Uncategorized

Audience

The participants in the discussion addressed various significant aspects of counterterrorism policies in relation to cyber issues and human rights. One of the main arguments raised was the critical need to broaden the cybersecurity discussion within counterterrorism policies. It was noted that the current mandate of the CTED (Counter-Terrorism Committee Executive Directorate) and the UN Office on Counterterrorism is too narrow when it comes to cybersecurity. This limitation restricts the discussion on crucial matters like state-sponsored cyber warfare, hindering the development of comprehensive strategies to address cyber threats in counterterrorism efforts.

Another key argument put forward during the discussion was the necessity of incorporating human rights laws in online contexts. The OHCHR (Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights) and the Special Rapporteur for Human Rights and Counterterrorism stressed that human rights laws should be applicable online as well as offline. This recognition underscores the importance of protecting fundamental rights in the digital realm. Including human rights laws in counterterrorism policies is vital to ensure a balanced approach that safeguards both security and individual rights.

The participants also emphasised the need for an advanced counterterrorism approach that effectively intercepts the exploitation of information and communication technology (ICT) for terrorist purposes. The CTED is currently finalising non-binding guiding principles for member states on ICT and its prevention of terrorist exploitation. This initiative demonstrates the acknowledgement that terrorists are increasingly utilising digital platforms and technologies to advance their objectives. Developing effective strategies to counter this exploitation is essential in addressing the evolving nature of modern threats.

Furthermore, the discussion highlighted the importance of supporting the work of the OEWG (Open-Ended Working Group) and other General Assembly bodies in the development of counterterrorism strategies. It was suggested that the Security Council should refine its counterterrorism strategies with input from other UN bodies. This collaborative approach can lead to a more comprehensive and inclusive framework for tackling the multifaceted challenges posed by terrorism.

In conclusion, the discussion shed light on various critical aspects of counterterrorism policies concerning cyber issues and human rights. Expanding the cybersecurity discussion within counterterrorism policies and including human rights laws in online contexts were identified as crucial steps. Intercepting the exploitation of ICT for terrorist purposes and promoting collaboration among UN bodies were also emphasised as important strategies. However, it was noted that the current mandate of the CTED and the UN Office on Counterterrorism is limiting in its scope. Efforts are currently focused on training law enforcement officers to monitor online content, but there is a need for broader discussions and strategies to effectively address cyber threats in counterterrorism efforts.

David Hevey

Australia has been a long-standing advocate for the establishment of the Plan of Action (POA) as an institutionalised UN mechanism. They were heartened by the broad cross-section, cross-regional support for the UN General Assembly resolution on the POA last year. Australia believes that the POA should build on the hard, collaborative work of the open-ended working group and provide practical guidance to implement the UN framework on responsible state behavior. This signifies a positive sentiment towards the POA.

From Australia’s perspective, a functioning POA should have clear scope, flexibility both substantive and procedural, functionality in terms of its framework being put into practice, and inclusion of states and non-state actors. They suggest that the framework of the POA may be further developed by consensus. Australia values the POA as a means to facilitate all countries, irrespective of their size or level of development, to determine their own digital future. This reflects a positive sentiment towards the POA’s role in promoting peace, justice, and strong institutions, aligning with Sustainable Development Goal 16.

Australia’s advocacy extends to the participation of all member states and non-state actors in the POA. They view this as a key aspect of the POA’s success. In line with this, Australia has included this messaging in their stance, indicating a positive sentiment towards inclusivity in the POA.

Furthermore, Australia sees the POA as a way to implement permanent changes and emphasizes the importance of capacity building. They strongly support the emphasis on capacity building, considering it a significant component for achieving the objectives of the POA. This highlights their positive stance towards using the POA to bring about long-lasting and actionable measures.

To summarise, Australia has been a staunch supporter of the establishment of the POA as a UN mechanism. They believe it should be built upon the collaborative work of the open-ended working group and provide practical guidance for responsible state behaviour. Australia emphasises the need for clear scope, flexibility, functionality, and inclusion in the POA. They advocate for the participation of all member states and non-state actors, view it as a way to implement permanent changes, and stress the importance of capacity building. Their approach is geared towards an actionable, permanent, and inclusive approach to security. The general sentiment expressed by Australia regarding the POA is positive.

Joyce Hakmeh

States have already agreed on a framework for responsible behaviour in cyberspace, but the challenge lies in successfully implementing it. This framework agreement, known as the Plan of Action (POA), has been achieved three times, in 2015 and twice in 2021. However, failure to implement this framework usually stems from a lack of capacity, resources, and a structured approach. The POA can help address these challenges by bringing in resources and fostering a sustainable and permanent forum.

Open dialogues and dedicated discussions within the POA are crucial in promoting understanding and progress in cyber capacity building and the application of international law in cyberspace. By having separate streams for different pillars of the framework, such as confidence-building measures (CBMs), international law, and norms, their entanglement can be avoided. Regular conversations among states foster better understanding and learning in these areas. Furthermore, the inclusion of non-state stakeholders in these discussions can provide valuable expertise and perspective.

However, one key issue that needs attention is the lack of interconnectivity among the United Nations’ (UN) cyber processes. The UN’s cyber processes should be interconnected in order to address this issue effectively. It is important to understand the sensitivities involved in making these connections.

To address this challenge, multi-stakeholders can play an important role in linking the different issues related to cyber processes. They can help in understanding where these issues connect and where the links and overlaps are. The hope is that the POA can serve as a vehicle to accomplish this.

Notably, Joyce Hakmeh appreciates the push for multi-stakeholderism and inclusion in the initiative. The emphasis on including various stakeholders and perspectives is seen as a positive aspect of the initiative. Hakmeh also advocates for enhanced collaboration among multi-stakeholders, recognizing its importance in advancing the conversations beyond just having multi-stakeholders in the room.

In conclusion, while states have already agreed on a framework for responsible behavior in cyberspace, the challenge lies in successfully implementing it. The POA can help address this challenge by bringing in resources and fostering a sustainable and permanent forum. Open dialogues and dedicated discussions within the POA are pivotal in promoting understanding and progress in cyber capacity building and the application of international law in cyberspace. Multi-stakeholders have an important role to play in linking these issues and enhancing collaboration among different stakeholders. The push for multi-stakeholderism and inclusion in the initiative is applauded, and the hope is that the UN’s cyber processes can be interconnected to address the challenges effectively.

David Fairchild

The analysis explores different perspectives on cyber policies, focusing on the contributions and approaches of various stakeholders. One key observation is the positive recognition of Canada’s active participation in Global Governance Entities (GGEs) and Open and Working Groups, demonstrating its commitment to shaping global cyber policies. Canada’s policy development process is highlighted for its co-creation model, which involves engaging multiple stakeholders to ensure inclusivity and a human-centric approach.

Another important argument presented is the significance of a human rights framework as the basis for cyber policies. The analysis emphasizes that the human rights framework is currently under attack and must be protected. Canada, in line with SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions), aims to ensure that the transition to a program of action is firmly framed within the context of human rights. This demonstrates a commitment to protecting individuals’ rights and privacy within the cyberspace ecosystem.

The analysis also introduces the concept of cyberspace as a co-owned space. This perspective emphasizes the need for dialogue and partnerships among member states to collectively address cybersecurity issues. By recognizing cyberspace as a shared responsibility, countries can work together to create a more secure and equitable online environment. The analysis underscores the importance of dialogue and providing a platform for addressing these issues, promoting collaboration and building partnerships.

The Programme of Action (POA) is highlighted as a valuable tool for institutionalizing dialogue and addressing cyberspace issues. The POA acts as an aggregator, bringing together diverse stakeholders to work through challenges and bridge gaps. It is seen as an effective means to foster cooperation and find solutions to complex cyber-related problems. This aligns with SDG 16’s goal of promoting peace, justice, and strong institutions.

In conclusion, the analysis commends Canada for advocating multi-stakeholder and human-centric approaches to cyber policies. Additionally, it stresses the importance of a human rights framework, a co-owned perspective of cyberspace, and the institutionalization of dialogue through the POA. These perspectives and arguments provide a comprehensive understanding of the complexities and challenges associated with cyber policies, offering valuable insights for creating more inclusive and secure digital ecosystems.

Ellie McDonald

Ellie McDonald has presented the concept of a Cyber Programme of Action (POA), which has garnered support from a group of UN member states. The POA aims to address threats in cyberspace and promote engagement and cooperation among stakeholders in a human-centric and rights-respecting way. It supports the implementation of the Responsible State Behaviour Framework and primarily targets states and actors involved in the UN’s Open-Ended Working Group on Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs).

Supporters argue that the POA has the potential to establish permanent, open, transparent, and inclusive discussions. It recognizes shared but differentiated responsibilities and encourages the contributions of stakeholders to be heard and acted upon. The POA also emphasizes the importance of capacity-building and operationalization to ensure effective implementation.

Furthermore, the POA must be responsive to real-life events and threats, demonstrating its relevance and effectiveness. Diversity of views is considered essential to inform the discussions, ensuring inclusivity and representation. Additionally, the POA should be co-created and co-owned, involving various stakeholders in its development.

In summary, the proposal for a Cyber Programme of Action aims to address cyber threats and foster collaboration among stakeholders. It advocates for open, transparent, and inclusive discussions that respect human rights and international law. The POA should prioritize capacity-building and operationalization, responsiveness to real-life events, and the inclusion of diverse views. Co-creation and co-ownership will contribute to its success as a collective effort in combatting cyber threats.

Raman Jit Singh

Raman Jit Singh highlights the need for the Program of Action (POA) on cybersecurity to address real-world threats, particularly those targeting civil society and human rights actors. Singh argues that proactive measures must be taken to protect these vulnerable groups. Singh expresses concern about the increase in harmful cyber operations against humanitarian and civil rights actors, including human rights defenders who face various forms of cyber intimidation. He emphasizes the urgency of addressing these pressing issues in the POA. Singh’s overall sentiment is one of concern.

Another important concern raised by Singh is the proliferation of spyware and the ‘hack-for-hire’ industry, which he believes significantly undermines global cybersecurity. Singh urges the POA process to explore, challenge, and take action against these dangerous activities. He maintains a critical stance, emphasizing the importance of confronting these threats head-on.

Singh also stresses the need for more detailed discussions on cybersecurity concerns, state collaboration, and joint action. He asserts that the POA should delve deeper into current threats and specific topics such as cybersecurity vulnerabilities. Singh advocates for tangible cooperative actions between states to effectively address these challenges. His sentiment is assertive, reflecting a strong call for collaboration and action in the cybersecurity domain.

In terms of protection, Singh advocates for actors at immediate risk, particularly Computer Security Incident Response Teams (CSIRTs), who play a critical role in advancing and maintaining cybersecurity. He highlights the need to discuss and take actionable steps to protect these first responders in cybersecurity. Singh’s sentiment is supportive, emphasizing the significance of safeguarding these key players.

Furthermore, Singh points out the complexity and lack of clarity in combining the counterterrorism debate with the cyber conversation within the United Nations. He highlights the sensitive nature of discussions around non-state actors in the existing Open-Ended Working Group (OEWG) process. Singh notes the reliance on previous rulings such as the Delhi Declaration and the outcomes of the Counterterrorism Committee and Security Council. His sentiment is negative towards the current challenges faced in integrating counterterrorism and cyber issues in UN discussions.

Singh also stresses the need to incorporate human rights and their defense in the cyber conversation. He highlights resistance to discussing human rights defenders (HRDs) and the targeting of HRDs within the OEWG. Additionally, Singh points out the challenging nature of the conversation for humanitarian actors and international humanitarian law. His sentiment is positive towards the inclusion of human rights in the cyber conversation.

Singh supports a comprehensive approach in the cyber conversation, advocating for not only establishing norms but also implementing security measures. He emphasizes the importance of balancing both aspects to effectively combat cyber threats. Singh’s sentiment is positive, highlighting the need for a holistic strategy.

Despite acknowledging the contentious nature of topics such as HRDs, counterterrorism, and cyber issues, Singh advocates for addressing them in the POA process. He encourages open discussions and the pursuit of solutions despite initial reluctance. Singh holds a positive sentiment towards addressing these contested topics.

Additionally, Singh expresses concern that the POA process is primarily anchored in UN headquarters locations, limiting international participation. He believes that wider participation is crucial to ensuring a comprehensive and inclusive approach to cybersecurity. Singh’s sentiment is negative regarding the current lack of international involvement.

Furthermore, Singh encourages governments and actors to have consultations on the POA process in their respective capitals or locations. This approach will allow for a broader range of perspectives and ensure the inclusion of diverse voices in shaping the POA. His sentiment is positive towards fostering dialogue and engagement.

In conclusion, Raman Jit Singh highlights several key points related to the POA on cybersecurity. He emphasizes the need to address real-world threats targeting civil society and human rights actors, while also taking action against the proliferation of spyware and the ‘hack-for-hire’ industry. Singh advocates for detailed discussions on cybersecurity concerns, state collaboration, and joint action. He supports the protection of key actors at immediate risk, the inclusion of human rights in the cyber conversation, and a comprehensive approach that balances norms and security measures. Singh also calls for addressing contested topics and increasing international participation. Finally, he emphasizes the importance of fostering frankness and ambition in the POA process.

