanced considerations of how technology can be leveraged for societal benefit and equitable development.

How can strategies be implemented to ensure equal access and responsible governance of new and emerging technologies in countries with limited resources and infrastructure?

speaker

Ahmed Farag

explanation

This question addresses the core challenge of bridging the digital divide between developed and developing countries.

How can laws and regulatory frameworks keep pace with the rapid evolution of emerging technologies such as AI, blockchain and quantum computing?

speaker

Ahmed Farag

explanation

This highlights the need for adaptive legal frameworks to govern fast-changing technologies.

What mechanisms can be established to facilitate knowledge exchange and trust-building initiatives between developed and developing countries?

speaker

Ahmed Farag

explanation

This question explores ways to promote collaboration and reduce disparities in technological advancement.

How can governments, private sectors, and all stakeholders collaborate to ensure accountability and transparency in the governance of emerging technologies?

speaker

Ahmed Farag

explanation

This addresses the need for multi-stakeholder cooperation in responsible technology governance.

How can new and emerging technologies be governed in different regions, and what role can regional and international organizations play to ensure fair governance?

speaker

Ahmed Farag

explanation

This question explores the potential for coordinated global efforts in technology governance.

How can policymakers balance innovation, regulation, and laws with technological progress and end-user safety?

speaker

Ahmed Farag

explanation

This highlights the challenge of promoting innovation while ensuring user protection.

How can we ensure responsible and end-user-centric deployment of emerging technologies, and what is the role of the end-user in this process?

speaker

Ahmed Farag

explanation

This question focuses on user-centered approaches to technology deployment.

What is the strategy to advance 5G in Africa?

speaker

Iyab from Ethiopia (online participant)

explanation

This question addresses the specific challenges of implementing advanced telecommunications in Africa.

How do geopolitical tensions impact the safeguarding of critical infrastructure beyond borders?

speaker

Tahid (online participant)

explanation

This explores the intersection of geopolitics and technology infrastructure security.

Do you have any recommendations for local and regional IGFs to better follow the themes from policymakers?

speaker

Online participant (unspecified)

explanation

This question seeks to improve alignment between IGFs and policymaking processes.

How can accountability be promoted for companies like Meta and TikTok that run platforms remotely, especially regarding content moderation and fact-checking in languages like Kurdish?

speaker

Audience member (unspecified)

explanation

This addresses challenges in regulating global tech platforms in specific regional contexts.

Summary

This workshop focused on the importance of multilingualism in the internet, particularly through Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) and Email Address Internationalization (EAI). Participants emphasized that a multilingual internet is crucial for digital inclusion, as a significant portion of the global population does not speak English. They discussed challenges in implementing IDNs and EAI, including lack of awareness, technical readiness, and limited local language content online.

Successful initiatives were shared, such as Egypt’s efforts to create a consistent Arabic online environment and India’s promotion of Hindi domain names and email addresses. Panelists stressed the need for government involvement, suggesting policies to mandate Universal Acceptance (UA) readiness in procurement and encourage local language content development. They also highlighted the role of big tech companies and the importance of grassroots movements in driving adoption.

Looking to the future, participants proposed strategies like bundling IDN domains with traditional ones, offering free internationalized email addresses, and integrating UA concepts into academic curricula. The discussion touched on the potential of IDNs to enhance internet safety by making it easier for users to identify legitimate websites in their native languages. Participants also noted the broader implications of a multilingual internet for AI development and linguistic justice, emphasizing the need to preserve and promote diverse languages in the digital space.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– The importance of multilingualism and internationalized domain names (IDNs) for digital inclusion and bridging the digital divide

– Challenges in implementing IDNs and universal acceptance, including lack of awareness, technical readiness, and content

– The role of governments, tech companies, and other stakeholders in promoting IDNs and multilingual internet

– Successful case studies and best practices for IDN implementation from different countries

– Future innovations and strategies to increase IDN adoption in the next 10 years

The overall purpose of the discussion was to explore how internationalized domain names and a multilingual internet can help connect the next billion internet users, particularly those who do not speak English or use Latin scripts.

The tone of the discussion was largely collaborative and solution-oriented. Participants shared challenges but focused on successful strategies and future opportunities. There was a sense of urgency about accelerating IDN adoption, balanced with recognition that progress takes time. The tone became more action-oriented towards the end as participants discussed concrete next steps.

Speakers

– Xiao Zhang: Moderator, Vice President of China Internet Network Information Center, the board member of APTLD

– Xianhong Hu: Secretariat of Information for All Programme (IFAP), UNESCO 

– Carol Roach: Chair of IGF-MAC, Undersecretary of the Ministry of Economic Affairs, Government of Bahamas

– Abdalmonem Tharwat Galila: Universal Acceptance (UA) Ambassador in Egypt

– Anil Kumar Jain: Chair of UASG at ICANN, Former CEO of National Internet Exchange of India

Expanded Summary of Discussion on Multilingualism and Internationalized Domain Names

Introduction:

This workshop focused on the critical importance of multilingualism in the internet, particularly through the implementation of Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) and Email Address Internationalization (EAI). The discussion brought together experts from various fields to explore how these technologies can help connect the next billion internet users, especially those who do not speak English or use Latin scripts. The workshop was structured around three main themes: why multilingualism is essential to the internet, best practices and successful experiences to share, and innovations to consider for the next decade.

Importance of Multilingualism in Internet Access:

The participants unanimously agreed on the crucial role of multilingualism for digital inclusion. It was emphasized that language barriers currently exclude billions from digital society, with over 60% of the world’s population not conversing in English. Speakers highlighted how multilingualism promotes diversity and inclusion online, allowing users to access the internet in their native languages. The issue was framed as one of choice and language justice, with practical examples provided of how non-English speakers struggle with Latin-script domain names.

Challenges in Implementing IDNs and Universal Acceptance:

Despite the clear benefits, the speakers identified several challenges in implementing IDNs and achieving Universal Acceptance (UA). Abdalmonem Tharwat Galila highlighted a lack of awareness about IDNs and UA among stakeholders, limited readiness of email servers and software for IDNs/EAI, and security concerns with accepting new domain and email formats. He also noted the insufficient Arabic language content online as a barrier to adoption. Other speakers added that many systems and websites are not yet UA-ready, underscoring the technical hurdles that need to be overcome. Specific challenges faced in different regions regarding the use of non-Latin scripts online were discussed, providing a nuanced view of the global landscape.

Strategies to Promote IDN Adoption:

The discussion then turned to strategies for promoting IDN adoption. Suggestions included government policies and procurement requirements for UA, bundling IDN domains with existing TLDs, and offering free IDN email addresses with domain registrations. A grassroots movement to pressure email and tech providers was proposed, along with roadmaps for government and industry implementation. The importance of building UA-ready infrastructure from the start was emphasized, advocating for a ‘UA by design’ approach in new digital projects. Successful stories and efforts taken by countries or regions where IDN environments have significantly improved were shared, including the Raj Mail program in Rajasthan, India.

Role of Different Stakeholders:

The speakers agreed that multiple stakeholders have crucial roles to play in advancing multilingual internet use. Governments were called upon to encourage non-Latin content and IDN use. Tech companies need to prioritize multilingual support, and academia should integrate IDNs/UA into curricula. The role of CCTLDs in helping to get the next billion internet users online was highlighted. It was suggested that UN agencies could lead by example in using IDNs, with a specific proposal for the United Nations to use Chinese and French domain names and email addresses. Consumer demand was noted as a crucial driver for adoption by companies.

Future Implications and Broader Context:

The discussion touched on the broader implications of a multilingual internet for AI development. Concerns were raised about the current linguistic divide deepening with faster technological development, particularly in generative AI and large language models. This observation highlighted the urgency of addressing linguistic diversity not just for current internet use, but for the future development of AI and automated decision-making processes. It was also suggested that multilingualism could potentially increase trust on the internet by facilitating fact-checking in local languages.

Innovations and Future Directions:

Looking towards the future, several innovative ideas were proposed. These included connecting UA and IDN with broader digital inclusion strategies to engage governments more effectively, and the mention of an MOU between ICANN and UNESCO to push forward UA Day and provide information packages to governments. The importance of incentives was discussed, such as ICANN potentially lowering fees for UA-ready platforms. Preserving and promoting the use of endangered and indigenous languages online was identified as a crucial area for future focus.

Conclusion:

The discussion demonstrated a high level of consensus on the importance of multilingualism for digital inclusion and the need for coordinated efforts to implement IDNs and achieve Universal Acceptance. While there were some differences in approach, particularly between top-down government policies and bottom-up grassroots movements, these strategies were seen as potentially complementary. The conversation highlighted the complex, multifaceted nature of linguistic diversity in the digital age, framing it not just as a technical challenge but as a fundamental aspect of digital inclusion, cultural representation, and social justice. Moving forward, the speakers emphasized the need for concrete actions at multiple levels to create a truly multilingual and inclusive internet.

Xiao Zhang: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to our workshop. It’s fantastic to see all of you here today. We’re here to explore the crucial role of multilingual Internet and how it can bridge global connection. You know, every click and every connection matters. That is why we’re talking about IDN and how we can make the digital world inclusive for all. And now we have very short opening remarks. And first, let’s welcome Ms. Carol Roach, Chair of IGF-MAC, and also Undersecretary of the Ministry of Economic Affairs, Government of the Bahamas, to deliver her opening remarks. Thank you. Please.

Carol Roach: Thank you. Distinguished ladies and gentlemen, colleagues, welcome to IGF 2024. I thank the organizers for including me in this very important workshop. Actually, I think it’s very important that even though I have another event, I told Xiao that I will definitely want to say just a quick word with you. So there’s an acronym called FOMO, which means fear of missing out. I will adapt this to say LOMO, left out, missing out. Without multilingualism, not everyone can say my internet. For a vast number of persons, the internet we want means representation to them in their own language. Multilingualism promotes diversity and opens doors. Today persons are missing out on what the digital society has to offer in education and healthcare, as well as socially and economically. We need to put accelerated action behind multilingualism. Those are enablers if we are to connect that part of the 2.6 billion that are unconnected due to some language barriers. I hope you have a fruitful session, and I look forward to your outcomes. Thank you for having me.

Xiao Zhang: Thank you, Carol. Thank you for coming. I know you’re very busy in this event, and I think the community will be encouraged. Thank you. Well, we have, I’ll introduce Ms. Xianhong Hu, the Secretary of Information for all program UNESCO to deliver her opening remarks online. Xianhong, please join us. Thank you.

Xianhong Hu: Hello. Hello. My name is Xianhong from UNESCO. Here are my very warm greetings from UNESCO headquarters in Paris, and I like to echo what has been said by the Chair of MAG, Carol, that language is so important in the global digital inclusion. I imagine language is… is an essential tool for human communication, information, knowledge exchange. To extend, one can use his or her own language to access, can decide to what extent he can really digitally participate and benefit from the digital transformation and the internet. But however, we have to see that at a global level, there are 7,000, more than 7,000 languages, but a very few portion of them are available on the internet and also in the AI models. Basically, mostly, they are still absent, not to mention those indigenous languages. So we perceive a huge linguistic divide. You know, at ITF, we heard so much concern about the divide, but I feel we need more awareness about how linguistic divide has been deepening with the faster development of technology. And this absence limits the universal access, limits the meaningful connectivity, excluding the marginalized groups. So that’s why UNESCO has been working with policymakers, AI developers, technologists, to work to reduce this bias in the database and the output. And today, that’s why UNESCO is here. We do perceive this session so important also because we believe in the new technologies. They have huge power, the potential to merge language bias, to merge language divide, and also to empower the multilingualism. So the good example is exactly today’s subject, IDN. It’s exactly, we can see a good practice to advance the universal connection and to network the next billions. And that’s my first message. Very quickly. My program on the information for all program is working on six priorities. One of them is multilingualism in cyberspace, but I also give you a big picture is also very fundamental to promote multilingualism for advancing other priorities such as information for development. Imagine in many developing country, the language, it is a barrier for them to benefit from the internet and knowledge society, information literacy, information preservation and digital preservation become also crucial, information ethics and also information accessibility. So in one word, we hope that we can enable all the users to create and access the digital content in their local and national languages. Lastly, I’d like to call for actions for all of you and ranging from those governments and also stakeholders really to prioritize language in their national digital policies and inclusion frameworks. And so call for the technical community, private sector companies to leverage those frontier technologies to translate this new technology into a multilingualism ecosystem. We have seen so many good practice today, I hope to hear more about the development of IDN. And very last invitation to all of you, we are organizing an international conference on the language technologies for all 2025 is themed for advancing humanism through language technologies to be held at the UNESCO headquarters in February 24, 26, 2025. I will tap the link that you can all register and the conference will explore the multilingualism’s critical role in fostering inclusive and cross-cultural dialogues and with a focus on how we empower communities. through language preservation and cutting-edge technology. So that’s all I want to say. And I wish today we have a fruitful discussion. Let us work together to enable a future where knowledge and innovation are accessible to all in every language. Thank you.

Xiao Zhang: Thank you, Xiankong. We hope to work together in the future. And now I would like to introduce our distinguished panelists. And to my right is Mr. Abdalmonem from Egypt. And please introduce yourself as briefly as you can. It is my pleasure as the first time to attend IGF 2024 for such a great session about bringing the next billion internet users to become online.

Abdalmonem Tharwat Galila: I am Abdalmonem Tharwat Galila. I am employed by the National Telecom Regulatory Authority of Egypt as a numbering planning manager and responsible for maintaining and operating the IDN CCLD of Egypt, which is called DotMask Arabic One. And also I have many positions within ICANN community. The recent ones are related to CCNSO, which are related to CCLDs as a chair of Universal Acceptance Committee. And also I have a position for UASG, Universal Acceptance Steering Group, as a vice chair of email address internationalization work group. And also I was a member of the Arabic IDN task force for Arabic language for domain names. Thank you.

Xiao Zhang: Thank you. And we have three online speakers. The first is from New Delhi, Mr. Anil Kumar. Please introduce yourself. Say hello.

Anil Kumar Jain: Currently I am chair of UASG at ICANN. And my previous work experiences related to internet was that I was chief executive officer of… of Nixie National Internet Exchange of India. Before that, as a bureaucrat, as a technocrat, I worked for almost 36 years in the telecom major government telecom of government of India. So this is the smallest and brief introduction. Thank you.

Xiao Zhang: Thank you. And also we have Edmund Chong from Hong Kong. Edmund.

Edmund Chong: Hi. Hi everyone. For those of you who know me, this is a topic that is very dear to my heart. For the last 25 years, I have been advocating for IDNs, internationalized domain names and email addresses and the universal acceptance of a multilingual internet. Maybe it’s my failing that this session is still happening, but I’d like to think that, you know, it takes time. The first 10 years was about the technology to develop and be accepted. In the last 10 years, we worked on a lot of the policies that will make a multilingual internet possible. And now is the time to implement. And I’m very excited to look forward to this session where we will talk about how to actually bring it forward and how to actually realize a fully multilingual internet with IDNs and internationalized email address.

Xiao Zhang: Thank you. The next speaker is Yao Jiankang from Scenic. Jiankang?

Yao Jiankang: Hello everyone. Hello host. So my name is Jiankang Yao from CNNIC. I’m chief architect of CNNIC. I have involved IDN worker for more than 20 years. I was involved IDN worker, EI worker in ITF and ICANN. So I love promote IDN and EI all over the world. Thank you.

Xiao Zhang: Thank you. I think we have only maybe 45 minutes left and we have nine questions. It’s huge. So I actually think we have three themes. So I want to, maybe we can go theme by theme. The first theme is why multilingualism is essential to internet for 15 minutes total. And so it actually, I want to cut it to three questions and you can answer the three questions together. Have I made myself clear? And the first question is what specific challenges have you faced or seen in your region regarding the use of non-Latin scripts online? And why, the second is why IDN, EAI, and UA, universal acceptance, matters? And three, why a multilingual internet is a safer internet? So I think the three questions are actually towards why multilingualism is essential to internet. So I want, Dominique, as board speaker, you tell us the piece. Maybe I think for each of us, we do have three to four minutes or not more than five minutes, please.

AUDIENCE: Sure, I am happy to answer this. Actually, for the challenges that affect the uptake of IDN or EAI or even universal acceptance within the Arab region, I will speak on behalf of the Arab region at the moment. Actually, there are three main challenges. The first one is linked to the content. The second one is awareness, lack of awareness. The third one is lack of readiness. The first one that is content, we are here for the Arab region, we are around 25 countries that claims that Arabic is the official or co-official language. With population more than 300 million population who are speaking Arabic, a native or non-native language. And Arabic is the fifth language used at the internet. So how come to have content? is around 3% of the online content to be for Arabic language. More than 300 million Arabic speakers and only have 3% only Arabic language is one of the challenges. The second challenge that I said before is related to awareness. Awareness for different levels of different stakeholders. When I am talking about awareness, I need to consider that we have individuals, we have decision makers, we have technologists, we have business makers, and we have the people, the organization who are interested to have all of these. Actually, the first one for me, and to be in short, the users, the individual, we have different users at the moment. We have English users that are happy, are using legacy domain names or legacy email addresses. We don’t need or there is no need for IDNs. Second type of individual, I could write Arabic, but I couldn’t speak English or write English. At this moment, I could go online and browse the internet and do something like that. But actually, the readiness of the environment is one of the challenges. The third one, I could speak Arabic, but I couldn’t write or read Arabic. So, this is one of the challenges. At this moment, you will go to use the text or voice recognition software, searching for YouTube or for TikTok or write even for social media. But we have a challenge here as well, that phonetics and accent are somehow different, especially for the Arabic script, which is, Arabic is a difficult language, not an easy one. Second, the challenge is related to readiness. Are the environment, are the email server AI certified? to handle such kind of email addresses, Arabic email addresses? No. Are there any software companies have released some softwares or some version of their software claims that are UA ready or AI certified from UAG? No. At this time, if I am an email administrator, I use it to read the release notes of this software. When I see that the provider say that it is AI compatible, it’s okay. I will read that and I will need to have more awareness about this, this one of the challenges. So we have three challenges. The second question I would like to reply is why IDN matters, why AI matters? When you are going to an ATM machine, you have Arabic or English or Chinese or Arabic or English. If I am Arabic, I select Arabic. I will not go for English. If you are going to the airport and want to check the flight status, you will go for the Arabic screen, not for the English one. If you are going to social media, you make tickets or bus through your own language, which is Arabic. So I keep it in trust. It’s confident. I am connected online. This one of the important. For businesses, there is around $9.8 billion USD came from two parts. The people or the individual or organization who would like to keep their identity online and to keep their brand, they will go for IDN, to use IDN or AI. And for other who want to keep his own legacy domain names and keep it as it is, will go for the user level domain names. So see, there’s a business here. For the point of view of government, applying IDNs or adopting IDNs or adopting AIs or adopting universal acceptance. it means the success of digital transformation projects to reach out to a large base of local customers. For technical community, I want to be competent to other competitors inside the market. I wanted to have the fairest chance that I am EI ready, I am UA ready, I am able to hand the next billion Internet users for the diversity of Internet users that will exist online. Sir, the question, I think Raymond will be the best one to answer this.

Xiao Zhang: I’m glad I talked to you. Thank you. Because we have limited time, you, I think the panelists, you don’t need to answer all the questions. You can emphasize something you want. Yeah. Next one may be Abdalmonem. Anil, please.

Anil Kumar Jain: Thank you. Thank you. And thank you, Abdalmonem, for starting the discussions. We have more than 60% of the population and especially in India, more than 82% of the population do not converse in English. So it is very, very important for an inclusive Internet. We have to include all those which are unconnected and we have to remove the language barrier for this. India, in India, we have more than 2000 dialects. But government of India has recognized 22 languages. Citizens are freely using local languages in mobile, especially in WhatsApp and SMS. But unfortunately, in Internet, they are not able to use because, number one, the less number of IDNs which are delegated. Number two, even IDNs are delegated. The websites are not prepared in local languages. I think government of India and Nixie are trying to work out not only to use IDN and EAI in government work, but they are trying to motivate the end users to adopt it. As Abdul Menon has said, AI and IDNs are the tools through which one can enter into internet using their local language and it is well understood that there is no replacement of local language than the mother tongue which somebody uses. So it is important that we should have a very clear, safe internet through which one can interact and they should be able to take the final results, what they desire to do it. The third question is whether it is safe to have IDN and local languages in the internet. Let me tell you that in ICANN, SSAC and USG has worked for the last 10-15 years and we have delivered several modules to ensure the safety and security of a multilingual internet. At present around 11% of the websites word over and around 23% of emails word over are UARID. So that speaks itself that the internet in multilingual is safe and the traffic in multilingual internet is growing day by day, although we have miles to go and we have a lot of targets to achieve. So I would like to stop here. Thank you.

Xiao Zhang: Thank you. And I’ll go to maybe Adam.

Edmund Chong: Thank you. So I guess building on what Anil and Abdalmonem was saying, when we think about IDNs and multilingual internet, it is about choice, which is the issue. You can choose to read in Arabic or you can choose to read in English. So those who say that, you know, we don’t really need it. People can type in the email address or domain name in English, fine. Really, it’s missing the question. The question is about the choice. The question is about the ability to operate in one’s native language. And that’s what IDN is about. That’s why, fundamentally, as we navigate the internet, that is what is needed. It is not just a question of a choice. In fact, the choice leads to the question about language justice. And that’s what I think Xianhong of UNESCO was talking about, especially about the language tech issue, about the indigenous language. You know, I understand that UNESCO is celebrating the decade of indigenous language to preserve indigenous language, but we’re talking about IDNs also about active language. So to say that just a, you know, homogenous world of English alphanumeric domain names and email address is enough is really not the right thing. This is the decade not only to save the indigenous language, but also to make sure that IDNs and the digital world can embrace fully the multilingual internet. And that’s what language justice is about. I think, and this is not just for countries or places where, you know, the majority of people speak language like in Chinese or Japanese or Korean or Arabic, but it’s also about countries like the US or Australia or Canada, where even though the majority speaks English, the systems should pay attention to accept the minority. That’s what we talk about in language justice. Don’t just think of it whether it’s a market opportunity, I think it’s a matter of language justice. Finally, I want to touch on the question about why is a multilingual Internet a safer Internet? Well, one of the things that I’m sure many of you have looked at a cybersecurity training, even in your company or other places, even when I teach my dad to use the Internet and he asks about phishing websites or spam email, how do I avoid being scammed? One of the first things that cybersecurity experts will tell you is to look carefully at the domain name and the email address. Who sent the email to you? What domain are you clicking on? If that domain name or email address is in English alphanumeric, then someone who speaks native language may not be able to spot small changes or differences between a spamming and a malware and an abuse. But if the email is from someone they trust in the name of the native language, it is much easier for them to spot the difference and make the right decision. That is why a multilingual Internet makes for a safer Internet. Thank you.

Xiao Zhang: And we go to Yao Jiankang. I want all of you to be brief because I still want to leave some 10 minutes to the Q&A. Oh, okay, thank you.

Yao Jiankang: China has more than 1 billion Internet users. Many of them are not familiar with the English characters. Currently the content of website are Chinese, but many website domain names are ASCII-based. They can not easily remember the English domain names. For example, Tsinghua University. T-S-I-N-G, H-U-A, dot E-D-U, dot C-N, is not easy for Chinese users, but maybe for English speakers. So, if we use Chinese characters, we can easily remember them. Currently, we cannot, many people don’t know ID and E-I, or Chinese email address or Chinese domain names. Or, the system also cannot recognize it. So many companies still do not upgrade their software to support them. So we should do something. So I also respond to the idea that it will be safer for the future Internet, because we can easily recognize domain names. I think it will be familiar, and maybe the local language users can easily use the mother language to untag the phishing. Thank you.

Xiao Zhang: Okay, we’ll go to this theme two. It could say the best practice and successful experience to share. And we have three questions. The first is, what are some successful stories from countries or regions where ID and environment have significantly improved? And second will be, what efforts have been taken? And third will be, what has challenging challenges facing the implementation of IDN? And maybe you can share some experience or some practice from still from the domain.

Audience: Thank you very much for pronouncing my name correctly. Yeah, thank you very much. Actually, we as a government or as a telecom regulator of EGIT, we are working for a successful model or role model. What is the role model we are thinking about? Actually, we need to have a consistent environment. We need to have Arabic domain name for Arabic content website. And the user could subscribe to our mailing list or to this website using his Arabic email address and receive notification using his Arabic email address. It’s a kind of respect, it’s a kind of accountability of the government or the regulator regardless to the citizen. So we started from early beginning for this role model. We make some labs in order to have E-mail address internationalization environment and already make this environment and already make the labs that are written with the support of our colleagues from Pakistan. And these labs already configured well and there are clear steps. And it already tested with a lot of other countries and already tested inside one of the graduation projects that were related to universal acceptance within the cooperation between the government and the computer science universities in Egypt. Actually, this is the first thing that will conduct the AI test environment. And we have a challenge here that at the time we build the environment for AI inside the telecom regulator or the ministry, we found that the security guys claiming that there are some domain names or some email addresses who are not recognized. It is valid email addresses. They have some issues related to the acceptance of such kind of email addresses. It’s one of the challenges. For the government itself, we have a group of Egyptian universities. We open the challenge with them in order to conduct more than university projects by the year in order to increase awareness for academia about. universal acceptance, or AI, or IDNs. And we use an open chain with the master registrar. We went to our registrar and encouraged them in order to make their application to be universal acceptance ready and also have IDN domain name for their application that used for registering Arabic domain name. Also, one of the challenges we face is that most of the time you are going to use Arabic domain name, you go to English content website. It’s an inconsistent environment. It’s one of the challenges. So as a government, we encourage to have more enriching for the content, Arabic content. Also, we increase the awareness. We use IDNs. We are encouraging to use IDNs for the most popular websites. Also, encourages the registrar to be involved in the adoption plan of universal acceptance. Also, assign a governmental organization some IDN domain names that they could use. And if they have any question regarding that, we will give them a consultancy about the technical issues that are related to IDNs, AI, and universal acceptance. So for the last question about the challenging of implementation, I already covered this while I said that we had this BAM engine or firewall couldn’t handle or couldn’t process such kind of email addresses correctly. It’s one of the challenges. We are stable. Why do we need to change? Why we need to pay extra money in order to have new release of email software without there is no asking from customer in order to have this service? This is one of the related issues. Yeah, I think I have to cut here in order to continue for other presenters. Thank you.

Xiao Zhang: Thank you. You want to take a question? Yeah, please, please.

Audience: Fawad Bajwa from Pakistan. I had a question for all of the panelists that, you know, since the past few days with regards to the discussion of IDNs, there has been discussion between, you know, ICANN staff and other stakeholders that IDN adoption, even until now that we’re reaching, you know, the new GTLD round, has been an issue about capacity building and universal acceptance. But that’s the high-level perspective. What I want to know is what can the community do beyond capacity building and UA to help the adoption of IDNs and to make the use case for IDNs more significant for the next GTLD round, even if you can just, you know, tell me anything between one to five steps that can be done to actually make the IDN adoption and the increased use and the business case stronger before the GTLD program opens up again.

Xiao Zhang: Thank you very much. We want to be interactive. And thank you for your contributions. I would like to go to some online panelists, if someone can respond, or we can. Yeah.

Anil Kumar Jain: Let me take up this question. Thank you very much for this important question. There are various efforts which community can undertake for popularizing multilingual internet. The first, I personally feel the most important factor in all of us is the government. So outreach to the government, explaining to them why it is important for delivering their services and having contact with their people, citizens in the country in their own language. I think this is the most important thing. And within ICANN, we have already started the government outreach. The second most important is the biggest interface which people have. with the people is the big techs. For example, Google, Meta, Apple. These are either the browsers and the social media organizations. If they adopt multilingual internet in their strategy and start building and delivering those aspects to the people, I think that is possible. The third important aspect is preparing the capacity building, as you have already said, and bringing out the new graduates with the capability of UA because this encourages the new software developers to think about UA when they are developing the software as a new. So I think it is important. And then as a community, for example, health workers, for example, education workers, for example, agriculture, for example, financial people or for the startups. If there are success stories about adoption of internet, multilingual internet and the results which are coming out of it, this will give a bigger impact on the community to adopt ITN. The last thing which you said is that whether it is possible to have the results before the start of the new GTLD round. The answer is yes or no, both. Because the new GTLD round is expected to come in June 2026. So we have just one and a half year before we have to start and getting the results. But the outcome and the results and the progress of adoption of IDN and EAI are very increasing. And I am very confident that we should be able to deliver it because now the multilingual internet or universal acceptance is not on talking, but it is a reality, and all people who have to use, they have to showcase the results which are coming out of it, and it is easy to use, it is easy to adopt. So I stop it here. Thank you.

Xiao Zhang: And according to the same truth and a successful experience, I’m not sure, Yao Jiankang, and Anil, you two want to say something and we can skip, maybe.

Edmund Chong: I’m happy to add, especially in response to Fawad’s question, and I will challenge you to a few things. Start a grassroots movement. Get people to send an email a day to your ISP, to Gmail, and let them turn on EAI, let them turn on IDN. They actually have the technology already there. Many of the open source software is already IDN ready and EAI ready. Gmail is EAI ready, but they haven’t turned it on fully. Outlook.com is ready for EIA, but they haven’t turned it on. So start a grassroots movement is what I would challenge you to do if you ask me what someone, you know, by yourself or from the ground can actually do. And then also on the government side, I think it’s important to start a roadmap, whether it’s the government or industry. This is a topic that, you know, it needs a small change, but it is a small change to many parts of your system. That’s why Gmail is having problems. That’s why Outlook is having a problem because you may say that email address and domain names, nobody uses so much of it anymore, but you might be wrong because every single system on the internet probably uses domain names and email addresses. Every user system somehow uses email addresses and that’s the long tail problem. And that’s why you need a roadmap. So I would challenge governments and industry to create roadmaps. Don’t try to change. you know, don’t try to say, oh, I’m gonna fix this one year from now and I’ll fix it. You know, I’ll focus my attention nine months from now. That’s not gonna happen. You need to plan for two to three years in order for the roadmap to actually realize. And that’s the reason is it’s a small change, but it’s a small change to every single part of the system. And then lastly, I wanna touch on, you know, the capacity building. And I know you, you know, I think it’s a, you know, it’s too long-term, but it is part of an important thing. And I look at capacity building in two sides. One is, as Anil mentioned, getting to people early when they learn about networking, when they learn about in the university, they already learn about IDNs and UA, but the other side is also important. When we build new infrastructure, you know, like in China, when we talk about the digital Silk Road or the Belt and Road Initiative, the Asian Development Bank, when they look at new infrastructure, it should be UA by design. It should not be an add-on. It should not, you know, IDNs and UA should not be a second-class citizen. It should be a, you know, it’s fully integrated from the very beginning of deployment. And when you think about capacity building in that way, we can see the end. We can see the end game in the sense that once those infrastructure is in place, they should already be UA-ready. And that’s the other side of capacity building. I think that’s important to advocate.

Xiao Zhang: Okay, and Yao Jiankang, would you add something?

Yao Jiankang: Okay, okay, thank you. I love Anil’s comments. Not talking, UA is in reality, but we should, everyone should do something. Every multistakeholder should do something. Government should issue some policy to help EI and IDN. Users should tell your company to support EI and IDN. The companies should upgrade their system to support the idea. So on the EI, so everyone should do something, then we get a success. Thank you.

Xiao Zhang: Okay. It seems that we are very smooth and we move to the third, the last thing, any innovation to think about for the next 10 years? And we have actually three questions. One is, what role can governments, tech communities, and civil society play in ensuring those adoptions as a stakeholder’s role? And especially a second one, how governments can be motivated to promote IDM-based websites and local contents? And third one is, how could CCTLDs help to get the next billion internet users online? So I think it’s quite something, also can respond to the question. So you please, Abdullahi.