Henri Verdier

The UN Program of Action aims to create a more inclusive forum for conversations on cybersecurity, involving civil society and the private sector. It recognizes the importance of these actors in shaping the cyber space and the blurred boundaries between conflicts, belligerence, and civil society. Implementing international law in cyberspace is challenging due to the unique complexities and lack of infrastructure. Progress has been made in recognizing principles and norms, with ongoing efforts to further develop frameworks. A permanent body is needed to ensure the effective implementation of cybersecurity norms, providing continuity and facilitating knowledge sharing and capacity building. Building peace and security in the cyber space requires not only norms and laws, but also good organizations and infrastructure. A broader approach is necessary to address the evolving cyber threats, going beyond established frameworks.

Ellie McDonald:
Hello, everyone, welcome to our open forum, shaping a UN Cyber Programme of Action. Thank you for joining us despite the early hour and I’m sure despite some fatigue as we reach the end of our community’s gathering. I’m Ellie McDonald from Global Partners Digital. We are a civil society and human rights organisation and we work to ensure a digital environment underpinned by human rights. This session has been co-organised by my own organisation alongside Access Now, Global Affairs Canada and the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. We have a brilliant panel of speakers who we’re honoured to have with us and I’d now like to introduce the panel from left to right. So we have, or rather from left to right, we have Dave Hevey, First Secretary of Cyber and Digital Affairs of the Australian Permanent Mission to the UN in Geneva. We have Ambassador Henri Verdier, French Ambassador for Digital Affairs with the French Ministry for Europe and Foreign Affairs. We have Joyce Hakme, Deputy Director of the International Security Programme at Chatham House and the co-editor of the Journal of Cyber Policy. And finally, on his way, we have Ramanjit Singh Cheema, Senior International Counsel and Asia-Pacific Policy Director of Access Now. And we also would have had David Fairchild, First Secretary of the Permanent Mission of Canada, but sadly David is no longer able to join us. So the topic of our open forum is the Cyber Programme of Action. The POA is a proposal by a group of UN member states, including from those we’ll hear from today. The UN General Assembly has welcomed the proposal as a mechanism to discuss threats in cyberspace, to support states’ capacities to implement the Responsible State Behaviour Framework, to discuss and further develop, where appropriate, this framework, and to promote engagement and cooperation with relevant stakeholders. Many stakeholders, including my own organisation, have also welcomed the initiative, provided that it’s built on a clear and action-oriented political commitment, focused on implementing the key of responsible state behaviour in a human-centric and rights-respecting manner. We see that the POA offers a means to establish a permanent venue for discussions, rather than limited-term deliberations, to recognise the shared but differentiated responsibilities of different actors, by ensuring a mechanism which is open, inclusive and transparent, and where the contributions of stakeholders are heard and acted upon. Given both the promise of the Cyber POA and the peril of not addressing the threats which it seeks to combat, we feel there’s a need for discussions of the POA to reach a wider audience. To date, the POA proposal has been primarily directed at states and actors active within discussions at the UN’s Open-Ended Working Group on ICTs, and so for that reason, we all hoped to hold this open forum, to provide an opportunity to receive updates on the POA from those actively involved in discussions about its design, but also for those gathered in this room and online to share their views on the proposal and to ask questions. So we encourage you all to contribute enthusiastically, we have the benefit of being a small group, so please do share your views. So because we’d like to foster an interactive discussion, we’d like to begin with a poll for both our participants in person and online. We are going to be using Slido as a platform to facilitate this poll. Some of you might be familiar with this already, but if not, we ask you to please go to the URL currently displayed on the screen, yes, which is slido.com. You’ll then be prompted to enter a code which is, all capitals, cyber-POA, also displayed on the screen, and my colleague Kirti, who is our online moderator, will also share this in the chat. So while you’re setting this up, I will briefly explain the structure of our session today. So after talking through briefly the poll, I’ll ask questions to our first three panellists. We’ll then briefly pause for some questions and discussion from those in the room and online. This first round of discussion will be focused on getting an overview of the programme of action, unpacking what it is, what it hopes to achieve, and why it is needed. After this, we’ll move to our final question, to be followed by questions and discussion. And the second round is focused on ensuring the POA is genuinely multi-stakeholder and founded upon the international human rights law framework. Finally, I’ll ask each of the panellists to share a final reflection, and we’ll attempt to share some summary reflections. If you would like to ask a question, please come to the front of the room or the middle of the room to use one of these two microphones. We have only an hour, so I also ask that our panellists are timely in their interventions to ensure that the discussion remains interactive. So I’d like to turn briefly now to the Slido poll. So if you have it up, you’ll see that it asks a series of questions. The first asks for perspectives on the POA. The second asks if you have yet inputted to dialogue on the POA, whether through interaction with a member state, through a regional consultation, through statements or consultations undertaken by the open-ended working group on ICTs, through the UNIDIR consultation, or through a stakeholder effort to consolidate inputs. Our next question then asks for those that have inputted to one of these dialogues on the POA, did you feel that your input was or has been meaningfully considered and reflected in the design of the POA, and if not, what needs to change? So we’ll be collecting responses to that to include in our summary report of the session, and perhaps I can ask my colleague Kirti if we have had any reflections to the first question which asks about perspectives on the POA. Predominantly state-based. Okay, so we can return to this again later in our discussion, and perhaps it gives our panellists something to consider in their remarks. So with that, returning to that later, I’d like to ask our first question which is to Ambassador Verdier. Ambassador Verdier, France is one of the co-sponsors of the UN Programme of Action, a proposal for a permanent, inclusive and action-oriented mechanism. This proposal aims at supporting the implementation of the Responsible State Behaviour Framework, and through the UN General Assembly Resolution 7737, it has received wide support. But for those who may be less familiar with the proposal, what precisely is the Cyber POA and what is the objective that it seeks to achieve?

Henri Verdier:
Thank you for the invitation and for the opportunity to exchange about those important topics. But we will have to enter a bit within the UN machinery on those topics, machinery matters. So you just have, very briefly, to understand that the rise of the cyberspace could jeopardise all the security architecture, because every conflict now has a cyber aspect, and there is also a real conflictuality within the cyberspace, and this is a new situation because a cyber attack is not like a cynetic attack, this is invisible, very fast, geography doesn’t matter anymore, so it doesn’t matter anymore. So you have to be sure that the framework of global security, like the UN Charter, the Geneva Convention, can be implemented or respected. And this is a long story. In 1998, the UN started to work on this new context, so 25 years ago. Since 2004, there were some group of governmental experts, so it was usually, the first one was 15 states working during three years to write together a final report, and we did analyse the new situation, and do you know, first at this time, the question was, does international law apply in the cyberspace, so it took 10 years to recognise that international law did apply in the cyberspace. And then there were a series of expert governmental groups, GGE, and since 2021, we did extend this conversation through open-ended working groups, so open to every state, so it was more complex to manage, but more inclusive and more diverse, so it was a good step forward. And more or less since this year, since 2021, France, Egypt, and a group of trans-regional states is proposing to go further and to choose a new vehicle, which is the POA. Why do we propose this? That’s because, so as I told you 25 years ago, the question was, do we have to implement international law in the cyberspace? And then we did work hard to understand how to implement international law, and we did all together adopt some norms, and norms of state behaviour, and important principles, and some red lines, and that was important. I can tell you, for example, that when I do observe what’s happening in Ukraine and in some conflicts, we understand that some red lines are known, and there is little form of refrain, some attitudes are not there, so we can observe that it was important to collectively, together, recognise some principles and promise to respect some norms. But that’s not enough, and our view is that it’s time to go further. The most obvious aspect is that in the UN system, we are more or less 200 states, and for most of them, to implement those norms is very difficult. If you don’t have a cyber law, a cyber police, a cyber justice, a CERT, et cetera, how can you implement those very complex norms? So capacity building, for example, matters. If we don’t organise collectively to be sure that every state will have the ability to build serious resilience, what’s the point to discuss norms if you cannot implement them? That’s one important aspect. The second one is, of course, the multi-stakeholder issue. So as I told you, those processes were born within the first committee. The first committee deals with state behaviour and state religion. It’s about war and peace. So the first committee is not the most multi-stakeholder committee in the UN system, of course. But regarding cyber security, cyber war, cyber peace, first, the cyber space is not a natural space. It’s a space by someone. So private sector matters. And then the boundaries between conflict, belligerence, civil society are weaker and weaker. So for a lot of reasons, a strong real conversation with civil society and private sector is important. So we want to open a more inclusive forum, open to more actors, while respecting state sovereignty, of course. So we have to design something with rooms to exchange all together, and while respecting some prerogatives and responsibilities of states. So for all those reasons, we consider that it’s time to build the next VIKON, and we intend to implement it after the end of the current Open Energy Working Group. And the interest of a program of action, so this is a format that does exist in the UN system. For example, there is a program of action for small arms and lethal weapons. First, this is a permanent body. That’s very important. First, of course, this is a UN and inclusive body. Everyone can join the project. This is not for a few states. This is open to every member state. A permanent body that can have a dedicated team, that’s important, because if you observe the 25-year process, there were sequences of three and then five years. But every three years, you do negotiate a mandate, you build a new team, you adopt a final resolution, and then you dismantle everything, and you renegotiate a new process. So we need continuity, we need memories, we need a dedicated team. We need a more action-oriented process, because we want to be able, for example, to contribute to finance capacity building. Or why not to publish some indexes, the POA for small arms and lethal weapons does produce the disarmament index, so they create knowledge and they share resources. They are not just there to adopt a final resolution. And we need a body where you can design a global architecture to have a better cooperation and conversation with civil society and private sector. That’s why we are proposing a new format and a new project, and we hope that in the next three years we will succeed to create this.

Ellie McDonald:
Thank you very much, Ambassador Verdier. I think that was a very helpful context into the evolution of these discussions, and I’m sure we’ll be picking up on your point about the need for a strong and real conversation with a range of stakeholders, so thank you. With that, I’d like to turn to our next speaker, Dave. Australia has been a long-standing advocate of the establishment of the POA as an institutionalized UN mechanism and as the next evolution in UN cyber discussions. But what does a functioning POA look like, and in your view, what are the key ingredients to its success?

David Hevey:
Thank you, Ellie. Thank you for that, for the question. Also, g’day to everyone here in the room this morning, thank you for joining us. My response has a lot of overlap, and we’ll reaffirm some of the sentiments shared by Henry here, and even though I am, I really want to reaffirm the importance of that. So look, Australia is proud to be a strong supporter of the initiative to establish a permanent mechanism for responsible state behavior in the UN. We really are. We really believe that time is ripe to collectively discuss a future permanent mechanism to ensure the durability of the UN dialogue on responsible state behavior. As Henry said before, the continuity is really important in that respect. We were heartened by the broad cross-section, cross-regional support for the UNGA resolution on the POA last year, and so we’re really, I think with that, we really want to continue and drive forward on the POA and use that momentum. And I suppose we’re looking forward to seeing how that pans out in the coming negotiations in the first committee. Really, I think, we think, Australia thinks, that the POA should build on the hard, collaborative work of the open-ended working group in providing practical guidance to implement the UN framework on responsible state behavior. That’s absolutely paramount. The POA is the mechanism to carry forward this commitment. It’s really important to rules-based cyberspace. And again, the permanent nature allows us to focus on the matters at hand, the substance at hand, rather than renegotiating the processes. But importantly, the POA’s focus on capacity building, which is actually something really strong to my heart, that I used to work on in Australia, the focus on the capacity building will facilitate all countries, big and small, developing and developed, to determine their own digital future. And I think that’s absolutely imperative. It’s critical, again, that we do not lose that momentum of setting up a functioning POA. So what does that involve? I say to you a couple of elements. One, it’s scope. It needs a clear mandate that builds upon and reaffirms the agreed framework on responsible behavior in cyberspace, responsible state behavior. The second thing I’d say is flexibility. It needs both substantive and procedural flexibility, so that the POA can evolve with the global developments. Now, really, what does this mean? It means that the framework may be further developed by consensus, but it also has the procedural flexibility in meeting the structures, plenary reviews, and technical meetings that is involved in this whole system. The third element is ensuring that the framework can be put into practice. And again, that really highlights my focus, as mentioned before, on capacity building. And the fourth element is inclusion. And that’s a really, really important thing. Although states remain the main players in the state-based process, discussion should be open to all, to other stakeholders. We need to empower meaningful participation of voices that aren’t normally at the table, as they bring unique perspective, whether, for example, Indo-Pacific countries and Pacific Island countries that do not have the capacity or the resources meaningfully to engage. We want to be able to foster that. I think the other thing is that non-state actors would also help to further refine the POA and to advance the solutions under this. So I think that we’re confident that if we’re serious and we’re all committed collectively to this and incorporating these elements, that the POA and its process will see a strong initiative for fostering peace and stability in cyberspace. Thank you, Ellie.

Ellie McDonald:
And thank you so much, Dave. I think that was really helpful. to unpack and understand better what the POA could achieve and the different ingredients in your view that are so important to it. Just for those who’ve joined us recently, we are also using the Slido platform to facilitate interaction during the session. Some of you may be familiar with it already. If not, I promise it’s very simple to use. You can just visit the URL slido.com and then you’ll be prompted to enter a code, which is cyber-POA. We’ve asked a series of questions there on your perspectives on the POA and whether you’ve already inputted to consultations on its contents and if you feel they’ve been reflected in its design. The first question on perspectives, I’ll just ask our online moderator, Kirti, if there have been any further inputs to that question. So actionable, permanent, inclusive, and a crucial roadmap. Those have been the contributions from people, our participants virtually and in person. Thank you. So at this point, before we turn to our next two brilliant speakers, I’d just like to take pause to ask if we have any questions at this stage. So far our discussion has focused on understanding what the POA is and what it could hope to achieve. In the next aspect of the discussion, we’ll be focusing on precisely which aspects of the agenda it could seek to move forward, how it can ensure that it’s multi-stakeholder and rights respecting. So perhaps if you have questions, please focus them more on the broad scope of the POA. With that, does anyone have any questions in the room? If you do, please use one of these two microphones. Or Kirti, do we have any questions online? Perfect. Okay. Well, I will move to our next question, which is to Joyce Hackney from Chatham House. Joyce, Chatham House has been an active observer of the UN Open-Ended Working Group on ICTs and is undertaking research on key areas of its mandate, including the application of international law in cyberspace and the further interpretation and application of cybercapacity building principles, among other things, I’m sure. So based on your findings so far and your experience in this process, how could the POA make progress in these areas and contribute to responsible state behavior in cyberspace?

Joyce Hakmeh:
Thank you very much, Ellie, and good morning, everyone. It’s great to be with my panelists here and to be speaking about this very important topic. I mean, we’ve heard from the previous speakers about the importance of the POA and the importance of the issue, right? The importance of international peace and security and responsible behavior in cyberspace. And we heard also from them about how it should be ensuring this continuity and have this flexibility. And I guess maybe sort of like my starting point to your question is to focus on the importance of applying the consensus, applying the acquis that you talked about. It’s very important to reiterate that states have agreed on the rules of the road, right? This framework that we often refer to, not once but three times, right? First in 2015 and then again in 2021, both in the open-ended working group and in the GGE that the ambassador talked about. So it is very, very important and not very, you know, common that states agree on something, you know, and particularly in cyberspace and that, you know, there is a consensus that is reached. So this building on that consensus and operationalizing this framework is extremely important. And the POA, as we have heard, can help with that. As we know, there is a conversation now, you know, or like, you know, maybe different visions between implementing what we have agreed upon or, you know, sort of like building new norms or building new legal instruments. And sort of like my position to that is first, you know, these don’t have to be mutually exclusive. And second, you know, before we understand what is needed, we have to understand how the current agreement works, right? Does it work well? Does it sort of address the issue that we’re trying to solve? Are there gaps, et cetera? And if so, what is the appropriate sort of solutions that we need to develop? So that’s quite an important process, I suppose, in order not to develop half-baked solutions. So I guess the sort of the focus of the POA on implementing the framework is a very important one. Now, if we all agree that the implementation is important, then the next question becomes how do you actually do that? And as we know, you know, the failure to implement the framework is often not related to willingness, right? Like it’s not like because states don’t want to do so. More often than not, it’s an issue of capacity, right? There’s lack of capacity. There is lack of resources. And there is a lack of a structured and consistent approach. So as we’ve heard, the POA can help address all of those, right? It can help build the capacity. It can help, you know, create the sustainable and long-term sort of permanent forum. And also, as we have seen with other POAs, it can help bring resources that will help with operationalization, right? Because it’s all good to talk about, oh, yes, we want to do this, we want to do that. But if we don’t have the funding, the resources, human and otherwise, it’s very difficult to actually make progress. Now to your specific question on how the POA can contribute to the international law discussions specifically, I guess when I first sort of, you know, heard about the POA when it was first put on the table, what I was interested in the most is this sort of like this approach of kind of like having dedicated conversations about the different pillars of the framework. You know, on CBMs, on international law, on norms. So you’re not entangling them with each other and so that, you know, the success of one of the pillars is not contingent upon the successes of others. And I think that’s really important because we need to appreciate that, you know, conversations need to proceed somehow at a different pace. They need to require different approaches, et cetera. So the way the POA can function or if it goes in that direction, I think can be helpful to generate meaningful progress. So on the international law, you know, front, there can be dedicated discussions, dedicated work stream that not only talk about international law in broad terms but also goes specifically, let’s say, in international human rights law, international humanitarian law and address that sort of like those importance, specificities and nuances in those conversations. And something that the previous speakers focused upon and of course, you know, like a strong advocate being, you know, a stakeholder, non-state stakeholder ourselves, there is the importance of bringing the different perspectives into the debate. Of course, you know, the development of international law is the prerogative of states and no one is disputing that but the experts’ perspectives and the experts’ input is extremely valuable. In my organization, we have been doing quite a lot of work about the application of international law to cyberspace. A lot of like really important findings have come out of that work. So having the opportunity to contribute to the discussions is extremely valuable. And not only sort of like bringing the perspectives of multistakeholders, I think by having those dedicated conversations that aren’t necessarily always confrontational, right? We’ve agreed on that. What does that mean? What do we think it means? It also can help create that opportunity for states to learn from each other, right? And we have seen, you know, at the moment, I think the states who have published their positions on how international law applies to cyberspace, I think there are 30. So like a very small group of the 193 states and that is expanding. I was the first. You were the first, yes. But looking, for instance, at the UK, you know, the country I’m based in, there have been sort of evolution in the way they’ve been thinking about the international law application to cyberspace to take into more consideration how the threat landscape is evolving. You know, in the latest one, 2022, there was quite a big focus on ransomware, on the health sector, etc. So having those dedicated discussions in the POA will allow this opportunity to kind of compare notes because as we know, even countries that are allies don’t agree on all the principles of international law and how they think they apply. So having those constructive conversations will be very, very important. And maybe I’ll conclude by one more thing because you also asked me about the capacity building principles and how they can be operationalized. We’re doing at Chatham House a project at the moment taking the 10 principles that were agreed upon in the OEWG report in 2021 and trying to kind of like unpack them. What do they mean? What is driving them? How can they be implemented in a kind of capacity building context? And we’ll be presenting that work in New York on the sides of the July session of the open-ended working group. So if we had the work stream on capacity building as part of the POA, it would be great to sort of like be part of that and contribute with our perspectives and the perspectives of other stakeholders on this important issue.

Ellie McDonald:
Thank you so much, Joyce. That was really helpful to understand how the POA itself as the mechanism could be a really valuable venue for progressing discussions on those specific areas. And I found very compelling your remark that the different strands could potentially progress at different paces. I know that there have indeed only been around 30 states sharing their views on international law, but we’ve observed at least that some of these discussions have become richer and more detailed at recent sessions on international law and its application to cyberspace specifically. So I’m sure we can unpack that more in the discussion. But I’d like to turn now to Raman Singh Cheema from AccessNow. Raman, given AccessNow’s work to defend and extend the digital rights of users at risk, how in your view can the POA help to ensure cyber stability and peace with a focus on the protection of those most at risk from threats in cyberspace?

Raman Jit Singh:
Thank you so much, Ali. And I just wanted to give some context for why we participate in the program of action and what our interests are. AccessNow is an international digital rights organization, a civil society organization. And we, in a sense, are in an interesting position. We are a cybersecurity or digital security provider. We assist civil society and actors in the wider civil sphere, you could say, at risk when it comes to their reactive and proactive cybersecurity needs. And we also additionally analyze, track, publicly advocate, and campaign on these issues. And our engagement on this, in terms of all the cyber processes in the UN and the discussions around the program of action, is also recognizing a couple of different facts. The current status of cyber’s, you could say, operations of state cyber behavior, which is alarming. There’s a significant increase in problematic cyber operations between states, but also increasingly targeting civil human rights actors as well as humanitarian actors. And additionally, you are seeing a contestation on some of even these agreed norms, which is extremely alarming. But that said, the fact that we essentially have a new cyber process in the United Nations, agreed by such a large number of stakeholders, is a significant development. It’s a milestone. And it goes to the fact that we do recognize that, again, many actors have said they want regular forms of dialogue that is anchored in the UN, even though people acknowledge that the UN is not the best place for all of these conversations, but perhaps it is one of those regular places, a sort of common space or a court that people go to very regularly on this. And from our perspective, we do think that the fact that the space exists is good, but we should challenge actors. As I’ve said to Andre or to others as well, I think it’s very important that we do have some ambition, and we do have some objectives here. Ultimately, we are a human rights organization. For us, the conversation is important. The fact that we’re having this civilly, instead of trading either literally cyber warfare or cyber norm warfare by different resolutions or contestation is a good thing, but they are very real-world outcomes or very real-world threats we need to recognize that should be addressed by these processes. For us, it is definitely even the recognition of the threats that civil society and wider actors face that should be part of the POA process. I think, for example, many of us have acknowledged and been glad that at least the sort of problematic space for cyber, problematic cyber threats at humanitarian actors has at least been discussed in the UN Open-Ended Working Group. But the fact that it’s been difficult to secure success on that in even naming it in the reports of the current OEWG shows that that is a space we can do more. We can talk about how humanitarian actors are under regular concerted cyber attack, how human rights defenders are under different forms of cyber intimidation, including specifically the proliferation of spyware and of the hack-for-hire and cyber mercenary industry that makes spyware possible. And even a recognition, for example, in that area that spyware or the activities of this hack-for-hire cyber mercenary industry undermines global cyber security as a whole. And that’s, I think, for us, for example, a very important area that we could see potential progress. And I was heartened that even in the UN Open-Ended Working Group process, the current OEWG chaired by Ambassador Gafoor of Singapore, there was an attempt to name this in the recent draft of the annual periodic report of the OEWG. Unfortunately, it wasn’t accepted, which shows the importance of having a cyber process where we can talk about these issues. But I keep saying we need a little bit of a real-world check. We need to make sure that this OEWG, sorry, the POA, implements the agreed norms in the OEWG, but also talks about the current external threats and also talks about where we need norm evolution. And that way, in fact, I wanted to strongly second what Joyce was saying, that it’s not a choice between one or the other. It’s doing both in one place there. I also just wanted to comment on the real-world politics that drives some of these cyber processes. The fact that, for example, we can go into deeper discussion. I think having a regular fixed place to discuss this is a good thing because I think anyone who follows the OEWG or other processes knows that there is a lot of even fear and uncertainty about having dedicated deep discussions on particular topics because of the sort of shifting nature of the OEWG or even an uncertainty that, okay, if you separate into working groups, you might allow one state or a couple of states to dominate on one issue compared to others. And these are, again, important modality issues to work out there. But I think a regular place that is an existing standing mechanism also provides more comfort to states. That is not something where people are going to try to rush through one agenda. There may be many different things. So we can go deep into detail because I think when you talk to any of the delegates outside of the main committee rooms in even the OEWG right now, many of them acknowledge that we know we need to go deeper. We need to go deeper into current threats. We need to go deeper on concrete things, like, for example, state cooperation on talking about cybersecurity vulnerabilities, vulnerability sharing, joint action, and many other areas, including the always-favorite topic of international law. But no one right now is willing, I think beyond a point, to go deep into this in the OEWG structure. So more progress there would be useful. And I did want to name one more area that I think is interesting, which is the implementation. When we’ve talked about the current OEWG norms, for example, and the GGE norms, rather, as talked about in the OEWG, even areas such as the targeting of CSIRTs, computer security, incident response teams, and others, is an area that we can talk more about and concretely take action. So at least the current key, you could say, first responders who are trying to protect the Internet, trying to advance cybersecurity are not further put at risk. My hope is that we talk about the actors who are immediately right now at risk, and who have perhaps not been able to be served or at least better talked about in the OEWG process. We do challenge the more proliferating actors there, and I would put it to all of you that I think there is space to talk about spyware and to talk about the hack-for-hire industry, because if we let it continue to proliferate, and I’m using that term to provoke the diplomats here in the room, that will in fact reduce cybersecurity as a whole, and as I mentioned, we do need to think about who is actually there. I think if you have a regular form of dialogue, many actors will be there beyond the usual suspects as well, particularly from the cybersecurity community, including those outside of, say, the global north, or even like-minded states, who do have a critical role to play in this, and that’s why I’m very happy that we’re having this conversation in this IGF here in Japan. Thank you, Ali.

Ellie McDonald:
Thank you so much, Rahman. Yeah, very much appreciate and second your remarks, and I thank you also for that reality check and also for grounding our conversation in some of the real-life impacts of these most systemic threats, including spyware and otherwise. So I hope we can pick up on that in the discussion shortly. But I’d also just like to welcome David Fairchild, First Secretary of the Permanent Mission of Canada, and to ask David a question before opening to a more open and interactive dialogue. So David, Canada has played an active role in promoting multi- stakeholder and human-centric approaches to cyber policymaking processes. What are the challenges in ensuring states and other actors can meaningfully input to the POA, and how can these be overcome to ensure a mechanism which benefits all participants?