Audience: Very much. Actually, my brother said that question early enough in advance enough in order to be answered. So I will be happy to answer from the perspective of the government. Actually the role of the government, the government have many roles. The first one to encourage non-Latin content to be available for local communities, encourage registrar to publish and market their IDN names for sure and adopt universal acceptance for their systems, open a channel with governmental affiliated organization and encourage them to use IDN for their online services offered for the customers, encourage software companies in order to mandate universal acceptance as a requirement for the new software and develop a new batch for the current used software in order to make it UA ready, make a repository of the email server software or service software in order to have these brands and make a channel with the provider or the vendor for this product in order to ask them that there is a need. for IDN and EI and universal acceptance so they shall make new versions or even new batches in order to be universal acceptance ready. Increase awareness of the different levels, claiming that there is a need of IDN use and IDN, especially for businesses, as we need to declare that there is a huge business behind the adoption of IDN and EI and universal acceptance. And also mandate IDN use and EI certification in the procurement policies, this is some of the snapshot of the goals of the government. I think I have to stop here as I have a lot to say, maybe one hour ahead. Go ahead, please.

Xiao Zhang: And I would like to begin with the biggest CCTLD, maybe Yao Jiankang, you can continue.

Yao Jiankang: Okay, thank you. So DaoXian is the biggest registry for CCTLD. So I think we sell IDN names, currently maybe we only sell IDN names, but users didn’t know what is IDN, so we should tell them how to use IDN. So many CCTLDs sell IDN, so we should have some guidebooks to help users know IDN, how to configure IDN, how to configure EI. So this is a bigger problem. Maybe we sell not only the IDN, but sell the whole system, whole guidebook, tell them the knowledge of the IDN and EI, so we should do more. Thank you.

Xiao Zhang: Thank you.

Edmund Chong: Yeah, so earlier we talked about the new GTLD program. I think in the next 10 years, that’s going to be an important part in the roadmap. With new GTLDs, with new IDN TLDs, I think that’s going to be important. Coming back to the government side and the policy side of things, it was mentioned and I always agree that the government procurement system is important, but we should look at it also kind of like a carrot and a stick. When you think about policy, it’s always important to have both carrot and stick. Carrot side of things is incentives. I think incentives are important and it’s not just governments. In fact, on this particular issue, I think that ICANN can do something as well. Even today, I understand that many of the GTLD platforms are not fully UA ready. Yes, it might be able to take in IDN registrations, but what about email addresses? What about international email addresses and contact information for domain registration? That may not be ready, but incentives could be possible. Even if ICANN lower the fees, for example, it’s slicing the… And it creates an awareness from, you know, from the ground up as well. If you look at the internet, it started from universities. It started from these type of semi-open network. Maybe this is the way to go. And if you think about policies, that’s, I think, the direction that can probably make a huge difference in the next few years.

Xiao Zhang: Thank you. And you.

Anil Kumar Jain: Thank you. Let me start first with an example of the government ccTLD.in and .bharat in India. So there are several efforts by the government because they are delegating the ccTLD. The first is that they have bundled .bharat, which is an IDN ccTLD, with .in. It means that whenever anybody is purchasing .in, .bharat is free. Second, with every .bharat delegation, there is a free EAI, which is given to the consumer. So consumer is getting aware about it. They are using it. And third, the cost of .bharat is lower than .in. So it encourages more and more people to use it. The government of India is now, in addition, what Edmund is saying, that yes, government of India is pushing through the procurement portal to ensure that more and more vendors are UA ready and when they are connected with the government purchases. But at the same time, government is pushing that all their websites, which are public interface, should be UA ready. And there is a great success, which they are able to get it. Now, I want to give one success story in this. Although there is one program which government has started called Mera Desh Meri Darwar, where we have 600,000 villages in the country. And we are building up a cultural portals about every village. So we are program. of having a delegation of 600,000 second-level IDN domains, one for every village. And we are building four websites, which is a UARED website. One more success story I want to say that there is a big state in India called Rajasthan, which has adopted a program called Rail Mail, Raj Mail. And we have built up a system which support 20 million local emails through Raj Mail in Hindi. And Rajasthan, people are using for electricity bill. People are using contacting police. And it is very interesting that all emails which are given to the citizen by government of Rajasthan are absolutely free of cost to ensure that everybody is able to adopt it. So these are wonderful results which have come out from the government efforts. And I support Edmund saying that government should push the academia so that students at the early stage, they are well aware, educated about UA. And they should be, when they graduate themselves, they become a potential UA motivators and ambassadors for multilingual internet. Thank you.

Xiao Zhang: Thank you. Online, I saw Xianhong raise her hand. Xianhong, your turn.

Xianhong Hu: Thank you. I would just like to share what I just heard that several speakers well set out that how government’s role is so crucial in advancing universal acceptance. Because I’ve been working with other governments. I’m wondering why. Idea has been there for decades. Why is progress so slow? And why still now? I mean, from 15 years ago, I heard about this. But now still we’re not. talking about universal acceptance, why still so many governments didn’t really in the game? So really, perhaps the incentive for the governments on promoting multilingualism need to be refreshed and also maybe to connect the UA, connect the idea with a bigger picture like a digital inclusion, like digital divide, et cetera, to make a more comprehensive strategy for the government to deal with. Because I know that in many countries, they might not have a strategy on this domain name particularly, but they are coming up with a national strategy on digital transformation, digital inclusion. And maybe that’s a place where we should really start to engage, to intervene, to introduce, to flag the issues of universal acceptance, to flag the idea, also to flag the multilingualism as a bigger concept to implement. And on the other side also, I’m quite inspired by everybody saying about for the future. I mean, the lack of multilingual content and access and connectivity in the cyberspace is already impacting the digital futures, which won’t be anything of inclusive and multilingual. If you look at the development of generative AI, the generative AI large language models, they are mostly based on the internet content, data they collect from social media and which are not multilingual. That’s why even when you ask an app such as a chat GPT, ask a question in your local language, for example, ask in Arabic, it’s also so much spoken language. You can get the answer in Arabic, but if you look at the perspective, the positions, the aspects, they are still very English. That’s a more deeper linguistic divide and bias this multilingual Internet is going to lead to. So that’s also what I’m concerned that with the lack of multilingualism in cyberspace, we are getting a lack of multilingual AI automated decision-making process and all the other outputs. That can be a huge challenge for our future because it’s not just about knowledge, it’s also about justice. I mean, imagine that the courts’ decision on recruitment and many other social decisions are being driven by the AI models and the algorithm, but which are fed by a very biased, by certain dominant language knowledge and data. So it’s also quite a danger for the future. Last point I would like to share that I also like to respond about the international decade of indigenous language and also the new concept I heard about linguistic justice. Thank you. I think it’s a brilliant concept I learned today. For me, justice or language means maybe a more comprehensive strategy because as I said, in the world, we have 7,000, more than 7,500 languages and 3,400 of them, they are in danger. Basically very few people speak about them. That’s what’s the decade and most of them, they are from the indigenous group, the indigenous languages are not even native or national language. That’s what the decade is. it’s working to preserve those languages. But for the other languages, as you well said, even so much spoken Arabic, Chinese, and Portuguese, Spanish, they are also very, very absent from cyberspace. So that’s another big issue with equal address. Plus, in the future, with governments, again, for national strategy, again, you should consider all the different languages at a different stage and need different interventions. I think time is up, so I stop here. Thank you.

Xiao Zhang: Yes, thank you. And we have five minutes left, and I see two hands raise up, and I need you to be brief. Yao Jiankang, please, your turn.

Yao Jiankang: Okay, thank you. So Chinese government, MIT, has issued a lot of policy to promote IDEA and EI. I also have a suggestion to Xianhong, so maybe United Nations use Chinese domain names, French domain names, Chinese email address, French email address. So if this is a promotion of IDEA and EI, so this is my suggestion. So if you adopt EI and IDEA, this is a bigger step forward to multi-language internet. Thank you.

Xiao Zhang: Thank you. And Edmund.

Edmund Chong: Yeah, so very quickly, I second Jiankang’s suggestion. And in fact, in the last few years while I was on the ICANN board, I pushed for my Chinese name to be on an ICANN email address. I’m almost there. They’re almost ready, but not quite ready. But I think the roadmap is important. I just put my hand up to add to what Xianhong mentioned. Actually, also as part of my work on the ICANN board, I was able to push forward a… an MOU with the UNESCO to push forward both the UA Day and also information to governments. So I understand that the team is working very closely with the UNESCO team to provide information packages to different governments and to have them participate in future UA Days. But even more important is one thing that I think is the index. There is a measure of how ready each different jurisdictions is. And from the ICANN team, we have been working with UNESCO so that different countries can report back on their UA readiness and their adoption of IDNs. And I think that is really going to move the needle and make a difference.

Xiao Zhang: Thank you. I see my colleague online. Would you like to say something? We have only a few minutes left.

Anil Kumar Jain: Thank you. I just want to give one sentence, you know, at the end is that I think push from the consumer and consumer may be a critical aspect in getting the UA ready. For example, I, as an internet user, social media, maybe Facebook, that my content and my report should be should be acceptable in Hindi. Or I push Google that my browser, if I’m typing in Hindi, I should be able to go to the right website. I think this kind of pushing from the consumer may bring a lot of results. Thank you.

Xiao Zhang: Thank you, Anil. Just saw your hand. And anybody else? We have only a couple minutes left. Wala?

Xianhong Hu: If I can add one small thought, because… Brief, I’m sorry. I think a multilingualism can also… internet, not only say, but trust was it because that is such a lack of trust on internet. So much disinformation, fake news. Imagine if all the news information source available in all the local language, if we do the fact-checking, how easy would that be? Thank you.

Xiao Zhang: And I think we’re going to run out of time. And thank you, every panelist. I think it’s really very good discussion because we have interaction and we are responding to questions. And I hope that we can continue the dialogue in the future. And especially I think all the we are in the same field. And each language is beautiful. And we hope actually one day we can serve the internet with our own language. Thank you all. And I propose a group picture. Shall we just just sit here and sit home together. We’re just here. Maybe we can, something like that.

Agreement Points

Importance of multilingualism for digital inclusion

Carol Roach

Anil Kumar Jain

Xianhong Hu

Abdel-Monet Ghalia

Edmund Chong

Language barriers exclude billions from digital society

Over 60% of world population doesn’t converse in English

Multilingualism promotes diversity and inclusion online

IDNs and EAI allow users to access internet in native languages

Multilingual internet is about choice and language justice

All speakers agree that multilingualism is crucial for digital inclusion, allowing non-English speakers to fully participate in the digital world.

Need for government involvement in promoting IDNs and UA

Anil Kumar Jain

Abdel-Monet Ghalia

Edmund Chong

Government policies and procurement requirements for UA

Governments should encourage non-Latin content and IDN use

Roadmaps for government and industry implementation

Speakers agree that government involvement through policies, procurement requirements, and roadmaps is crucial for promoting IDNs and Universal Acceptance.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers highlight the technical challenges in implementing IDNs and EAI, particularly the lack of readiness in existing systems and software.

Anil Kumar Jain

Abdel-Monet Ghalia

Many systems and websites not yet UA-ready

Limited readiness of email servers and software for IDNs/EAI

Both speakers suggest that large organizations and user movements can play a crucial role in promoting IDN adoption by leading by example or applying pressure.

Edmund Chong

Yao Jiankang

Grassroots movement to pressure email/tech providers

UN agencies could lead by example in using IDNs

Unexpected Consensus

Multilingualism enhancing internet security

Edmund Chong

Xianhong Hu

Multilingual internet is about choice and language justice

Multilingualism promotes diversity and inclusion online

While not explicitly stated in their main arguments, both speakers touched on the idea that a multilingual internet could enhance security by making it easier for users to identify legitimate content in their native languages, which is an unexpected connection between multilingualism and cybersecurity.

Overall Assessment

Summary

There is strong agreement on the importance of multilingualism for digital inclusion, the need for government involvement in promoting IDNs and UA, and the technical challenges in implementing these technologies. Speakers also agree on the role of various stakeholders in driving adoption.

Consensus level

High level of consensus among speakers, implying a unified understanding of the challenges and potential solutions for implementing IDNs and Universal Acceptance. This consensus suggests that coordinated efforts across different sectors (government, industry, academia, and user communities) could significantly advance the adoption of multilingual internet technologies.

Different Viewpoints

Approach to promoting IDN adoption

Anil Kumar Jain

Edmund Chong

Government policies and procurement requirements for UA

Grassroots movement to pressure email/tech providers

Anil Kumar Jain emphasizes top-down government policies to promote UA, while Edmund Chong suggests a bottom-up grassroots approach to pressure providers.

Unexpected Differences

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement revolve around the specific strategies for promoting IDN adoption and the role of different stakeholders in this process.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among speakers is relatively low. Most speakers agree on the importance of multilingualism in internet access and the need for IDN adoption. The differences mainly lie in the approaches and emphasis on various strategies, which could actually be complementary rather than conflicting. This low level of disagreement suggests a generally unified direction in addressing the challenges of implementing IDNs and Universal Acceptance, which is positive for advancing the topic.

Partial Agreements

All speakers agree on the importance of government involvement in promoting IDNs and UA, but differ on specific strategies and timelines for implementation.

Anil Kumar Jain

Edmund Chong

Abdel-Monet Ghalia

Government policies and procurement requirements for UA

Roadmaps for government and industry implementation

Governments should encourage non-Latin content and IDN use

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers highlight the technical challenges in implementing IDNs and EAI, particularly the lack of readiness in existing systems and software.

Anil Kumar Jain

Abdel-Monet Ghalia

Many systems and websites not yet UA-ready

Limited readiness of email servers and software for IDNs/EAI

Both speakers suggest that large organizations and user movements can play a crucial role in promoting IDN adoption by leading by example or applying pressure.

Edmund Chong

Yao Jiankang

Grassroots movement to pressure email/tech providers

UN agencies could lead by example in using IDNs

Key Takeaways

Multilingualism is essential for an inclusive internet, as language barriers currently exclude billions from the digital society

Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) and Email Address Internationalization (EAI) are crucial for allowing users to access the internet in their native languages

Universal Acceptance (UA) of IDNs and EAI faces challenges including lack of awareness, limited software readiness, and security concerns

A multilingual internet promotes diversity, language justice, and potentially improves online safety

Government policies, grassroots movements, and industry roadmaps are key strategies for promoting IDN and UA adoption

Multiple stakeholders including governments, tech companies, CCTLDs, academia, and consumers all have important roles to play in advancing multilingual internet use

Resolutions and Action Items

Push for government procurement policies to require UA-readiness

Create roadmaps for government and industry implementation of IDNs and UA

Develop guidebooks to help users understand and configure IDNs and EAI

Integrate IDNs and UA into academic curricula to educate future developers

Encourage UN agencies and international organizations to lead by example in using IDNs

Launch grassroots campaigns to pressure email and tech providers to support IDNs and EAI

Unresolved Issues

How to accelerate the slow progress of IDN and UA adoption despite years of effort

How to address the deeper linguistic divide in AI and automated decision-making processes

How to preserve and promote use of endangered and indigenous languages online

How to increase the amount of non-English content available online, particularly for widely-spoken languages like Arabic and Chinese

Suggested Compromises

Bundling IDN domains with existing TLD registrations to encourage adoption

Offering free IDN email addresses with domain registrations

Lowering fees for UA-ready gTLD platforms to incentivize compliance

Creating a UA readiness index for countries to measure and compare progress

Without multilingualism, not everyone can say my internet. For a vast number of persons, the internet we want means representation to them in their own language.

speaker

Carol Roach

reason

This comment frames multilingualism as a fundamental issue of representation and inclusion, setting the tone for the entire discussion.

impact

It established the importance of the topic and led to further exploration of why multilingualism matters for internet access and participation.

We perceive a huge linguistic divide. You know, at ITF, we heard so much concern about the divide, but I feel we need more awareness about how linguistic divide has been deepening with the faster development of technology.

speaker

Xianhong Hu

reason

This insight highlights how technological progress can exacerbate language divides, adding urgency to the discussion.

impact

It shifted the conversation to focus on the growing challenges of linguistic divides in the digital age and the need for proactive solutions.

When you are going to an ATM machine, you have Arabic or English or Chinese or Arabic or English. If I am Arabic, I select Arabic. I will not go for English.

speaker

Abdel-Monet Ghalia

reason

This practical example illustrates why language choice matters in everyday digital interactions.

impact

It grounded the discussion in relatable experiences, making the importance of multilingualism more tangible for participants.

So to say that just a, you know, homogenous world of English alphanumeric domain names and email address is enough is really not the right thing. This is the decade not only to save the indigenous language, but also to make sure that IDNs and the digital world can embrace fully the multilingual internet.

speaker

Edmund Chong

reason

This comment challenges the status quo and frames multilingualism as a matter of language justice and preservation.

impact

It elevated the discussion from technical considerations to broader social and cultural implications, encouraging participants to think more holistically about the issue.

Start a grassroots movement. Get people to send an email a day to your ISP, to Gmail, and let them turn on EAI, let them turn on IDN. They actually have the technology already there.

speaker

Edmund Chong

reason

This suggestion provides a concrete, actionable step for promoting multilingualism online.

impact

It shifted the discussion from theoretical concerns to practical solutions, encouraging participants to think about how to drive change at multiple levels.

If you look at the development of generative AI, the generative AI large language models, they are mostly based on the internet content, data they collect from social media and which are not multilingual. That’s why even when you ask an app such as a chat GPT, ask a question in your local language, for example, ask in Arabic, it’s also so much spoken language. You can get the answer in Arabic, but if you look at the perspective, the positions, the aspects, they are still very English.

speaker

Xianhong Hu

reason

This insight connects the issue of multilingualism to emerging AI technologies, highlighting potential long-term consequences of language biases.

impact

It broadened the scope of the discussion to include future technological developments and their potential impacts on linguistic diversity and representation.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by progressively expanding its scope from basic issues of internet access to broader concerns about cultural representation, technological development, and social justice. They helped to frame multilingualism not just as a technical challenge, but as a fundamental aspect of digital inclusion and equity. The comments also moved the conversation from identifying problems to proposing solutions, encouraging both high-level policy changes and grassroots actions. Overall, these insights deepened the complexity of the discussion and highlighted the multifaceted nature of linguistic diversity in the digital age.

How can we create a grassroots movement to encourage adoption of IDNs and EAI?

speaker

Edmund Chong

explanation

This could help put pressure on major tech companies and ISPs to fully implement IDN and EAI support in their systems.

How can governments and industry create effective roadmaps for implementing IDN and UA support across all systems?

speaker

Edmund Chong

explanation

Long-term planning is necessary due to the widespread but small changes required across many systems.

How can we ensure new digital infrastructure projects are ‘UA by design’ from the beginning?

speaker

Edmund Chong

explanation

This would help integrate IDN and UA support from the start rather than as an afterthought.

Why has progress on IDN adoption been so slow over the past decades, particularly among governments?

speaker

Xianhong Hu

explanation

Understanding the barriers to adoption could help develop more effective strategies for implementation.

How can we better connect IDN and UA initiatives with broader digital inclusion and transformation strategies?

speaker

Xianhong Hu

explanation

This could help increase government engagement and prioritization of these issues.

What are the long-term implications of linguistic bias in AI and automated decision-making systems due to lack of multilingual internet content?

speaker

Xianhong Hu

explanation

This could have significant impacts on fairness and justice in AI-driven processes.

How can international organizations like the UN promote IDN and EAI adoption by using them in their own systems?

speaker

Yao Jiankang

explanation

This could serve as a powerful example and encourage wider adoption.

How can we leverage consumer demand to push for better IDN and UA support from major tech companies and platforms?

speaker

Anil Kumar Jain

explanation

Consumer pressure could be a critical factor in driving adoption of these technologies.

Summary

This panel discussion at the Internet Governance Forum focused on leveraging technology for healthy online information spaces, addressing the challenges posed by big tech’s power over the digital landscape. Participants from diverse backgrounds, including civil society, international organizations, and government, shared insights on the complexities of the issue.

Key challenges highlighted included the defunding of professional journalism due to advertising revenue shifts, language-specific concerns in content moderation and fact-checking, and the impact on local news and media pluralism. The discussion emphasized the interconnectedness of these issues, linking sustainability of media to the availability of quality public interest information and democratic discourse.

Panelists stressed the importance of multi-stakeholder approaches in addressing these challenges. They discussed various initiatives, including regulatory frameworks like Switzerland’s approach to strengthening user rights and platform transparency, civil society efforts in fact-checking and media literacy, and industry collaborations to redirect advertising revenue to professional media.

The role of artificial intelligence in content moderation was examined, with calls for rigorous evaluation of AI systems, especially regarding vulnerable users. Transparency and accountability of platforms were emphasized as crucial elements in creating healthier information spaces.

The discussion concluded with a call to action for civil society to engage in global governance dialogues on AI and for continued multi-stakeholder collaboration to address the complex challenges in the digital information landscape. Participants agreed on the need for balanced approaches that empower users and protect fundamental rights while addressing the power imbalances in the digital sphere.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– The challenges of big tech’s power over online information spaces, including issues of content moderation, misinformation, and impacts on journalism

– The need for multi-stakeholder approaches involving governments, civil society, media, and tech companies to address these challenges

– The importance of media sustainability and funding for quality journalism in the digital age

– The role of states in regulating platforms while protecting free expression

– Opportunities to leverage technology for healthier information spaces, including fact-checking tools and AI governance

The overall purpose of the discussion was to explore the impacts of big tech on the online information landscape and identify ways to create healthier digital information spaces through multi-stakeholder collaboration and policy approaches.

The tone of the discussion was constructive and solution-oriented. Participants acknowledged the complex challenges but focused on identifying concrete actions and recommendations. The tone became more action-oriented towards the end as speakers discussed specific initiatives and calls to action.

Speakers

– Martin Samaan: Digital Communications Officer at the UN Department of Global Communications

– Claire Harring: OSCE team, Project Assistant

– Julia Haas: Advisor to the Representative on Freedom of the Media, OSCE

– Nighat Dad: Executive Director of Digital Rights Foundation, Member of Meta Oversight Board

– Isabelle Lois: Senior Policy Advisor at Ofcom (Federal Office of Communications), Switzerland

– Aws Al-Saadi: Founder of Tech4Peace and member of the International Fact-Checking Network

– Elena Perotti: Executive Director of Media Policy and Public Affairs at WAN-IFRA (World Association of News Publishers)

Revised Summary: Panel Discussion on Leveraging Technology for Healthy Online Information Spaces

Introduction:

This Internet Governance Forum panel brought together experts from civil society, international organizations, government, and media to address challenges in creating healthier online information spaces. The discussion focused on big tech’s impact, content moderation, journalism’s financial crisis, and potential solutions.

Key Challenges and Issues:

1. Big Tech’s Dominance and Information Control:

– Concerns about tech platforms’ power over online information

– Lack of meaningful consultation with civil society on regulations

– Platforms acting as information gatekeepers without sufficient transparency

2. Content Moderation and Linguistic Diversity:

– Insufficient language support and fact-checking for non-English content

– Over-enforcement affecting journalism, especially in non-English languages

– Lack of fact-checking programs in languages like Kurdish

– Importance of human review in content moderation

3. Financial Crisis in Journalism:

– Shift in advertising revenue from publishers to tech platforms

– Publishers’ ad revenues halved over 15 years

– Projection: By 2024, legacy media to capture only 30% of trillion-dollar ad market

– Disintermediation problem: Tech platforms bypassing publishers to reach audiences directly

4. Media Literacy and Public Trust:

– Swiss study: Only half of the population believes independent media is essential for democracy

– Need for increased awareness about quality journalism’s role in democratic discourse

Proposed Solutions and Initiatives:

1. Multi-stakeholder Collaboration:

– Consensus on involving governments, civil society, media, and tech companies

– Swiss approach: Developing regulatory frameworks focused on transparency and user rights

– Swiss National Action Plan for the Safety of Journalists

2. Alternative Oversight Mechanisms:

– Meta’s Oversight Board as an example

– Need for institutions protecting users’ rights, especially where state regulation is problematic

– Nighat Dad’s emphasis on continuous evaluation of AI curation systems

3. Industry Collaborations for Financial Sustainability:

– Forming alliances between publishers, advertisers, and civil society

– Optimizing local media websites for programmatic advertising

4. Fact-checking and Awareness Initiatives:

– Building fact-checking coalitions, especially for non-English content

– Tech for Peace application: Developed to combat misinformation in Iraq

5. AI Governance and Ethics:

– Call for civil society engagement in global AI governance dialogues

– Meta Oversight Board’s recommendations on AI and content moderation

6. Global Digital Compact:

– Adoption of recommendations to address digital challenges

Unresolved Issues and Future Considerations:

– Effective regulation of global tech platforms from smaller countries’ perspectives

– Balancing freedom of expression with misinformation combat

– Addressing engagement-driven content amplification promoting polarization

– Ensuring local journalism sustainability in the digital age

Conclusion:

The panel emphasized the need for collaborative, multi-stakeholder approaches to create healthier online information spaces. Key actions include developing balanced regulatory frameworks, supporting linguistic diversity in content moderation, addressing journalism’s financial challenges, and promoting media literacy. The discussion highlighted the interconnectedness of these issues and the importance of considering diverse global perspectives in developing solutions.

Martin Samaan: There will you also be moderating? Should I introduce you as well, since you’re on screen?

Claire Harring: In moderating, I can also turn off my camera if it’s more convenient.

Martin Samaan: No, I’ll just introduce Julia, so I might introduce you as well from the OSCE team. Do you have a title you want to give me? Project assistant.

Julia Haas: Ah, hello, hi. Here’s our fourth speaker. Excellent. So we will have an interesting conversation among ourselves, it seems.

Martin Samaan: Some people might be online too, though. I’m not sure if they’re…

Julia Haas: Yes, we see there are 10 people, at least. I don’t know how many are still able to join.

Martin Samaan: How do I pronounce your name? Nijad?

Nighat Dad: Nighat.

Martin Samaan: Nigat?

Nighat Dad: Yes. Nigatad, yes.

Martin Samaan: Thank you.

Nighat Dad: Sorry, I was late. I had a meeting in our parliament area.

Martin Samaan: Oh, that’s okay. I mean, it’s only two minutes past, right?

Julia Haas: Yes, I think we can still maybe give it two more minutes. But then, I guess because we will have to finish also on time, there will be another session in the same room at three? Your time? Oh, we probably shouldn’t wait for too long. But it looks like a very nice menu. Did you join already? A few good sessions, good discussions.

Isabelle Lois: I was just saying that the venue is very nice, but you can’t even see the ceiling. That’s the real highlight. It’s very beautiful, very decorated.

Julia Haas: Okay, okay.

Martin Samaan: It’s a palace.

Isabelle Lois: It is a palace, yes.

Julia Haas: Very nice. Okay, great. And I see we have a few people now in the audience, or I don’t know if they’re still getting or not.

Martin Samaan: I think they are working, yeah.

Julia Haas: Okay, well, maybe.

Martin Samaan: For sure, yeah.

Julia Haas: No, I mean, for us, for sure, but I meant for them. But in any case, I think probably it would be good to start.

Martin Samaan: Yeah, and you said each person has like three minutes to kind of keep their answers relatively short.

Julia Haas: Yes, I mean, now I don’t expect a lot of questions from the audience, from the floor, but it would maybe be interesting. It would be nice to just have a conversation, and then maybe you can really do these two rounds with kind of like first focusing a bit on challenges and way forward. But then maybe there’s also really a possibility for an interactive exchange, right?

Martin Samaan: Yeah, see if anybody. Yeah, and you guys can look on screen, right? I might stay here actually as well.

Julia Haas: We should be able to see. Yes, we see the screen.

Martin Samaan: So I might just ask each of you to introduce yourselves, because it’s nice to hear from. So I’m not just talking for two minutes. So I’m going to turn over. Maybe you can introduce just your trustee, and then I’ll kick it off after. So just a very quick name, title, and where you’re from.

Isabelle Lois: Okay, I’m happy to start. So my name is Isabelle Lois. I work for the…

Martin Samaan: When we start, have we started already? No, right? Not yet. Okay, so we can kick off, I think.

Julia Haas: I think we can kick off. Go ahead. Please go ahead, Martin.

Martin Samaan: Hello, everyone. My name is Martin Samman. I’m with the United Nations Department of Global Communications. I will be moderating this session together with Julia Haas, who you see online, advisor to the representative on freedom of the media with the Organization for Security and Cooperation, or OSCE for short. A warm welcome to everyone. We are here in Riyadh for the 19th Internet Governance Forum. And this workshop is led by our fellows on the screen here, OSCE. This panel will focus on leveraging technology for healthy online information spaces. And with us today, we have a great panel. I’m going to ask you each to introduce yourself briefly, starting with you.

Isabelle Lois: Yes. Hi, everyone. So my name is Isabelle Lois. I am a senior policy advisor at Ofcom in Switzerland, so the Federal Office of Communications. And we work a lot on internet governance, AI governance, data governance, but also on media policy and freedom of expression online and these topics.

Aws Al-Saadi: Hi. I’m Aousis Saadi. I’m from Iraq, founder and president of Tech4Peace, and also IFC and IWF, Advisory Fact-Checking Network. We are working as Tech4Peace for the debunking mis-disinformation and also initial security and digital rights.

Nighat Dad: Hi, everyone. My name is Negatad. I am an executive director of Digital Rights Foundation. We are based in Pakistan. We work on generally digital rights issues related to freedom of expression, right to privacy, tech-facilitated gender-based violence. I have a very keen eye on regulatory frameworks as well, emerging from different jurisdictions. So I’m a senior policy advisor at Tech4Peace. I’m also a senior policy advisor at the Office of Communications. Frameworks as well, emerging from different jurisdictions. And I sit on… looking at the content moderation decisions of the company and holding them accountable.

Martin Samaan: Thank you so much and welcome to the people online and those who have joined us here in the room. Today, we’ll hear about the main challenges of big tech in the information landscape and we’ll identify different stakeholders’ role in addressing the many challenges that arise with this ever-evolving and quickly evolving technology. For nearly two decades, the IGF, the Internet Governance Forum, has been a vital platform and at the forefront of tackling the digital opportunities and challenges that face our world. And as the United Nations’ largest multi-stakeholder gathering, the IGF brings together governments, businesses, civil society and the tech community so that we can all together shape a safer, more inclusive and equitable digital future. So it’s great to have you here at the Internet Governance Forum. I will now pass the floor to Julia online and she’s also joined by Claire Herring.

Julia Haas: Thank you so much, Martin, for kicking it off and introducing. It’s really great to join, at least online. It’s a pity I cannot share the table with you, but it’s great to really have this multi-stakeholder reason that you referred to, Martin, I think also really reflected on this panel. It’s great to see that we have people from civil society, from international organizations, from a state, the meta oversight board, of course, also being a particular body that stands somewhere in between, right? But all fulfill a very important role. So I truly believe that this will be a very important conversation, even if many people will be at lunch. But in any case, I’m very excited to see you all here and also to hear about this UN context and the importance of IGF, which of course the OEC would also agree to that the challenges we’re talking about can only be addressed in a multi-stakeholder manner. So we already briefly heard the title of this session, at least, but just also to give a little bit more context that our intention with this session was really to discuss both kind of the impact of big tech on the information landscape and how state can limit any undue power or control that we see over the information or concentration. But then also on the other side, what can be done in context where maybe states would not be so eager to intervene or where maybe we don’t have a lot of very strong democratic institutions or rule of law standards. So really, how can we find a way forward to address the challenges? And ideally, then in the last step, so to speak, to also see whether and how technology can actually be leveraged for a healthy online information space, which is this overarching title of today’s session. And that is also the name of a project that we are currently working on at the OECD RFM. And in the framework of this project, we are currently working on developing recommendations for states on media and big tech. So within, I mean, as you, Martin, already rightly referred to, of course, in the title of our organization, the representative freedom of the media, the media has a particular, which we also acknowledge in the information landscape, it is about freedom of expression, privacy, many words were already heard. But journalism and independent journalism has, of course, a particular role to play. So we are currently also exploring how media and big tech are interacting, intersecting, what are the particular challenges for journalists and how to address it. And in this context, the context we’re particularly looking at media sustainability, the accessibility and availability of public interest information. So also questions of visibility by platforms and these kinds of things and journalistic protections. And I’m just mentioning this not for purposes of self-promotion, we will be having now is really feeding into this process. This is a multi-month process and we are currently holding several roundtables and discussions, including the conversation we are having today. And we really want to build on all of your knowledge and all of this expertise and experience to feed into the guidance that we will be developing for states before summer next year. So having said that, I’m really very much looking forward to hearing from all of you and learning. from you and see how we can empower the information spaces and also actors that are particularly important for the information in that case. But maybe before we dive into specifics or into the media question already, it would be very useful, I think, for all of us to get a little bit help for setting the scene. And if I may ask you, Nika, to help us with this to tell us from your experience. I mean, you, of course, already mentioned that you not only have great expertise from civil society perspective, from the organization you founded and leading a lot of insights from the meta oversight board, what are the key concerns and what are the challenges? So can you maybe in the outside of this session, tell us what would you consider from your expertise, from your experiences, are the main challenges of big tech power, so to speak, over the information spaces? Thank you.

Nighat Dad: Is this working? Okay, right. Yeah, no, thank you so much, Julia, for setting the scene. Yes, definitely. I wear another hat, which is like sitting on Meta’s oversight board, which is now, it’s been four years and I’m one of the founding members. And I think board is a very unique institution, like one of its, like first of its own kind in terms of, you know, like the accountability and oversight mechanism when it comes to big tech platforms, but in our case, it’s Meta. And I think I come from a very unique perspective, the jurisdiction that I have come from, the rule of law is not really strong, right? So many of us who have been advocating for open, safe, online, accessible spaces, we have seen emergence of regulatory frameworks. And I think we need to keep one thing in mind that these regulatory frameworks emerging from different jurisdictions are not all the same, right? So we have very good example of DSA, which many of us really look towards to and looking forward to the enforcement of the regulatory framework from the Europe on the big tech platforms. But when we look at our own concern and worried in terms of, there is not really meaningful consultations when it comes to multi-stakeholderism, right? So including civil society, when these frameworks are being designed or debated by the government or parties related to these regulatory frameworks, for instance, regulators in our case as well. And then you look at other mechanisms. So you’re like, okay, we are in between two powerful actors. One is state and then another one is tech giants, right? So what kind of other mechanism you have, especially when it comes to users, that you can use to hold tech companies accountable? And I think that’s why I feel that Oversight Board is independent. It is an oversight body. It’s set out as a unique experience and now it has become an institution. And I would encourage people to look into the cases that we have decided. We are a diverse group of people. We are not, you know, like from Global North or folks from Silicon Valley. We are from different regions, diverse backgrounds, diverse experts. And we actually take up cases that sort of like appeals to that, but also where company struggles. For instance, in some of the cases, we have looked into like journalist cases. For instance, on top of my head, this one particular case that we decided in the very beginning of our term, it was the word Taliban, which was kind of wrongfully removed, kind of over-enforced on meta platforms. And this is very much related to South Asia, Afghanistan, you know, and folks kind of know about this in Global North. But we took up this because the over-enforcement was putting hurdles into journalist reporting, who were actually using these platforms. And we took this up, we deliberated on this case, and then we told meta that there is an over-enforcement of this word. So you really need to look into the terms that your community standards and the policies that you have in terms of, you know, sort of regulating such kind of terms. But it was basically to make it easier for media and journalists, especially in South Asia. So this is just one example. But having said that, what I mean to say is looking to the role of states, governments, and the power of tech giants, we should also broaden our own ideas that they are not just regulatory frameworks that we need to look into, but we need to look into other institutions as well, where the, you know, the jurisdictions where states are actually regulating on their own terms and not in a meaningful way, then what are the other institutions who can come to help to the users when it comes to protecting users’ rights on this.

Julia Haas: Thank you so much for giving us this oversight over the overboard work. No, but it’s super interesting to hear the broad variety of the work. And I think what is really particularly useful also for the work of people in this field and for the digital rights community, so to speak, is really to also look at the guidance that is being developed. So it’s not only about individual cases and individual protections, which are, of course, crucially important, as you rightly point out, but also to learn from that and to take it a step further and say, okay, what, how should policies be maybe be adopted, adapted, and what can be done in addition to it? Another thing that I found really extremely useful that you mentioned is really the understanding local perspectives, because it’s really different and this is something that we see over and over again with technology being deployed globally. The impact is very different, especially if we don’t have the same capacities or even language capacities, then it is a bit difficult or the implications might be even worse. I see now that our fourth, fifth speaker has also joined, but couldn’t yet turn on her camera. So maybe while hopefully our technical colleagues can help, spoke about this aspect of understanding local contexts where sometimes with specific words you might have an over-enforcement or under-enforcement, which are both problematic from a human rights perspective, and the context is so crucially important. And this is something where I would like to bring in, as you mentioned this also when we had our preliminary conversation on this, that you have this experience, that also in the context you work on, it’s really different, the big tech challenges, because the context, maybe less strong democratic institutions or less checks and balances, both from the state side as well as from the platforms who don’t deploy the same kind of resources and attention to the regions. Can you maybe build on this a little bit and tell us what your experience is or the specific challenges you would see in this context?

Aws Al-Saadi: Thank you for the question. In general, we are working in both languages, which is Arabic and Kurdish. So in general, the tech companies at the platforms, they are not supporting Kurdish anything. Like there is no program as a third-party fact-checker with META or as a global fact-checking program with TikTok working in fact-checking in Kurdish. So the October that we had an election in the Kurdistan, Iraq-Kurdistan area, there is a lot of misinformation, and even when we expose it, you cannot flag it, because there is no program supporting this language. Even there is more than 60 languages in their program, but still they are not covering this area. And for the Arabic content, they have, for example, I’ll give you an example. In Ukraine, they have an award. There is nine organizations working as a third-party fact-checker. If you go to Spain, which is there is no award, there is five organizations working and as a third-party fact-checker. But if you go with the whole MENA region, you just see two organizations only, which is one of them from France organization, which is the EPI, and the other one is for Turkey, which is the Jordanian. And even there is seven organizations, which is they are signatory by the FCN, because one of the rules that from META or TikTok, if they want to be as a partner for the fact-checking, you need to be a signatory from the International Fact-Checking Network. There is seven organizations from the Arabic region. They are signatory. And even no one from just one of them, which is FATABENU, they are as a third-party fact-checker. And the other side also for the gaps that we have in the Arabic language is after 7 October 2023, what’s happening between Israel and Gaza, there is a lot of restriction on the Arabic content. Even as fact-checkers, when we are… are exposing fake news. They flag our content that we are separate fake news. But in reality, it’s because of the automation. They take the pictures that we are exposing it, and they flag it as a fake news. And the sources, sorry, the links for the fake news is not flagged. So instead of fighting the fake news, they are flagging the organization in Arabic that’s working to expose it. And because we are a trusted partner with META, from 2019, so we send it to them like, look, we are exposing it, we’re not publishing. And then they just restore the content. And even they didn’t solve it completely for the Arabic content in the region. But if you have a relationships, like if you have connections with them, then they will restore your content. If you don’t have it, you will appeal. I know a lot of organization and a lot of users, influencers, journalists, human rights defenders, their accounts like stopped because they taken down. When they appeal, it’s the automation, those doing it, there is no human person reviewing it. And then it’s go again as a rejection. And the other things, which is the AI tools. As a technology, usually most of the AI tools, you can find it started in English language and for the fact checking, but in general, for the Arabic, it’s not supported. So this is, this gap is difficult because if you want to build your own tools, you need funding, you need to work a lot with this technology issues. And it’s in that time. And also I’m talking about the media literacy. We have it’s really low media literacy in our region. And around 30% people inside the region, they are not connected to the internet. And I give you an example for Iraq, most of the channels belong to the parties and it’s not independent. So if they have some kind of campaign with this information, the people will believe it. And then in the election, they will going to vote for them. And I will stop from here, there is the points, but it’s better to have more conversation from the outside. Thank you.

Julia Haas: Thank you so much. It’s really, I think you really greatly underlined the interconnectedness of it all, right? And you really say there are so many different layers to the challenges, but then technology is not necessarily helping, but might even perpetuate some of these challenges if there are biases or no language knowledge or attention or even fact-checking partners and entrusted partners and all of that. So it’s really important to see how different kind of what angles can be leveraged and how can then the entire ecosystem ideally benefit from it. The second point that I found really important that you mentioned is the necessity to have a human in a loop. This is really this kind of thing that has been called for by civil society and many actors for the entirety of the conversation around content moderation. But I think you pointed out to the fact that particularly in contexts where the language or the automation is less specific with regard, for example, to the Arabic language, it’s a bit difficult, even worse and more difficult. So thank you for outlining this. I wanted in this first round of better understanding the complexities of the issues when we speak about information spaces and big tech and technology also really bring in the particular component or the particular aspects of journalists, because this is something that both of you touched upon already a little bit in the sense of how journalists are affected in your respective work and your respective areas. But we know also from the global media scene that big tech has challenged or provides challenges to journalism also on other levels because of these dependencies that have been created when we speak about the distribution, when we speak also increasingly about generation as you all know. So I wanted to bring in Elena Parotti. We had a very brief introduction before, before you joined. So maybe you can also start with briefly saying who you are and what your role is at One Ifrah and also tell us this particular role or where you see from also, because it’s a global working on if there is some kind of like specific implications that you see big tech has on journalism. In addition to this overarching challenges that we discussed so far or specific regional and language specific challenges. Is there something you could help us to better understand what are the key kind of like overarching concerns by the current power that we see from big tech and the concentration of power that impacts journalists and journalism as such? Thanks.

Elena Perotti: Julia and I have to apologize towards everybody for being late. It was the train’s fault, but again, I’m very sorry, very happy to manage to be here on time kind of. Well, I’m Elena Parotti. I am executive director of media policy and public affairs at One Ifrah, which is a world association of news publishers, which is imagine a trade association for publishers all around the world. Our main constituencies are the national associations of news media publishers, therefore the bodies that try the European commission when they are European to obtain better conditions for the business of the publishers again. And my constituency in particular is exactly that, the one of directors of national associations. So I’m privileged enough to have a real global outlook on what the concerns are of the industry all around the world and how incredibly similar they became, particularly ever since the digital era starts, which I would place at the start of Google’s, but everything changed again, 2006 and seven when Facebook became mainstream. Well, you Julia asked specifically about journalism, whereas again, my expertise is with the publishers in business, but I do of course have also journalists in my radar. And one very interesting point of view to remember is that at the very beginning, when publishers were already starting to get worried about this increasing power of big tech, journalists were generally not, they just weren’t because the interests did not align, see? Whereas for publishers, it was clear right away that big tech was about to eat away at most of the revenues of the industry. For the journalists, the journalists still saw, and I’m speaking 15 years ago, even only 10 years ago, I would say, they were still seeing as much more relevant the fact that Google or Facebook or the others who came afterwards would allow their content to be disseminated more widely. So the interest really of journalists and publishers did not align at that point. What I see now ever since three or four years is that now also journalists realize the problem, which is in our world, the problem is disintermediation. So big tech has the power of giving to the person who is not extremely interested in news, enough news, and they would not click through to go to the publishers’ websites, and therefore the publishers will lose money directly, and therefore they will not have money enough to fund the journalism of professional journalists. That is the macro problem. The other macro problem, of course, is that in the last 15 years, the advertising revenues of publishers all around the world have halved, literally halved. I actually prefer to fire out to you, of course, I don’t remember them by heart, so I’m reading. But in 2024, there will be one trillion in advertising that will be transacted in the year 2024. One trillion, which is an 80% increase compared to 2019 pre-pandemic. Of that, one trillion. Legacy Media, so the professional publishers of news, will have about 30% of that ad spend, and a third of the rest is going to go to Alphabet, Meta, Amazon, and so on. Not even to speak of the new advertising revenue, because every year, new advertising revenue is created. Of that, and I’m not exaggerating, more than 80% goes to platforms. That is, I know I’m speaking only money, but by speaking money, I’m also speaking democracy, and speaking professional journalism, and ability to do investigative journalism. I’m also speaking security, or security of journalism. I’m also speaking security of journalists being sent in war zones. Because all that cannot happen if the publishers are not sustainable. So there is really, I would say, Julia, to answer your question, that the main threat brings to to journalism is the defunding, basically. That is what it is. And I don’t know whether Big Tech is in the room, I have no idea, but they have, they have tried to work with news around the world, with signing contracts, of course, and so on. They have given hands out sometimes, but that is just not enough. It is, I think, a democratic responsibility of governments, but all those like us, to find solutions so that the defunding of professional journalists does not happen because that is dangerous for democracy. I don’t know how much time I have, Julia, I could speak of this literally for hours. So just let me know.

Julia Haas: No, excellent. This was a very good overview already. I mean, I think it’s really important, important that you underline how this question of sustainability or funding is not linked to the question of running a business of a media outlet, right? But it is really the question of what kind of information is available, what kind of investments can take place from where and to what degree, so that it is really a democratic question, as you rightly pointed out. And if we want to discuss on how can we fight disinformation, as we heard before, or how can we avoid that, and people are attacked online, or how can we make sure that people have election integrity and have information available, all of this is linked to the availability of public interest information. So we can only speak about visibility and accessibility of such information if it is available, and it can only be available with sustainability and funding in the background. Yes, please.

Elena Perotti: I just saw my note, you asked me whether there was any language specific concern. And just very local specific concern, just extremely briefly, the main concern in small societies that speak a very specific language, so of course, not English, but not even Italian, French or Spanish, or German, I mean, I mean, Arabic in particular, for example, of course, the problem is misinformation. That is, I would say, is really number one problem, because platforms do not invest at all in fact checking and in checking misinformation in small languages, please pass me the term, 80% of Facebook’s money for dismantling disinformation goes to English languages. And as a consequence, as we know, this can have deadly consequences literally to people. And that is where local news is even more important. Because again, if you have to fight misinformation, you have to do it with professional journalism.

Julia Haas: Yeah, absolutely. Thanks for this addition. It’s also what we kind of started off with, I think, before you joined about this whole question of how difficult it is to have fact checking if they’re not sufficient, trusted flaggers in specific languages or contexts. So you have all these different layers how that add up to the challenges and local journalism is, of course, also at the forefront of being not only under threat very often from different actors, but also the first ones who struggle with funding and with advertising and all of that. So it is again, this interrelatedness. And when we speak about relatedness, and also, Elena, you mentioned this democratic responsibility, which is a term maybe I would want to build on and hand over to our state representative in the room, Isabel, you coming from the Swiss context and the Federal Office of Communication, you do, of course, a lot of work in the Swiss context, right. And also, on a more global level, Switzerland has been very engaged in and constructively engaged in many also regional and global initiatives that try to work towards this healthy online information space that we’re talking about with this journalistic component, but also with regard to fact checking and fighting disinformation and user rights. I mean, all of the things really that we talked about. And is there something still before we move? I mean, I know we are now already maybe moving more into this direction of what can we do and what can states do also. But can you either already refer to that or also say a few words still about how you see as a state really these challenges? And from the state perspective, how they’re interlinked from this global perspective? What does it really mean from your point of view?

Isabelle Lois: Absolutely. And thank you for this very interesting question and very interesting panel. I wanted to move a little bit away from the notion of big tech. Because ultimately, I think, when we’re discussing these issues, they exist independently of how big the economic actors behind them are. And at the Ofcom, we work a lot with media. And so when we’re looking at traditional media, what we want to promote is a diverse information landscape that will allow real debate in the public sphere. This is really the core aspect of having an important media. So the larger platforms today, they act as sort of gatekeepers because they are controlling what information is amplified or suppressed. And this might not be by design, but it is something that we have seen happen. So this is not… The issue is here that there isn’t enough transparency and accountability from bigger platforms of controlling or seeing how the information is flowing. So that means that the public who is reading and being online does not have the knowledge of how and why some information is put forward, why some posts are put forward and are viewed, and why others are not. And this gives these bigger platforms a sort of de facto agenda setting power. And this is where we can see the biggest issue. This new power of setting the agenda of certain issues on the map reshapes the public debates because we are, of course, I guess, all connected and all using social media and other platforms. And so it will prioritize certain debates, certain issues, and hide others. And the engagement or the contents that is often engaged the most with is polarizing content or misleading content, instead of having maybe informational content or educational ones. And this is where we see sort of imbalance, and we need more scrutiny. So I think this is the main perspective that we try to come with as a government. And in Switzerland, we have identified that it is very important to work and work with the media sector or the traditional media sector, if I want to put it this way, because there’s, of course, and this was mentioned as well before, significant challenges as the business model sort of changes with big technology platforms dominating the market. We talked about advertising revenue that is diverted from certain platforms to others, and that media organizations are struggling to sustain themselves financially, and it can lead to problems. One of the things that we have seen in Switzerland is that there is a sort of consolidation of the media market. So many of the smaller or medium-sized media outlet will have been bought up by larger media structures, and it is difficult to keep the news that is very local alive. And so we try to do our best in this, but this is a complicated issue to deal with. But the major problem we’re seeing here is really reducing the diversity and availability of local news, the quality of the reporting, having less journalists who can work in it or less money for investigative research, and this means that we have fewer in-depth stories being produced. So this is one of the points that we have identified, as well as online harassment that is getting bigger and bigger when we are getting to these polarizing conflicts, of course. I’m moderating a session tomorrow that is talking about safety of journalists online that will delve a little bit more on this point, so I’m going to stop here on that part, but I just wanted to highlight the importance of media pluralism and the importance of having it as a fundamental part of democracy. A study has been done recently that I found very interesting and also quite shocking. It has shown that only half of the Swiss population believes that independent media is essential for democracy. So only half of the population believes that. The rest are sort of either thinking that it does not matter or that it has no connection. About 14% I believe thought that it was not essential. And so this is something that is quite scary to think about because this detachment of understanding how important true media is and as a pillar, as the fourth pillar I would say, of democracy, if we don’t see the importance of it then we cannot safeguard it. And I think this is where we’re working a lot on, on awareness raising, on capacity building, and I know capacity building is something that is discussed a lot at IGF in many different sections. Accessing and getting the information and understanding the information you’re reading and why it’s important to have a certain source or another, I think that is really a strong point we need to work on. And I’m happy to delve into some ways to address these challenges. I don’t know if you want me to continue immediately or if you want to pass the word on to someone else, Julia, I’ll let you decide.

Julia Haas: No, thanks a lot. I do have a follow up question, but I think it’s really important that you point to this, this almost twofold notion of literacy, right? That it’s not only about information literacy in the sense of understanding why something is shown, as you pointed out. but also really of media freedom and media pluralism. This is something that we are also trying to work on and we try to connotate this terminology of media freedom literacy to really say the states, I mean, it’s not only about individuals, as you say, but also states sometimes like this understanding of how the link is between media freedom, independent media pluralism, and then the link to democracy, but also more broadly to stability, to peace, to safety and security. So this is a very important point indeed. Thank you. I think that was also very important is that you pointed out this engaging factor, right? That currently like content is boosted and more shown if it’s engaging, but we know people might be more engaging on polarizing content. And then if we speak about healthy information spaces and democratic deliberation, and also in other contexts, we have obligations with regards to diversity and also regional diversity and all of that, that might not gain the same attraction if different contents are being provided. But I think it’s really an important question to also ask whether we should have similar obligations in the digital context and in the online space where we, and with we, I mean, both democratic states, but also all stakeholders should just tell platforms that it’s not acceptable to prioritize contents just because it’s engaging and drives more advertising. And this maybe is already the follow-up question or the lead up to the follow-up question where you see as a democratic state or like coming from this perspective, like the states can work in that direction while acknowledging that, of course, Switzerland still remains a fairly small market from the media perspective, but big tech perspective and all of that. So what are the avenues and possibilities that states can take? And before I hand over back to you, sorry for that, I also just want to offer people, if there are people in the room who have a question or have a comment or want to say anything, please indicate it to us. We also already put the same in the chat for the online participants because there was somebody mentioning. So please feel free to also think about questions after we hear from Isabelle, please.

Isabelle Lois: Thank you. It is a very challenging question to answer. How can states or what should states do? And I think states definitely have a role to play in addressing the challenges posed by big tech, both at a national level, so what we could do in our own countries and also at the international level through coordinated international efforts. I also believe that it’s important to say and IGF being a multi-stakeholder platform, I want to highlight that it is, I think, in collaboration with other stakeholders that we could do the best work. So this general kind of view of what governments can do, I think we can do things, but we should not do it alone. So on the national level, sort of the Swiss perspective is that we have to protect the public’s access to quality information and ensure some sort of accountability from platforms. And this can include and this can be done through some sort of regulatory measures that really ensures transparency in the platform’s operational system, clarify how and which obligations they have, and then also empower the users to make informed decisions because at the end of the day, I think we are at the center of this. So state intervention is one of the ways to address the sort of power imbalance over information spaces, but it is not the only way and it is not, it should be done in a very carefully balanced way to respect fundamental rights and freedoms. There is a lot of potential harm that can be done with a strong state control over which information is accessible and how it is done. So I think it is a very complicated line to navigate and there has to be a lot of careful considerations brought in this. So in Switzerland we have a sort of an approach of strengthening the user’s rights and increasing the transparency of the platforms instead of moderating the content. So this would ensure that the state intervention does not compromise the freedom of expression or overstep any other fundamental rights that are essential for us. We are currently developing our own regulatory framework for large online platforms and it is largely based and inspired by the European legislation, so the EU Digital Service Act, the DSA, but the law we are envisioning, and it is not yet in place, focuses on due diligence requirements while strengthening the transparency rules and the user rights. So it is not really about controlling from above but sort of getting the users to have all of the information. So into more details on this if you are interested, but there are some significant differences maybe with the EU approach where our scope is much narrower whilst we only focus on very large online platforms and very large online search engines. And we are also limiting to only what we call communication platforms. And this is because we want to enable the public dissemination of information between users for the purpose of opinion forming, entertainment, and education. And we are excluding any marketplaces or booking platform sites or things within the DSA. So really, our most important point is to protect the fundamental communication rights of the users online. And this can be made to ensure that we have a well-informed public, because, and this goes to really the main point that we have in Switzerland where we’re trying to give the tools to the users, to the public, and not control it from above. And I think this is where we could work more with other stakeholders, with the media agencies, with other countries of not looking at it in a mock way. And I will just say one more thing on this. We also have a Swiss National Action Plan for the Safety of Journalists that was published last year where we have a whole set of different measures, most of them to address safety for the journalists, not only online, but mostly offline. But our main focus is to bring awareness on the importance of journalism for a functioning democracy. And so this is really where we can bring an added value. And we’re also working very closely with the Council of Europe, Safety of Journalists that I can only encourage you to look into. But yeah, this is sort of the ways that we see that we can do something and that states could do something. Of course, if we are looking into regulation, we have to make it balanced. We have to make sure that we are empowering the public and not controlling what is put out there. And so this is where we are happy to discuss and engage with any stakeholders and in meetings like today to have a bit of the other ideas. Thank you.

Julia Haas: Excellent. Thanks so much for this. I mean, I mean, for sure with this empowering, not controlling is certainly a nice way of phrasing it. And I think this is also something that we as the OEC have been pushing for constantly that we don’t speak about individual pieces of content when we speak about processes, right? I mean, it’s the same when we speak about disinformation or fact checking, it’s very much about how can we make sure that the processes work better that we have, as you say, like transparency, accountability, and all of these things. Multi-stakeholder engagement. And in a meaningful way, I think this is also something that we heard already today, but it’s addressed the undue power. And by big tech, it doesn’t mean that we wanna fill this with undue state power, right? And becomes particularly important in contexts where we don’t have maybe the same democratic institutions. We only have 10 minutes left. So again, I wanna ask if somebody in the audience would have a question, but if not, I would ask maybe first Elena, because now we had a few of the sentences also with regard to journalism or also with the public sphere. And build on that to say briefly what you think should be the role also of the media industry and to respond to the power of big tech over information spaces. And if you see there maybe also even an opportunity or possibility how technology can help in this regard.

Elena Perotti: Yes, yes, thank you, Julia. And indeed, this question comes at such a good time because I just had an idea for a new project for Winifra that is really about that. But first of all, I wanted to thank Isabel for her intervention. And I would like to add to what she just said that indeed it is only states, I think, can have the responsibility to choose what stays online and what goes only democratic states can, yeah, I should say only democratic states can have that responsibility. Believe that responsibility to platforms is just going to take down anything that could be even potentially bring lawsuits and economic problems for them. So the role of the states is very important. We saw how important it was in all the battles for freedom of expression, of course, also for the sustainability of media with all the laws and antitrust decisions that have been taken around the world, Australia, Canada. and so on. But I agree, Julia, that media to do something independently also, in addition to what states can do to help its sustainability and as a consequence, the democratic discourse, which is fostered by the professional media. What I believe, what we believe within Oneinfra is that stakeholders should pull together, the publishers, but also the advertisers and also the civil society and so on, to try and sustain, again, a media environment which is safe because it brings good information to the public. What I mean is that in my first intervention, I spoke of how problematic it is for publishers that all these advertising revenues go to big tech instead than to advertisers, instead that to news media. But it’s true also for advertisers, which very often find their advertising being placed by bots alongside content that is not flattering for their brands at all. It is actually a disaster. So in the end, we have a double interest from both advertisers and publishers to ensure that good advertising, at least a good portion of good advertising, goes to good professional brands. So what I’m trying to foster and what I’m trying to work on is an alliance between big stakeholders, which include professional media, not only the big professional media, in particular the local small media and advertisers and people who can advise us, OSC, for example, and so on, to find a way to make sure a certain portion of advertising goes back to media done in a professional way. And in the brief that you gave me at the beginning, before this session, Giulio, you also said, is there anything technical that should be explored as well? Well, yes, there is. It is really important. I just found out recently that local media, local regional media, very often has websites that are not optimized to receive programmatic advertising. So even if we are successful in producing some sort of project which would drive more programmatic advertising, which is a programmatic advertising, is advertised, it is automatically thrown onto websites which say, I’m waiting for advertising. That is basically what it is. But websites need to have some technical specifications to allow this to happen. So we’re going to try and put in place in the next months, in the next 18 months maximum, a process to ensure that more programmatic advertising goes to professional media sources, also local, but we’re also going to find a way to ensure that as many as possible of these websites are in the best conditions possible to receive technically this programmatic advertising.

Julia Haas: Thank you very much. Yes. Yeah, no, it’s very, it’s first of all, also already a call of action, a call to action, which is very good, because this is also what’s at the end. And it’s important to also speak about advertisers, which is part of this multistakeholder approach, of course. So maybe in the last five minutes, I want to turn now to the question also of civil society, right? And I mean, both Nigger then also asked you in the beginning, already explained what you’re doing and the work. But can you also tell us what you think is the role of civil society? And then maybe also, Nigger, I know that you’re also in the global UN advisory body on AI. So maybe also, I know it’s not a lot of time left, but if you can close on this call, call to action, also maybe with this perspective and expertise. I’ll give the floor to us on the more specific civil society experience or what you think should be done. And then, Nigger, maybe you can close it with this more global AI component and a call to action in the last few minutes. Thank you so much.

Aws Al-Saadi: Thank you for the question. Now, we are working, we build an IFCN Arabic collation from this seven organization. So we will make some pressure on the tech companies to be as a third-party fact-checkers or to combine them as disinformation, because it’s just one organization, usually they ignore it, especially it’s come from the Arabic region. The other things that we are doing, the other things that we are doing, raising awareness for people in different ways, like online, for example, last Tech for Peace, we have more than 2.3 million followers. We are the biggest fact-checking in the MENA region. So we’re doing raising awareness. We have also MOOCs platform that we have different kind of levels of fact-checking, digital security, etc. And also, we are doing webinars, some kind of raising awareness also on the ground, like with IDPs, which is internally displaced people and camps. That’s inside Iraq. And also, we are building some initiative, new organization. For example, we did in Yemen, we did in Tunis, and also in Libya. And we are also, for the future, plan for the other countries. And also, on the other side, we are building too. So there is a Tech for Peace application mobile that’s not only depending on our articles for fact-checking, and also we are building this for people. So anyone can install this app in three languages, which is Arabic, English, and also Kurdish. You can do fact-checking by pictures, videos, and also text. And the only application mobile you can do by videos in the three languages, because most of the tools for fact-checking, you need a computer to use it. So we developed these tools to use it by phone. And we have, until now, more than 100,000 downloads. And it’s still growing up really, really fast. And yeah, I will stop from here.

Nighat Dad: Yeah, no, thank you so much. Julia, I would, so I’ll talk a little bit about the UN Secretary General, HLAB, and the recommendations that we have given. But before that, I would also like to talk a little bit about the white paper on AI around content moderation that we released at the Oversight Board, and some of the really important things that our panelists have already highlighted. For instance, and we dwelled into so many cases. We engaged with so many stakeholders, including civil society around the world. So far, we have received 10,000 comments on our cases. And I would really encourage people to really look into those deliberations and the case decisions that we have released, and the recommendations, because those recommendations actually go deeper inside into the tools and policies of the platform. So some of the key lessons that we learned as a board that actually civil society and other tech platforms can also learn when we talk about AI and content moderation are basically, you know, curation system must be rigorously and continually evaluated on their performance for users who are most vulnerable and most at risk. Another one is global human rights, freedom of expression, and ethics experts should be consulted when designing and deploying new AI-powered content moderation tools early in the process. And then we always talk about that transparency is paramount. So giving access to third party or researchers is something that we have been talking a lot in our recommendations as well to the matter, which is UN Secretary General’s HLAB. So we gave several recommendations, and two of our recommendations actually, after negotiated by 193 states, became part of GDC Global Digital Compact. One was setting up AI scientific panel, and another one was establishing global governance dialogue on AI. And I think it’s so important now for civil society to actually keep watching this space, because especially setting up this dialogue like COP or IGF, it will be designed like that, and civil society will have like a lot of space to actually engage with other stakeholders like government or tech companies, actually designed from the beginning, in terms of the global governance of AI, be it the global governance or at the nation state level. I’ll stop here. Thank you.

Julia Haas: Thank you so much. I acknowledge that there’s no time left, so we were really on spot, and there’s really such a rich conversation with so many takeaways, and we will now certainly go through our notes and take out the calls to actions that we took from your crucial input and also report it back to the IGF, so we can live up to what you said, like learning lessons from one another, right, learning from one another experiences. It will also feed into our work. I just want to thank you at this stage, all of you, for your insights and your crucial contributions, and also, Martin, for doing the local moderation, even if there were not so many. I don’t know if you still want to have some closing sentence, but in any case, thank you all very, very much from our side, and very crucial input, and will be very useful for our continued work on this topic. Thank you very much.

Martin Samaan: Thank you, Julia, for your moderation. That was a really great conversation, and thanks to the panelists and the people in the room.

Julia Haas: Thank you all, and enjoy the rest of IGF. Bye. Bye.

Agreement Points

Lack of language support and fact-checking for non-English content

Nighat Dad

Aws Al-Saadi

Elena Perotti

Insufficient language support and fact-checking for non-English content

Over-enforcement of content moderation affecting journalist reporting

Defunding of professional journalism through loss of advertising revenue

The speakers agree that there is a significant lack of support for non-English content, particularly in fact-checking and content moderation, which affects the quality and availability of information in various languages and regions.

Financial challenges for traditional media and journalism

Elena Perotti

Isabelle Lois

Halving of advertising revenues for publishers over 15 years

Difficulty sustaining local news outlets due to financial challenges

Both speakers highlight the financial difficulties faced by traditional media outlets, particularly local news, due to the shift in advertising revenue to big tech platforms.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize the need for mechanisms to increase transparency and accountability of big tech platforms, whether through independent oversight bodies or regulatory frameworks.