David Fairchild:
Good morning, and I apologize for being late. Very unprofessional, so excuse me for that. It’s just something I could not avoid this morning. So thank you for the question, Ali, and good morning to everybody and the panelists. I won’t take a lot of time arriving late, but I think it’s very important a couple of questions. Of course, human-centric approach is an issue we’re starting to see more and more in the UN. This relates, I think, largely to efforts by a number of member states, I think, to further entrench the international human rights frameworks into ongoing UN processes. This is an effort I think Canada obviously supports, gender being one primary one that Canada both for its foreign policies and international assistance policies pushes as a bedrock element of our policies. When it comes to multi-stakeholderism and Canada’s efforts, I think if you were to go back and look at Canada’s submissions and activities over the previous years, whether it be the GGEs or Open and Working Group, we’ve tried to make working with the multi-stakeholder community an aspect of our policy development going into these negotiations. And so whether it be on some norms development, preparing our Open and Ended Working Group policy itself, we’ve tried to reach out and work before in the months leading up to develop policies together. So a bit of co-creation. I think we spoke about this in the July session. For us, co-creation is not something scary. I think some member states see sometimes the multi-stakeholder community as antagonistic, contrarian, or perhaps pushing policies that they can’t support. For us, we’ve focused a lot of our efforts in the Latin American region. I see Pablo’s in the room. We support a number of Women in Cyber fellows. We actively support their activities and their work and policy development into these processes. But I think whether it be here or in other UN forums, I think we’ve found that actually the co-creation model actually provides huge benefits. There are views, there are perspectives. I think member states either don’t necessarily have the bench depth, they don’t have some of the expertise that exists in the other civil society communities, academia. And I think we’ve found that actually opening the doors, sitting down, in fact framing some of the policies that we wish to pursue working with certain organizations in a trusted environment has actually allowed us to deepen some of our policy understanding which improves our ability to negotiate in the room. On the human-centric approach, I won’t spend a lot of time because I think that one’s probably been covered off, we see this is becoming quite an important aspect I think in our negotiating position strategically. The human rights framework is, I would argue, somewhat under attack. I think we wish to ensure that as we transition hopefully to program of action, but we also see this in other UN processes, that we ensure that the root of much of what we’re trying to do is framed within the human rights framework context, which I think is a disputed space unfortunately. I think I’ll stop there for now.

Ellie McDonald:
Thank you so much, David. I always really appreciate Canada’s support for multi-stakeholders and advocacy for the value of co-creation in these spaces. So we now have some time for discussion, for questions. For those in the room, please use these microphones. If you’d like to ask a question, please walk up to them and then I can hand the mic over to you. For those virtually, please place your questions in the chat. Kirti, do we have any questions online? Not at the moment. I will also share at the start of the discussion, we shared the details of a Slido with a poll to ask views and perspectives on the POA. They’ve been coming in throughout the discussion, so perhaps while we wait for some questions, I can share some of the inputs that have been made. In terms of reflecting, sharing perspectives on the POA, participants have commented that the POA should be a shared responsibilities of different actors, that it should be actionable and permanent. Some have also commented that it’s undefined. Others have noted the value of it being inclusive. And speaking to the point of inclusivity, others have noted that it’s predominantly state-based. We then asked if participants have inputted to dialogue on the POA. Some have, through member states, through engagement at the open-ended working group and through civil society consultation. And when we asked if they felt their views had been incorporated, there was a spectrum of opinion on that point. So unless we have any questions online or in person, not yet, I’ll just pose a question. Please go ahead when you get to the mic.

Audience:
Okay, right, good morning. Thank you. Jennifer Bramlett. I work with the Counterterrorism Executive Directorate with the Security Council’s Counterterrorism Committee. We talked about the threat landscape and, of course, what we’re looking at from the counterterrorism point of view is basically how violent extremists and terrorists can misuse cyber capacities to conduct terrorist attacks. We’re focused very much on content, very much on purchase of weapons, use of the dark web, use of drones, use, you know, financing of terrorism, etc., etc., through cyber means, largely because we can’t really talk about cybersecurity. The mandate for cybersecurity in the Security Council is limited to the protection of critical infrastructure from terrorist attacks. We’re even somewhat limited to talking about the types of cyber attacks that terrorists could conduct against critical infrastructure. There, we have kind of a no-go zone, particularly when it comes to anything that could smack of state sponsored cyber warfare. We can’t even approach it, so we have a very, very, very narrow window in cybersecurity in the Security Council, and what this means is that CTED and the UN Office on Counterterrorism are very limited in the types of technical assistance and capacity building that we can do. So UN OCT, and, you know, it’s not normal for CTED to promote OCT, but here we are. They’ve put out some very good knowledge products. They’re available on OCT’s website. It’s through the OCT program on cyber and emerging technologies, and, again, they’ve put out a practical guide for first responders to an event of what to look for in terms of e-evidence, how to process it, etc. There are a number of other really interesting guidelines, but the focus of the work is largely on open-source intelligence, training law enforcement officers and security officers how to comb through and look for content because of this limitation, and so where I’m going with this is really to see, like, and to encourage the work of OEWG, the work of the other bodies in the UN on the General Assembly side of the House to start to bring this language into the counterterrorism strategy and to bring it in through negotiations with member states into the Security Council area so that we can work on it more effectively. With regards to human rights, just to point out that OHCHR and the Special Rapporteur for Human Rights and Counterterrorism have very emphatically stated that international law frameworks, including international human rights law, applies equally online as offline, and that’s language that, you know, from my perspective, I’d like to see that repeated more often and brought into UN architectures and reports to emphasize that because, again, that helps me to be able to talk more specifically about human rights and not having to debate that, that human rights, yes, apply equally online as offline. And then, finally, CTED’s in the process of finalizing the drafting for the non-binding guiding principles for member states on ICT and preventing and countering their exploitation for terrorist purposes, and, you know, granted it will be a negotiated document, but I do invite you to reach out to me or to my office if there is language that you want to see. I did 14 rounds of negotiations and consultations with civil society, academia, with UN partners, IROs, etc., but there’s still room for language to come in, and if there’s language that’s being developed for the POA that could be rolled into these non-binding guiding principles for member states, because implementation of regulations and everything else is going to be very important, kind of the downstream piece, then please do. Thank you very much.

Ellie McDonald:
And thank you very much for that very helpful contribution, and I don’t, I think there was some really helpful remarks there, and I wonder if anyone wants to react to them? Yeah, Henri?

Henri Verdier:
So you did have a small view on the vast diversity of topics, actors, and that’s very interesting, and thank you for the opportunity. I would like to put the emphasis of one very important aspect. We did all mention implementation, action-oriented, etc., but the big question is, can we build peace, stability, and security just with norms? Just with promises of good behavior, and my view, our view, is that that’s not enough. Norms, law matters, of course, a lot, but we are speaking about the cyberspace. I was thinking a long time before Tolkien wrote The Lord of the Rings, Plato, do you remember, wrote about the Ring of Giges. Do you remember this text? And the question was, if I can be invisible, will I remain ethical? And Plato said, no, if I’m invisible. And the question is, in the cyberspace, can we build more resilience? And to build resilience, we need to go a bit further than norms and texts. We need to help everyone to have good infrastructures. We need to help everyone to have good organization to build capacities, and I’m very serious, because as I said, the next step in the cyber warfare, or terrorist attack, or hybrid threat, is that everyone will attack someone through another country and will remain invisible, not eternally, but during a few weeks, which is enough to destabilize or to change the course of conflict. So the question is, the real reason why we did propose to go further than DGEs and Open-Ended Working Group, is that we consider that if we want peace, stability, security, you need to introduce within, not just a conversation, but the work, design of infrastructures, capacity building, etc. And that’s very important, because that’s a bit new in the first committee. We have to think not just in terms of international law, but also in terms of building security, which is a step further. And I want to emphasize this, because this is the reason why it was so long, because we did change the framework of the conversation, but also why there is some interest on this, and we really need to go in this direction. Thank you.

Ellie McDonald:
Thank you, Ambassador Verdier. Romain, I think, wish to respond. I might ask you just to be brief, so that we also have time for some final remarks.

Raman Jit Singh:
Thank you. Thank you for the question, I think it’s an excellent one, and a comment also about all these different issues and equities that play in cyber conversation in the UN. And I think that’s one important part of, as you built out the POA still, right, I think you’ve hit that very importantly. There are going to be many other cyber conversations, some that will take direction or steer from the POA, but others that may continue independently. My suspicion is that the counterterrorism debate is one that is still fairly complicated, particularly because of the sensitive nature or the contested nature of discussions around non-state actors in the existing OEWG process and elsewhere, that there may still be some lack of clarity for a while. And in a sense, many actors would have to depend on the Delhi Declaration and what came out of the Counterterrorism Committee and Security Council. But I think, again, naming that right, that the role of the POA with regards to Security Council overall is going to be that sort of tricky area that we need to think about it further. I did want to, like, strongly, like, second what, you know, Henry said, it’s not just about norms, it’s about thinking through security and how we implement it. I think that that is why I’m also interested very specifically on how human rights and human rights defenders come into the conversation, because the conversation in the OEWG is being challenging for humanitarian actors and international humanitarian law. I suspect there’s still a lot of resistance to talking about targeting of HRDs, and if one were to talk about HRDs, counterterrorism, and cyber as well, it’s even more contested. So I think we should go there. That’s exactly where we should land in a few years. I suspect in the initial period, everyone’s going to shy away from it.

Ellie McDonald:
Just a brief reaction from Joyce before our final remarks. Thank you. Very briefly,

Joyce Hakmeh:
I think you raise a very important point, and building on what Rahman said, I mean, you know, how can, and it’s important, actually, that it’s coming from someone within the UN system. I mean, we struggle with the fact that the UN cyber processes do not connect with each other, right? And you’re raising a larger point, how can they connect with other issues? And Rahman talked about the sensitivities, and I think, to me, this is really where the multi-stakeholders can play a very important role, right? Kind of in understanding where they connect, understanding where the linkages are, where the overlaps are, and bringing them to the table, and hopefully the POA can be a vehicle for doing that.

Ellie McDonald:
Thank you so much, Joyce. I’d now like to turn to speakers just for their final remarks, and I ask that you maybe take no more than 30 seconds, a minute, if possible. But in those final remarks, I would be keen particularly to hear your views on the next steps, and specifically how the wider community and stakeholders can become more involved in these discussions. So I’d like to turn first to Ambassador Verdier, if you’re ready, or else to another speaker.

Henri Verdier:
I’ve made my final remark. I think security in a world where you can be

David Hevey:
invisible. Thank you. And Dave? Thank you. I really want to pick up on three things as mentioned before. Actionable, permanent, and inclusive. Absolutely hear you. Australia does. I think that’s why Australia is advocating the participation of all member states, all countries, and non-state actors. That was in our messaging, and we really want to emphasize that. Permanent, absolutely. Again, that’s why we highlighted that. We see the POA as a means to do that. The POA in itself does that. And actionable, that’s why, again, we absolutely support the emphasis and focus on the capacity building there, too. Thank you.

Ellie McDonald:
Ali and Joyce? Thanks, Ali.

Joyce Hakmeh:
I think it’s heartening to hear about how multi-stakeholderism and the inclusion aspect is being pushed for by some of the pioneers of this initiative, and we look forward to hopefully seeing this initiative as one, you know, sort of like moving the conversation beyond just should the multi-stakeholders be in the room, to actually how do we work better together.

Ellie McDonald:
Thank you, Joyce. Raman, may I turn to you?

Raman Jit Singh:
Participation is crucial. I think, in fact, there I am worried that the POA is still one more cyber process anchored in UN headquarter locations and not internationally. And just actionable things. Many of the governments and actors here, are there consultations on the POA process in your capitals or where you are? That’s maybe an immediate next step. I’ll leave this with you. Participation is crucial. Frankness and ambition is, as if not even more important.

David Fairchild:
Okay, well, last word to me. Yeah, just thanks very much, and I think much of what I said is already covered off here. It’s about equity and agency. I’ve said this for a long time. I mean, cyberspace is a co-owned space. I think member states have to recognize that. The POA is an aggregator. There are lots of strands of works. It will only increase as we look at the bridging the digital divide and accelerating connectivity. Cyber resilience, which was mentioned, I think is a developmental issue closely linked to cybersecurity, and that is only going to expand as we try to bring on the last 2.6. For Canada, involvement, the POA for us is just simply the way to institutionalize that dialogue and provide a platform to bring people together to work through the issues and look at ways to bridge the gaps, so from a capacity-building perspective. Thank you.

Ellie McDonald:
Thank you so much to all the speakers for those important reflections. I hope we can capture them in the report, and then just to conclude with some very short summary reflections. I think we’ve heard that the POA would be only the next step in a long history and evolution of discussions on cyber at the UN, that it must implement the framework, but that it must also allow for evolving discussions, but indeed that it’s also more than the framework. It must allow for capacity-building and operationalization of discussions within it, but also that it must walk the talk and respond to real-life events and to threats, that a diversity of views must inform it, and indeed that as a mechanism it must be co-created and co-owned. With that, I would like to thank you for your time, for your participation in the poll, and wish you a happy rest of your time at the IGF. Thank you.