Nighat Dad

Isabelle Lois

Creating alternative oversight mechanisms like Meta’s Oversight Board

Developing regulatory frameworks focused on transparency and user rights

Both speakers advocate for collaborative approaches involving multiple stakeholders to address challenges in the information landscape and support quality journalism.

Aws Al-Saadi

Elena Perotti

Building fact-checking coalitions and awareness-raising initiatives

Forming alliances between publishers, advertisers and civil society

Unexpected Consensus

Importance of multi-stakeholder collaboration

Nighat Dad

Aws Al-Saadi

Elena Perotti

Isabelle Lois

Creating alternative oversight mechanisms like Meta’s Oversight Board

Building fact-checking coalitions and awareness-raising initiatives

Forming alliances between publishers, advertisers and civil society

States should protect access to quality information while respecting rights

Despite coming from different sectors (civil society, fact-checking organizations, media industry, and government), all speakers emphasized the importance of collaborative approaches involving multiple stakeholders to address challenges in the digital information landscape.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement include the challenges posed by insufficient language support and fact-checking for non-English content, financial difficulties faced by traditional media, and the need for increased transparency and accountability of big tech platforms. There is also a strong consensus on the importance of multi-stakeholder collaboration in addressing these issues.

Consensus level

The level of consensus among the speakers is relatively high, particularly on the need for collaborative approaches and the challenges faced by the media industry. This consensus suggests that there is potential for coordinated efforts across different sectors to address the challenges posed by big tech in the information landscape. However, the specific approaches and solutions proposed by each speaker vary, indicating that while there is agreement on the problems, there may be diverse perspectives on how to solve them.

Different Viewpoints

Approach to regulating big tech

Nighat Dad

Isabelle Lois

Lack of meaningful consultation with civil society on regulatory frameworks

Developing regulatory frameworks focused on transparency and user rights

While Nighat Dad emphasizes the lack of civil society consultation in regulatory frameworks, Isabelle Lois focuses on developing frameworks that prioritize transparency and user rights without directly addressing the consultation process.

Unexpected Differences

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement revolve around the specific approaches to addressing big tech’s impact on the information landscape, including regulatory frameworks, oversight mechanisms, and strategies to support journalism.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among the speakers is relatively low. While they present different perspectives and solutions, their overall goals align in addressing the challenges posed by big tech in the information landscape. This suggests a potential for collaborative approaches in developing comprehensive solutions.

Partial Agreements

Both speakers agree on the financial challenges facing journalism, but Perotti focuses on the global shift of advertising revenue to big tech, while Lois emphasizes the local impact on media consolidation and sustainability of local news outlets.

Elena Perotti

Isabelle Lois

Defunding of professional journalism through loss of advertising revenue

Difficulty sustaining local news outlets due to financial challenges

Both speakers agree on the need for oversight and fact-checking, but propose different approaches. Al-Saadi focuses on building coalitions and awareness initiatives, while Dad emphasizes the role of formal oversight bodies like Meta’s Oversight Board.

Aws Al-Saadi

Nighat Dad

Building fact-checking coalitions and awareness-raising initiatives

Creating alternative oversight mechanisms like Meta’s Oversight Board

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize the need for mechanisms to increase transparency and accountability of big tech platforms, whether through independent oversight bodies or regulatory frameworks.

Nighat Dad

Isabelle Lois

Creating alternative oversight mechanisms like Meta’s Oversight Board

Developing regulatory frameworks focused on transparency and user rights

Both speakers advocate for collaborative approaches involving multiple stakeholders to address challenges in the information landscape and support quality journalism.

Aws Al-Saadi

Elena Perotti

Building fact-checking coalitions and awareness-raising initiatives

Forming alliances between publishers, advertisers and civil society

Key Takeaways

Big tech platforms have significant power over information spaces, acting as gatekeepers without sufficient transparency or accountability

The current digital advertising model is defunding professional journalism, threatening media sustainability and diversity

There is a lack of language support and fact-checking for non-English content on major platforms, particularly affecting smaller markets

Multi-stakeholder approaches involving governments, civil society, media, and tech companies are needed to address challenges

Empowering users through transparency, literacy, and rights protection is preferable to top-down content control

Resolutions and Action Items

Form alliances between publishers, advertisers and civil society to redirect advertising revenue to professional media

Develop regulatory frameworks focused on transparency and user rights rather than content moderation

Build fact-checking coalitions to pressure tech companies to expand language support

Include civil society input in global governance dialogues on AI

Optimize local media websites to receive programmatic advertising

Unresolved Issues

How to effectively regulate global tech platforms from the perspective of smaller countries

Balancing freedom of expression with the need to combat misinformation

Addressing the engagement-driven content amplification that can promote polarizing content

Ensuring sustainability of local journalism in the digital age

Suggested Compromises

Focus regulation on transparency and user empowerment rather than direct content control

Involve multiple stakeholders in developing solutions rather than relying solely on government or platform action

Balance the need for human oversight in content moderation with the scale of automation required

We should also broaden our own ideas that they are not just regulatory frameworks that we need to look into, but we need to look into other institutions as well, where the jurisdictions where states are actually regulating on their own terms and not in a meaningful way, then what are the other institutions who can come to help to the users when it comes to protecting users’ rights on this.

speaker

Nighat Dad

reason

This comment broadens the perspective beyond just regulatory frameworks to consider other institutions that can protect user rights, especially in contexts where state regulation may be problematic.

impact

It shifted the discussion to consider alternative approaches and institutions for addressing challenges with big tech, beyond just state regulation.

In 2024, there will be one trillion in advertising that will be transacted in the year 2024. One trillion, which is an 80% increase compared to 2019 pre-pandemic. Of that, one trillion. Legacy Media, so the professional publishers of news, will have about 30% of that ad spend, and a third of the rest is going to go to Alphabet, Meta, Amazon, and so on.

speaker

Elena Perotti

reason

This comment provides concrete data on the scale of the advertising revenue shift from traditional media to big tech platforms, illustrating the financial impact on journalism.

impact

It grounded the discussion in economic realities and highlighted the urgency of addressing the sustainability of professional journalism in the digital age.

A study has been done recently that I found very interesting and also quite shocking. It has shown that only half of the Swiss population believes that independent media is essential for democracy.

speaker

Isabelle Lois

reason

This insight reveals a concerning lack of public understanding about the importance of independent media for democracy, even in a developed country like Switzerland.

impact

It highlighted the need for public education and awareness-raising about the role of media in democracy, shifting the conversation to include public perception as a key challenge.

Curation system must be rigorously and continually evaluated on their performance for users who are most vulnerable and most at risk.

speaker

Nighat Dad

reason

This comment emphasizes the importance of considering the impact of AI-powered content moderation on vulnerable users, highlighting an often overlooked aspect of technology deployment.

impact

It introduced a human rights and ethics perspective into the discussion of AI and content moderation, emphasizing the need for ongoing evaluation and protection of vulnerable users.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by broadening its scope beyond traditional regulatory approaches, grounding it in economic realities affecting journalism, highlighting public perception challenges, and introducing ethical considerations in AI deployment. They collectively painted a complex picture of the challenges facing the information landscape, emphasizing the need for multi-stakeholder approaches and continuous evaluation of both policies and technologies.

How can we address the lack of fact-checking support for smaller languages like Kurdish?

speaker

Aws Al-Saadi

explanation

This is important because the lack of fact-checking in certain languages leaves communities vulnerable to misinformation, especially during critical events like elections.

How can we improve the automation systems for content moderation in Arabic to avoid wrongful flagging of legitimate fact-checking content?

speaker

Aws Al-Saadi

explanation

This is crucial because current systems are incorrectly flagging fact-checking content as misinformation, hindering efforts to combat fake news in Arabic-speaking regions.

How can we increase media literacy, especially in regions with low internet connectivity and media independence?

speaker

Aws Al-Saadi

explanation

This is important for empowering people to critically evaluate information, particularly in areas where media is controlled by political parties.

How can we ensure more equitable distribution of advertising revenue between big tech platforms and traditional media outlets?

speaker

Elena Perotti

explanation

This is crucial for the sustainability of professional journalism and maintaining diverse, quality news sources.

How can we create effective regulatory frameworks for large online platforms that balance user rights, transparency, and freedom of expression?

speaker

Isabelle Lois

explanation

This is important for addressing the power imbalance in information spaces without compromising fundamental rights.

How can we improve public understanding of the importance of independent media for democracy?

speaker

Isabelle Lois

explanation

This is crucial because a recent study showed only half of the Swiss population believes independent media is essential for democracy, indicating a need for awareness-raising.

How can we optimize local media websites to receive programmatic advertising?

speaker

Elena Perotti

explanation

This is important for ensuring that local media can benefit from automated advertising systems and improve their financial sustainability.

How can we ensure AI-powered content moderation tools are designed with input from global human rights, freedom of expression, and ethics experts?

speaker

Nighat Dad

explanation

This is crucial for developing content moderation systems that respect human rights and consider diverse global perspectives.

How can civil society effectively engage in the upcoming global governance dialogue on AI?

speaker

Nighat Dad

explanation

This is important for ensuring that civil society has a voice in shaping global AI governance from the beginning.

Summary

This discussion focused on the role of AI in warfare and its implications for international law and ethics. Experts from various fields explored the challenges and responsibilities associated with AI in military applications.

The speakers emphasized the importance of compliance with international humanitarian law and human rights law in the development and use of AI in warfare. They highlighted the need for a comprehensive global governance framework for AI that addresses both civilian and military applications due to the dual-use nature of the technology.

Key issues discussed included the principles of distinction, proportionality, and necessity in warfare, and how AI systems might struggle to adhere to these principles. The question of liability and accountability for AI actions in conflict situations was raised, with concerns about who bears responsibility when AI systems make mistakes or cause harm.

Ethical considerations such as data bias, privacy concerns, and the need for human oversight in AI decision-making were explored. The speakers stressed the importance of incorporating international law considerations from the early stages of AI development, promoting a “compliance by design” approach.

The discussion also touched on the need for multi-stakeholder engagement, including input from industry, civil society, and academia, in shaping AI governance in the military domain. The speakers called for increased awareness of the current use of AI in conflict situations and the urgent need for effective regulation and oversight.

Overall, the discussion underscored the complex challenges of balancing technological advancement with ethical and legal considerations in the use of AI in warfare, emphasizing the critical importance of maintaining human control and accountability in life-and-death decisions.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– The role of AI in warfare and its implications for international law

– Challenges in ensuring AI systems comply with principles of international humanitarian law

– Issues of accountability and liability for AI-enabled weapons systems

– The need for human oversight and control in AI-powered military applications

– Ethical considerations and potential biases in AI systems used in conflict

Overall purpose/goal:

The purpose of this discussion was to explore the complex issues surrounding the use of AI in warfare and military applications, with a focus on how to ensure compliance with international law and ethical principles. The speakers aimed to raise awareness of current challenges and discuss potential governance frameworks and solutions.

Tone:

The tone was primarily serious and academic, reflecting the gravity of the topic. Speakers approached the issues analytically, drawing on their expertise in law, ethics, and technology. There was an underlying sense of urgency about addressing these challenges, but the tone remained measured and constructive throughout. Towards the end, there were some more optimistic notes about the potential for responsible development and use of AI in this domain.

Speakers

– Bea Guevarra: Moderator/Organizer, Netmission.Asia

– Qurra Tul AIn Nisar (Annie): Online moderator, senior year law student, governance and policy analyst, Netmission.Asia

– Yasmin Afina: Representative from United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR)

– Jimena Sofia Viveros Alvarez: Commissioner at Global Commission on the Responsible Use of AI in the Military Domain

– Anoosha Shaigan: Technology lawyer, human rights expert

– Mohamed Sheikh-Ali: Representative from International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC)

The Role of AI in Warfare: Legal, Ethical, and Governance Challenges

This discussion brought together experts from various fields to explore the complex issues surrounding the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in warfare and its implications for international law and ethics. The speakers, including representatives from the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR), the Global Commission on the Responsible Use of AI in the Military Domain, and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), addressed the challenges and responsibilities associated with AI in military applications.

International Law and AI Governance

Yasmin Afina from UNIDIR emphasized that international law should be a core component of AI governance in the military domain. She introduced UNIDIR’s RAISE program (Responsible AI in Security and Ethics) and mentioned an upcoming global conference on AI security and ethics. Afina stressed the importance of translating legal requirements into technical specifications for AI systems and advocated for a “compliance by design” approach.

Jimena Sofia Viveros Alvarez, Commissioner at the Global Commission on the Responsible Use of AI in the Military Domain, argued for a broader, coherent global AI governance framework addressing both civilian and military applications. She highlighted the transfer of discussions from Group of Governmental Experts (GGEs) to the UN General Assembly and called for binding treaties aligned with international law to govern AI use in warfare.

Anoosha Shaigan, a technology lawyer with a background in human rights law, discussed specific legal issues such as liability, command responsibility, and developer liability in the context of AI in warfare. She emphasized the importance of international humanitarian law principles like distinction, proportionality, and necessity. Shaigan also mentioned the Outer Space Treaty in relation to AI-guided satellites and suggested developing an international military AI tribunal.

Ethical Considerations and Challenges

The discussion delved into several ethical challenges posed by AI in warfare. Anoosha Shaigan raised concerns about data bias and model drift in AI systems, using the example of potentially discriminatory targeting based on appearance. She also addressed the challenges posed by generative AI, deep fakes, and disinformation in military contexts.

Privacy concerns in conflict zones were addressed, with speakers noting the challenge of balancing military needs with civilian privacy rights when deploying AI technologies. The concept of explainable AI for autonomous weapons systems was introduced, emphasizing the importance of human understanding and oversight of AI decision-making processes in warfare.

Accountability and Human Control

A significant point of agreement among the speakers was the necessity of maintaining human control and accountability in AI-powered warfare systems. Mohamed Sheikh-Ali from the ICRC stressed that human oversight and control are essential for weapons systems, particularly for life-and-death decisions. This view was strongly supported by other speakers, who emphasized the need for human responsibility and accountability in the use of AI in military contexts.

The discussion touched on the complex issue of liability for AI actions in warfare. Anoosha Shaigan highlighted the need to clarify who bears responsibility when AI systems make mistakes or cause harm, whether it be the operator, commander, developer, or the state itself.

Multi-stakeholder Engagement and Corporate Responsibility

Yasmin Afina introduced the importance of multi-stakeholder engagement in shaping AI governance in the military domain. This approach calls for input from industry, civil society, and academia, in addition to government actors.

The role of private sector companies developing AI technologies for military use was emphasized by both Anoosha Shaigan and Mohamed Sheikh-Ali. They agreed on the need to engage tech companies from the design stage and ensure corporate accountability for military AI suppliers. Sheikh-Ali specifically mentioned the ICRC’s engagement with technology companies in Silicon Valley and China.

Future Developments and Recommendations

Looking towards the future, the speakers offered several recommendations:

1. Develop binding treaties aligned with international law to govern AI use in warfare (Jimena Sofia Viveros Alvarez)

2. Create specific standards for military AI that incorporate legal and ethical considerations (Anoosha Shaigan)

3. Engage technology companies from the early stages of AI development for military applications (Mohamed Sheikh-Ali)

4. Implement a “compliance by design” approach, incorporating international law considerations from the outset of AI system development (Yasmin Afina)

5. Establish an international military AI tribunal to address legal issues arising from AI use in warfare (Anoosha Shaigan)

Conclusion

The discussion underscored the complex challenges of balancing technological advancement with ethical and legal considerations in the use of AI in warfare. While there was a high level of consensus on core principles, such as the importance of international law and human control, the speakers differed in their specific approaches and areas of emphasis. This reflects the multifaceted nature of the issue and highlights the need for continued dialogue and collaboration among various stakeholders to develop comprehensive and effective governance frameworks for AI in warfare.

The urgency of addressing these challenges was evident throughout the discussion, as speakers called for increased awareness of the current use of AI in conflict situations and the pressing need for effective regulation and oversight. As AI technologies continue to advance, the international community faces the critical task of ensuring that their use in warfare remains within the bounds of law, ethics, and human control.

Bea Guevarra: First of all, thank you for joining the session, AI in Welfare, Rules of AI in Upholding the International Law session, workshop number 184. And this session is, you know, about the nature, we are going to explore the sensitive nature of the AI in Welfare domain on the format that foster an open, frank discussion as a 60-minute roundtable discussion, but let’s see how we can manage the time anyway. So I will not consume so much time on that. So we are now having online moderator, Annie, and also one of the organizers, Beer, with us today. So I will pass the floor to Annie for introducing to the organizers. Just quick introduction. Welcome, everyone. We can’t hear you, Annie. Is there any technical issue? We can’t hear you. You can hear me? Yeah, I can hear you right now.

Qurra Tul AIn Nisar: Amazing. Then. Yeah, so I was saying that it’s an immense pleasure to have you all with us today. And I am Kratul Ayn Nisar, you can call me Annie. And I am a senior year law student, as well as a governance and policy analyst. I have with me the other organizers, Bea, and Abin Nisar, as our organizers. So, firstly, I want to, you know, quickly thank them all for their constant support and, you know, immense help for finding all the speakers and the experts on this topic. I’m like, I’m very grateful for your insight and have you on board. topic. We all are aware that AI has reshaped how we are living in this world and warfare is no separate aspect from that. So, I would love if we can quickly start the session because we have already, apologies for that, but we have already, you know, a lot of time. So, back to you, Bill, for, you know, introducing our speakers.

Bea Guevarra: Thank you, Annie. In this session, we are going to have three speakers, Ms. Anosha from the Civil Society and Yasmin Afina from the Intergovernmental Organization, and also Ms. Jamina Sophia who are also joining on site here. So, as an opening of this session, I would like to ask the speaker about their own side on the topic, such as like AI in warfare. So, I will ask to Yasmin, how do you see the future of the AI and also the warfare?

Yasmin Afina: Yeah, perfect. Hi, thank you, everyone. It’s nice to meet you. My name is Yasmin Afina from the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research, or UNIDIR. Thank you so much for the organizers of this panel, for inviting me today, and I’m so sorry for not joining you in Riyadh in person due to personal circumstances. I could not travel in time for the workshop, so I know that you wanted me to speak a little bit about the future of AI in warfare, but if you would allow me, I might just share a few slides, if I may. Is it correct? Is it okay? So, let me just… Yeah, I hope that you can see my screen. Perfect. So I know that you wanted me to speak about the role of AI in warfare and its role in upholding international law, specifically from a responsible AI perspective. But please allow me to twist the framing a little bit and instead look at international law as a key and central facet of responsible AI in the military domain. So in the first half of 2024, UNIDIR took part in regional consultations with states and experts in Asia Pacific, the Middle East and Central Asia, Africa, Europe, Latin America, and the Caribbean. And based on these consultations, we have identified and established a number of facets of responsible AI in the military domain based on what states have shared during these consultations. And one of them relates to compliance with national and international law, as you can see in the top right of the diagram. And in fact, the overwhelming majority of states across regions place compliance with international law as a central component of their governance approaches to AI in the military domain and wider security domains. And there is this shared sentiment that international law is an important framework that must be upheld throughout the lifecycle of AI technologies meant for deployment and use in defense and security and thus including in the context of warfare. So international considerations must be considered from the earlier stages, from the design, development, testing, and evaluation, which would require efforts to translate international law obligations into technical requirements in order to frame and shape the pre-deployment stages of these technologies in such a way that they will somewhat be compliant by design. And I’ll get back to that later in my concluding remarks. And so in addition, international law, and in particular international humanitarian law, and international human rights law must inform or even shape and frame procurement processes, as many states are increasingly considering purchasing AI-enabled capabilities. are developing AI, but also those that are purchasing. And so from a policy standpoint, however, it’s also important to note that while this overall shared sentiment that international law is important, it does not mean that states approach it in a uniform way. And there are nuances across regions in states’ approach to AI in the military domain and the applicability of international law. So for example, states in Latin America and the Caribbean, they generally dedicate more attention and efforts to foster compliance with and uphold international human rights law. And this approach is somewhat reflective of the regional security landscape where transnational efforts at combating organized crime prevail and in the light of the international human rights laws applicability, both in and outside of conflict. And while of course states in all the regions acknowledge the importance of international human rights law, international humanitarian law tends to be overwhelmingly dominating the policies and discourse of states in other regions. Although our findings were also such that the African region would also dedicate more attention to international human rights law, particularly within the framework of the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights. And there’s more of these findings in the report that I launched back in September, which I invite you to download and read from UNIDIR’s website by following the QR code on the slide or by going to unidir.org slash Kali Doscope AI. So now that we’ve established that states around the world see international law and compliance as an important component of responsible AI in the military domain, I wanted to add another layer to our discussions, the role of the multi-stakeholder community. And in fact, in the report that I previously mentioned, one of the other key areas of nuance convergence that we have identified is the importance of multi-stakeholder engagement. And states, in fact, generally recognize the value of multi-stakeholder and cross-sectoral engagement to promote responsible AI in the military. domain, but states generally disagree on how such engagement should be conducted. And so UNIDIR in our capacity as an independent research within the UN ecosystem, and with a mandate of informing member states, we’ve launched earlier this year in March a program of work called the Roundtable for AI Secured in Ethics, or RAISE, in partnership with Microsoft. And we’ve been engaging very closely with a group of industry representatives, including big tech and startups, and consultancy organizations, civil society, and academics. And we basically ask them, what are the main themes that should be prioritized in the context of AI governance and security and defense? And as a small parenthesis, I just wanted to note that as part of the RAISE program of work, UNIDIR will be holding the inaugural global conference on AI security and ethics on the 27th and 28th of March in Geneva. It’s open to all. We’ll soon be issuing a call for abstracts for you to present your insights to the international diplomatic community in Geneva in the UN. So please do mark your calendars and let me know if you’d like to be kept in the loop. So coming back to RAISE, the group has identified six themes that must be prioritized for the governance of AI and security and defense. And across all of the six themes, international came across as a recurrent pattern. So for example, the second priority theme was trust building. And one of the key recommendations put forward was that in order to enable this trust building, there’s a need to clarify the interpretation of applicable laws. And so for this group, states should develop clear national positions on how to interpret and apply international law in the context of AI applications in the military domain, and thus ultimately contributing to build this trust between states. And another example is the third priority theme, which pertains to unpacking the human element in the development, testing, deployment, and use of AI systems in the military domain. And so clarifying how international law applies can help clarify then what is the level of human element that is required at each stage of the lifecycle of the technologies of AI in the military domain. and under what basis in international law. So again, all of this can be found in the report that we’ve published on UNIDIR’s website at unidir.org slash governance AI, or you can do so by scanning the QR code on the slide. And so finally, to conclude, I wanted to circle back to something that I mentioned earlier on how all of these initiatives basically can contribute to efforts towards compliance by design in the development, testing and evaluation of AI technologies in the military domain, while also acknowledging and addressing and mitigating some of the risks that these technologies can present with regards to international law. So anecdotally last month, I submitted my PhD manuscript specifically looking at how international humanitarian law considerations should frame the development, testing and evaluation of AI technologies for military targeting. So anything that is going on before the deployment in the battlefield. And the thesis has been drafted with the assumption and acceptance personally, not UNIDIR’s side, that AI in the military domain is happening already. And without of course, prejudice to possible instruments in the future that may prohibit an outlaw some applications. But at this stage, it’s important to dedicate efforts and research towards ensuring that whatever technology will come out of the lab for warfare, they have been developed with compliance in mind instead of an afterthought. So earlier I mentioned the need for to translate legal requirements into technical requirements. One example that I looked at my thesis is for example, the use of proxy data for training and testing the use of AI technologies. And I argued that while proxy data can to a certain extent be necessary by virtue of the rule of precautions due to the messy and uncertain nature of warfare, it cannot be separated from direct indicators that instead should be seen as a natural part of the ecosystem of intelligence needed for military decision making. So all of this to say that with the right efforts, dedicated resources and political will, compliance with international law should in principle be at the heart of the development of AI technologies for military domain. And this is not about. coding international law into algorithms, but rather identify and prioritize practical measures for the implementation of international law and ensuring that the deployment and use of AI in warfare upholds international law from the outset and does not jeopardize it instead by remaining as an afterthought. Because at some point you just lose the right to say oops. And on that note, thank you very much. And I look forward to our Q and A.

Bea Guevarra: Thank you, Yasmin. And I would like to ask to another speaker who are joining on site. How do you think of the international laws and the future of the AI in warfare? Could you also please give like an insight based on your experience as well? Hello, thank you. Can you all hear me?

Jimena Sofia Viveros Alvarez : Perfect. Well, first of all, thank you for the organizers for inviting me. I think I don’t like to just circumscribe this conversation to warfare. Because these technologies are being used to attack civilians also during peacetime. So I like to call it the peace and security spectrum of things. And also because they’re not only used by military actors, but also civilian actors, both state and non-state. So state actors that are civilian law enforcement or border controls. Whereas non-state actors, it depends from the context. As Yasmin very well pointed out, for example, in Latin America where I’m from, organized crime is a big threat. In other regions, it’s terrorism. In other regions, it’s mercenaries. So all of these actors are using the same technology. So it’s important to acknowledge the different implications and the different treatment under international law of each one of this. Because when we’re talking about AI in the peace and security domains, we are talking about many different sets of rules, right? So we have obviously IHL, international humanitarian law. We have international human rights law, which applies to both wartime and peacetime, and also by civilian actors, and it also kind of involves state responsibility. So it also comes to public international law, which deals with this, but which also deals with use ad bellum. So that’s the use of force, the right to use of force or self-defense type of considerations that can stem out of the use of these technologies. We also have international criminal law. We also have national, regional regulations and laws around different types of liability modes and compliance and procurement and all the different mechanisms that apply to the entire life chain of these technologies. So it is quite a broad spectrum to talk about the future of international law, because we’re also seeing it as in the present. It’s not just a future situation, especially right now when we’re living in a world where international law is blatantly violated and with complete impunity, unfortunately. So we’re living in a volunteerism world where compliance seems to be optional, and that’s really not how it should be, because we’re seeing very dire consequences for civilians in different types of contexts around the world. So what we need to do is to, everyone, advocate, promote, and foster a coherent AI global governance framework. And I’m saying AI in general, because by its dual-use nature, we cannot really divide by civilian, by military, precisely because of the distinction that I made at the beginning, the convergence of actors, the convergence of moments of use and types of use. and etc. So we all really need to strive for this global AI governance framework to materialize, to be binding, and to have the correct mechanisms for implementation, because that will be crucial. And this obviously requires enforcement mechanisms, which, you know, it’s going to be even harder, but we need to be ambitious, because this is a very ambitious goal, to preserve international peace and security at this time. So what we have in the current governance landscape, in this particular domain, we obviously have the GGEs, which is the group of governmental experts in Geneva, that are under the Convention of Conventional Weapons, which I think is a little bit ironic, because these are the least conventional weapons, autonomous weapons. We also have RE-AIM, which is the Global Commission on the Responsible Use of AI in the Military Domain, where I’m a commissioner. We also have RAISE, as Yasmin mentioned, and we’re now seeing the development of the transfer from the GGEs to the General Assembly, with resolutions that are coming out by the initiative of different states, for example the Netherlands and Korea, Austria, you know, which are leading this conversation, amongst others of course. So these are very welcome steps that we are building towards, but we still need to create a lot more awareness about the fact that these are situations that are going on right now, they’re not future, eventual possibilities. And we also need to be very mindful, because there is a tendency to try to separate either alleged pros of these technologies, like okay, well there will be more precise, there will be more accurate, there will be less bias, but you know, we know. That’s why it needs to be all comprehensive within the same global governance framework for AI, because we all know the problems with AI itself, right? So the bias, the brittleness, the hallucinations, the misalignment, etc. et cetera. So those two cannot be dissociated when we’re looking at what the actual consequences and effects of the use of these technologies in this space will be. And also the differentiation between offense and defense capabilities, it’s completely illusory because the same technology is just interchangeably used. So any type of defense is an office in itself. So that’s something we should be mindful when we’re having this conversation. And I will leave it there for now. And again, also looking forward for the Q&A. Thank you.

Bea Guevarra: Thank you, Ms. Jimena Sofia. And it is very insightful to understand and the dynamics of the emerging technology and the challenges that we are facing. So I also would like to ask to the Inucia who are joining here online. From the civil society perspective, how do you see AI in warfare and how we could facilitate that collaboration and why making sure the responsibility for the conversation among the community? So Inucia, are you going to share the screen? Is there any PowerPoint? No? Yeah, go ahead, please. Ms. Inucia, can you share your screen and have the slides on the screen, if that’s possible? Sure, sure. Thank you, thank you. Is that, does that work? Yes, okay.