Martin Schaaper

Data and statistics are crucial for meaningful access to the internet and the development of policies in this area. The International Telecommunication Union (ITU), in partnership with the UN Office of the Tech Envoy, has set targets for universal and meaningful connectivity by 2030. These targets focus on people using the internet, the quality of internet connection, the cost of internet packages, and the necessary skills required. The aim is to provide internet access to all individuals, businesses, schools, and communities in a meaningful way. The ITU has introduced the Universal and Meaningful Connectivity (UMC) dashboard to monitor progress towards these targets.

However, there are data gaps when it comes to understanding data center usage and mobile connectivity in Africa. There is ongoing discussion and development of indicators for middle-bar connectivity. Currently, indicators exist for bandwidth, but not for how data is channeled into data centers or how it reaches the end user. Developing solid indicators in these areas is necessary to gain a comprehensive understanding of data center usage and mobile connectivity in Africa.

Surveys are the best source of data on internet users and their behavior. However, they tend to be expensive and are mostly limited to high-income countries. Policymakers are encouraged to fund statistical offices to conduct surveys, especially in low-income countries, in order to bridge the data gap and gain insights into internet access and connectivity.

A coalition is working with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) to enhance internet access for women and promote gender equality. The coalition engages in various initiatives and brings technical knowledge and expertise to address the needs of women in accessing the internet. They are conducting an assessment to understand the barriers women face and develop strategies to overcome them.

Internet access, particularly domain names in local scripts, can benefit African universities. Efforts are being made to understand their specific needs and provide support, leveraging technical expertise to enhance connectivity and communication.

It is important to note that ICANN does not address the issue of domain name invisibility due to mobile phone apps. Their focus lies elsewhere in internet access and infrastructure.

In conclusion, reliable data and effective coordination are essential for addressing data gaps and achieving universal and meaningful internet connectivity. Upholding ITU’s targets and collaborating with various stakeholders can bridge the digital divide and ensure inclusive access to the internet. Policymakers, statistical offices, and the private sector play a vital role in collecting accurate data, conducting surveys, and funding initiatives. By leveraging data and statistics effectively, societies can unlock the internet’s potential and promote inclusive development.

Audience

Libraries play a crucial role in providing digital access to communities by offering a range of digital services and knowledge. They serve as multipurpose infrastructure and are essential for community development. The importance of libraries in this context is supported by various initiatives and projects. For example, the Digital Skills at Your Local Library project in Uganda equipped libraries with digital facilities and trained librarians to disseminate digital skills. This project promotes digital inclusion and addresses the digital divide.

In addition to providing digital access, libraries are also unique aggregators of ICT resources in a community. The Gigabit Libraries Network initiative aims to expand internet inclusion using emerging telecom technology. It includes providing low-cost internet connectivity to places suffering from disastrous weather, reducing inequalities in internet access. The initiative has introduced low-earth orbit satellite connectivity kits in Nigeria, further expanding internet access.

Libraries can also serve as community hubs for disaster resilience and climate change mitigation. Bill McKibben, a climate activist, supports the idea of libraries being used as community access hubs for resilience. By making libraries resilient against outages and equipping them with resources to support communities during disasters, they can play a vital role in mitigating the effects of climate change.

The policy of access rights is crucial for improving library services and ensuring equitable access to information. This policy ensures that everyone has the right to access information and knowledge, which is essential for personal and community development. Advocating for the UN’s policy framework can be effective in promoting these access rights and enhancing library services.

However, challenges remain in ensuring meaningful internet access in certain regions. For example, in Uganda, unstable broadband infrastructure, high data costs, and the lack of relevant local audiovisual content hinder internet accessibility. The prevalence of unstable broadband infrastructure leads to issues such as unexplained bandwidth throttling, disrupting signal reliability. The high cost of data prevents people from enjoying more internet content, and the lack of relevant local audiovisual content limits the availability of culturally significant material.

Enabling a conducive economic climate is crucial for promoting the audiovisual industry and fostering meaningful internet access. Local production companies, such as Savannah Moon in Uganda, are championing the creation and consumption of local content. By focusing on producing films that reflect everyday experiences of local people, including those faced by women and the neurodiverse, these companies contribute to a more inclusive and representative digital landscape.

Concerns also exist regarding internet accessibility and data storage in Africa. There is a growing belief that data collected in Africa should be stored within the continent, taking into account factors such as data sovereignty and access. Moreover, internet accessibility in Africa is hindered by challenges such as bandwidth costs and concerns about data collected in Africa being stored outside the region. These issues highlight the need for improved internet infrastructure and data management practices within Africa.

Language diversity is another barrier to internet accessibility. Communities with diverse languages face challenges in accessing online content available primarily in dominant languages. Addressing this barrier requires efforts to provide internet access in diverse languages, ensuring inclusivity for all.

Additionally, there is a need for voice and audiovisual content to cater to the needs of older populations. As internet usage becomes more prevalent, it is important to consider how technology can be more accessible to older adults through voice command technology and audiovisual content.

Technology and internet outreach for low-literate people are vital as well. In India, for instance, there are approximately a billion low-literate individuals who could benefit from technology and internet outreach programs. Ensuring inclusivity for all language levels is crucial in bridging the digital divide.

The internet should also strive to be more inclusive for non-text people. Efforts should be made to ensure that individuals who rely on non-text alternatives, such as audio and visual interfaces, can fully access and engage with online content.

Moreover, the internet should continue to evolve in terms of standards and technology. This evolution should aim to address issues such as internet connectivity gaps and the need for more user-friendly interfaces. Speakers also advocate for a decentralized web, where the internet becomes more peer-to-peer and less reliant on centralized control.

Overall, addressing the digital divide and ensuring meaningful internet access and use require a multi-stakeholder approach and collaboration at both local and global levels. Various organizations, including ITU and ICANN, are working towards identifying gaps and finding solutions. Partnerships and innovative financing approaches are also crucial for building networks, including country-code top-level domains (CCTLDs) and data centres.

Laurent Ferrali

The Coalition for Digital Africa plays a crucial role in supporting African country code top-level domain (CCTLD) registries by providing them with technical capacity-building support. This coalition was launched during the last Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in Addis Ababa, in collaboration with the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) and other partners.

By offering technical capacity-building support, the coalition aims to enhance the overall infrastructure in Africa. However, it recognizes that improving infrastructure requires a more holistic approach, going beyond technical expertise and capacity building alone. The coalition acknowledges that African countries need diverse support to ensure sustainable and effective infrastructure improvement.

One important focus for the coalition is the issue of Universal Acceptance of International Domain Names. It is working to ensure that people have access to international domain names, eliminating any barriers that may exist. By addressing this issue, the coalition promotes inclusivity and ensures individuals in African countries can access and benefit from the global digital space.

Furthermore, the coalition is dedicated to enhancing the quality of service and cybersecurity of CCTLDs in Africa. As part of their efforts, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is deploying managed server facilities in Africa. This initiative aims to provide reliable and secure infrastructure for CCTLDs, ultimately strengthening their operations and protecting them from cyber threats.

In summary, the Coalition for Digital Africa diligently supports African CCTLD registries. By providing technical capacity-building support, adopting a holistic approach to infrastructure improvement, addressing the issue of Universal Acceptance, and focusing on quality of service and cybersecurity, the coalition contributes significantly to Africa’s digital landscape. Through their efforts, they facilitate an enabling environment that allows African countries to unlock the full potential of the digital economy and achieve sustainable development.

Onica Nonhlanhla Makwakwa

The analysis emphasises the importance of meaningful internet access, which encompasses various factors such as adequate speed, daily internet access, possession of a smartphone, and unlimited data. This comprehensive definition of meaningful connectivity is crucial in ensuring that individuals are truly connected and able to fully utilise the internet for various purposes, such as job hunting, education, and accessing health information. However, it is noted that current definitions of access need to be re-evaluated and recalibrated in order to truly capture the concept of meaningful connectivity.

One major obstacle in achieving meaningful internet access is the affordability of devices, particularly in low and middle-income countries. The cost of entry-level smartphones, for example, can amount to 20-25% of the average household income, rendering them unaffordable for many individuals. This issue of device affordability underscores the need for addressing the digital divide and reducing inequalities in access to technology.

To enhance connectivity and address existing market inequalities, there is a call to adopt different digital technologies and financial models. The current economic system is believed to be extractive, and there is a growing discussion about the region’s capability to retain its own data. It is argued that alternative approaches and models should be explored and adopted to foster better connectivity and correct existing market disparities.

Africa’s role in digital transformation is also highlighted. Due to its significant contribution to the supply chain of smartphone manufacturing, Africa should aim to participate in the digital transformation equally and actively. However, the high costs incurred by Africa, which spends up to 40% of its budget on obtaining the cheapest available smartphone, further underlines the importance of Africa playing a more prominent role in digital transformation.

Furthermore, it is deemed essential for Africa to focus on nurturing innovators rather than solely being consumers of digital content. This shift in focus will enable Africa to leverage the digital transformation and foster economic growth and development.

Addressing the digital gender gap is another crucial aspect raised in the analysis. It is noted that excluding women from the digital economy has significant economic implications. Therefore, efforts should be made to bridge this gap by promoting gender equality and ensuring equal access and opportunities for women in the digital realm. The importance of addressing this digital gender gap is further reinforced by the need for qualitative research and ethnographic studies to understand the impact and experiences of women in the digital economy.

In conclusion, the analysis highlights the need for meaningful internet access, addresses the challenges of device affordability, suggests adopting different digital technologies and financial models, emphasises Africa’s role in digital transformation, advocates for building innovators rather than just content consumers, and underscores the significance of addressing the digital gender gap. These findings offer valuable insights into the current state of digital connectivity and provide recommendations for creating a more inclusive and equitable digital landscape.

Keisuke Kamimura

The initial barrier to internet access in Japan was the inability of computers and applications to process Japanese characters effectively. This resulted in issues such as broken email messages during transmission and Japanese web pages being rendered as gibberish. These technical limitations posed a significant challenge for Japanese internet users as they were unable to access and communicate information in their native language.

However, before internet access became widely available to the public, the technical issues related to the Japanese language on the internet were successfully resolved. Various commercial and non-commercial entities developed computers and applications capable of processing Japanese characters effectively. Moreover, Japanese language support was effectively incorporated into internet applications, ensuring that the wider population gaining internet access could do so without facing language-related hindrances.

On the other hand, the usage of internationalised domain names (IDN) in Japanese characters did not gain widespread acceptance within Japan. Major local websites chose not to identify themselves with IDNs and only used them for protective or defensive purposes. This indicates that while there may be some recognition of the value of using IDNs, the practical inconvenience associated with their usage prevails.

Several reasons were cited for the inconvenience of using IDNs in Japanese characters. These include the need to switch between different scripts (Japanese characters, the Latin alphabet, and other symbols) while using the internet, which is often seen as tedious and inconvenient. Additionally, there is a higher level of comfort in using Japanese characters for search strings rather than for URLs or identifiers.

The lower adoption rates of IDNs in Japan further highlight the local population’s reluctance to fully embrace this technology. The convenience of identifying URLs in the Latin alphabet within Japanese articles, coupled with the cumbersome nature of using IDNs, contributes to this lower adoption.

In conclusion, while the initial technical issues related to the Japanese language on the internet have been resolved, the usage of internationalised domain names in Japanese characters faces challenges in gaining acceptance within Japan. The convenience and familiarity of the Latin alphabet for identifying URLs, combined with the inconvenience of switching between different scripts, likely contribute to this reluctance.

Roberto Zambrana

The analysis highlights the importance of ensuring persistence and quality in universal connectivity, particularly in the context of digital inclusion and remote communities. It points out that many digital inclusion programs fail to ensure continuous connectivity, suggesting that merely connecting schools and remote communities to the internet is not sufficient; they must also maintain a connection. This argument is supported by the observation that connected schools and remote communities need reliable and uninterrupted access to the internet to fully benefit from the opportunities offered by digital inclusion.

Furthermore, the analysis emphasizes the need to increase production of local audio and video content, as it plays a critical role in enhancing meaningful connectivity. By creating content that is relevant and relatable to local languages and cultural perspectives, it becomes possible to bridge the digital divide and foster inclusive communication. In particular, the case of Papua New Guinea is highlighted as a country that recognises the importance of this intervention and is taking note of it. By focussing on producing content in over 800 languages and cultures, Papua New Guinea aims to improve connectivity and ensure that even marginalised communities can participate in the digital world.

Overall, the analysis underscores the significance of continuous and quality connectivity in digital inclusion and remote communities. It emphasises the need for digital inclusion programmes to prioritise the sustainability of connectivity, ensuring that schools and remote communities not only gain access to the internet but also maintain it. Additionally, the analysis highlights the value of increasing local audio and video content production to strengthen meaningful connectivity, especially in culturally diverse contexts. By implementing these strategies, it is anticipated that digital inclusion efforts can be more effective in promoting equitable access to resources and empowering communities worldwide.