Anoosha Shaigan: So thank you everyone for organizing this and thank you for having me, it’s such a privilege to be here and talk about such an important issue. I’m quickly going to go over some of the points and the slides are just bullet points of my, you know, some of the issues that I would like to touch upon so you can follow along. So thank you to the speakers for setting the stage for international collaboration, that is of course, you know, the first and foremost thing that we need to do. But let’s also look at some of the very specific issues. So I am a technology lawyer by profession, I started my career in human rights, in international human rights law, working on treaties and I was responsible for, I was part of the team responsible for bringing the first seven core human rights treaties to Pakistan. So we got the government to sign these treaties and then we started working on them. So my association goes a long way back when the SDGs were called MDGs. So, you know, we’ve come a long way since then and I’d like to touch upon some very specific legal issues. The aim is not to give you more anxiety about these issues but, you know, maybe help you form an opinion because, you know, as civil society experts, as lawyers, as development professionals, you know, your opinion matters as well because this is a very new area and as we go into the future, digital technologies become more and more decentralised, which means that… governments have to rely on the civil society, the academia, and the development sector, and the private sector, and not just technology companies to be able to start forming these principles and guidelines moving forward. So let me just. So I’m going to touch upon AI and international humanitarian law, some of the very specific issues, and then I’ll go into some of the ethical considerations as well. So when we talk about the key principles of international humanitarian law, they can be found in UN principles, the Geneva Conventions, the ICRC’s handbook. If you’re a person of faith, they could be part of your religion as well. And they just make common sense, right? So there’s the principles of distinction, proportionality, and necessity. I’m going to talk about proportionality and necessity first, since we might be more familiar with that. So specifically talking about Gaza, are the military responses towards civilian population proportional? Are they excessive? These are some of the things that we’ve already been talking about for the past year. So you might be more familiar with this. Do you think autonomous AI systems, or weapons, or autonomous drones, or any other kind of robots, do you think they would be able to make these kind of proportional responses? So that is something to consider. As we have seen in the past one year, they’ve not been doing that. Then there’s the principle of necessity. It obviously talks about whether this military response is necessary. When it comes to AI, they’ve been calls to simulate certain situations first and then see and verify whether you know they warrant an actual military response. So these are like some of the principles you know that you might be familiar with. As far as distinction is concerned you know there are laws available as well at the international level perhaps not at the state level or domestic level where states are supposed to distinguish between civilian and military targets or civilian or military figures or entities and that has somehow you know translated into applying to AI targets as well. So but do you think AI will be able to make that distinction? Let’s hold that thought and we’ll come back to that when we discuss ethical issues. So liability is of course a very important you know issue that we’ve seen with autonomous weapons. If an AI shoots you know somebody down which was civilian target perhaps, perhaps it was a hospital or a school who is going to bear responsibility for that. Will that be the person who was operating the AI? Will that be the AI itself? Will that be the commander of the person or the agent representing you know a certain team or will that be an entire state? So command responsibility you know there are rules around that but they have to be applied in the context of AI. State responsibility of course it talks about that the state can be held responsible for the actions of its agents. I believe the principles are laid down under RCWA. Then there’s developer liability. Somebody who developed an AI system that you know did not work and now it’s being reviewed. It will go back to whether they followed all the protocols, they followed government guidelines or international humanitarian guidelines and whether they tested these systems and whether they removed glitches and they made sure that all the laws were followed. There’s a recent, and for those more familiar with how legal compliance works in highly regulated industries like nuclear power plants or especially those working in the energy sector or in climate. Trainers can also be held responsible if the training was inadequate. If you didn’t document things properly or if you did not impart adequate training, your trainers could be held responsible as well. If somebody did not know how to use an AI system, their trainers could be held responsible as well. By responsible and accountable and liable, we also mean that it would include monetary compensation towards the victims and their families also. Now, there have been calls for developing an international military AI tribunal in particular. Coming from Pakistan, we do not believe in military trials in principle, but just to let you know that this is a form of accountability. But do we need additional forums when we already have international courts and when we have these other international tribunals? How would they impact states individually? Would states have to sign treaties? Would they have to incorporate them into their domestic laws? These are some of the considerations. Then, of course, this is an area that I specialised in, so I really want you to touch upon that as well. Of course, there are laws around the Outer Space Treaty as well, which mandate peaceful use of space and sharing resources. and keeping things clean and debris-free. But then there are, of course, issues with AI-guided satellites. If there are issues, who is going to resolve them? Is it going to be the International Space Station? Is it going to be the United Nations? Is it going to be the state being affected? Or is it going to be the state that actually launched that AI satellite? And how do their actions work? So oversight might be a bit of a questionable issue here. Then let’s quickly touch upon ethical frameworks. So data bias and model drift are the main concerns with AI models. Data bias is, of course, if you train your AI with biased data. For example, if you train it with skewed data or discriminatory patterns like kill all the dark-looking people or kill all the brown people or kill anybody who doesn’t look white or Caucasian. So these kinds of stereotypes, if AI picks up on these elements, it can be very indiscriminate in the actions that these autonomous or AI-based weapons take, especially during military action. So the data sets need to be checked for bias. They need to be audited. There are algorithmic checks as well that you can fix those as well. But constant and regular oversight is very necessary. Then, of course, there’s the issue of model drift. Model drift is when you overstuff and overfit your AI so much with data that it starts behaving unpredictably. So when people say, you know, I like a child or a person and you keep feeding it information and training it and one day it will start you know making better decisions and wider decisions. Personally I don’t think that’s quite accurate because at the end of the day it’s still a machine, it’s still you know it’s something technical or technological and if you look at you know for example the language of some of the AIs, coding language, there could be you know zeros and ones which means they’re very black and white, they’re very exact and very specific so over stuffing it with data can actually lead to unpredictable outcomes where it just becomes so confusing that you don’t know how it’s going to act and then who takes responsibility of course you know that’s the issue that we’ve been discussing so audits and monitoring are important. Then of course there’s the issue of privacy especially in conflict zones, you know surveillance is an issue, surveillance of civilian population is an issue, you know facial recognition software is that you know allowed during a conflict especially when you’re trying to you know target civilians or pinpoint somebody’s exact identity or you know trying to for example you know we’ve seen in the Gaza conflict that very very specific people individually have also been targeted like doctors, journalists, so you know the privacy becomes very very crucial in such scenarios so of course we need like a solution for this perhaps on the lines of the GDPR as in Europe but do we need another international regulation or can we come up with like a general framework or some specific standards that all countries that are perhaps part of the United Nations must follow without having to sign additional treaties or pass additional laws within their countries. This is another issue. Then, of course, autonomy versus human side is a concern as well. Human side or additional or added oversight is, of course, important when AI is being used in conflict zones. I think one of the areas that we could be following for development around autonomous robots or technologies basically comes from the autonomous vehicle economy. When we look at some of the laws that have been, some of the cases that have been going on around autonomous vehicles, those cases are going to help us determine some very minute details and very specific issues, particular to autonomous vehicles and robots. They could apply to drones as well, for example, or other autonomous weapons that have been used in conflict zones. Again, human in the loop is another solution where you always make sure that there’s human oversight present when an autonomous system is being used. Then, of course, you can create ethics committees as well, which will constantly monitor these developments. Corporate accountability is, of course, important just like we require corporations to submit transparency reports on how they’re doing on climate change. We could ask the same from different militaries of different states, who actually, sorry, military. suppliers or military contractors to who are you know part of the corporate world to submit these kind of transparency reports. And then of course if they lack training if they didn’t follow certain laws or if they didn’t follow certain standards they could be held liable for those as well. There’s of course a proposition to develop certain standards for military AI which I think it’s still a very very nascent area still developing so it could be interesting to follow these developments. And at the end I would like to touch upon generative AI as well. So we’ve seen a lot of you know issues surface related to deep fakes and disinformation. Now generative AI again we should be able to you know use detection and prevention tools to spot it especially on social media for example or especially for people operating AI based weapons or AI systems within conflict zones. So developing these tools is very important to counter disinformation and deep fakes because at the end of the day our ultimate goal is to save human lives. This is I think this is all what we’re here for. We’re not here to you know talk about how we’re going to make profits or make money. The ultimate goal is to prevent civilian casualties and you know have this dignified regard for human life. So with that I would like to end the presentation and I’m open to questions. I look forward. Thank you.

Bea Guevarra: Thank you Ms. Inosha. You talk your presentation is very informative like talking about the open data bias and some modern drift privacy and data autonomous versus human oversight and also from the side of the corporate accountability, as well as the use of the adequate use of the AI is very informative and insightful. I noted that we have to end this session very soon, since we are running a bit late for this session, due to the technical error, but before moving to the open floor session, I noted that Mr Mohamed is here in the room with us, so I also would like to invite him to give any comment if he has.

Mohamed Sheikh-Ali: Thank you very much, organisers and the kingdom for hosting this. Being from the ICRC and acknowledging that we are running late, I will just focus on a few things and I will not duplicate what has been said by the other colleagues. AI and autonomous weapons should comply and respect international humanitarian law, proportionality, distinction and precaution. Can an AI-controlled or autonomous weapon that has been tasked to execute an operation abort autonomously the operation if they see a child or a civilian or a fighter who is no longer capable of participating in the conflict? Because a soldier who was in a frontline operation, who was participating in the conflict, once they are injured and they are no longer part of the conflict, they are protected under international humanitarian law. So will these autonomous systems comply with those basic principles of international humanitarian law? It is a huge concern that we have. And therefore, we are actually in ICRC. Today, we have a specialist at the Silicon Valley, we have a delegation in China that are discussing with the technology companies that are contributing to the development of these systems and having this kind of conversation. I absolutely agree with the notion of engaging with the tech companies and those who are developing these technologies from the design stage. That is quite key. We are also calling for human oversight and control on any kind of weapons. A decision to kill, life and death decision, should not be made by a tool or by a logarithm. It has to be a decision that’s at least the bottom or the final engagement or discharge of the munition should be controlled by a human being. That’s quite important. And we are also convening, as some of my colleagues have already mentioned, and discussions and dialogue on how to incorporate and integrate the international humanitarian law in the development of autonomous weapons. And artificial intelligence controlled warfare. And regulations are needed, but international humanitarian law applies in any kind of warfare, whether it is carried out by a human or by autonomous weapon. And so that’s very clear. Where we have to seek clarity is who assumes responsibility? Is it the developer? Is it the commander? we ask and that has to be clarified therefore we are convening discussions just last year or the end of 2012 there were two workshops in Geneva with experts discussing these kind of issues and the recommendations and reports is out there in our website. Treaties that are binding you know and that are aligned with international humanitarian law are actually necessary and ethical you know it was mentioned by one of the classes I don’t remember ethics dignity and preservation of a human life is is the ultimate goal and that’s what international humanitarian law is is eventually about. Thank you very much.

Bea Guevarra: Thank you Mr. Mohamed and for the next session I want to pass to our online moderator Annie. Annie the floor is yours. Just a reminder that we only left like nine minutes.

Qurra Tul AIn Nisar: Oh that’s okay right thank you so much Mr. Mohamed Sheikh Ali and I completely don’t want to forget Mr. Neem’s efforts in bringing Mohamed Ali on board with us. Thank you so much. So I love how this session is not only about identifying problems but also about practical solutions and exploring how exactly AI can be used as a force of good. So I would really quickly want to you know move our discussion towards our last policy question because you guys have effectively answered all other policy questions in your presentations. So just just quickly bring and bringing the discussion towards it. Can explainable AI technologies be effectively applied to autonomous weapon system to ensure human oversight and understanding of how targeting decisions are made. So I understand how there was compliance by design discussed and also biases in AI systems discussed by Anusha and also Ms. Yasmine. I would really appreciate if any of the speakers present on-site or online would like to take this question up.

Yasmin Afina: Sure, I mean I can, I’m happy to have a first stab at it and colleagues please feel free to sort of compliment just you know from the top of my head I think first of all thank you for the very interesting question. I think that it’s very pertinent, it’s something that in Geneva as well diplomats are grappling with every day. I think based on what I’ve seen and what I’ve heard engaging with stakeholders ranging from state representatives to civil society industries, I think in terms of explainable AI generally that’s an issue that has that you know the AI community is trying to grapple with but in the military domain there’s quite a few implications especially with regards to in IHL you have the legal duty to investigate violations of international law and then when you look at machine learning based systems where you have a black box so you basically know what is the input, you know the output but you don’t know where how it went from the input to the output. So for example why the system specifically recommended to target this particular person for example then there is you know there are issues, there may be issues as to like how the investigation, if this output led to a potential violation of international human internal law, how you could effectively conduct an investigation when the system has a black box but at the same time there are measures that is growing research efforts in trying to circumvent that problem so you might for example have In the military domain, you also have to understand that when the commander authorizes the use of force, it’s held to such a high level of standard, or supposed to be held to a high level of standard, then the commander will always maintain some level of responsibility over their decision, even when the commander decides to use and follow the recommendation of a weapon system or of an AI-based decision support system. And even when the commander does not know how the system came up with the output. And then there are also recommendations related to best practices with regards to documentation in the military domain. I think that’s something that, even when not using AI, it’s something that is increasingly being looked at. So there is growing research into that, but I don’t think there is any silver bullet for this question. But there is research that is ongoing. But again, it depends on how much resources are being dedicated to that, and how much political willingness is there to dedicate those resources. Thank you.

Qurra Tul AIn Nisar: Thank you so much, Ms. Yasmine. And I would love if the on-site speakers can also add their insights on this very question.

Mohamed Sheikh-Ali: All I can add is, for now, until the technology is advanced enough, which, in our opinion, from the internal humanitarian law perspective, we will never get there, and a human responsibility and accountability is necessary. So I think I lost, yeah, we can leave the decision, you know. So, I think there’s a technical issue, but all I’m saying is a human control and oversight and accountability is ultimately necessary, even if the technology is so advanced. So that’s our position at the moment, and there’s an expert here.

Jimena Sofia Viveros Alvarez : Well, I agree entirely. So I believe that unless one can completely understand and control the entirety of the effects of a technology, one should not be using it, especially when human lives are at stake. And I also don’t like the term laws, because it’s not only lethal. So even other types of physical harm or to integrity or to targeting for detention for other types of purposes is also quite harmful and should also be encompassed in the regulation of these technologies and their uses. And I would like to end with a quote of Amina Mohamed, Deputy Secretary General of the United Nations. She said this at the Arab Forum that was held in March in Beirut. And she said, there can be no sustainable development without peace. So that’s something that we should keep in mind, because without peace, we really have nothing. Thank you.

Qurra Tul AIn Nisar: Amazing. Thank you so much, the on-site speakers and as well as the online ones. I understand how we still have Miss Anusha left to answer this question, but we quickly need to wrap it up. I love how, you know, in a very short time, we covered a lot of topics of accountability, global coordination and collaboration. also the compliance and design part has got to be my favorite. So guys, we have had some great key takeaways from this session, and I hope really that it further inspires more action and discussion, because we really need it in this time. So the report of this session would be shared right away. And I would quickly request all the speakers that are present on site to maybe come closer to the screen, so we can have a group photo together. Feel free to come, and we can pin Ms. Yasmine and Ms. Anusha on the screen, and how about have a quick group photo?

Bea Guevarra: Next thing, please pin Beer, who are also our organizing member. Unfortunately, we have to end this session. It is a time set right now, so thank you, everyone. I know that you guys have comments and questions. Maybe you can approach to the speaker who are on site later. Sorry about that. I feel it’s also been a beerness hour. She’s also one of the organizers. Could you please have the beer to pin on the screen? Thank you. Okay. Hi, speaker. Feel free to try if you would like to. Thank you. There will be no one in the picture. I guess, Annie, you can take a quick screenshot of us, and then we’re good to leave the. session today. I think you’re on mute, Annie. So I only have the online participants including Phil with me, so I’m taking the screenshot guys. Hold your best poses. Three, two, and one. Got it, got it. Thank you so much. Thank you. Have a good day. Thank you so much. Have a good day. Bye. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Agreement Points

Importance of international law in AI governance

Yasmin Afina

Jimena Sofia Viveros Alvarez

Anoosha Shaigan

Mohamed Sheikh-Ali

International law as central component of AI governance

Need for coherent global AI governance framework

Compliance with international humanitarian law principles

Human oversight and control necessary for weapons systems

All speakers emphasized the crucial role of international law in governing AI in warfare and military applications, stressing the need for compliance with existing legal frameworks and principles.

Human control and accountability in AI warfare systems

Jimena Sofia Viveros Alvarez

Mohamed Sheikh-Ali

Need for binding treaties aligned with international law

Human control needed for life-and-death decisions

Human responsibility and accountability necessary

Both speakers strongly advocated for maintaining human control and accountability in AI-powered warfare systems, particularly for critical decisions involving the use of lethal force.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers highlighted the need to develop specific technical standards or requirements for military AI that align with legal and ethical considerations.

Yasmin Afina

Anoosha Shaigan

Translating legal requirements into technical requirements

Developing standards for military AI

Both speakers emphasized the importance of involving and holding accountable the private sector companies developing AI technologies for military use.

Anoosha Shaigan

Mohamed Sheikh-Ali

Corporate accountability for military AI suppliers

Engaging tech companies from design stage

Unexpected Consensus

Comprehensive approach to AI governance beyond warfare

Jimena Sofia Viveros Alvarez

Anoosha Shaigan

Need for coherent global AI governance framework

Privacy concerns in conflict zones

Both speakers unexpectedly broadened the discussion beyond just warfare, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive AI governance approach that addresses various contexts including peacetime and civilian applications.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The speakers generally agreed on the importance of international law in AI governance, the need for human control and accountability in AI warfare systems, and the necessity of developing specific standards for military AI. There was also consensus on involving and regulating private sector companies in the development of military AI technologies.

Consensus level

High level of consensus on core principles, with some variations in specific focus areas. This strong agreement suggests a solid foundation for developing international norms and regulations for AI in warfare, but also highlights the complexity of implementing these principles across different contexts and stakeholders.

Different Viewpoints

Scope of AI governance in warfare

Yasmin Afina

Jimena Sofia Viveros Alvarez

International law as central component of AI governance

Need for coherent global AI governance framework

While Afina focuses on international law as a central component of AI governance in the military domain, Alvarez argues for a broader, coherent global AI governance framework that encompasses both military and civilian uses due to the dual-use nature of AI technologies.

Unexpected Differences

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement revolve around the scope and approach to AI governance in warfare, the extent of human control required, and the specific mechanisms for ensuring accountability and compliance with international law.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among the speakers is moderate. While they share common concerns about the ethical and legal implications of AI in warfare, they differ in their proposed solutions and areas of emphasis. These differences reflect the complex and multifaceted nature of the issue, highlighting the need for continued dialogue and collaboration among various stakeholders to develop comprehensive and effective governance frameworks for AI in warfare.

Partial Agreements

All speakers agree on the need for human oversight and accountability in AI-powered weapons systems, but they differ in their approaches. Afina suggests translating legal requirements into technical ones, Shaigan focuses on clarifying liability frameworks, while Sheikh-Ali emphasizes maintaining human control over life-and-death decisions.

Yasmin Afina

Anoosha Shaigan

Mohamed Sheikh-Ali

Translating legal requirements into technical requirements

Clarifying liability for AI actions in warfare

Human oversight and control necessary for weapons systems

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers highlighted the need to develop specific technical standards or requirements for military AI that align with legal and ethical considerations.

Yasmin Afina

Anoosha Shaigan

Translating legal requirements into technical requirements

Developing standards for military AI

Both speakers emphasized the importance of involving and holding accountable the private sector companies developing AI technologies for military use.

Anoosha Shaigan

Mohamed Sheikh-Ali

Corporate accountability for military AI suppliers

Engaging tech companies from design stage

Key Takeaways

Resolutions and Action Items

Unresolved Issues

Suggested Compromises

I wanted to add another layer to our discussions, the role of the multi-stakeholder community. And in fact, in the report that I previously mentioned, one of the other key areas of nuance convergence that we have identified is the importance of multi-stakeholder engagement.

speaker

Yasmin Afina

reason

This comment broadened the scope of the discussion beyond just governments to include other stakeholders, highlighting the complexity of AI governance.

impact

It shifted the conversation to consider a more holistic approach to AI governance, leading to discussion of various stakeholder perspectives and initiatives.

I think I don’t like to just circumscribe this conversation to warfare. Because these technologies are being used to attack civilians also during peacetime. So I like to call it the peace and security spectrum of things.

speaker

Jimena Sofia Viveros Alvarez

reason

This reframing challenged the narrow focus on warfare and expanded the discussion to consider broader implications of AI in security.

impact

It prompted consideration of AI’s impact across different contexts and actors, leading to a more comprehensive examination of legal and ethical issues.

Data bias and model drift are the main concerns with AI models. Data bias is, of course, if you train your AI with biased data. For example, if you train it with skewed data or discriminatory patterns like kill all the dark-looking people or kill all the brown people or kill anybody who doesn’t look white or Caucasian.

speaker

Anoosha Shaigan

reason

This comment brought attention to specific technical challenges in AI systems that have serious ethical implications, especially in conflict situations.

impact

It deepened the discussion on the ethical considerations of AI in warfare, leading to further exploration of oversight and accountability measures.

Can an AI-controlled or autonomous weapon that has been tasked to execute an operation abort autonomously the operation if they see a child or a civilian or a fighter who is no longer capable of participating in the conflict?

speaker

Mohamed Sheikh-Ali

reason

This question highlighted a crucial ethical and practical challenge in implementing AI in warfare while adhering to international humanitarian law.

impact

It focused the discussion on the specific challenges of ensuring AI systems can comply with the nuanced requirements of international law, leading to consideration of human oversight and control.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by expanding its scope beyond just warfare to consider broader security implications, highlighting the importance of multi-stakeholder engagement, addressing specific technical and ethical challenges of AI systems, and emphasizing the need for human control and oversight. The discussion evolved from a general overview of international law and AI to a more nuanced exploration of practical challenges, ethical considerations, and governance frameworks across various contexts and stakeholders.

How can international law obligations be effectively translated into technical requirements for AI systems in military applications?

speaker

Yasmin Afina

explanation

This is crucial for ensuring AI technologies used in warfare are compliant with international law from the design stage.

How can a coherent global AI governance framework be developed and implemented?

speaker

Jimena Sofia Viveros Alvarez

explanation

A comprehensive framework is needed to address the dual-use nature of AI and its applications across civilian and military domains.

How can liability be determined when AI systems are involved in military actions that violate international law?

speaker

Anoosha Shaigan

explanation

Clarifying responsibility (e.g., operator, commander, developer, or state) is essential for accountability in AI-enabled warfare.

How can data bias and model drift in AI systems used in military contexts be effectively monitored and mitigated?

speaker

Anoosha Shaigan

explanation

Addressing these issues is critical to prevent discriminatory or unpredictable actions by AI in warfare.

How can privacy and surveillance concerns be addressed when using AI technologies in conflict zones?

speaker

Anoosha Shaigan

explanation

Balancing military needs with civilian privacy rights is a key challenge in AI-enabled warfare.

Can AI-controlled or autonomous weapons reliably comply with core principles of international humanitarian law, such as distinction and proportionality?

speaker

Mohamed Sheikh-Ali

explanation

This is fundamental to ensuring AI weapons can be used in accordance with international law.

How can explainable AI technologies be applied to autonomous weapon systems to ensure human oversight and understanding of targeting decisions?

speaker

Qurra Tul AIn Nisar

explanation

This is important for maintaining human control and accountability in AI-enabled warfare.

Summary

This discussion focused on the gender gap in digital access and usage across different regions, particularly in low and middle-income countries. Presenters from Research ICT Africa, CETIC Brazil, and GSMA shared findings from their surveys on internet and mobile phone usage. Key points included that while overall internet access has increased in many countries, significant gender gaps persist, especially in Africa and South Asia. The gaps widen at each stage from basic access to regular, diverse internet use.

Barriers to women’s digital inclusion include device affordability, lack of digital skills, and safety concerns. Even when women have access, they often use the internet less diversely than men, particularly for economically beneficial activities. The presenters emphasized the importance of collecting gender-disaggregated data through household surveys to understand these nuanced gaps and inform targeted policies. They discussed various models for funding and conducting such surveys, including partnerships with national statistical offices.

The discussion highlighted that progress in closing digital gender gaps is not guaranteed and requires sustained, targeted efforts informed by data. Participants stressed the need for more funding and support for data collection, especially in low-income countries where statistics offices are often underfunded. They also emphasized the importance of making survey data relevant and accessible to policymakers to drive evidence-based interventions aimed at achieving universal and meaningful connectivity for all.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– There are significant gender gaps in internet access and usage, particularly in low and middle-income countries

– Data collection and analysis is crucial for understanding and addressing these gender gaps

– Barriers to internet access and usage for women include affordability, lack of digital skills, and safety/security concerns

– Collaboration between researchers, policymakers, and other stakeholders is important for collecting relevant data and using it to inform policies

– More funding and support is needed for data collection efforts, especially in low-income countries

The overall purpose of the discussion was to examine gender gaps in internet access and usage across different regions, share findings from various research efforts, and discuss the importance of data collection for informing policies to address these gaps.

The tone of the discussion was informative and collaborative. Panelists shared insights from their research in a factual manner, while also emphasizing the importance of working together and with policymakers to address the issues identified. There was a sense of urgency about the need for more data and funding, but the overall tone remained constructive and solution-oriented throughout.

Speakers

– Relebohile Mariti: Research Fellowб Research ICT Africa

– Fabio Senne: Project Coordinator at the Regional Centre of Studies on Information and Communication Technololgies under the auspices of UNESCO (Cetic.br)

– Claire Sibthorpe: Head of Digital Inclusion in the Mobile for Development (M4D) team at the GSMA

Gender Gaps in Digital Access and Usage: A Comprehensive Analysis

This discussion focused on the persistent gender gaps in digital access and usage across different regions, particularly in low and middle-income countries. Presenters from Research ICT Africa, Cetic Brazil, and GSMA shared findings from their surveys on internet and mobile phone usage, highlighting the complexities of the digital divide and the importance of data-driven approaches to address these inequalities.

Key Research Projects and Methodologies

Research ICT Africa presented findings from their After Access project, which covered 20 countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America between 2017 and 2022. Cetic Brazil shared insights from their ICT Households survey, which uses a multi-stakeholder model to define indicators and surveys individuals aged 10 and older. GSMA discussed their annual Mobile Gender Gap Report and State of Mobile Internet Connectivity Report, which provide global insights into mobile internet adoption and usage.

Key Findings on Gender Gaps

Claire Sibthorpe from GSMA emphasised that progress in closing the mobile internet gender gap is fragile and not guaranteed, underscoring the vulnerability of digital inclusion efforts to external factors and the disproportionate impact on women.

Fabio Senne from Cetic Brazil introduced a crucial distinction between basic access and meaningful connectivity. He stated, “Although we have 88% or 90% that had some access to the internet, when it goes to the meaningful connectivity, we can say that today in Brazil, only 22% of the population has a meaningful connectivity, and being 30% are in the 0 to 2 of this scale.” This insight reveals a much larger digital divide than raw access numbers suggest.

Sibthorpe highlighted that gender gaps widen at every stage of internet adoption and usage, with specific figures varying by region. For example, in South Asia, women are 41% less likely than men to use mobile internet.

Barriers to Women’s Digital Inclusion

The discussion identified several key barriers to women’s internet access and usage. Relebohile Mariti from Research ICT Africa emphasised affordability of devices and data as a primary obstacle. She also highlighted the lack of digital skills and awareness as major barriers, providing concrete evidence: “So when looking at don’t know what the Internet is, we see that 23% of females say that they don’t know what the Internet is, and this is slightly lower for males at only 19%.”

Claire Sibthorpe added that safety and security concerns significantly limit women’s internet use. She also pointed out that social norms and structural inequalities exacerbate barriers for women.

Importance of Gender-Disaggregated ICT Data

All speakers emphasised the critical importance of collecting and analysing detailed, gender-disaggregated data to understand digital gaps and inform effective policies and interventions. Fabio Senne advocated for a multi-stakeholder approach to ensure relevant data collection, while Claire Sibthorpe focused on using data to inform evidence-based policies and interventions.

Challenges in ICT Data Collection

The discussion highlighted several challenges in collecting ICT statistics, including limited funding, especially in developing countries, and difficulties in partnering with national statistical offices. Fabio Senne pointed out the challenge of keeping surveys relevant as technology rapidly changes and raised the sensitive issue of collecting data on topics like online violence, which requires careful approaches.

Policy Implications and Recommendations

The speakers agreed on the need for targeted interventions to address specific barriers women face in digital inclusion. Specific recommendations included:

1. Focusing on affordability, skills development, and creating enabling environments

2. Lowering mobile-specific taxes

3. Implementing handset financing initiatives

4. Increasing investment in gender-disaggregated ICT data collection

The discussion also touched on the importance of engaging policymakers effectively to use ICT data for decision-making.

Emerging Issues and Future Directions

The discussion highlighted the need to consider children’s access to smartphones and internet, with an audience member raising concerns about the appropriate age for children to have unrestricted internet access. This prompted a discussion about the importance of disaggregating data by age groups and considering the unique needs and risks for different demographics.

The speakers also emphasised the need for qualitative studies to complement quantitative data, especially for sensitive topics like online violence. The moderator noted the challenges in asking questions about controlling behavior in household surveys, highlighting the complexity of addressing certain aspects of the digital divide.

In conclusion, this discussion underscored the complex nature of the digital gender divide and the crucial role of comprehensive, gender-disaggregated data in understanding and addressing these inequalities. It emphasised the need for sustained, targeted efforts informed by data to achieve universal and meaningful connectivity for all, particularly women and children in low and middle-income countries.

Moderator: Asia-Pacific, on the other hand, the overall percentage is a bit lower, but the gap is smaller as well. It’s 68 against 64. The big gap, though, is in Africa, where 43% of the male population is using the internet against only 31% of women. And Rayleigh will talk to us about that later and come up with a few explanations, maybe, and some ideas how we can address this. We also have data on the percentage of the population owning a mobile phone, where we can see the overall percentages are a bit higher, but the gap is the same. 82% of the male population globally owns a mobile phone against 77% of the population. Earlier, I spoke about the difference by region, but, of course, regions are very heterogeneous. There are rich countries, poor countries, different types of countries. If you look at income, income is a very big factor in these differences. There’s a big correlation. I’m not going to say causation, but there’s a big correlation between income level of a country and gender gap. And here we can see that in high-income countries, almost everyone has a mobile phone, both men and women. In upper-middle-income countries, it’s 86% of male against 84% of women, so there’s a small gap. Lower-middle, it’s 77% against 66%. And in low-income countries, 60% of the male population against 41% of the female population, so a huge gap there as well. I will stop here with the barrage of data, which is a bit hard to get, especially when spoken without any slides. In our session today, we’re going to look deeper into these issues based on data. And eventually, what we’re trying to answer are the following policy questions, or at least that’s where we should be leading, and maybe we can get something out of this session. Policy questions are, what are the most binding… constraints which hold women back from being able to equally participate in a digital economy. So we’re looking at barriers and barriers that are different between men and women. What policy interventions will create a more even playing field where women are as able as men to derive socio-economic benefits from digital interaction. So how can we solve it? How can policymakers solve it? And then which countries have provided evidence of providing an enabling environment for equal participation in the digital economy? And what were the key factors which led to this success? So learning from others. So these are the three policy questions. I would now like to give the floor to Relebohile Mariti from Research ISC Africa to talk about the situation in Africa. Rele, the floor is yours.