Vint Cerf

The analysis highlights the crucial role of economics in ensuring the accessibility of systems. It argues that affordable systems are important for internet accessibility and suggests subsidising individuals with inadequate income as a potential solution to make systems more affordable. By providing subsidies, accessibility to the internet and its associated benefits can be extended, addressing issues of inequality and reducing barriers to access.

Additionally, the analysis underscores the significance of understanding causality in the context of artificial intelligence (AI). It asserts that meaningful access to AI requires a deep comprehension of how machine learning models operate. Without a causal model, one is left with only correlation and probability, which are distinct from causality. Therefore, understanding the cause-and-effect relationships within AI systems is essential for drawing accurate conclusions and making informed decisions.

The study strongly supports the idea of driving costs out of accessible systems, including making them less expensive and providing subsidies. It emphasizes the importance of affordability in promoting accessibility and advocates for various approaches to achieve this. These actions are believed to contribute to reducing inequalities and eradicating poverty.

Furthermore, the analysis references Judah Pearl’s work on causality, highlighting the significance of understanding causality when using machine learning outputs for drawing conclusions. This reference amplifies the importance of incorporating causality into AI understanding and decision-making processes.

Overall, the analysis provides valuable insights into the role of economics in ensuring the accessibility of systems. By addressing affordability and understanding causality in AI, it suggests ways to enhance inclusivity and ensure that individuals, regardless of income, have access to technology and its benefits.

Steven Matainaho

Papua New Guinea is currently undergoing a significant digital transformation, shifting from a traditional connectivity model to a service-driven approach. This transition aims to improve the delivery of government services and enhance the overall experience for citizens. The government introduced the Digital Government Act in 2022, followed by plans for a Digital Government Plan from 2023 to 2027, with the goal of providing fast, simple, and clear digital services to the people. The focus is on making services more convenient and effective for citizens, and the government aims to lead in delivering these services.

An analysis of internet usage in Papua New Guinea over a ten-year period revealed that the most visited websites were related to banking, sports, and social media. This insight led the government to understand the need for valuable online services that enhance productivity and quality of life. By offering a range of online services, the government aims to further improve the lives of citizens and meet their evolving needs.

Steven Matainaho, an advocate for digital transformation, emphasises the importance of prioritising the delivery of valuable online services. This aligns with the government’s commitment to putting citizens first and ensuring accessible and efficient services. The government plans to introduce a variety of digital services, starting in 2023, to fulfill this commitment.

Papua New Guinea has experienced significant growth in connectivity, with a high mobile network coverage that reaches around 76% of the population. The country has skipped the fixed-line era and instead adopted a mobile network infrastructure that includes 2G, 3G, and 4G technologies. This approach has resulted in faster and more widespread connectivity across the country.

The affordability of devices is crucial for telecommunications development in Papua New Guinea. Data from operators indicates that the cheapest affordable smartphone is priced at around $60 USD. This affordable price point has led to a notable increase in purchasing power among the population. Ensuring affordability is essential in enabling more people to access and benefit from digital services.

To further decrease the cost of devices, the government plans to introduce tax reduction incentives for importing devices from 2023 to 2025. This initiative aims to make devices more affordable and accessible to a wider population. By reducing inequalities in access to technology, Papua New Guinea aims to bridge the digital divide and promote inclusivity in the digital era.

In conclusion, Papua New Guinea is undergoing a digital transformation, transitioning from a traditional connectivity model to a service-driven approach. The government’s introduction of the Digital Government Act and plans for a Digital Government Plan underscore their commitment to providing efficient and valuable digital services to citizens. This transformation takes into account the country’s internet usage patterns, focusing on online banking, sports, and social media. Steven Matainaho advocates for prioritising the delivery of these valuable online services, aligned with the government’s citizen-centric approach. Additionally, the country’s high mobile network coverage and the affordability of devices play significant roles in facilitating telecommunications development. The government’s plans to introduce tax reduction incentives aim to further decrease device costs and bridge the digital divide within the population. Papua New Guinea’s digital transformation reflects its commitment to leveraging technology to improve citizens’ lives and foster inclusive growth.

Maria de Brasdefer

Libraries serve as vital gateways to meaningful information and must adapt to technological advancements in order to effectively meet the needs of their local communities. They have evolved from traditional spaces focused solely on books and archives to dynamic spaces that cater to the diverse needs of their users. By embracing technology, libraries can bridge the digital divide and provide essential access to information for those who need it most.

An example of this is seen in Uganda, where a project was implemented to enhance the infrastructure of public and community libraries across the country. The project aimed to equip these libraries with computers, internet connectivity, and other necessary facilities. In addition, a training of trainers strategy was employed, enabling local librarians to tailor educational programs to the specific needs of their communities. Trained librarians also conducted outreach campaigns, with a particular focus on supporting individuals interested in improving their businesses and accessing educational opportunities. As a result, approximately 14,000 individuals in Uganda benefitted from this project, with many starting small and medium enterprises and gaining access to higher education opportunities in other locations.

Accurate data disaggregation is crucial, not just in terms of sex but also concerning gender and other minority groups. Currently, there is insufficient data available on these populations. By collecting and analyzing disaggregated data, we can gain a better understanding of the unique challenges faced by different groups and create targeted solutions to address inequality and promote inclusivity.

In order to assess the extent of internet connectivity and meaningful access to information within libraries, comprehensive data and indicators are needed. Understanding the current status of library connectivity and access will enable policymakers and stakeholders to develop strategies and allocate resources more effectively.

Despite their significance, libraries often remain overlooked at a higher policy level. It is essential to recognize the role that libraries play in society and allocate adequate resources to support their development. This is particularly crucial within the context of development communities in the Americas, where access to libraries should be prioritized.

Digital inclusion and capacity building initiatives at the local level require skilled staff. Training programs are necessary to equip library staff with the knowledge and skills needed to facilitate digital inclusion and promote capacity building within their communities.

In conclusion, libraries are indispensable in providing meaningful access to information and must adapt to technological advancements to meet the evolving needs of their local communities. The case of Uganda highlights the positive impact that well-equipped libraries and trained librarians can have on education and small business development. Disaggregated data is necessary to address inequalities faced by different groups, while better data and indicators are required to assess library connectivity and access to information. Libraries deserve recognition and support at a higher policy level, and staff skilling is critical for the success of digital inclusion and capacity building initiatives.

Paolo Lanteri

The World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) actively promotes and ensures meaningful access to relevant content. WIPO leads various initiatives, including the Accessible Books Consortium (ABC), which aims to increase the availability of books in accessible formats for distribution worldwide. This initiative plays a significant role in supporting SDG 4, which focuses on quality education.

WIPO collaborates with Wikimedia to enhance accessibility and open access. They facilitate the exchange of good practices among International Governmental Organisations (IGOs) and release their content on the global platform, making it more widely accessible.

WIPO is engaged in digitalisation projects related to traditional knowledge and cultural expressions. They support practical initiatives such as digitisation projects, fellowships, and hackathons, contributing to the preservation and dissemination of global heritage.

Furthermore, WIPO supports the creative industries through its development agenda. They are relaunching the audiovisual market of Latin American production and have launched specific tools for small publishers in least developed countries (LDCs) and training programs for animation professionals in developing countries. This support helps nurture creativity, innovation, and economic growth in the creative industries.

In summary, WIPO’s contributions to meaningful access to content are significant. Through initiatives like the ABC, collaborations with Wikimedia, and engagement in digitalisation projects, WIPO promotes accessibility, inclusivity, and sustainability in the creation and distribution of content. Additionally, their support for the creative industries through the development agenda further demonstrates their commitment to fostering a vibrant cultural landscape.

Giacomo Mazzone

The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) discussed the concept of meaningful access, which has been defined in various ways over the years. The topic of access, including issues like affordability, artificial intelligence (AI), and accessibility, was addressed in several sessions and workshops at the IGF. Vint Cerf, a member of the Panel for a New Multilingualism in the Americas (PNMA), highlighted the importance of these topics in a video message, emphasizing the affordability of devices and the impact of AI on meaningful accessibility.

Giacomo Mazzone, the co-chair of the PNMA, recognized the complexity and significance of the topic, stressing the need for diverse perspectives on the issue of access and meaningful access. Moreover, Mazzone expressed an interest in understanding how island states handle technical solutions for infrastructure, particularly in relation to the potential use of satellites.

The inclusion of rights of access in the United Nations’ policy framework is deemed vital for addressing climate adaptation. In fact, the UN has made substantial commitments, pledging billions of dollars to address climate adaptation, including connectivity.

Statistics and data analysis are important tools for making appropriate policies, and the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) is actively working on indicators for meaningful access. Mazzone acknowledges the need to develop robust indicators for how data is channeled into data centres and the “last mile” in the coming years.

Increasing production of local audio and video content is seen as crucial for achieving meaningful connectivity. This is particularly important in places like Papua New Guinea, which has over 800 languages and cultures. Local content can play a significant role in promoting cultural diversity and fostering connectivity.

The meeting also highlighted the importance of collaboration and participation. Giacomo Mazzone expressed appreciation for everyone’s contribution. Special thanks were extended to participants, speakers, organisers, and volunteers, including individuals like Roberto and Daphne, who devoted their efforts to the event.

In conclusion, the discussions at the IGF emphasised the multifaceted nature of the issue of access and meaningful access. Various topics such as affordability, AI, accessibility, data connectivity, infrastructure, and local content production were addressed in relation to meaningful access. The importance of diverse perspectives, solid indicators, UN policy framework, and collaboration was underscored as crucial elements for achieving meaningful connectivity.

Giacomo Mazzone:
If you can take your seat, we are just starting the next session. I’m Giacomo Mazzone, I’m the co-chair of the PNMA, that means Policy Network for Meaningful Access, with Nima Lugangira, that unfortunately she cannot be with us because of the concomitant engagement in Morocco, so she cannot be at two places at the same time yet. Thank you for being with us. The topic, as you can imagine, is complex and we will have multiple voices to go through it. Just to resume in a few words what we’ll be about. The concept of meaningful access has been defined in various ways, let’s say during the years, but we have some consolidated, the last speaker arrives, we have a consolidated literature about that and I’ve seen with pleasure that has been treated in many other workshops and discussions across all the IGF, so what we will try to do is to try to bring into the discussion of this afternoon the richness of the debate that has been going around at the IGF and of course across the globe. This is why we have a distinguished list of panelists with us that will try to represent the richness of the debate. I start from the extreme right, not politically meaningful, that is Roberto Zambrana with us, that is the remote moderation, and I thank him for having accepted to be with us. Then after him there is our friend Keisuke Kamimura, I hope I’m not pronouncing too bad, it’s okay, good, from the Daito Bunko University representing the Japanese IGF. Then we have Paolo Lanteri from WIPO. Then from the ITU we have Martin Schaper that is in charge of the statistics and he will explain to us how important are the statistics for the debate. Then we have Onika Nonlala Makwawa, but you will say better than me later, from Global Digital Inclusion Partnership. We have Maria Bradefer from IFLA. So I would not waste so much time with the presentation, but I will go straight in the media stress, as the Latin said. We will start with a video contribution from Vint Cerf, that not only is the chair of the leadership panel, but he’s also one of the members of the group of PNMA. And last year, he was with us in presence at this same panel. This year, he cannot, but he was able to send a very short contribution. The contribution of Vint is linked to the points that we discussed last year with him. One was about the problem of the one of the reasons for the difficulty of access and meaningful access is the affordability of the devices. And the second question to be related to the main topic of this year, IGF, is if the arrival AI in a massive way could be improving and help to solving the problem of accessibility and meaningful accessibility. So if the control room can start the video, we can see Vint Cerf’s contribution.

Vint Cerf:
Accessible systems, we have to take into account economics. So affordable systems are important. If you can’t afford the devices, equipment, and service, it gives you access to a meaningful and useful internet, then you don’t get to use it. So we need to drive costs out by a number of ways. It could be making things less expensive. It could be subsidizing people whose incomes are inadequate, who deserve access to internet and all of its services. So here we have some creative thinking that is needed in order to make things affordable to the general population. Meaningful access to the artificial intelligence means understanding something about the way in which it works. As an example, one of my friends and colleagues, Judah Pearl at UCLA, has written books on causality and another book called The Book of Why, W-H-Y. This is about understanding how these large language models and large machine learning models actually work. And understanding that without a causal model, all you have is probability and correlation. The correlation and causality are not the same thing. So using these tools requires you to think about causality as you apply the output to conclusions.

Giacomo Mazzone:
Well, as a TV journalist, this confirming my doubts about shooting videos with iPhone is not the same than shooting with a professional camera, but at least these are the results. Prejudice? Could be. So I hope that you followed what Vint was saying through the subtitles. His contribution is quite interesting because linked to what we said last year. So this is the first contribution for our debate. But going back to the mainstream debate, we have now Onika that will start first and will talk about some experience that she is following and some interesting reports about meaningful access. Please.