Relebohile Mariti: Thank you and thank you to the participants for taking your time to join us today. As Martin has already said, I will be sharing the evidence from… Okay, so I’ll be presenting our findings from the interesting and important work we have been doing at Research ICT Africa. Okay, apologies, we’re trying to move the slide. Okay, so what we see from the data is that despite the increased digitalization around the world and even in Africa, the policies in Africa, in most African countries, have fallen digital inequalities. And so as a result we still see a lot of disparities in how these technologies are adopted and used across countries in Africa and within countries. And so what we find is that those digital inequalities are mainly driven by structural inequalities. These are the differences in income and education between different groups within countries. And at the same time we see that the COVID-19 has exacerbated the structural inequalities by widening the digital inequalities. And so what we have been doing at Research ICT Africa is to collect data on how individuals use these digital technologies and the adoption of digital technologies. And we look at what barriers they face. And for those who already have access, what limitations they face in trying to use these technologies in the most productive way. And so we conclude that for African countries to achieve universal and meaningful connectivity, there’s a need for effectively regulated and competitive and innovative industry that will respond to consumers needs. So to just give an overview of their after access project. To just give overview of their after access project. This is the only nationally representative household and individual SAFE. that looks at the adoption and use of digital technologies across multiple African countries. And Research Health City Africa has been collecting this data, and so the first round of the After Access Surveys took place between 2005 and 2008, and it covered 17 African countries. And so the second was between 2012 and 2010, and it covered 13 African countries, and the third was between 2017 and 2018, and it covered only 10 African countries. And you see that the number of countries we are covering is going down, and this is because we are an organization that’s funded by other organizations, so we really need to invest more on this. So today I’ll be presenting the findings from the fourth round of the After Access Surveys, which took place between 2022 and 2023, and we covered seven African countries. But today I only have results for six African countries. So the survey provides a detailed account of the adoption of digital technologies, and how individuals use these technologies, and what barriers they face and limitations they face. And for each of the countries surveyed, the household and individual survey is accompanied by micro-enterprise surveys. So the individual and household surveys are nationally representative, but the micro-enterprise surveys are not nationally representative, because we don’t have… because of the lack of nationalistic… of micro enterprises in different countries, but then we were able to cover a large number of micro enterprises in each of the countries, so because of this the insights are really important. So just to give the high-level findings, what we find is that the internet is mostly accessed through smartphones, but those devices do remain inaccessible to majority of their population in Africa. For instance, in 2022, 72% of the adult population in Nigeria did not have access to a smartphone, and this is even higher in countries like Ethiopia and Uganda, where we find that 84% of the adult population do not have access to a smartphone, and so because of this, this limits access to the internet, and in those countries where we have low levels of smartphone adoption, we have low levels of internet access. More than 50% of the population, of the adult population, do not have access to the internet, and when looking across countries, we see different gaps. We see significant gaps across countries, and also there are significant gaps within countries. We find that men are still more likely than women to use the internet, and thus the gender gaps are more significant in countries where we have low levels of internet access. So the main barriers to internet access are the price of devices, and the lack of digital skills, and lack of awareness of what the internet is. So when we talk of lack of digital skills, it’s the basic literacy required to navigate the internet. So we still see individuals who said they don’t know how to use the internet, and those who say they don’t know what the internet is. And also when doing the supply side analysis, we find that most of those countries that we have, Ethiopia, Nigeria, and Uganda, they rank in the top 10 countries in Africa that have the cheapest prices of data. But those online indicate that they’re not able to use the internet as much as they would love to because of high data prices. So then this is low data prices do not equate to improved access and use because of the structural inequalities. And also when doing the supply side analysis, we find that when looking at the quality of internet that is experienced by end users, there are disparities. Those in urban and capital centers enjoy better quality than others. So because most internet users access the internet through smartphones, it is important that we understand what the level of smartphone ownership within countries and how that has evolved over time. So overall, there has been increase in mobile phone ownership across countries. And we see that in some countries, 90% of the adult population have access to a mobile phone. So when looking at the bar, the red part of the bar shows smartphone ownership and the gray part shows basic phone or feature phone use. So where we have the red part being bigger than the gray part, that says in that country we have mobile phone ownership being dominated by use of smartphones. But if we have a gray part being larger than the red part, it means we have… mobile phone ownership being dominated by use of basic or future phones. So we still see that in some countries we have low levels of adoption of smartphones. For instance, when you when you look at Ethiopia and Nigeria and Uganda, you see you see that mobile phone ownership in those countries is dominated by use of basic phones, which limits access to the Internet. Only 16% of the adult population in Nigeria, I’m sorry not Nigeria, in Ethiopia and Uganda had access to a smartphone and this was 28% in Nigeria. So not only do we have devices being inaccessible, but even the level of access differs across groups within the same country. So when looking when looking across gender, we find that men are more likely than females to have access to a mobile phone, but those gaps are more pronounced when looking at smartphone ownership specifically. So when looking at the buys, the right buy for each of the countries, the right buy represents mobile phone ownership among males and you find for some of those countries there is a difference and an exception is South Africa where we see that there’s almost parity in smartphone use. So this low levels of access to smartphone among females limits their access to Internet enabled services and opportunities. So then when looking across all countries, we find that the main barrier to smartphone ownership is the price of these devices. So across all countries, a significant share of individuals who do not have access to smartphones indicate that those devices are too expensive for them. So when looking at the trends in internet access, so when looking at the trends in internet access, we see that the internet access has been growing across all countries, and some of the countries have reached more than half of the adult population. And however, what despite the increase in internet access across all countries, what we see is that the level of access differs across countries, and even the rate of growth of internet access also differs across countries. It is growing faster in other countries. For instance, when you look at the level of internet access in 2018 in Ghana, Kenya, and Nigeria, you find that they had relatively similar levels of internet access. But between 2018 and 2022, we see that in Kenya and Ghana, the level of internet access doubled, and in Nigeria, there was a marginal increase. So then, because of this positive trend in internet access, the gender gaps have also been declining, but they still remain. insignificant, with males being more likely than females to have access to the Internet. In some countries, like, these gender gaps are more pronounced in countries where we have low levels of Internet access. So then when looking at the barriers to Internet access across all countries, we see that the lack of access to devices comes out as the main barrier. But even though this is the main barrier, we still see the lack of digital skills and the lack of awareness of what the Internet is being the main barrier. So when looking across gender, we see that more females than males say that they don’t know what the Internet is. For instance, when looking at don’t know what the Internet is, we see that 23% of females say that they don’t know what the Internet is, and this is slightly lower for males at only 19%. So there are slight differences across countries. For instance, when you look at Ethiopia, Nigeria, and South Africa, the lack of digital skills, that is individuals who say they don’t know how to use the Internet, that is the main barrier. But when looking at countries like Ghana, Kenya, and Uganda, we see that the lack of access to Internet-enabled devices remains the main barrier. So when looking at how individuals are using the Internet for those who are already online, we see that across all countries the Internet is predominantly used for social networking. So nearly all Internet users report using the Internet for social networking. very few report using the internet for online activities that have direct economic benefits like government services and online work. We only have 17% of internet users saying they use the internet for online work and 26% say they use the internet for government services. So we still see that the use of the internet for meaningful activities still remains low. So when looking across gender, we see that when it comes to activities that enhance leisure, we see that there are no differences in how male and females use the internet for those activities. But when we look at other, when we look at those online activities that have direct economic benefits like government services, online work and using the internet to access the news, we see significant gaps with males being more likely to use the internet for those activities in comparison to females. So when looking, so we also had a question that asked internet users if they are able to use the internet as much as they would love to. And what we find is that majority of them say they feel limited in the extent to which they can use the internet. And the main factor leading to this is the prices of data. So we see that across all countries, the main limitation to internet use is data prices. So when looking at the use of digital technologies by micro enterprises, we find that in most of the countries The use of mobile phone ownership is dominated by use of basic phones. So in Nigeria and Ethiopia, we see that most micro enterprises that report using mobile phones for business activities, most of them only have basic phones as the most advanced phones and very few have access to smartphones. When looking across different groups, we see that female-owned micro enterprises, those located in rural areas and informal micro enterprises are the least likely to have mobile phones. And these differences are more pronounced when we look at smartphone ownership. And so when we look at South Africa and Ghana, we find that mobile phone ownership amongst micro enterprises in those countries is dominated by use of smartphones and there are slight differences across groups. So then we see the differences that we have in mobile phone ownership and smartphone ownership are also reflected in internet access. So what we see is that the countries that have low levels of smartphone ownership, we also have micro enterprises having low levels of internet. So in Ethiopia, only 5% of the surveyed micro enterprises were using the internet for business activities. And this was only 13% in Nigeria. And there are significant gaps across gender and locations as well as formality. in which we see that informal micro-enterprises and those established in rural areas, and those that are female-owned, are the least likely to use the internet for business activities. And so also, we still see that even in Ghana and South Africa, they had slightly higher levels of internet access amongst micro-enterprises. But they are higher when compared to other countries, but overall, across all countries, the use of internet for business activities by micro-enterprises is low. Because when looking across all those countries, you find that 60% of the established micro-enterprises were not using the internet for business activities. So also then, what we find is that we have micro-enterprises that have smartphones, but are not using the internet for business activities. So when we look at this specific group, we find that the main barrier to internet access is data prices. So for instance, when you look at Ethiopia, 26% of micro-enterprises reported using smartphones for business activities, but only 5% of them were using the internet. And so then, this says there is a need to look at data prices. So in conclusion, the analysis that we have emphasises the importance of having demand-side data. Without demand-side data, we are not able to determine the social and economic factors which limit the adoption and use of data. of digital technologies, and these factors are invisible to the supply side, so it is very important that we invest in demand-side data so that we can be able to monitor progress and identify gaps that are existing and be able to know what targeted interventions are required in order to promote universal and meaningful connectivity. And in doing this, we need to pay more attention to those at the intersection of these inequalities, particularly these are least educated females who are living in a poor rural household. So if we want to have universal and meaningful connectivity, there is a need to pay attention to this group. Thank you. I’ll hand over to you, Martin.

Moderator: Thank you very much. That was very interesting, very rich as well. At this point, I would like only questions for clarification. The general debate will come after the three presentations. So are there any questions for clarification in the room? I have one question, though. How do you define micro-enterprises? So in this study, micro-enterprises are those enterprises that have at most 10 employees, that is 10 or less, and are not part of a franchise. Okay, thank you very much. With that, I think we can move to another part of the world. We are moving to Brazil, and Fabio will tell us about their survey in Brazil. Fabio.

Fabio Senne: Hello. Good afternoon. Thank you very much for the invitation. It’s a pleasure to be here also with Martin and the other colleagues. I think I’ll be standing to see my slides, and if a colleague can help me. So, thank you. So, I’m from Cetic.br, which is a research center based in Brazil that is responsible for collecting ICT data in Brazil for the past 20 years. So, we are monitoring this field for the past 20 years and I don’t need to repeat Martin and really in a sense that to say that why do you need this demand side data, how useful is to have this data, especially in a data-driven society where we wanted to, we are discussing AI and how to train models with data, but we still need to have at least some equality in the way the data is collected and these types of inequalities are very important to monitor. So, my presentation here, if you can go to the next slide, if I have one main question or main message, it will be that we also need to innovate, of course, in data collection, but also in the data analysis of what we collect in order to understand the gaps and the consequences and the correlations that we want to address with policy. So, I would like to show some examples of what we are doing in terms of measuring meaningful access and meaningful connectivity in Brazil so that we can say that even what can we do with those type of demand side data when we have this data available. So, I’ll talk about more or less what we are doing and then talk about how is the structure of measurement in Brazil. On the next slide, just to mention that in the case of Brazil, as we saw in Africa, there was a very fast change in scenario for the internet in the past 20 years. So, just to compare, if you compared 2008 to 2025, we passed through, from having 42% of households connected to the internet to almost 98% of households connected. We had, in the past, we had 48% of the internet users using the internet outside home, in cyber cafes and other environments, and now it’s just 7%. And also with the mobile phone connections, we went from 40% in 2008 to almost 88% now. So there’s a very fast changing scenario in the country. And if you take the differences, at least in the use of individual access to mobile phone, you can see that there’s not much difference between males and females when you compare the two figures, being in 2008 and 2024. So we can argue that there’s no gender gap, there’s no relevant gender gap when you compare just the access, so the access to smartphones, or the access to the internet in Brazil. But our point, okay, but how do you measure, apart from the access, now that we have almost 90% of the population connected, how do you measure effectively how significant this access is, how meaningful this access is to people? So we decided to develop, in the next slide, please. We decided to develop a scale that is a very simple scale based on nine items that we classified using ITU’s frameworks and other organizations’ frameworks to define meaningful connectivity. And we decided to classify these nine indicators in four. dimensions. So the dimension of the affordability, so this connection is affordable to the people that have it. The access to devices, so are there devices that are capable of benefiting from the internet. The quality of connection, including the download speed and so on. And the usage environment, if you have internet in different spaces, at work, at home, at school, and etc. So this is, we use a sample survey, a normal sample survey that we have in Brazil, and we classify these nine items. And for each person in the population, we set a scale of 0 to 9 points, which means that 0, it’s a very low meaningful connectivity, and 9, it will be the minimum connectivity understanding that we have affordability, the access connection, and devices. And when you calculate this in the next slide, then you can see very huge inequalities, because although we have 88% or 90% that had some access to the internet, when it goes to the meaningful connectivity, we can say that today in Brazil, only 22% of the population has a meaningful connectivity, and being 30% are in the 0 to 2 of this scale. We can see that traditional differences appear, for instance, urban areas and rural areas are very different in terms of meaningful connectivity. You can have here also the regions in Brazil vary a lot. We have the poorest regions with less meaningful connectivity. But take a look at male versus male. If in the access there are no difference, when it comes to meaningful connectivity, we have almost 10 percentage points more male with meaningful connectivity than female in the country. So this is very important. So when you do compound indicators and do more sophisticated analysis of the data you have, then you see very huge inequalities. And you can understand how to face those gender inequalities. In the next slide, please. We did the same scale. And we compared also, OK, so you have a more quality connectivity compared to those that have a low quality connectivity. What happens with your activities online? So if you go to using social media, or sending instant messages, or watching videos, the more communication and entertainment activities, there’s not much difference. There are some differences, but the differences are smaller. Then if you compare to more transactional activities, such as public services, financial services, and studying online, more or less the same what happened in Africa if you compare with the data that was shown before. So when it comes to doing the more important activities online that has more benefits to people, the connectivity is correlated. The low meaningful connectivity is correlated with low performance of those types of activities. And also the skills, which is very important. So those that have reported less digital skills are also those that have low levels of digital connectivity. Of course, those things are correlated. You don’t know what comes first. You don’t have skills, and then you don’t go for connectivity or the opposite. But this is important to understand the situation and to do policy recommendations in the field. And the next slide, just to say that, of course, we have very traditional, as was mentioned before, very traditional inequalities that also affect the online world. So this is still happening, and we need to, that’s why we need disaggregated data. We need very, you need to just not look. into the big picture but also disaggregated data. So here we can see when you break by level of education, for instance, and you compare the list of ITU digital skills that ITU recommends as to be measured by the countries, you can see that there’s a very huge gap between those that have more education and less education when it comes to digital skills. So this is another point arguing that we do need more sophisticated and disaggregated data to understand the digital inequalities. The next slide, please. Here, just to say, we have another survey with children and I have just one figure here to mention. It’s interesting to see among children how also the capabilities of recognizing the digital world still need to be developed and this need to be discussed and enhanced among children. So when we ask children, if you think that everyone find the same information when they search for things online, or if the first result of an internet search is always the best source of information, we have more than the half of children nine to 17 years old agreeing with this statement. To see that although you can have access, you can be online through social media, it’s another type of skills to understand how the algorithms work and how the digital world works. So this is another example of how we can be more sophisticated in the analysis. And to sum up, just to say a few words about CETIC. So we are a center based in Sao Paulo, Brazil that for the past 20 years is producing data on the access of the internet by different parts of the population and also by companies, by governments, by… schools and healthcare facilities and we are also a UNESCO Category 2 Center cooperating with Latin American and African countries in order to produce those type of comparative data. You can have all of this information available online if you want. And in the next slide, just to mention that we also have a few interesting programs of capacity building for researchers to apply these types of surveys and to produce comparable data and comparable information on the field of the Internet. But I’m not taking too much more time on this so we can have more discussion on the discussion phase. So thank you very much.

Moderator: Thank you very much Fabio. Again, very interesting presentation, very rich in detail and in the types of data that you’re collecting and what you can do with it. Same procedure, if there are any questions for clarifications at this point? Nothing. Then I suggest we move on to Claire, who’s online, who will talk to us about the GSMA results for lower middle-income countries. Claire, I hope the connection works and the floor is

Claire Sibthorpe: yours. Thank you. Can you hear me? Very good, very well. Okay, perfect. And I’m sharing some slides. Yeah, so I’m Claire from GSMA. I lead our digital inclusion programs, including our Connected Women program. And one of the things we do is we publish an annual report on the mobile gender gap, where we conduct nationally representative surveys on women’s access to and use of mobile Internet and the barriers they face across low and middle-income countries. So I thought it’d be useful to first start by highlighting the trends. As you can see from this slide where we started measuring the gender gap from 2017, that it had the mobile internet gender gap, so had been consistently narrowing up until about 2020 when it stood at 15%. Can you put him at full screen, Schleitz? Yeah, sorry, let me do that. Is it better now? Sorry. Is it showing up as full screen for you now? Yes, it is. Thank you. Okay, great. So this was sort of, I mean, good news. It was a high gender gap, but it had been reducing. And, in fact, we saw during the first phase of COVID when there was the lockdowns and people were stuck at home, a real reduction of the gender gap because, as women were, you know, having to go online to educate their children and such. But the fact is, and I think it was highlighted in the presentation by Rhea, you know, after COVID, you know, for two years after that kind of lockdown period ended, we saw that progress had stalled. There was a slowdown in digital inclusion for women and progress in the mobile internet gender gap had stalled because women were being very disproportionately negatively impacted by the immediate aftermath. And, in fact, the gap widened to 19% in 2022. Last year, when we published our latest data, we showed the gender gap narrowed back down to 15%. So women are 15% less likely than men to use mobile internet, bringing us back to where we were in 2020. And I really, I think I wanted to highlight this trend because it just shows how progress in closing the mobile gender gap is fragile and it’s not guaranteed. So what we really do need is we need to have concerted, targeted effort. And I think by having this data and showing the trends, we can see how different global events affect. affect it, but it’s, you know, while the recent narrowing shows a promising shift compared to two years, it’s absolutely not clear if the gender gap is going to, women’s adoption is going to continue to increase and the gender gap is going to still go. So, and I think it’s also important to note that even though, you know, we’re back to 2020 levels, it’s still quite a wide gender gap. There are still, according to our data, 265 million fewer women than men using mobile internet in low middle income countries. And I’m talking specifically about mobile because that’s the primary way that most people in these, in these regions access the internet. So now I’m going to go into sort of what it, what it means at different regions. And as we, as we show that there’s, this is, there’s a lot of differences in the gaps, depending on the country you’re in, the region you’re in and where you are in a country. So it’s, so that kind of 15% mass, you know, really big regional and national gender gaps. The majority of the women who are not using mobile internet, 60% live in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. So these are the regions that have the biggest gender gaps. So in South Asia, it’s 31% and in Sub-Saharan Africa, 32%. This compares to a 0% in, in Latin America and the Caribbean. And in Sub-Saharan Africa, so we saw a lot of the reduction in the gap has been driven by South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa. There hasn’t been a, there’s been some changes year on year, but there hasn’t been a really big difference from, in terms of the gender gap from what it was in 2017. So now it’s 32% in 2017, it’s 34%. So I think that just also highlights that, you know, it can, it’s, it can be difficult to make big differences. And, and as, as I highlighted in the previous slide, it’s, you know, any reductions are not guaranteed. And as was, I think, mentioned previously, you know, these gaps also grow and vary within countries. So in rural areas, the gender gaps are much higher than in urban areas. But it isn’t just about whether women are adopting the Internet, is it, are they able to use it to meet their life needs? And I think we see, again, we see that there are big gaps that we have kind of created this sort of high-level journey in terms of, I mean, recognizing it’s not necessarily linear, but in terms of going from owning a phone to kind of being aware of the Internet and using it and using it for diverse use. And what we see is that the gender gaps widen at every stage. So even if there might not be a gender gap in mobile Internet adoption, there is a gender gap in regular diverse use of the Internet, typically. So it’s important to understand these. We see that in our survey, once men and women become Internet users, the vast majority tend to use it every day, but that’s sort of often for a limited range of purposes. And in fact, in our recent research report, we asked whether people would like to use it more, and women were more likely than men to report that they would like to use it more than they currently do. This was true for sort of more than half of mobile Internet users in some of the countries we surveyed, like Ethiopia, Kenya, Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan. So I think in terms of addressing these gaps, it’s really important to understand what stops men and women from adopting and using the Internet, and I think it’s not a surprise that our data is very consistent with what research at ICT Africa says. What we’re being told in our surveys is that once women are aware of mobile Internet, the top barriers that stop them from adopting it are affordability, primarily of handsets, Internet-enabled handsets, and lack of literacy and digital skills. These are the same barriers that men face, but more and more women face these barriers than men because they’re more likely to be offline. And they also experience these barriers more acutely due to social norms and structural inequalities like education disparities in education and income. And then last year, for the first time, we actually asked what is the barrier stopping people, women from using it more, men and women from using it more. And the barriers aren’t as clear cut. So in terms of mobile internet adoption, very clearly handset affordability, literacy and skills are the top barriers across the countries. It’s not told as clear cut and it does vary by country more in the kind of use them for further use. But overall, safety and securities was a top reported barrier. And in fact, it’s one of the top three barriers in all the survey countries. And concerns around this includes like concerns around reliability of information found online, scams, fraud, information security, unwanted contact from strangers and fears of being exposed to harmful content. The second was affordability. This was primarily of data, but also of handsets. And I think we also had previously done some research just to kind of build on what was said before, looking at female microentrepreneurs and what’s stopping them from using. We also saw that similar to research, ICT Africa, female microentrepreneurs are much less likely than male microentrepreneurs to use mobile for their businesses. And even when they were using some of these services in their personal lives, they were not using it for business often because they weren’t even aware that it could be used for business. So I think again, it highlights that these barriers also differ depending not only in country, but your context and who you are. And we shouldn’t be painting women as a kind of homogeneous sort of group. So that’s at a high level. We have a lot more data in our report, and I’ll share that. as well as the report we published on female microentrepreneurs. But I think, just to get to kind of what do we think we can do. So, at a very high level, and again, we have more recommendations, but at a high level, we just really need to focus on this and set real targets. You know, as I showed in the trend slide, you know, we can’t be complacent. You know, it’s not guaranteed that the gender gaps are going to continue to decrease. And as has been highlighted many times, absolutely gender disaggregated data is critical to measuring and informing policies and investments and action to do this. So, while, you know, a number of us have surveys, as we’ve been saying, there’s a lot more data that’s needed to understand women’s mobile use, their needs, their barriers, and how this differs in different contexts and for different groups of women. So, we definitely need more data. And when it comes to kind of designing products, services, policies, we really need to consider women’s needs, circumstances, and the challenges that they face and the different barriers. So, for example, if you look at the barriers that we’ve mentioned, affordability, you know, can be improved by policies and initiatives that lower upfront costs for internet-enabled handsets, for example, lowering mobile-specific taxes or handset financing initiatives. And it’s also skills literacy and skills. There’s a lot that people can do to address that. But to kind of flag that our experience is that these barriers need to be addressed holistically. It’s not you need to think of both the affordability, the skills, the social norms, and all those things when you’re trying to tackle it. And kind of finally, you know, we all need to work together and partner with different stakeholders. No one group can do this on their own. So, I mean, just, I guess, to conclude, I think we need more informed, targeted action and investment by stakeholders. And I shared earlier that that the gap is big and it’s not always reducing. So I wanted to end on a slightly more positive note, which is that it is possible to make a difference. We do feel that this informed targeted action can make a difference. We have mobile operators who’ve made connected woman commitments to reduce the gender gap in their mobile internet and mobile money customer bases. And they have set clear targets for doing so and then are tackling these barriers. And since 2016, when these commitments first started to be made, we’ve seen that they have actually succeeded and have reached over 70 million additional women with mobile internet and mobile money services. So when having the data and taking that targeted action, it is possible to make a difference. So I hope we can continue the conversation here on what we all need to do. So I will stop sharing now. That was me.

Moderator: Thank you very much, Claire. That was very, very insightful as well. So we had three presentations, three different contexts, three different ways of collecting data, and basically all coming up with the same issues. First of all, are there any questions for direct clarifications to Claire? If not, I suggest we can move to a general debate. So I would like to ask the audience if there’s any issues they would like to raise, any questions, any suggestions, how to make the step from data to policy or some policy examples online. Yes, there’s a question there. Can we get a microphone there? If you can also please introduce yourself.

Audience: Hello, my name is Papa Second. I’m from the Virginia Institute of Economics. firsthand international data exchange, a vice-chair of the International Organization of Studies and Linkages, and also a chair of the European Police Parliament in this studio. from UN Women, Research and Data. Hi, Martin. Good to see you again. Good to see you, too. No, really interesting presentations and a lot to digest. And so just, I guess, a couple of questions from me. One is just wanted to understand, because I think each of you presented work that you’re doing, but I just was wondering how much of this is, for example, linked through official data through the National Statistical System? Do you work with the National Statistical Offices in the countries where you work at all? And if so, what has been your experience? And I’m asking because our experience working with NSOs is, again, has been, there are good things and bad things as well. And sometimes it was also using new data sources, including citizen-generated data, has really helped. So I was just wondering what has been your experience. And the second point is really more on, essentially, I mean, have you seen in your research or did you collect data on monitoring behavior, right? So this is linked to violence against women and controlling behavior where, essentially, a male husband, for example, may want to control what his wife does online. We’ve seen that when we try to measure online violence against women, online and offline, and as part of monitoring behavior. And I was just wondering whether this was something that you’ve looked at in your studies, and if so, what did you find? Thank you.

Moderator: Thank you very much. Those are two excellent questions. I have something to contribute on the first question, but I will first go through our panel. Maybe we start the other way around. So Claire, maybe you can tell something about how you collect the data, if there are any interactions with the NSO. We’ll take the questions one by one. So first, we tackle the first question, then the second one.

Claire Sibthorpe: I’ll answer. So the first one, the data I’ve shared is from our nationally representative surveys. We don’t collect the data from the statistics office, but we do refer to and look at the ITU data that was referenced earlier, which does come from the government. So we, but we don’t directly engage with those departments.

Moderator: Thank you, Fabio.

Fabio Senne: Thank you for your question. So, yes, in our case, Cetic participates in our expert groups, so we developed a model that I think is very interesting for highlighting these issues, that is a multi-stakeholder model for collecting or defining what to measure and what types of indicators are needed. So we have groups that the NSO participates, but the statistics regarding the ICTs are made by Cetic, but the NSO also has a few indicators and a few data on the ICTs that it also collects. So we work in partnership and the NSO validates and participates in the data we produce.

Relebohile Mariti: Thank you. So what we do is to work with national statistical offices to collect data. We go to individuals and households as well as micro-enterprises to learn of how they use these technologies and what barriers they face. So in our experience with working with national statistical offices, we had good working relationships in some countries, and well, like any other journey, there are countries where we encountered challenges. So I think that is the overall experience, to say. And who’s conducting the surveys? So we have the national statistical offices hiring field workers to do the surveys.

Moderator: Okay, thank you very much. From the ITU perspective, we actually do not do a survey ourselves. We only collect the data that are collected by the country, and usually and often it is the NSO, not always in some countries and in more and more countries, it’s the regulator that is either funding the survey or in some cases even conducting the survey. And there’s advantages and disadvantages. The advantage is that the regulator has usually money because they have funding from the operators. So they have money to conduct the survey, but you need the experience from an NSO for the sample sizes, etc., etc., for all the statistical work. It’s absolutely crucial that you work with NSOs or that NSOs do the work, because what we do, where we don’t get data, we make estimates. But we only make estimates for the high-level number of people using the Internet. We just don’t do that. add the gender breakdown but we cannot go into any detail about what people are doing online, what kind of barriers there are, what kind of skills they have. It’s impossible to make estimates for that and even if we would make estimates the estimates would be bad and we see how important it is to go beyond the headline number and into the desegregated numbers. So yeah, that really is a crucial point and so we need countries to get involved, NSOs to get funded for surveys. Now on the second question, again let me go through the panel and see if they have addressed online violence in their surveys. The other way around this time, Rele, you can start.

Relebohile Mariti: Okay, thank you and also with the last question, just to clarify, when I say we have the national statistical offices hiring, they do the hiring process but we have Research ICT Africa paying for the labor costs. So with online experiences, we did reports for individual countries and what we find in some countries, we find that there are cases where we find males be more likely than females to experience online threats but what we find is that this is more linked to what kind of information they share online. So in countries where we find that females are less likely to share their real name, their gender and their political views, that is where we find males being likely than females to experience online threats but in countries where we find that there are no differences in what information individuals share on social media, we find that females are more likely than males to experience online threats. Thank you.

Fabio Senne: Thank you. Now in our case in Brazil, we don’t have any specific survey on this on this thematic, although we have a few qualitative studies on this showing more in-depth analysis. It’s a very difficult topic to include in a typical survey because the responders tend to underestimate the rates of those cases. So we do need to combine more qualitative and quantitative analysis and we do have an experience with children. We run, since 2012, the Kids Online Survey, which is a survey with children from 9 to 17 years old and in this case we ask for a few we have a strategy for sensitive data collection with self self-administrative service with children, and we have a few data from things related to violence online and related to children on that. But regarding gender, we see some trends, for instance, in the case of Brazil, although we don’t see many differences in terms of the risks they feel online in terms of, for instance, for sexual violence, but when you talk about parent mediation, you can see that parents are more worried about the girls than the boys, the rates of mediation with girls is higher in the country, and also girls also report more cases of feeling bad online or having a problematic experience of usage, so we have a few experiences with children, but not with the overall adult population.

Claire Sibthorpe: Thank you. Claire, do you have anything on this subject? Yes, we do. We have a whole series of varied questions that we ask around, both on the kind of safety and security issues and whether it’s a concern that’s stopping you from either going online or using the internet more. We also have questions around whether family approval is an issue or not in terms of going online, and last year we asked some questions, extra questions, to look at, you know, this, so this, we see that this is a concern for both men and women, the safety and security concern, and as people get online, it becomes a more of a concern once you’re online, and so we asked some questions last year about whether people had personally experienced the safety and security issues, or whether it was a concern, and I don’t… wasn’t any big kind of big gender differences but although I would say that a lot of I think I think there’s two aspects to this in terms of preventing women from going online there’s a there’s the reality of it happening and you can see from our last report you know how many women versus men report this happening in reality to themselves and there’s a concern that it will happen and I think in our research we’ve seen some of the sort of gatekeepers or family members are concerned about their wives or daughters going online because of these risks so I think so I think it’s both the concern and the reality but it’s certainly an issue that is stopping women from going online and I think concerns some of these concerns are limiting their ability to go online or their online use and their use is limited in certain ways you know in an effort to sort of to address this perceived risk also I should say we did some research a number of years ago that looked at digital skills and what we found is that women were much less likely to know how to protect themselves online so they didn’t know there were things like privacy settings on Facebook and such and they they actually their skills levels and some of these ways to keep to keep themselves protected online were lower than for men so that’s also an issue thank you

Moderator: the only thing I would like to add to this question is that I see some issues in actually asking the question especially if this goes into a household survey where the survey may pass by the head of household who’s actually controlling it so either you don’t get the answers or you may not get the correct answers for the right answers because the women may not feel free to say whatever they want so that that’s a difficult issue in always in this this type of sensitive issue so you have to find a way to actually reach your target population in a way that they are free to answer but it’s it’s very important subject and investing in are there any other questions in the room please… Thank you very much.

Audience: I would like to ask if their research was only based on adult access to mobile phones, or even children. Because in most of the southern countries, in households, you find that even kids got access to smartphones even more than their parents. So maybe the access to internet may be maybe higher than the access to internet by parents. So I’d like to know if their research was only for adults.

Moderator: Yes, very good question. Fabio, since you have the mic, you may answer it.

Fabio Senne: Yes. Well, in our case, the survey I showed, it is covering 10 years old or more individuals. So we screen the household, and we select randomly one person that lives in the household that can be from 10 years old or more. So that’s what we cover in this data. And of course, we have data from what smaller children are doing online. We have data from reported by adults. So we ask adults if the children are using the internet. So we have also estimates from the youngest population. But you’re right that if you take the youngsters and young people use more intensively the internet than the adults, we can also disaggregate out all of this information for these age groups.

Relebohile Mariti: OK. OK, thank you. In our case, what we did was to only conduct interviews with individuals who are at least 15 years.

Moderator: Claire?

Claire Sibthorpe: Yeah, for our Mobile Gender Gap Report, it is adults. But I’ve just put in the link on the line. We have our State of Mobile Internet Connectivity Report, which looks at connectivity, and it does separate out adults versus those who are under 18 and how that makes it and also shared phone access and such. So it has more detail. It’s not. It has more detail on that, a bit more detail on that point.

Moderator: And in the case of the ITU, we collect whatever the countries are doing. So we depend on the service done in countries. We recommend, we have a manual. We recommend starting at the age of five because, as we know, children have different attitudes, different behavior than older people. But there are also legal issues in some countries where you can only start serving people starting at 15 or 16. So in the EU, for example, the age cut-off, it’s 15 or 16 to 74 often, although countries now are voluntarily also going below and above that. Certainly for 15-year-olds, 15- to 24-year-olds are much more likely to use the internet than other age groups. Below 15, it’s actually different. So the there’s really a point where all the children get online and a point where not all the children are online. So it’s actually very important to cover all those age groups so that you can see it in your data. Thank you for that question. Any other questions? Still no questions online. Let me ask a question, because we keep on saying that we need this data, and we do need this data for policy purposes. And Claire really gave a few directions of where policy should go. But it would also be good to know if the data are actually used by policymakers or if there are barriers there. And maybe Brazil is a good case here, because you do work with the policymakers, I understand. And how is the interaction with policymakers? How are your data used by the policymakers? And how do the policymakers ask you for specific data? Fabio.

Fabio Senne: Thank you, Martin. Yes, we have this multi-stakeholder model that I think it’s useful, because we do think that we do need to conduct surveys that are really useful for policymaking. So what we do is that before going to the field, in each iteration of the survey, we call an expert group composed by policymakers, and academics, and private sector, civil society. And they go deep into the survey to understand. Some of the indicators, of course, we keep because they are recommended by ITU or by international standards. So we want to have a time series of fixed indicators. But we also develop new indicators of new aspects that are relevant for policymakers in the field, so that we can be more responsive to that. I think this is useful, not just because the results are used more by the policymakers, but also because this gives legitimacy. to the survey process and also helps in the funding part of it. So how they, the more that they think that the results are useful, the more you can argue that they should fund, that there should be a guaranteed fund for keeping the survey occurring. And I think another important part of this is being very dynamic, because the field changes very dynamically. So the uses of what people do online changes. So, and we have to be very fast in incorporating these new trends in the survey so that you can give results that are more relevant to the policy makers. So that’s why this more participatory way of consulting the communities is good for keeping the survey relevant.

Moderator: Thank you. Rele, do you work with policy makers or how are the data used by policy makers?

Relebohile Mariti: So once we are done with doing the reporting, we do presentations, we disseminate our findings to the policy makers in their respective countries. And they have been, they have shown interest in using the data. And also after we have done the presentation, they always get to know what police interventions they can implement to address challenges in their respective countries.

Moderator: Thank you. Claire, I know you have some issues in actually hearing us, but, and you already mentioned some of the streams of policy interaction, but maybe you can elaborate a bit more or repeat what you said before about the interaction with- I think the question was, how do we engage with policy makers on this issue, if I’m correct?

Claire Sibthorpe: So, yeah, so obviously- We share our data with anybody who wants it. We’re keen to make sure people are doing evidence-based policies and programming. And we support governments on their policies. We run free training courses on both the digital gender divide as well as digital inclusion in general with policymakers, where we, again, share our data and recommendations. We have a whole report which outlines specifically policy recommendations in this space. So we’re very engaged. And we’re very keen that the data that we are lucky enough to be able to collect is available and accessible as much as possible to all stakeholders working in this space so that we’re all evidence-based in our work.

Moderator: Thank you. That’s excellent. I still see no questions. I’m going to ask one last question, and then we will wrap up. And it’s been mentioned already a few times, but it’s so important to have this data. And yet, we see so many gaps, especially in low-income and low and middle-income countries in countries collecting the data. And as I mentioned, the NSOs, they are usually underfunded. And ICT statistics are not a priority for them. So two questions. How did you manage to fund your data collection? And the second is, how can we make this maybe attractive to donors? Or how can we increase funding, especially to NSOs, to do this kind of data collection? And I think I will start with the positive example here. So Fabio, I’m going to first hand it to you, and then to the other two panelists.

Fabio Senne: Thank you. Martin, just to present on the Brazilian model, in the case of Brazil, the center where I’m from in Setic and it’s funded by NIC.br, which is the country code level domain .br register. So we use the funds that comes from the .br to provide society with more information, including service on the use of the internet. This is a unique model, and I think other country code level domains also invest in service, but this is something that can be done. But I do think that, as I mentioned, keeping the relevance of the indicators, I think is very important. It’s very interesting to see that if you go to all the, now you have very new strategies to measure AI readiness or AI capabilities of countries and all of them, in a sense, include data on connectivity on the capability of people to also be online and use the internet. So I think that the agenda changes, but we do need this very basic information on how people are dealing with the state. Now we have generative AI, so we are also expect to see some inequalities in the use of this type of tools, if you have surveys and data like this. So keeping the relevance and promote more stakeholder engagement throughout the process, I think there are good solutions and good ideas for making this type of data more available. Thank you.

Moderator: Maybe I first go to Claire.

Claire Sibthorpe: Sure. For our data, so, I mean, we feel that this data is really, really needed, and we just, we can’t do, we can’t really know what we’re doing and support our members without having it. So very fortunate that because of the lack of this data, especially gender disaggregated data. GSMA is funding the kind of core countries of our survey, our consumer survey, in the kind of core countries that allow us to do the modeling of the usage gap and gender gaps, because we absolutely need this data. And then we have we’re fortunate to have support from some of our donors to add some countries that they’re interested in to be able to compare across more countries, and also to do the modeling so that we can model these gender gaps. So that’s UK Department for International Development and UKAID and Swedish International Development Agency support us in terms of being able to add additional countries and do this modeling in these reports that we’re able to publish with the core countries coming from GSMA. But it is, you know, I think it would be great if this data was just there and done in more countries and by more people. We all need this data.

Moderator: Yes, indeed. Thank you very much. Rele?

Relebohile Mariti: So Research ACT Africa is a donor-funded organization. And the latest round of this survey was funded by the World Bank and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. And so there is really a need for investment in this kind of data. And to make it attractive to funders, I believe what we can do is to stress the importance of this data and also show how this data can be used to create value. And again, as Fabio has already said, there is a need for collaboration and make the data easily accessible. So the data that we have is publicly available on Data First. for everyone to access it. Thank you.

Moderator: Thank you very much for that. I can add something from the ITU perspective. So we collect data from countries. We don’t have our own survey. We don’t fund our own service. We’re not a funding agency. We have tried a couple of times to see if donor agencies are interested in funding servicing countries, but they always say that that has to come from the countries, not from the ITU, and that’s reasonable. But it is important that there’s also a request for the data intrinsically from the countries themselves, from the policy makers, as we discussed. And we now have a project funded by the EU that’s called Promoting and Measuring Universal and Meaningful Connectivity. And in that project, we’re really trying to make the connection between the policy makers and the statisticians. We do a lot of workshops. We do a lot of advocacy. We explain what UMC is, Universal Meaningful Connectivity, how to measure it, but also why it’s important for policy makers. And we’re trying to get, at the country level, a dialogue going between the policy makers and the statistics people. So hopefully that will help as well. Before wrapping up, I’m going to give a last chance to the audience or online for a last question. I see none. So before thanking the panel, I would like to conclude that there is a difference in gender in how men and women access the Internet, how they use it, how many use it. But also, once they are online, men seem to make more of it than women, more activities than women. So how do we know that? We know that because of the surveys done in countries. And if we want to address it, if we want to move to a world where there’s gender equality in access and use of ICTs, you need to have the data to be able to address it. So we need more data, we need better data, we need survey data. And then once we have the data, we need to analyze the data at the detailed level, like, for example, we’ve seen in the presentation of Brazil, and everyone can do that. It’s not a difficult analysis, but you need to have the data. So the data is fundamental. There needs to be more funding for data from donors, but also from countries themselves that they see the importance of the data so that they can get some of the government funding, can go to data collection. There are different models, there are different ways of getting that, and we heard some of them here. But fundamentally, we need the data, countries need to have the data. With that, I would like to warmly thank the panelists, Rele from Research ICT Africa, Fabio from Cetic Brazil, Claire from GSMA, Zahra for the online moderation, and the organizers here. With that, let’s give a big hand for everyone, and thank you very much, everyone. Thank you.

Agreement Points

Gender gaps exist in internet access and usage

Moderator

Relebohile Mariti

Claire Sibthorpe

Fabio Senne

Persistent gender gaps exist in internet access and usage globally

Gender gaps are wider in low-income countries and rural areas

Progress in closing mobile internet gender gap is fragile and not guaranteed

Meaningful connectivity shows larger gender gaps than basic access

All speakers agree that significant gender gaps exist in internet access and usage, with these gaps being more pronounced in developing countries, rural areas, and when considering meaningful connectivity rather than just basic access.

Importance of detailed, gender-disaggregated data

Moderator

Relebohile Mariti

Claire Sibthorpe

Fabio Senne

Detailed, gender-disaggregated data is crucial for understanding gaps

Nationally representative surveys provide key insights

Data needed to inform evidence-based policies and interventions

Multi-stakeholder approach helps ensure relevant data collection

All speakers emphasize the critical importance of collecting and analyzing detailed, gender-disaggregated data to understand digital gaps and inform effective policies and interventions.

Affordability as a key barrier

Relebohile Mariti

Claire Sibthorpe

Affordability of devices and data is a key barrier

Gender gaps widen at every stage of internet adoption and usage

Both speakers identify affordability of devices and data as a significant barrier to internet access and usage, particularly for women.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers highlight how lack of digital skills, awareness, and social norms create additional barriers for women in accessing and using the internet effectively.

Relebohile Mariti

Claire Sibthorpe

Lack of digital skills and awareness is a major obstacle

Social norms and structural inequalities exacerbate barriers for women

Both speakers advocate for targeted, collaborative approaches involving multiple stakeholders to address the specific barriers women face in digital inclusion.

Claire Sibthorpe

Fabio Senne

Targeted interventions needed to address specific barriers women face

Multi-stakeholder collaboration is key for effective policymaking

Unexpected Consensus

Challenges in collecting data on sensitive topics

Fabio Senne

Claire Sibthorpe

Collecting data on sensitive topics like online violence requires careful approaches

Safety and security concerns limit women’s internet use

Both speakers unexpectedly highlight the challenges and importance of addressing sensitive topics like online violence and safety concerns in data collection and analysis, despite their different regional focuses.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The speakers show strong agreement on the existence of gender gaps in internet access and usage, the importance of detailed gender-disaggregated data, and the need for targeted interventions to address barriers. They also agree on affordability and lack of digital skills as key obstacles.

Consensus level

High level of consensus among speakers, implying a shared understanding of the challenges in digital gender inclusion and the importance of data-driven, collaborative approaches to address these issues. This consensus suggests potential for coordinated global efforts to bridge the digital gender divide.

Different Viewpoints

Primary barriers to internet access and usage

Relebohile Mariti

Claire Sibthorpe

Affordability of devices and data is a key barrier

Safety and security concerns limit women’s internet use

While Mariti emphasizes affordability as the main barrier, Sibthorpe highlights safety and security concerns as significant factors limiting women’s internet use.

Unexpected Differences

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement revolve around the primary barriers to internet access and usage, as well as the most effective approaches to data collection and policy development.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among the speakers is relatively low. They generally agree on the existence of gender gaps in internet access and usage, the importance of data collection, and the need for targeted interventions. The differences mainly lie in the emphasis placed on various factors and approaches, which could actually complement each other in addressing the digital gender gap comprehensively.

Partial Agreements

All speakers agree on the importance of data collection, but they differ in their approaches. Mariti emphasizes nationally representative surveys, Senne advocates for a multi-stakeholder approach, while Sibthorpe focuses on using data to inform evidence-based policies.

Relebohile Mariti

Fabio Senne

Claire Sibthorpe

Nationally representative surveys provide key insights

Multi-stakeholder approach helps ensure relevant data collection

Data needed to inform evidence-based policies and interventions

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers highlight how lack of digital skills, awareness, and social norms create additional barriers for women in accessing and using the internet effectively.

Relebohile Mariti

Claire Sibthorpe

Lack of digital skills and awareness is a major obstacle

Social norms and structural inequalities exacerbate barriers for women

Both speakers advocate for targeted, collaborative approaches involving multiple stakeholders to address the specific barriers women face in digital inclusion.

Claire Sibthorpe

Fabio Senne

Targeted interventions needed to address specific barriers women face

Multi-stakeholder collaboration is key for effective policymaking

Key Takeaways

Significant gender gaps persist in internet access and usage globally, especially in low-income countries and rural areas

Key barriers for women include affordability of devices/data, lack of digital skills, and safety/security concerns

Gender-disaggregated ICT data is crucial for understanding gaps and informing evidence-based policies

Progress in closing the gender digital divide is fragile and not guaranteed

Meaningful connectivity shows larger gender gaps than basic access metrics

Multi-stakeholder collaboration is important for effective data collection and policymaking

Resolutions and Action Items

More investment is needed in gender-disaggregated ICT data collection

Policies should focus on addressing affordability, digital skills, and creating enabling environments for women’s internet access and use

Stakeholders should work together to keep ICT surveys relevant as technology rapidly changes

Unresolved Issues

How to sustainably fund ICT data collection, especially in developing countries

Best approaches for collecting data on sensitive topics like online violence against women

How to effectively engage policymakers to use ICT data for decision-making

Suggested Compromises

Partnering with national statistical offices, despite challenges, to conduct ICT surveys

Using multi-stakeholder models to fund and design ICT data collection efforts

Balancing the need for consistent indicators with incorporating new trends in ICT surveys

Although we have 88% or 90% that had some access to the internet, when it goes to the meaningful connectivity, we can say that today in Brazil, only 22% of the population has a meaningful connectivity, and being 30% are in the 0 to 2 of this scale.

speaker

Fabio Senne

reason

This comment introduces the crucial distinction between basic access and meaningful connectivity, revealing a much larger digital divide than raw access numbers suggest.

impact

It shifted the discussion from focusing solely on access to examining the quality and usefulness of that access, prompting deeper analysis of digital inequalities.

We see that the gender gaps widen at every stage. So even if there might not be a gender gap in mobile Internet adoption, there is a gender gap in regular diverse use of the Internet, typically.

speaker

Claire Sibthorpe

reason

This insight highlights how gender gaps persist and even widen beyond initial adoption, revealing the complexity of digital inclusion.

impact

It expanded the conversation to consider not just access, but ongoing usage patterns and barriers, leading to discussion of more nuanced policy interventions.

So when looking at don’t know what the Internet is, we see that 23% of females say that they don’t know what the Internet is, and this is slightly lower for males at only 19%.

speaker

Relebohile Mariti

reason

This statistic provides concrete evidence of a fundamental awareness gap between genders, pointing to deeper societal issues.

impact

It prompted discussion on the need for basic digital literacy and awareness programs, especially targeted at women.

After COVID, you know, for two years after that kind of lockdown period ended, we saw that progress had stalled. There was a slowdown in digital inclusion for women and progress in the mobile internet gender gap had stalled because women were being very disproportionately negatively impacted by the immediate aftermath.

speaker

Claire Sibthorpe

reason

This observation highlights the fragility of progress in digital inclusion and how external events can disproportionately affect women.

impact

It led to discussion about the need for sustained, targeted efforts to close the digital gender gap and the importance of considering broader societal factors.

Overall Assessment

These key comments collectively shifted the discussion from a focus on basic internet access to a more nuanced examination of meaningful connectivity, persistent gender gaps, and the fragility of progress. They highlighted the complexity of digital inclusion issues, emphasizing the need for targeted interventions, sustained efforts, and consideration of broader societal factors. The comments also underscored the importance of detailed, disaggregated data in understanding and addressing digital inequalities.

How can we increase funding for ICT statistics collection, especially for National Statistical Offices in low and middle-income countries?

speaker

Moderator (Martin)

explanation

This is important because many countries lack sufficient data on ICT usage, particularly gender-disaggregated data, which is crucial for evidence-based policymaking to address digital inequalities.

How can we make ICT statistics data collection more attractive to donors?

speaker

Moderator (Martin)

explanation

Securing funding is critical for conducting comprehensive surveys and ensuring consistent data collection over time to track progress in closing digital divides.

How can we better measure and address online violence and controlling behavior related to women’s internet use?

speaker

Audience member (Papa Second)

explanation

Understanding these issues is crucial for developing policies to ensure women’s safe and equitable access to digital technologies.

How can we improve data collection on children’s access to and use of mobile phones and the internet?

speaker

Audience member (unnamed)

explanation

Comprehensive data on children’s digital access and usage patterns is important for understanding overall household connectivity and developing targeted policies for youth.

How can we enhance collaboration between researchers, National Statistical Offices, and policymakers to ensure ICT statistics are relevant and used effectively?

speaker

Fabio Senne

explanation

Stronger partnerships can improve data quality, relevance, and utilization in policymaking to address digital inequalities.

How can we develop more sophisticated analysis techniques to uncover hidden inequalities in ICT access and use?

speaker

Fabio Senne

explanation

More nuanced analysis, such as the meaningful connectivity scale presented, can reveal disparities that are not apparent from basic access statistics alone.

What policy interventions are most effective in creating an even playing field for women’s participation in the digital economy?

speaker

Moderator (Martin)

explanation

Identifying successful policy approaches is crucial for replicating and scaling efforts to close gender gaps in ICT access and use.

Which countries have provided evidence of an enabling environment for equal participation in the digital economy, and what were the key success factors?

speaker

Moderator (Martin)

explanation

Learning from successful examples can inform policy development in other countries seeking to address digital inequalities.

Summary

This discussion focused on digital cooperation among Portuguese-speaking countries, highlighting the importance of the Portuguese language in the digital world. Participants from various Portuguese-speaking nations and organizations shared insights on collaborative efforts to promote digital inclusion, enhance digital skills, and strengthen the presence of Portuguese online.

Key themes included the significance of Portuguese as one of the most widely spoken languages globally, particularly in the Southern Hemisphere, and its potential as a unifying force for digital cooperation. Speakers emphasized the need to address digital divides, both within and between Portuguese-speaking countries, through capacity building, knowledge sharing, and technology transfer.

The discussion highlighted several initiatives, such as the Lusophone Internet Governance Forum and the Association of Portuguese Speaking Registries (LUSNIC), which aim to foster collaboration and promote Portuguese language content online. Participants stressed the importance of developing technologies, including AI and large language models, in Portuguese to ensure cultural representation and combat linguistic biases in emerging technologies.

Regulatory cooperation was also addressed, with examples of how agencies like ANACOM and ANATEL are working together to share best practices and develop common approaches to digital governance. The speakers emphasized the value of multi-stakeholder engagement and the need for inclusive policies that consider diverse perspectives within the Lusophone community.

The discussion concluded with a call for continued and strengthened cooperation among Portuguese-speaking countries in the digital realm, recognizing the shared language as a powerful asset for fostering innovation, economic development, and cultural exchange in an increasingly interconnected world.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– The importance of Portuguese as a common language for digital cooperation among Lusophone countries

– Efforts to enhance digital skills and reduce access inequalities in Portuguese-speaking nations

– Collaboration and knowledge sharing between regulators and organizations in Lusophone countries

– The need to increase Portuguese language content and representation in emerging technologies like AI

– Promoting inclusivity and addressing the digital divide in the Global South

Overall purpose/goal:

The discussion aimed to highlight digital cooperation initiatives among Portuguese-speaking countries and explore how this linguistic and cultural community can work together to address shared challenges in the digital realm.

Tone:

The tone was largely positive and collaborative throughout. Speakers expressed enthusiasm about existing partnerships and a shared desire to strengthen cooperation in the future. There was a sense of pride in the Portuguese language as a unifying force and asset for the community. The tone became more urgent when discussing the need to address inequalities and increase representation in emerging technologies.

Speakers

– Moderator: Panel moderator

– Sandra Maximiano: Chairwoman of the Board of Directors of ANACOM

– Luísa Ribeiro Lopes: President of the board of directors of DNS.pt Association

– Bianca Kramer: Counselor of CGIBR, visiting professor and research lead at the Center of Technology and Society

– Marta Moreira Dias: Board member of DAPT and president of LUSNIC

– Mozart Tenório: Advisor to the presidency of ANATAL, Brazil’s national telecommunication agency

– David Gomes: Executive Secretary of Arctel CPLP, Senior Advisor of the Multi-Stakeholder Regulatory Authority of Cape Verde

Additional speakers:

– Leonilde Santos: Chairwoman of ARC-TEL-CPLP (mentioned but did not speak)

Digital Cooperation Among Portuguese-Speaking Countries: A Comprehensive Overview

This discussion focused on digital cooperation among Portuguese-speaking countries, highlighting the importance of the Portuguese language in the digital world. Participants from various Lusophone nations and organisations shared insights on collaborative efforts to promote digital inclusion, enhance digital skills, and strengthen the presence of Portuguese online.

Importance of the Portuguese Language

A key theme throughout the discussion was the significance of Portuguese as one of the most widely spoken languages globally. Bianca Kramer, Counselor of CGIBR, noted that Portuguese is the 5th or 6th most spoken language worldwide, while Marta Moreira Dias, Board member of DAPT and president of LUSNIC, stated it as the fifth most spoken language. The speakers agreed that the Portuguese language serves as a unifying force for collaboration and an asset for economic development.

Digital Cooperation Initiatives

The discussion showcased several initiatives aimed at fostering collaboration among Portuguese-speaking countries:

1. LUSNIC (Association of Portuguese Speaking Registries): Established in 2015, LUSNIC includes member countries such as Portugal, Brazil, Angola, Mozambique, Cape Verde, and Sao Tome and Principe. It focuses on sharing best practices and governance models among ccTLD registries.

2. Lusophone Internet Governance Forum: Marta Moreira Dias highlighted this as a key collaboration platform. The first event was held in Sao Paulo in 2023, with the second scheduled for Cape Verde in 2024.

3. ANACOM’s cooperation activities: Sandra Maximiano mentioned capacity-building programmes focusing on various regulatory topics and sharing of network assessment technologies.

4. ARCTEL-CPLP initiatives: David Gomes, Executive Secretary of Arctel CPLP, emphasised the importance of updating the digital agenda for Portuguese-speaking countries and implementing the Sustainable Village for Development project.

These initiatives demonstrate a shared commitment to knowledge sharing and collaborative problem-solving within the Lusophone community.

Addressing Digital Divides

A significant portion of the discussion focused on efforts to reduce digital inequalities. Luisa Ribeiro Lopes cited a UNESCO report stating that while 93% of people in developed countries are connected to the internet, only 27% are connected in developing countries. This highlighted the urgency of addressing the digital divide.

Speakers agreed on several approaches to combat this issue:

1. Promoting digital skills to combat exclusion

2. Implementing projects to bring internet to underserved areas

3. Fostering inclusion and equal representation in ICT

4. Harmonising regulatory approaches across different regions

These strategies reflect a comprehensive approach to digital inclusion, addressing both infrastructure and skills development.

Future Opportunities and Challenges

The discussion also looked towards future opportunities and challenges for digital cooperation:

1. Developing AI and language models in Portuguese: Bianca Kramer emphasised the importance of this to ensure cultural representation and combat linguistic biases in emerging technologies, including examples of Cape Verdean Creole and Brazilian regional slangs.

2. Addressing cybersecurity collaboratively: Mozart Tenorio, Advisor to the presidency of ANATEL, highlighted this as a key area for future cooperation, mentioning ANATEL’s involvement in ITU and CGI.br.

3. Promoting Portuguese content on the internet: Speakers stressed the need to increase the presence of Portuguese-language content online.

4. Strengthening cooperation amid global instability: Sandra Maximiano noted the importance of maintaining strong partnerships in the face of global challenges.

Regulatory Cooperation and Multi-stakeholder Engagement

The discussion touched upon the importance of regulatory cooperation and harmonisation of procedures across different economic regions. Throughout the event, speakers stressed the importance of multi-stakeholder engagement in digital cooperation efforts, ensuring diverse perspectives within the Lusophone community are considered when developing policies and initiatives.

Women’s Empowerment

An notable aspect of the discussion was the strong representation of women in leadership roles among the participants, reflecting a commitment to gender equality in the field of digital governance and cooperation.

Conclusion

The discussion concluded with a call for continued and strengthened cooperation among Portuguese-speaking countries in the digital realm. Speakers recognised the shared language as a powerful asset for fostering innovation, economic development, and cultural exchange in an increasingly interconnected world.

The overall tone was positive and collaborative, with speakers expressing enthusiasm about existing partnerships and a shared desire to strengthen cooperation in the future. As the digital landscape continues to evolve, the Lusophone community is poised to leverage its linguistic and cultural ties to foster inclusive growth and innovation, addressing both the progress made and the challenges ahead in the digital realm.

Moderator: Okay, so good afternoon and welcome to the Open Forum 75, the Portuguese-speaking community as a case study on digital cooperation. This Open Forum intends to be a space of dialogue between different stakeholders from different regions on digital cooperation in the Portuguese-speaking country’s community, which spans from four different continents. The Open Forum will discuss this case study on how such digital cooperation is taking place and what meaningful results it has been delivering. So as speakers, we have a very interesting panel, I believe, Leonil Santos, Chairwoman of ARC-TEL-CPLP, Sandra Maximiano, Chairwoman of the Board of Directors of ANACOM, Luiz Ribeiro Lopes, Chairwoman of the Board of Directors at PT, Marta Moreira Dias, Chairwoman of LUSNIC, Mozart Tenorio, Advisor of ANATEL Presidency, Bianca Kramer, Counselor of CJBR, David Gomes, Executive Secretary of ARC-TEL-CPLP. So with no further delay, I will pass the floor, we will see a video directly from the beautiful Cape Verde of Leonil Santos. Leonil Santos, as I said, is the Chairman, the Chairwoman of the Board of Communications and Telecommunications Regulator of the Community of Portuguese Language Countries, ARC-TEL-CPLP. The only of the sentence is also the chairwoman of the Board of Directors of the multi sectoral regulatory authority of Cape Verde. So let’s watch the message from the UNILDE. Thank you very much for coming. Thank you. Thank you.

Sandra Maximiano: Thank you. And now I had the subtitles in Portuguese, so that’s a pity. So I’ll give you some information as well that were in the video. But first of all, let me just telling you that my background as a professor, as an academic, we always work in cooperation. We never do research alone. And the most scientific knowledge and advancements that we see nowadays, they all come with the cooperative work and working together with researchers from all over the world. And it’s that same spirit that we, and myself in particular, try to bring to ANACOM and to foster cooperation with other countries, the Portuguese-speaking countries in particular, but also European and all the rest of the world as well. As well. So let me just telling you that, of course, I want to emphasize this collaboration between Portuguese-speaking countries in fostering a robust digital ecosystem. And the digital landscape is very complex and is rapidly evolving. And we have new challenges. Of course, artificial intelligence, cyber security has new challenges for all of us. In this context, cooperation is not only beneficial, but it’s essential, it’s crucial. You cannot live without it. And the Portuguese-speaking world is vast and diverse. And together, of course, we share a common language which serves as a powerful bridge for communication and understanding. This shared linguistic heritage allows us to collaborate effectively, exchange ideas and promote innovation and connectivity in a collectively way. So it’s extremely important. So let me just telling you a little bit what was in the video. The cooperation that ANACOM establishes is through bilateral and multilateral cooperation, of course, and through mostly cooperation protocols. And these cooperation protocols establish a mechanism for technical and institutional cooperation on different matters related to activities of national regulatory bodies. In particular, ANACOM has focused on cooperation with Portuguese-speaking countries and, as I said, these EU countries in many diverse matters. And we are really dedicated to foster digital cooperation within the Lusophone community, and that can be seen through various collaborative initiatives that they were mentioning in the video. And these partnerships involve the wide range of activities, including capacity-building programs, and these capacity-building programs, they touch on many different issues like finance, human resource management, accounting, information exchange in diverse areas of expertise, technical support, technical field visits, institutional visits, and also the organization of high-level coordination meetings. And the capacity-building and information exchange programs cover a broad spectrum of topics. So, for instance, regulatory economics, statistics, consumer protection, security, equipment, spectrum management, supervision, including coverage and quality of service measurement. So we have a wide range of topics that we work in these capacity programs, and most of these programs are nowadays online, which allows a wide range of participation. But also, we still insist and we foster in-person programs, 30% of these capacity-building activities are conducted in person. within the beneficiary countries. This approach allows a greater number of regulatory authority staff to participate in these exchange sessions. And every year, hundreds of staff members from regulatory authorities engage in this exchange. And we are extremely proud of these efforts. So, I’m not so sure if I’m over time or not, Manuel.

Moderator: Yeah, well, I think we are fine now. We can move on to the next speaker. Thank you very much, Sandra. So, Luisa Ribeiro Lopes. Luisa is currently president of the board of directors of DNS.pt Association, the entity responsible for managing the national top team. She is a member of the European Association of Systems. The floor is yours. I believe you have a presentation, presentation number three. I’m saying to people there, hopefully this time we won’t have an issue. Yeah, right. Now? Yes.

Luísa Ribeiro Lopes: Yeah, okay. First, I would like to begin to thank IGF and Anacom to organize this important panel. I also thank you for inviting me and .pt to join the debate about Portuguese language on the Internet. This panel shows the significance that we have all reaffirmed in recent years the need to include Portuguese as an official language of the United Nations. This is essential for all of us, for our countries and for our organizations, as we work together to build a digital environment enriched by this important asset, the Portuguese language. Since 2007, .pt along with other registries like .cv and .br presenting in this panel has joined forces with other Portuguese countries to create an association with a different and inclusive vision for the internet governance and for our top-level domains. We have seen this collaboration in action during the events held in Brazil last year and in Cape Verde this year with the Lusophone Internet Governance Forum, but about LUSNIC, my colleague Marta, the chair of this association, will share more details. For now, I’m here to present you .pt and our commitment to improving digital skills and achieving gender balance in ICT. So switching to my presentation, .pt is the registry of the top-level domain for Portugal in the internet. Our organization is a non-profit association representing all the digital national ecosystem, the government representing by FCT, the consumers representing by the Portuguese Consumer Protection Association, DECO, and the digital companies representing by the Digital Economic Association. We have, as you can see in the slide, a multi-stakeholder governance model with more than 20 entities from different economic, social, and cultural areas representing in the advisory board. such as Anacom. Our vision, yes, our vision, it’s a new vision from last month, approved by the General Assembly last month, is promote the free and secure use of the Internet by providing services of recognized excellence to the community, partners and peers, while projecting Portugal’s identity in the international digital ecosystems. And for this, we have our principles, as you can see, our vision is aligned with the principles that we also advocate here in the Internet Governance Forum. Security, accountability, strict trust, ethics, inclusion, and my presentation is all about inclusion, responsibility, independence, globalization, cooperation, innovation, and impact. In numbers, .pt, we have now more than 1.9 million domain name registries under .pt, but .pt is not just numbers. We promote and we are a partner with a lot of projects to improve the digital skills of the Portuguese population. We work with young people, we work also with workers who need more digital skills, helping them to upskilling and reskilling, as well as with older individuals to combat digital exclusion. And we are proud to be partners in initiatives centered around gender equality in ICT. We recognize the huge gap that exists for women in these fields, and we strive to create opportunities that foster inclusivity and equal representation. Because an image is worth a thousand words, we brought a small video from .pt. Portugal is more than 200 locations around the world, which means that, regardless of its location, there will always be a server nearby. With Portugal, we want to be more digital and more inclusive. And that’s why we also say that Barra Barra, which is the headquarters of .pt, which is the home of the national internet. For digital nomads, it is an aggregator space, a resource that we want to make available to the community, a digital web. There is a discussion about the issues of the internet of the future. And we want to make it available to the whole society, so that they can use our physical space, which is a bridge to digital inclusion for all those who are contributing to it. So, all of these activities promote the Portuguese language in the internet. The more people have digital skills in Portugal, And in all our countries, the more our language will be represented on the Internet, because we are not only users or consumers, but we are also producers of content. For now, Manuel, this is my presentation.

Moderator: Thank you. Thanks, Luisa. Very inspiring. So I’ll pass now the floor to Bianca Kramer, a counselor of CGIBR, a visiting professor and research lead at the Center of Technology and Society, Faculdade Getulio Vargas de Direito, Rio de Janeiro. Member of Legalite Research Center, Pontificio Universidade Católica do Rio. And currently member of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee, CGIBR, a representative of the third sector. Bianca, welcome, and the floor is yours.

Speaker 1: Thank you so much, Manuel, for the kind introduction. Thank you so much for the invitation to be here and to represent as a member the CGIBR, which is, for those who don’t know us, a multi-stakeholder organization in Brazil with members from the government, from the corporate sector, the third sector, and also the academic community. To introduce a little bit about my concerns on these topics, I would like to just talk a little bit about two questions that must be taken into consideration to address the Portuguese-speaking community as a case study on digital. So these questions concern, they actually address successful objectives and successful initiatives we have been building together, and I would like to address them. The first one is the importance of, to debate technology, technology issues from a perspective of common language, which is, for us, of course, the Portuguese in particular. the importance of initiatives of capacity buildings and experience changes between Portuguese-speaking countries, okay? So, these are the questions that I have been intending to address, and for so on, I would like to raise awareness of the fact that Portuguese, as Sandra’s video was showing, unfortunately, we didn’t have the audio to make it even more fruitful, but as the video already was saying, Portuguese is the sixth language most spoken in the whole world, and it is not something that shouldn’t be taken into consideration for capacity building purposes among us. So, we had a very successful opportunity to develop the first Lusophone internet governance for Presencio. We had already online, but in the Presencio way, we had the opportunity to do this in Cape Verde in Africa. So, I thought it was a very good opportunity for us to understand what we have in common, and what do we have that is more important? We have the intention to develop our countries in terms of industrialization of technology, in terms of strengthening us as a political area in the country, economically, socially, politically as well, and we have so much in common on this topic, because when we address English as the major language for all developing technologies, we get so much weakened in terms of opportunities worldwide as well, and it submissions us in our capacity of building technology in a sovereignty way. So, this is the first topic that I would like to consider the most. Because this is, when we have this most, one of the most spoken languages, and we don’t talk about the importance of this, we have in the Lisbon Forum, we had it, an opportunity to observe and to exchange in a horizontal way, in a very respectful way, means of hearing each other’s necessities, opportunities we want to build and to strengthen our, not only the way we are weakened in the development technology, worldwidely field, as we can say, but we can observe and achieve other lacks of opportunities that we shouldn’t have, or we didn’t have when we were not together. This is the first topic I would like to say. I know I have very few time, but just to address the major topics on this conversation, it is important to understand that the presence of Portuguese language on the Internet is not reflective of the dimension of our presence in the Internet. It is considerable because we observe a gap of opportunities and also a gap of addressing things that are from our own perspectives. I will give an example that really touched me in the Lisbon Forum that we have been building. We had the presence of a professor, a Portuguese professor, that said a term that a regalo, like it could be translated as a gift, is not a regalinho. It could be translated as well as a little gift. For us, we in Brazil, we don’t say regalo neither regalinho, but I can tell you that I understood the emotionality of the language. And I come from a region of Brazil that I’m sure in Portugal and neither in Cape Verde or any other Lisbon partner, they wouldn’t understand what is tamec. Which is, it is cool, it’s okay, in the favela language. So, this is important for us to understand that when we shut down the cultural heritage and the cultural importance of emotionality in developing technologies and addressing the topics of technology, we also shut down opportunities of self-development and also economic block of development. And that’s it. We have to understand that to bring together Portuguese language in these topics is to address the linguistic and cultural diversity we have among ourselves and also compared to the other countries. Especially those from the north that develop these technologies using English as the major and, why not, the only language that should be addressed. I see China doing the opposite. I just came from a panel that I heard the Chinese researchers say that they develop their own LLMs in Chinese offering Mandarin, of course. But this is important to us first to understand that. What is the importance? We are seeing other examples of other countries that are developing high-level technologies in other languages than language. Why shouldn’t Portuguese community do this? So, this is an invitation for us to see that the success of the Lusophone Forum, why we should address it forward and how could we improve it, respecting our differences but raising awareness and centralizing what we have in common, which is the desirability of self-development and economically, socially and also politically.