Onica Nonhlanhla Makwakwa:
Great, thank you. I will just get to it. So one of the ways in which we actually define someone who has meaningful access is a person who has adequate speed to connect, a person who has a smart device like a smartphone as a minimum entry point, and has the ability to access the internet on a daily basis if that’s what they choose to, as well as has access to unlimited data. And the research that we’ve done actually shows that we need to recalibrate how we are defining access in general if we want to focus on meaningful access to make sure that people have the right device to be able to connect as well as the right speed and the unlimited access to data. The experience that we’ve seen is that the people who actually have meaningful connectivity. So, those users are more likely to be able to use their access for things that can truly help improve their lives, such as looking for a job, taking a course, looking at health and wellness information, as opposed to those who have just a basic access to connectivity. But one of the great challenges we need to address is the access to affordable devices amongst all the others, but access to affordable devices remains one of the greater challenges for people to be meaningfully connected. At the moment, especially in the low and middle-income countries, we are still seeing entry-level smartphones at 20 to 25 percent average household income, which is extremely unaffordable, especially for those on the lower-income quantiles in those countries. So I’ll just pause there for now and engage later on this, but just driving the issue of affordability to access as well as affordability to the devices. Yeah, that was exactly one of the points raised by Vint Cerf in his introduction.

Giacomo Mazzone:
Thank you, Onika, and thank you for staying in the time. We are in Japan for the first time for the IGF, and Japan is one of the few countries that has hosted the IGF that has a language that is not Latin language. The previous one we had was Egypt in Arabic. So the question is, being in a country like this, is the fact that not to be Latin character language a barrier, and how this affects the access and the meaningful access for the Japanese citizens?

Keisuke Kamimura:
Hi, my name is Keisuke Kamimura. Thank you very much for inviting me on this panel. I am Professor of Linguistics and Japanese at Taito Bunkai University in Tokyo. So I… have a somewhat linguistic perspective on this issue. So let me share my personal reflection and observation with you. I’m a bit concerned whether what I am going to talk about fits this panel well, but let me try. So as Giacomo mentioned, we use a combination of scripts in writing Japanese. And how did this affect the access to the internet in Japan? Maybe there are two aspects to this issue. One is technical, and the other is social and cultural. But let me focus on the first one here, technical aspect. We once had technical problems in enabling with Japanese characters on computer systems and internet applications. I remember computer systems and my computers and applications did not process the Japanese language in the way it should when I was a student, particularly. And even if your computer is ready for dealing with the characters, your application programs, like word processing software or whatever, may not handle the language effectively. So you can’t write papers. So you can’t use spelling, spell checkers, or other correction functionalities for Japanese if the language is not supported. And I also remember email messages in Japanese were often broken on the way of transmission. And web pages in Japanese were often rendered to what we called gibberish, or mochibake in Japanese. So we surely had many troubles in dealing with Japanese characters at the technical level, at an early stage of the personal computer and the internet. internet, but many of these technical problems were eventually sorted out by the efforts of various commercial and non-commercial developers. But that was done before the internet became available to the wider population. So I wouldn’t say we had no problems, but they did not remain too long. So the trouble with characters and languages was quite annoying, but it was not prohibitive to the extent that it blocked out the Japanese from accessing the internet effectively. But if you look at things differently, ordinary users in Japan were confident enough to use their language on the internet, because technical issues had been resolved before they turned to the use of the internet. So if we had not had the Japanese capability in computer and the applications of internet, many of us in Japan may have been hesitant to use the internet as we use it now. So we did have problems, but we sorted out well before the internet came. But if you are facing the trouble now, it’s going to be a very big issue. Thank you very much.

Giacomo Mazzone:
That’s a very real witness of what can happen in these countries. But I’m glad to understand that it is the context that is also important, because the fact that you are in a country where you are affluent, you have the tools, you can afford the right devices and the right software, this diminish the impact of the risk of being excluded, of course. This is not the case in other countries where the same conditions are not gathered. OK, so if we are lucky now, we have a remote participant with us. And he’s a representative of the government. This is Steven Maitai-Nahao, that is secretary for the Papua New Guinea Department of Information and Communication Technology. He’s connected on remote. And he will explain us some experience that they are doing with the assistance of some experts, Judith is with us in the room, that are trying to help Papua New Guinea to go ahead and try to minimize the exclusion of the citizen from the internet revolution. Please, Mr. Maitai-Nahao, you have the floor.

Steven Matainaho:
Thank you, Chair. Can you hear me? Yes, perfectly. Thank you. Good evening all the way from Papua New Guinea, Port Moresby. It’s great to be here online and to be participating in the IGF. I just have a few comments. And of course, my experience and professional experience and insights will generally be from the journey that Papua New Guinea is facing. For those not aware, Papua New Guinea is an island nation consisting of multiple islands and one mainland in the South Pacific, north of Australia and east of and sharing landmass with Indonesia. We’re roughly around 11.87 million people. Interestingly enough, Papua New Guinea holds about 12% of the world’s language, and that’s roughly around 846 languages actively spoken. And you would think that this would be a challenge in terms of inclusivity. But I’d like to just briefly speak on meaningful connectivity and what that means to Papua New Guinea. We’ve had connectivity as a government priority since early 2000, 2003, when our first state on mobile network operator was introduced, and later through the introduction of competition, which was in 2009. And something interesting is that since 2009 and within that 10-year span, an interesting insight indicated was that the most searched and accessed sites in Papua New Guinea from that 10-year period commencing 2009 were three websites. The first website is bsp.com. And for those around the world not aware, BSP is one of our main banks in Papua New Guinea, Bank of South Pacific. The second most accessed website was NRL.com. NRL is the National Rugby League in Australia, and Papua New Guineans are very avid fans of rugby. And the third most popular website was Facebook. Now, this was consistent for over 10 years, and it tells you a lot of things, but one of the things that the government took out of this was that, you know, why are we not accessing, you know, there’s a lot of information out there on the Internet, there’s a lot of services that can add value to the people’s productivity, that can add value to the livelihood of our people. Why are they not accessing it? What is government not doing to provide those, make it easy or inform our people, or better yet, provide services that would be made online? And out of that, you know, our meaning of meaningful connectivity is about having connectivity with a purpose, you know, citizens that can have access and add value to their livelihood, add value to the productivity of the country. And this is where in 2009 we started to look at how can we shift, how can government shift from a connectivity sort of traditional, I’ll use the word traditional connectivity model where we were focused on expanding our infrastructure. How can we shift that so that it’s about being service-driven and purpose-driven? And so we introduced the digital transformation policy in 2020. We started working on that, and this followed by a digital government act in 2022 and followed by a digital government plan 2023 to 2027. What we essentially did was we shifted and we said, okay, let’s not talk about connectivity, let’s talk about bringing, let government be the leader in bringing meaningful services, digital government services to the people, putting citizens first, making services fast, simple and clear and driving that demand to connect. So we shifted that and this is where we are. We’re working in 2023 onwards to roll out a wide range of digital services. And I think that’s from my perspective and Papua New Guinea’s perspective that we’ve shifted from connectivity to sort of what we’re saying, demand-driven and service-driven. And for us, that’s our approach towards meaningful connectivity. Now, there’s so much to touch on in terms of our culture and diversity and how we are addressing all those issues, but I will stop there. Thank you very much.

Giacomo Mazzone:
Thank you very much for your contribution. I see that you put the rugby as one of the fundamental rights of the citizen and for Italy, that is not a rugby nation, but I can understand. for us would be football eventually. Thank you very much. I hope that you can stay with us because we have other questions for you in the second round, but now I would give the floor to a specific section of this debate, that is the section dedicated to international organizations, because we believe that the international organizations are playing a special role in creating or supporting best practices, nurturing them and making available in other countries. We will start from IFLA, that is the Association of Librarians, Maria Bradefer is with us, and I leave the floor to her for explaining some of these best practices cases. Thank you.

Maria de Brasdefer:
Thank you, and also thank you for the invitation to this panel. I think first of all, before discussing the case of libraries, it is also important to talk about what meaningful access means in the context of libraries, and so in this sense I would really like to say that I think it is very important to take into account that libraries have been and are still in constant development, so I think in 2023 they really shouldn’t be seen as spaces for books or archives, but more as spaces that have really adapted to the technological developments of today, and also as spaces that have an ultimate purpose of serving their local communities. So also for this, I think it is also important to notice that libraries can be a door of access for those who need it most, for those who need most to access meaningful information, but also for those who are most affected by the digital device, so I guess in a way you could also say that libraries could be seen as a multipurpose infrastructure that serves to access and provide needs to local communities, but also that has a lot to offer in terms of meaningful access, and so for now I would like to discuss two cases with you briefly, so one of those cases is the case of the GLN, so the Gigabit Libraries Network, and this is a case that is going to be introduced by my colleague Don Means who is at the audience and who is also the founder of this initiative, and the second case is the case of digital skills at your local library project that was a case that was an initiative implemented in Uganda, so it was an initiative that was originally funded by the Uganda Communications Commission, but also it was expanded in 2021 via the Enable Development Agency, so in the sense this strategy started, it had an objective of giving extra infrastructure to public and community libraries and to also equip them across the country with computers, with internet connection, but also with other facilities for community use, so that was the first phase of the project, and then the second phase of that initiative was training of trainers, so a strategy for a training of trainers for local librarians was implemented, and this was a very important phase of the project actually, because it really allowed to localize the training and also to adapt it. to the local needs of the community, because even though the needs were similar across the country, of course, every community has particular needs. And then shortly after that, there was an outreach campaign that was done. And it also started in 2014. And this was actually an outreach campaign that was launched by the librarians who had been trained by the training of trainers. And that outreach campaign was done to reach the community in general, but also a lot of people who wanted to access skills to improve their businesses, and also to access education. And so right after that outreach campaign start, a lot of people were trained. So so far, in terms of results, about 14,000 people have been trained across Uganda. And a lot of them have reported that they have started initiatives with small and medium enterprises. At least 200 people of those 14,000 have reported good results after they received the digital skills training. And a lot of people have also used the training they received to access higher education in other places. So I think in the sense that gives a lot of context about why libraries are important in terms of meaningful connectivity. And I would also like to talk a little bit about the GLN initiative. So for this, I would like to give the floor to my colleague, Don Means, who is at the audience.

Audience:
Please, Don, come to the mic over there. Thank you, Maria. The point made about the role of libraries as aggregators of ICT resources in a community is extremely relevant when we’re talking about meaningful access, because it’s unique in that regard. Our group, the Gigabit Libraries Network, is an open consortium of innovating libraries. libraries using emerging telecom technology to expand internet inclusion as well as to increase community resilience against disasters and outages. We’ve begun deploying low earth orbit satellite connectivity kits in libraries in Africa starting in Nigeria. Our position is that every community should have at least a single point of no fee, low fee internet access like a library and it should be resilient against outages. The point is made by esteemed climate activist Bill McKibben. I think connecting, he says, I think connecting libraries as a community access hubs for resilience is a good idea and highly relevant. These communities may not be contributing huge amounts of carbon, but they’re the places where it’s growing fastest and more to the point, they’re where people are suffering most the effects. We seek advice and guidance on this implementation and this exploration. A single LEO unit needing only about a light bulb worth of energy can be operated for around $50 to $100 a month in developing markets, this whole area, these whole systems are just arriving and developing themselves. A single unit can provide impervious 100 megabit connection to places suffering from disastrous weather which would otherwise be entirely cut off from outside information and communities. We work through national libraries in each country to implement these plans. We are not agents of any company or enterprise. We wish only to help people in the highest risk with the least resources to cope with the terrible challenges of climate driven disasters. Perhaps a useful policy environment to support this can be found within the UN COP 28 declaration on adaptation. This is the point that, yes, mitigation is critical, but it’s really late. It’s too late to reverse the changes that we’re experiencing today and will continue to experience. So the strategy of adapting to these changes is commonsensical. And having this kind of a resource in every community is doable. It’s entirely affordable. And the benefit, besides increasing just the normal services that people can have through the internet, to this resilience factor we think is really worth exploring. Thank you.

Giacomo Mazzone:
Thank you, Don. A question for you, because this project is one of the oldest, trying to improve the characteristics of the librarians in the field of meaningful access. Which kind of policies would be needed in order to strengthen, to make more effective what are you doing? Because we, as policy network, we are looking for policies that could be the most effective in making happen this everywhere.

Audience:
Well, certainly the policy of the rights of access are key to this. The policy framework that I mentioned within the context of the UN’s allocation or pledge of tens of billions of dollars to address climate adaptation would cover a lot of connectivity. And so advocating on behalf of that approach, I think, would be a very direct way to go about this.

Giacomo Mazzone:
Thank you very much. So we have seen the IFLA contribution, and now we go to another more structured, more official agency of the United Nations, that is the ITU. But the ITU, I asked them, bring us some best practice cases, and they say, no. We can do better for you. And they send me Martin Sharpe. Why? Because the explanation was that for them, and I agree with them, the statistics. statistics are an important tool. If you want to make appropriate policies, you need proper statistics and data. Martin is exactly what he’s doing, and ITU is working already since a couple of years on indicators about meaningful access. Can you explain a little bit about that?