Moderator: Thanks a lot, Bianca. Very inspiring words and very relevant reflection. So, I’ll pass the floor now to Marta Moreira Dias. Marta is a board member of DAPT and president of LUSNIC, the Association of Portuguese Speaking Registries. Currently, she serves as Vice Chair of the Internet Governance-led Liaison Committee within the CCNCSOs at ICANN. Marta, the floor is yours, and I believe now the presentation.

Marta Moreira Dias: Yeah, I do have a presentation. So good afternoon, everyone. So thank you for having me here today. It is a pleasure to share this panel with colleagues and friends, and most of all, thank you for setting the scene, so the job will be much easier for me. But I have to confess, it’s my first disclaimer here, that my presentation is huge, so prepare yourself. So I’m going to present you LUSHNIC. So Luisa did a brief presentation of this association that was established back in 2015 in Lisbon, Portugal. It is an association that gathers the registries from the Lusophone countries, and you do see there, we are seven registries for the moment, and the figures just show how our governance model is different, even though we are all ccTLD managers, we do have three ccTLDs within the National Regulatory Communication Authority, two not-for-profit associations, .PR and .PT. Luisa already presented .PT, we are a private association, .PR, it’s managed by CGR, and we do have two ccTLDs, Angola and Mozambique, within the national government. So as we can see here, we do have different realities, we do have a different geographic localisation, a different population, a different digital authority and so on, but so what do we have in common? We are ccTLD managers, and most importantly, we do have this common asset, the Portuguese language, which was in fact behind the creation of this association. From here, I can identify the first challenge, if I can say that, that it was to serve as a driving force, as a unifying force, in order to bring those different realities coming together and work and trying to achieve their own purposes that are similar in terms of governance and maintenance of the respective CCTLDs. I’m talking about training, collaboration, also capacity building, also the question that was raised here today, the importance of promotion of the Portuguese language content on the internet and the idea of collaboration and building and sharing knowledge and promoting, of course, the development of common policies and DNS best practices. So, in short, if I can talk about the value proposition for the SNIC, we want to bridge gaps, we want to be a network facilitator, we want to create awareness regarding the internet governance topics and I’m talking about AI, data protections, human rights, consumer protections and so on. So, those are global and transnational topics that should be approached in this global way and having a coordination and collaboration between different actors. So, what do we have here? We asked Chet Chippity to prepare us a good image of one of our major purposes. What you see there is a picture of one very important poet, a Portuguese poet from the 16th century, Camões, and probably you know, but the Portuguese language is also referred to as the language of Camões. So, we asked Chet Chippity to combine this image of these ex-liberis of the Portuguese heritage with one of our main concerns, which is the future. I can say that it’s more than a concern. It’s a future that we, LUSNIC members, do envision, which is to have a broader representation in the development across the world. So again, the Portuguese language, again, the fact that we are here, all collaborate, all working together in order to promote the Portuguese language. So if we look to the numbers, in fact, I heard here a reference to the sixth most spoken language in the world, but the data that I do have is that we are the fifth. I’m not sure who is right, but well, it doesn’t matter. What is matter is that we do have more than 215 million speakers from four different continents, and we are the most spoken language in the South Hemisphere. So this common asset that I talked previously that was on the basis of the creation of LUSNIC, and we think that we should showcase in numbers because it’s much easier to look at this map and understand the value and the power of the Portuguese language. So if we look to ongoing activities, you can see there the sets of initiatives that we are promoting within LUSNIC, and again, the cooperation in terms of training, in terms of capacity building, and of course, the organization of the Lusophone Internet Governance Forum. The first one was in Sao Paulo in 2023, and this year it was in Praia, Cidade de Praia, in Cape Verde. We do have two outcomes from the Lusophone Internet Governance that I would like to invite you all to visit our webpage and to consult. You have there two charters with a set of commitments that all the Lusophone members had the opportunity to set forth. So, if you have any curiosity on it, please visit the website to hear about the set of commitments that I was talking about. Of course, collaboration is fundamental, and we do have to collaborate among our members, but it is fundamental to collaborate with other entities. In special, we are founding members of the Coalition for Digital Africa, an initiative set in 2020. We want somehow to help Africa having its right place, the place that the continent should be in the digital world, in the usage of the internet. And then we do have regional entities like TLD, AFTLD, organizations that we work to. So, training, awareness, sharing knowledge, and building common positions are our own ongoing activities. So, if I present you ongoing activities, I have to talk about the pressure points. We do have pressure points. We are far away from each other. We do have a political, social, and economic distance. We do have different realities regarding internet usage. We do have different strategic priorities. We do have different budgets allocated with ICT and the internet and connectivity and different levels of connectivity and access, but we work together. We have, I’m sorry, that was the most important part of that slide, the engagement. We work together, we engage, and we try to build bridges. That’s one of the main purposes of this association, so the future is the most important now to look at. We are now just organizing the third Internet Governance Forum that will be held in Mozambique next year in Maputo. We are still deciding about the final date, but probably in September. We are doing a good job, I would say, showcasing the SNIC, that’s what we are doing here today. It’s important to spread the word. It’s important to explain to people that we work together, that we are together, that we engage together, and of course, the importance of safeguarding the inclusion of Portuguese language in the context of emerging technology, mainly in the AI world. So foster the Lusophone community cooperation, training, and shared knowledge, again, the future, the present, but also the future. So those are our contacts, please reach us and work with us, and we want to collaborate and participate in all the events that you believe that we could be an add-on. So Manuela, I think the time is the right one, so back to you, and thank you.

Moderator: Okay, thanks a lot, Marta, very interesting, very relevant presentation. Thanks for your insights. So, Mozart Tenorio serves as an alternate member of the board at the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee, CGIBR, and a full member of the board of the Audit Committee of NIC, and he is also an advisor to the presidency of ANATAL, Brazil’s national telecommunication agency, and I will focus on that capacity in this session. So, Mozart, the floor is yours.

Mozart Tenório: Thank you, Manuel. First of all, I would like to thank you for the invitation, and it was a pleasure for us at ANATAL to help in any way we can. It’s an honor and a pleasure for us to engage with the speaking community every time we can. And, first of all, I would like to mention about ARCTEL, our association of regulators of telecommunications of the speaking, of the Portuguese-speaking community, which we recently passed the presidency to Cape Verde, to Leonel de Santos, she talked a little bit in the beginning of this panel, and we were the presidents before that, and we hold it very dear to us to engage with the speaking community, Portuguese-speaking community of regulators. And, recently, lately, we had a very pleasant happening, which is the creation of the Lusophone IGF, as we call it, and as members of the CGI.br, which is the Brazilian steering committee in Brazil, we are very glad to take part as much as we can, and I would like to say that it was very good to see that we have different roles, different subjects to deal with, different issues to cope in a different, and I would say broader, community. It’s very good to see that we can join with other partners like .pt, LuzNik, other entities from all around Africa, in Europe and South America and Asia. And we are very excited with the Lusophone IGF. We would like to say it very clearly that we are open to participate as much as we can naturally. And it’s only natural and it’s a necessity as well. It’s needed for us as regulators to be engaged with the digital ecosystem day after day more and more. So, one more time, thank you for the opportunity and I’m looking forward for the questions ahead. Thank you.

Moderator: Thank you, Mozart. Very interesting. Also, your insights. So, I was told that we can now play the video from Leon Yildir. So, Leon Yildir. Yeah, we can play. Leon Yildir Well, it’s quite unfortunate. Yeah, well, the video is not working. So, we have to move on. We have also to be a little bit telegraphic in our Q&A part of the session, but moving on. So, Sandra Maximiano, tell us how can HANA.com as a regulator enhance digital cooperation to reduce access inequalities among Portuguese-speaking countries, and how HANA.com is benefiting from this cooperation. Sandra, the floor is yours.

Sandra Maximiano: So I want to just compliment what you cannot really see, but I can refer to work that we have been doing to assess the quality levels of telecommunications networks. We had been developing some technology that allow us for verification and comparison of the performance of mobile and fixed networks, and we share a lot with the Portuguese-speaking countries this assessment technology developed and used by HANA.com, but this cooperation goes way beyond technology, and there’s a proof of that I just signed. I was just making some signatures when one of them was for the next program that we are going to have a cooperation program actually with ARM, and it’s a capacity-building program on communication strategies. So that’s actually a proof that it’s very dynamic, and it happens with a high frequency. So we do also, related to this assessment technology, it includes sharing of knowledge procedures and problem-solving approaches, and this allows the national regulatory authorities to actually have a voice in the process of making decisions. So that’s a proof that it’s very dynamic. So that’s actually a proof that it’s very dynamic. to develop some capacities to assess, analyze, but also to generate reports on user experience quality, particularly concerning mobile networks. So this is really good, because all these best practices are extremely important, so fast, reliable internet is extremely needed for greater digital literacy, and of course to reduce inequalities among people. So this is extremely important, and this is one particular activity that I would like to mention. And the second part of the question, which is what can we bring with this cooperation, and let me tell you that this is not a one-way transaction. So not only the countries that we cooperate with benefit from this cooperation, but of course we, ourselves, Anacom, benefit a lot with this cooperation. So our technicians, they gain many insights by doing this work, by working in a field in different realities, which are completely different from ours, and they are exposed to different technologies, different equipment, but also different problems, and this makes them think outside the box, and question some established realities or certainties. So we gained a lot, but also this cooperation motivates our technicians and our collaborators that go and participate in these capacity building programs, and they give them a sense of achievement, a sense of real public missions, and they see things happening in a concrete territory, a village, or improving lives of a citizen. So it has a very rewarding effect within our teams. So it’s never a one-way transaction. We gain a lot with this cooperation, and of course we truly believe that Portuguese-speaking countries also gain a lot of this cooperation, so we aim at continuing and, of course, expand our realm of interventions. Thanks a lot.

Moderator: Thanks, Sandra. Thanks a lot. So, Luisa, you have been dedicating your researches on how digital skills act as a driver or digital inclusion. Can you expand on that? Can you tell us more about that?

Luísa Ribeiro Lopes: Yes. Thank you, Manuel. Yes, I think that inclusivity is one of the most important aspects of the digital partnership we share between Portuguese-speaking countries. And as we saw Monday in the open session, in the great presentation did by the Saudi Arabian Minister of Digital, we face an unequal digital divide if we compare the North and the South Hemispheres. And as we all know, Portuguese is the fifth or the sixth most spoken language in the world, but the first one in the South Hemisphere with over more than 200 million speakers. Many of these individuals are excluded from the digital. As we heard yesterday during the presentation session of the UNESCO report, 93% of people are connected to the Internet in developed countries, while only 27%, yes, 27% are connected in the developing countries. I believe it is the responsibility of all of us as a Lusophone community to do more to combat the digital divide. People who don’t have access to digital skills will not have access to the opportunities in the digital world. Digital skills are a priority for all of us. Portugal has been progressing quickly in this field and we are now in line with the European Union in digital skills and the use of the internet. But Portugal and all the Portuguese speaking countries have wonderful examples of projects running by government, by companies, third sector or by civil society that have been helping communities acquire these skills and use digital in their daily lives. Our partnership also presents many opportunities for us to exchange information and best practices, to share examples of what works in our countries and to help others to implement similar projects. This is what we need to do all together. Cooperation is so important and we just achieve our purpose if we cooperate with each other. Thank you, Manuel.

Moderator: Thanks a lot, Luisa. Very interesting. So, Bianca, I’ll question you now. Why do you think it’s so important to debate technology related issues from the perspective of a common language, the Portuguese?

Speaker 1: Manuel, if you allow me, I would like just to observe that we didn’t hear the relevant contributions of David Gomes. If you allow me, I would like to ask for his presentation and to share with us his thoughts.

Moderator: Yeah, well, David, yeah, it’s true. The way it was organized, it was supposed to be in the video, but you are totally right. So, David Gomes serves as a Senior Advisor of the Multi-Stakeholder Regulatory Authority of Cape Verde and he acts as Executive Secretary of Arctel CPLP. So, David, if you would like also to provide us with your insights. Thank you.

David Gomes: Thank you, Manuel. Can you hear me? Yes. Yes, thank you. Thanks a lot. First of all, I would like to congratulate the IGF and Anacom for this initiative. As you know, Arctel is an association with nine national regulatory authorities of communities. All of them are in the section of Anarctic. We are all in this communication sector, this means postal service and telecommunication service. Well, as you know, Arctel can enhance digital cooperation amongst people by focusing on the following initiatives. First one, we are updating our digital agenda, that is approved by the Council of Ministers of Telecommunications, and now we are working with the CPLP organization to implement this digital agenda. The second topic we are currently planning to implement in 2025, let’s see it, the second phase of the Sustainable Village for Development project in my island, Cabo Verde. This project aims to bring internet access to the most under-served areas. This means that this project, just to open here an observation, this project is working with an organization, and we hope that by the end of this implementation, my small island will be the first island totally connected by this project. Another issue, a very important, you know, we have the statistical working group that monitors the sector data and show us what weakness need to be addressed in our association. We are now preparing to be present on the international scene, again to promote the creation of the partnership and bring investment towards content in our community. Also we are working on strategy close to the digital divide in our country, particularly gender divide, genderized digital divide. Finally, let me just to say that during the national nature of our association, a lot of work has been developed through the new communication platforms, making our day-to-day life more agile, enhancing the exchange of information in real time, this is very important, and the results of our work are expected to be faster and more efficient. The growing importance of technology, digital platform and internet infrastructure has already created an opportunity for cooperation among our speaking Portuguese. This is what I can say at the moment. Thank you.

Moderator: Yes, thank you, David, and so I’ll come back to you again, Bianca. So why is it important to debate technology-related issues from the perspective of a common language, the Portuguese?

Speaker 1: Thank you very much for this interesting question, Manuel. I’ll be very brief due to our time, but the major point is that it strengthens the Portuguese-speaking community. And it enables partnerships, it enables collaboration, and also we can share experiences and lessons that we learn from each other. We have an example that we can observe is that when we have the majority of discussions on AI and very far away from the Portuguese community, from the Portuguese language, we have the training models and also the observances of biases, language biases. And also, why not to mention that we have the lack of representation, cultural representation in these technological spaces. I can’t talk about the Brazilian perspectives, but for example, talking to Cape Verdean communities, we could see that they express themselves very much, belong to each other, and you can say that much better than I can, in Criolo, for example. And also, the slangs we have in Brazil in different regions, I know Mozart is from a different region from Brazil. As you could see, we are a continental island, as people used to say. We have a famous actress that is running for the Oscar this year, that is Fernanda Torres, and she said this in an interview. Brazil is a continental island, so isolated by the language. Why not strengthen what we have in common, taking language as an asset to move us forward in the discussions, and also in achieving our purposes in economical approaches? So, this is something that I would like to mention. When you ask why is it important to debate, it is important because the major language models are being trained in English, and you can observe it. Why not improve our society? raising awareness of the importance of Portuguese in society and worldwidely. So I would like to answer very briefly, but raising awareness on this topic and observing that we can gain so much if we could point out on this topic.

Moderator: Thanks a lot, Bianca. So now, Mozart, I would like to ask you, what’s Anatel, in terms of cooperation in the digital ecosystem, and you can also future in front of us. Yeah, for Anatel. Sure. First of all, Manuel, just after

Mozart Tenório: this wonderful speech from Bianca, I just would like to point that we have in this table a member of council in Bianca, four chairwomen. So coming from a cultural background, from a Christian and Catholic community speaking, Portuguese speaking community, to see such powerful women having so much success is really very interesting. I just hope they don’t feel like making a women speaking, Portuguese speaking community, otherwise we’ve been in a bad situation, I guess. Moving forward, Anatel is very active, for example, in ITU. And there, ITU is also following a path in the digital environment. So we kind of try to engage with that in an international arena. And through CGI in Brazil, which we are part, we also try to engage and help as much as we can on building this capacity, this digital landscapes in Brazil and speaking in the Portuguese speaking community. And referring to what Bianca just said, when I hear such things, Bianca, I feel like, it’s not very often that we can say that, but I’m glad we speak Portuguese when we are contributing with each other, when we are talking, when we are exchanging experiences. And it’s amazing how language can bind us together, because we come from such different parts of the world, and someone from Timor-Leste or Macau can talk to us and relate and instantly in a very empathic way. It’s amazing. And so I believe this kind of forum is very important, and I’m very glad that Anatel is increasingly taking part on that, Manuel, and we would like to be like this even more. Thank you for the question.

Moderator: Thanks a lot, Mozart. So in my script, I have now to introduce David. Just to complement what we have said before, how can Arctel contribute to enhancing the dialogue among Portuguese-speaking countries? Maybe I need a microphone, because this one. Okay, now it’s fine. So yeah, David, to complement your first intervention.

David Gomes: Yeah, thanks. Thank you, Manuel. To be brief, let me just to show the topics that we are working on in our session, based on our digital agenda. The first topic is digital transformation and inclusion, that we are listening to here from everybody. The second one is cross-border data and cybersecurity that we also hear from our colleagues from Brazil. The third one is this innovation, technological cooperation, so what we are doing now here to develop the digital cooperation, and also technology cooperation. I think that the example with the Anaconda in this matter is a very good example that we can exchange our experience, but also we can cooperate between us in terms of technology. Another issue very important for our community, this is a regulatory organization. As you know, we are maybe the unique association that we have members from four different continents. They are situated in different economic regions, Latin America, EU, Portugal, Brazil, Angola, Mozambique, ECOWAS region, but what we try to do now is harmonize our regulatory view, regulatory procedure. I think we can harmonize this. The last one, what we hear here is capacity building and training. Maybe just wait for what Marta said, our engagement in this process is very important. Thank you, Manu.

Moderator: Thank you, David. Well, we don’t have time for that. I’ll just make a round of one minute each. I would start with Mozart. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Okay, Martha. It’s me?

Marta Moreira Dias: All right. So thank you. I think it was a very fruitful discussion. What I would like to emphasize here is the idea of cooperation and collaboration. I believe that we all heard the United Nations Secretary General, the Portuguese, António Guterres, in the opening session called for a collaborative approach to governance together with an open, free, sustainable, human-centered, and affordable internet. So he was emphasizing the collaboration topic as a main collaboration. In fact, the Pact of the Future and the Global Digital Compact emphasizes as well the collaboration as one of the most important commitments. So what we are doing here, the cooperation, the collaboration, and the engagement is, I would say, closely linked with what is the functioning, what should be the functioning of the multi-stakeholder model. So the multi-stakeholder model relies on the collaboration and cooperation, and that’s what we are doing here today. So thank you so much for this opportunity, and I hope to see you all soon.

Moderator: Yeah. Thank you. Mozart, final remarks? Sure. One minute. We are being pressed.

Mozart Tenório: I would like to say, as a final remark, that we at Anatel would be glad to help and do everything within our powers to foster the decisions, the outcomes from the Portuguese-speaking community in any forum that we get, because we think it’s really fruitful, it’s important. and we are very excited to the future about that. Now we have a kind of limited powers because we are just a telecom operator but anything we can do now or in the future we are very open to achieve that together with all the community. Thank you. Thanks a lot Mozart.

Luísa Ribeiro Lopes: Luisa. Okay, just a minute. DotPT is engaged with the Lushnik, with the whole community because as Marta said we need a digital world with humanistic purpose. Also in Lusophone world we need to make the difference in building a digital world more equal, democratic, open and free in Portuguese language. Thank you. Thanks a lot Luisa. Bianca.

Speaker 1: Extremely briefly I just would like to share my happiness in our fruitful contributions that come from a long time and I hope we can move forward with it more strengthened and more powerfully in the engagement of our development, our common development. Thank you so much.

Moderator: Thanks a lot Bianca. And finally Sandra.

Sandra Maximiano: I just would like to say that the world is very unstable now with very big challenges and geopolitics. So dialogues and cooperation among nations are becoming more challenging and sometimes non-existent. So in my view this also creates… Okay, so as I said in this very difficult context It creates an opportunity within the Lusophone community that we should be able to size. So we need to show that cooperation is vital, is the key, is very crucial. And we have very new challenges ahead. So in this digital ecosystem, artificial intelligence, bring Portuguese into large language models, cybersecurity. So we need to keep working together and show the entire world that this is the way. Thanks.

Moderator: Yeah. Thanks a lot, Perrine. Just might do some takeaways of these discussions and thanking you again, your participation, your very important rally, inspiring insights. Three takeaways, women empowerment, as you said, we had five top leaders with us. It is a very good sign that the Lusophone community is working well on that matter. The asset, well, we have the asset of this dispersed community crossing different continents, the language, fifth or sixth most spoken language in the world. So the happiness of talking the language and the language as an UN official language as well. Finally, to do it together, the development of new technologies, the LLM, the question of the LLM developments and so on, and the question as a question of serenity as well. Global divide was another element about as well as engagement in the international forum. Yeah. And finally, the future. This is a forum, a panel where people. We are unsatisfied with what we have achieved. We want to collaborate further in the future, and so let’s work on that in future occasions. Thanks a lot to everyone.

Agreement Points

Importance of Portuguese language in digital cooperation

Sandra Maximiano

Marta Moreira Dias

Bianca Kramer

Lui­sa Ribeiro Lopes

Portuguese is the 5th/6th most spoken language globally

Language serves as a unifying force for collaboration

Debating tech issues in Portuguese strengthens the community

Portuguese language is an asset for economic development

Speakers agree on the significance of the Portuguese language as a unifying force for digital cooperation and economic development in the Lusophone community.

Need for capacity building and knowledge sharing

Sandra Maximiano

Marta Moreira Dias

David Gomes

Capacity building programs on various regulatory topics

Lusophone Internet Governance Forum as a collaboration platform

Updating digital agenda for Portuguese-speaking countries

Speakers emphasize the importance of capacity building programs, knowledge sharing platforms, and collaborative initiatives to enhance digital cooperation among Portuguese-speaking countries.

Addressing digital divides

Lui­sa Ribeiro Lopes

David Gomes

Promoting digital skills to combat exclusion

Implementing projects to bring internet to underserved areas

Speakers agree on the need to address digital divides by promoting digital skills and implementing projects to improve internet access in underserved areas.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize the importance of technological cooperation and promoting Portuguese content online to strengthen the Lusophone digital ecosystem.

Sandra Maximiano

Marta Moreira Dias

Sharing of network assessment technologies

Promoting Portuguese content on the internet

Both speakers advocate for developing technologies and fostering inclusion to ensure better representation of Portuguese-speaking communities in the digital world.

Bianca Kramer

Lui­sa Ribeiro Lopes

Developing AI and language models in Portuguese

Fostering inclusion and equal representation in ICT

Unexpected Consensus

Harmonization of regulatory approaches

David Gomes

Mozart Tenorio

Harmonizing regulatory approaches across different regions

Addressing cybersecurity collaboratively

Despite representing different organizations, both speakers emphasize the need for harmonizing regulatory approaches and collaborative efforts in addressing digital challenges, particularly in cybersecurity.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The speakers show strong agreement on the importance of the Portuguese language in digital cooperation, the need for capacity building and knowledge sharing, and addressing digital divides. There is also consensus on promoting technological cooperation and fostering inclusion in the digital world.

Consensus level

High level of consensus among speakers, indicating a shared vision for digital cooperation in the Lusophone community. This agreement suggests potential for effective collaboration in implementing digital initiatives and addressing common challenges in Portuguese-speaking countries.

Different Viewpoints

Ranking of Portuguese language globally

Sandra Maximiano

Marta Moreira Dias

Portuguese is the 5th/6th most spoken language globally

Portuguese is the fifth most spoken language in the world

There is a slight discrepancy in the global ranking of the Portuguese language, with Sandra Maximiano mentioning it as 5th/6th and Marta Moreira Dias stating it as the 5th most spoken language.

Unexpected Differences

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement were minimal, primarily focusing on slight differences in approach rather than fundamental disagreements.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among the speakers was very low. Most speakers shared similar views on the importance of Portuguese language in digital cooperation, the need for capacity building, and addressing digital divides. This high level of agreement suggests a strong foundation for collaborative efforts in digital cooperation among Portuguese-speaking countries.

Partial Agreements

All speakers agree on the importance of collaboration and capacity building, but they propose different approaches or platforms to achieve this goal. Sandra Maximiano focuses on regulatory topics, Marta Moreira Dias emphasizes the Lusophone Internet Governance Forum, and Bianca Kramer advocates for debating tech issues in Portuguese.

Sandra Maximiano

Marta Moreira Dias

Speaker 1

Capacity building programs on various regulatory topics

Lusophone Internet Governance Forum as a collaboration platform

Debating tech issues in Portuguese strengthens the community

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize the importance of technological cooperation and promoting Portuguese content online to strengthen the Lusophone digital ecosystem.

Sandra Maximiano

Marta Moreira Dias

Sharing of network assessment technologies

Promoting Portuguese content on the internet

Both speakers advocate for developing technologies and fostering inclusion to ensure better representation of Portuguese-speaking communities in the digital world.

Bianca Kramer

Luisa Ribeiro Lopes

Developing AI and language models in Portuguese

Fostering inclusion and equal representation in ICT

Key Takeaways

The Portuguese language is a valuable asset for digital cooperation among Lusophone countries, being the 5th/6th most spoken language globally

Digital cooperation initiatives like capacity building programs and the Lusophone Internet Governance Forum are strengthening collaboration

Addressing digital divides through skills promotion and infrastructure projects is a key focus

Future opportunities include developing AI/language models in Portuguese and addressing cybersecurity collaboratively

Women’s empowerment is evident in the leadership roles held by female participants

Resolutions and Action Items

Continue organizing the Lusophone Internet Governance Forum, with the next event planned in Mozambique

Update and implement the digital agenda for Portuguese-speaking countries

Expand cooperation on network assessment technologies and regulatory harmonization

Increase efforts to promote Portuguese language content on the internet

Unresolved Issues

Specific strategies for integrating Portuguese into large language models and AI development

Detailed plans for addressing cybersecurity challenges collaboratively

Concrete steps to reduce digital divides between developed and developing Lusophone countries

Suggested Compromises

None identified

Portuguese is the sixth language most spoken in the whole world, and it is not something that shouldn’t be taken into consideration for capacity building purposes among us.

speaker

Bianca Kramer

reason

This comment highlights the significance of the Portuguese language globally and frames it as an asset for development and cooperation.

impact

It set the tone for discussing the importance of linguistic and cultural diversity in technology development, leading to further exploration of this theme by other speakers.

We want somehow to help Africa having its right place, the place that the continent should be in the digital world, in the usage of the internet.

speaker

Marta Moreira Dias

reason

This comment introduces the idea of digital equity on a continental scale, emphasizing the role of linguistic communities in promoting development.

impact

It broadened the discussion from linguistic cooperation to addressing global digital divides, influencing subsequent comments on digital inclusion.

93% of people are connected to the Internet in developed countries, while only 27%, yes, 27% are connected in the developing countries.

speaker

Luisa Ribeiro Lopes

reason

This statistic starkly illustrates the digital divide between developed and developing nations, providing concrete data to support the discussion.

impact

It reinforced the urgency of digital cooperation and inclusion efforts, leading to more focused discussion on strategies to combat the digital divide.

Our technicians, they gain many insights by doing this work, by working in a field in different realities, which are completely different from ours, and they are exposed to different technologies, different equipment, but also different problems, and this makes them think outside the box, and question some established realities or certainties.

speaker

Sandra Maximiano

reason

This comment highlights the mutual benefits of cooperation, showing how even more developed countries gain from collaborating with diverse partners.

impact

It shifted the perspective on cooperation from a one-way transfer to a mutually beneficial exchange, enriching the discussion on the value of diverse partnerships.

When you ask why is it important to debate, it is important because the major language models are being trained in English, and you can observe it. Why not improve our society raising awareness of the importance of Portuguese in society and worldwidely.

speaker

Bianca Kramer

reason

This comment connects the linguistic discussion to cutting-edge technology development, highlighting potential biases and missed opportunities in AI.

impact

It introduced a new dimension to the discussion, linking language preservation to technological sovereignty and representation in emerging technologies.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by progressively expanding its scope from linguistic cooperation to broader themes of digital equity, mutual benefit in partnerships, and technological representation. They highlighted the multifaceted nature of digital cooperation in the Portuguese-speaking world, emphasizing both challenges and opportunities. The discussion evolved from focusing on language as a shared asset to exploring its role in addressing global digital divides and ensuring equitable representation in emerging technologies. This progression deepened the conversation, connecting linguistic identity to broader issues of development, inclusion, and technological sovereignty.

How can we improve the representation of Portuguese language content on the internet?

speaker

Bianca Kramer

explanation

The presence of Portuguese language on the internet is not reflective of the actual number of Portuguese speakers worldwide. Addressing this gap could lead to more opportunities and better representation for Portuguese-speaking countries.

How can we develop high-level technologies in Portuguese, similar to how China is developing LLMs in Mandarin?

speaker

Bianca Kramer

explanation

Developing technologies in Portuguese could help strengthen the position of Portuguese-speaking countries in the global technological landscape and promote technological sovereignty.

How can we safeguard the inclusion of Portuguese language in the context of emerging technologies, particularly AI?

speaker

Marta Moreira Dias

explanation

Ensuring Portuguese is included in emerging technologies is crucial for the digital inclusion and representation of Portuguese-speaking communities in the future technological landscape.

How can we address the digital divide between developed and developing Portuguese-speaking countries?

speaker

Lui­sa Ribeiro Lopes

explanation

There is a significant gap in internet connectivity between developed and developing countries, which needs to be addressed to ensure digital inclusion for all Portuguese-speaking communities.

How can we expand and improve capacity-building programs for digital skills across Portuguese-speaking countries?

speaker

Sandra Maximiano

explanation

Enhancing digital skills is crucial for reducing inequalities and promoting digital inclusion among Portuguese-speaking countries.

How can we harmonize regulatory procedures across Portuguese-speaking countries in different economic regions?

speaker

David Gomes

explanation

Harmonizing regulatory views and procedures could lead to better cooperation and more efficient governance across Portuguese-speaking countries.

How can we address language biases and lack of cultural representation in AI and large language models for Portuguese?

speaker

Bianca Kramer

explanation

Ensuring proper representation of Portuguese language and culture in AI models is crucial for fair and inclusive technological development.