Martin Schaaper:
Yes, indeed I can. Thank you very much. Coming from the ITU data and analytics division, I think it’s quite obvious that I think it’s very important, the role of data and statistics for meaningful access. You may have seen the latest internet use data that we released about a month, a month and a half ago, that says that 5.4 billion people are online, but about 2.6 billion are still offline. That means that 67% of the world population is connected to the internet, yet 95% has access to some kind of mobile broadband signal. So this already is a clear indication about missing people, that there is a big usage gap. But even among the people that are connected, not all of them are in a meaningful way connected. There may be issues with quality of the infrastructure, with the cost, they maybe don’t have enough data to go online as often as they want, and so on and so on. It was already raised in the first intervention as well. So two years ago we launched a set of targets together with the UN Office of the Tech Envoy, a set of targets on what we call universal and meaningful connectivity. This was in the framework of the digital cooperation roadmap of the UN Secretary General. It has now become a project with the EU, with funding from the EU, so we have a set of targets that we’re now going to put into practice and try to disseminate among policy makers in the world. So basically what we’re doing is we’re coupling the data and the statistics to the policy perspective. Now, in our set of targets, it’s a set of targets on people using the Internet, but also the quality of the Internet connection, we have a set of targets on the cost of an Internet package, of the skills needed, and so on. And this is important, because if our goal is to achieve universal and meaningful connectivity by the year 2030, which is very ambitious, and we know that, you need to know where you are. And from there on, you can go on a path into reaching targets so you know where you need to go. But how to get there, you need to know where you are, and you need to also see that the actions you’re taking are actually leading you to where you want to go. So you need to constantly monitor, as well, your policy actions. So these targets, they go into two directions. We have a set of targets on universal access, which means that we want everyone to use the Internet, and everyone means all people, but also businesses, schools, communities, and we want to do it in a meaningful way. And for that, we have five enablers, infrastructure, affordability, skills, device, and safety and security. And on almost all of these aspects, we have indicators and targets. We already have created a dashboard, the UMC dashboard, which you can find online on the IT website. And in the dashboard, you can take any target that we have, and you can see for that target where are all the countries, where’s my country, but where’s my country in respect to all the other countries, as well. Or you can take a country of your interest, and you can see, okay, this is my country, these are the targets, and on some targets, we’ve achieved universal connectivity, but on others, we’re actually far away from it. even at the start, or for some indicators, we don’t even have the data. And that’s all information that needs to channel into the policy perspective. Another very important point of the data is that you can break down the data by socioeconomic groups. So you can have a look at the digital divides. So we all know that there’s a gender digital divide. So more men are using the Internet than women. But how big is the divide in my country? And how does this change if you move along the globe into other countries? We know that younger people are more avid users of the Internet than older people. But how bad is it in my country? Do we need to have special policy objectives to connect our senior citizens to the Internet? There’s also a difference between urban and rural areas. Now, is that because the infrastructure is not good enough in rural areas, or is it for other reasons? And the data can tell you to a large extent how that is, where that is, and especially where the gaps are, where we need to do the policies, where we have to set policies, and then over time monitor and see if our actions actually are leading to an improvement or not. So that is the project we’re having. That’s the good news. There’s also bad news. But I’ll keep that for maybe my next intervention.

Giacomo Mazzone:
Thank you very much. That’s very interesting. There are other points that we need to dig with you. I think that this could be a very interesting source of information for everybody that wants to deal with this kind of information. Laurent, it’s now your turn, as I can, and especially your project Digital Africa, I guess. What are you doing in the field of making better conditions for meaningful access? And by the way, you use the data of ITU? Not yet. So what we want to do here is to increase the exchange in order not to repeat the same problems. Yes.

Laurent Ferrali:
And you may know that ITU is part of this Coalition for Digital Africa, so it will be part of that. Thank you very much. make things easier, I think. So thank you very much, Giacomo, for the invitation. Yeah, I will report about what we did for the last 10 months with this Coalition for Digital Africa. I mean, we launched this coalition during the last IGF in Addis Ababa with ITU, the Association of African Universities, the Association of African CCTLDs, and among others. Now we have something like 11 partners. We have currently seven flagship projects. And of course, all of this project, I mean, the aim of all of this project is to develop meaningful connectivity, meaningful access in Africa. The first one, I mean, not the first one, one which is very important for me is the support we are providing to African country code top-level domain registries. Because we had this week a lot of discussion about infrastructure in different workshop sessions. But I mean, I think that there is a missing part in the discussion, which is the CCTLDs. And I don’t know an example of a successful country in terms of eager services and national digital economy which is not able to rely on a good CCTLD registry. It’s a very important part of the national infrastructure and a missing part of the discussion we are used to have about infrastructure in Africa. So we are providing this report with different partners. to help to provide a kind of, I mean, I can’t do that for many years, but just from a technical perspective, so we are providing technical capacity building support to different CCLDs, but it was clear for us that we need to have a more holistic approach and work with different partners in order to be able to provide more than technical expertise and technical capacity building support. And so we are helping 10 CCLDs, that’s one project. Another one is access to local content. I mean, of course, ICANN is not dealing with content, but you may know that we have international domain names and we have an issue with the use of these IDNs. This is the universal acceptance issue. We need to be sure that people will be able to have access to these international domain names. Another project which is important for me as well is what we are doing in terms of quality of service and cybersecurity. We have two projects. We are deploying some ICANN managed server facilities in Africa, and we are helping CCLDs in Africa to better protect their infrastructure, their infrastructure, and other things as well. Keep something for the next round. Keep something for the next. If you tell us everything now, then what do you say later? Yeah, so I can stop now and go to the internet.

Giacomo Mazzone:
Thank you. Now, you mentioned contents. That is not your specialization, but access to contents is important, and this gives me the right angle to bring the discussion to WIPO, because WIPO is dealing exactly with contents. Can you tell us? What are you doing in this field, Paolo?

Paolo Lanteri:
Absolutely. Thanks a lot. It’s definitely a pleasure to jump in the discussion from a very different perspective here. I’m very happy to bring to the floor the perspective of the World Intellectual Property Organization that has seen this discussion on meaningful access as intrinsically linked to actually the creation and the distribution of meaningful content. of different nature, educational, news reporting, or pure entertainment like music, video games, and audiovisual. Content is meaningful if it’s relevant, for instance in terms of cultural identity, accessible, for instance because you can read the language, and inclusive. WIPO participated and contributed to this debate for many years, providing an assessment as to why any policy that has as objective providing meaningful access should also keep an eye on what is behind that, making sure the compelling content we all want to enjoy is continued to be created and distributed in a sustainable way, at the same time also providing certain flexibilities. This is a key aspect because without the content we want, I think it’s very hard to conceive any meaningful access. Following the instruction from our facilitators, I’ll skip all that part about the incentives provided by IP to creation of content and the flexibilities it provides to facilitate, for instance, certain fair uses, open access, and many, many things that are enriching our lives. I’ll focus only on projects, successful examples that we have in place, and particularly on those that have already been reported in this frame. So, I’m going to talk a little bit about what we do in the space, and what we do in the framework as facilitating meaningful access. So, we lead really many cross-cutting initiatives in this space. So, it’s very hard to cluster them in clear-cut categories. For ease of presenting them, I divided in two big, broad, rough groups. One are initiatives directly relevant to inclusion. The other is the accessible books consortium. The accessible books consortium, ABC, is a public-private partnership led by WIPO, and counting with the participation of many partners, including IFLA, of course, and organisations representing the blind community, the World Blind Union. The ABC goal is only one, to increase the number of books in accessible formats, such as digital braille, e-pub, and to distribute them to the people that they need around the globe. We do that through a variety of lines of work, including capacity-building, of course, advocacy for inclusive publishing, but the most impactful activity we do is the ABC global book service, which offers an online catalogue of books in accessible formats available at no cost to authorise entities serving the blind around the world. The service has nowadays more than 800,000 books. The ABC global book service is the largest book service in the world, with over 100,000 titles, in 80 languages, available for cross-border exchange without the need for clearance, any formalities related to copyright. Of the 127 authorised entities that have joined the consortium, 70 are located in developing and least-developed countries, andcatapult.ca are an important part of the cooperation to enhance the technology-related capabilities for those individuals around the globe It’s a beautiful story to tell about open access. We, WIPO, lead a working group formed by over 100 individuals from over 25 international organizations, many of them represented in this room. The membership is constantly growing. What do we do? We facilitate the debate and exchange of good practices among IGOs on how to make our content accessible and moving open access. WIPO and few other IGOs now went ahead and launched new collaboration with Wikimedia, for instance. We have in-house Wikimedia, basically releasing all we produce through their global platform, boosting accessibility, of course, but also the possibility for any third parties to translate the content to local languages and to adapt it to any need they may have at the local level. That’s one part of the story. The other part of the story, very important, is what do we do to assure that we promote production and distribution of local meaningful content? Traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions are a big part of our work. WIPO’s work in this field is growing stronger than ever. On top of the policy and norm-setting activity, we lead and support practical initiatives, such as digitization projects of traditional knowledge and cultural mentoring, fellowships, awards, hackathons, all sorts of stuff. And then we have more hardcore creative industries initiatives in the context of the development agenda. For instance, we are about to relaunch doubling the funding of the AV market, audiovisual market, of Latin American production. We also recently launched specific tools for sectors like digital publishing for small publishers in LDCs. Or, like we heard these days with the manga creators, a training tool for animation professionals in developing countries. So while the details of all these stop report project will be submitted in writing, basically we can say that the progress on all these initiatives is steady and positive. And more importantly, the appetite of our constituency both governments and stakeholders is either strong or very strong.

Giacomo Mazzone:
Thank you very much, Paolo. Very useful and interesting. And you mentioned that there are funding for audiovisual in Latin America, but unfortunately the next experience we are talking is in Africa. Do you have funding for Africa? experience? Not yet, but we can work on it. So this could be one of the recommendations we will take out from the conversation of today. Do we have online Meme and Nana Kaga McPherson? No? Ah, connection issues, access problem. Bertrand, then can you explain to us what is this experience from Uganda that you recommended us?

Audience:
I’m Bertrand Moulier. I feel a bit desolate that Meme and Nana are not there to explain what they do. They would do so with far more charisma and passion than I’d be able to muster, but I’ll do my best. So Meme and Nana Kaga are two recovering civil engineers who have decided to change career a few years ago and became audiovisual producers in Kampala, in Uganda. And they’ve been trying to run a company which is entirely female-led, so they’re the two directors and the entire staff is female, and making local content for local audiences in culturally relevant languages, including Uganda, which is spoken by 5.6 million people locally as primary language, and another 5.4 are fully conversant with it. And their contention, and ours as well, is that the ability for companies like theirs, which is, by the way, called Savannah Moon, to actually survive and thrive in the audiovisual marketplace is an essential component of meaningful access. Once you’ve accessed the broadband infrastructure, you need meaningful content that reflects your lives, your preoccupations, your cultural themes, and by making fiction drama, either through feature, unitary feature films or through television series, they’re doing just that. They have found that although their market has increased a little bit in the last few years, they are hobbled sometimes by a few factors. One of them is that the broadband infrastructure where they live is still tentative. At times, they find there’s unexplained bandwidth throttling for technical reasons, so you’re losing signals, which makes it uncomfortable to take in relevant audiovisual content. And there’s also, from their perspective, they wanted me to reflect this, a pricing issue. If you’re buying eight Gs worth of data, by the time you’ve run through two episodes of a television series on the mobile telephony network, which is the way most people locally take in their content, you will find that you’ve almost run out of capacity, so you need to purchase some more. there is not necessarily an adequation between local spending power and the ability to enjoy and access the content. More, I think, strategically, in order for these companies to fulfill their social utility function, in this case, as two women who are very, very committed to dramatizing, reflecting issues experienced by women in their country and their region, there needs to be an enabling economic climate to make sure that these SMEs are able to use their position at the forefront of cultural developments to reflect and dramatize those. And so they believe that there is no meaningful access without a meaningful, local, audiovisual production capability, which actually not only is incidental to what internet content can deliver in general, but is actually central to it. And therefore, the question of economic sustainability of their activities, the ability to offer people career tracks, these women have left potentially lucrative careers as engineers to devote themselves to audiovisual content. That needs to be factored into the ecosystemic equation when looking at the accessibility and, certainly, the meaningful access component. And by giving two examples of films that they recently made, one is called Mpabi. It’s the story of a young boy who, after a difficult birth in a village in Uganda, develops a condition, a neurological condition. And he becomes neurodivergent. And the family hits against local incomprehension, perhaps a deficit in knowledge about this type of conditions. And it’s the story of how they try to address these issues and educate themselves and protect their sons and afford him a good childhood. Another one is about the story of a young woman who rebels against the notion that, having lost her husband in an accident, she, by tradition, is meant to marry the man’s brother and wants a different kind of outcome for her life and to empower herself. So these are films that are really trying to dramatize things that people are living out every day, and they are utterly relevant to the meaningful access agenda that is being highlighted here.

Giacomo Mazzone:
Perfect. Thank you very much, Bertrand. This brings us finally to the content side that we have neglected until now a little bit.

Roberto Zambrana:
Roberto, you are monitoring, with the help of artificial intelligence, all the universe of the internet. So what are the questions that come from the world? Everything together, yes. I think we have Carlos Alfonso online, so if we need his intervention, he will be ready to. Did he ask for the floor? Not yet. Not yet, okay. Maybe for the section that we have for exchange, we can do that.

Giacomo Mazzone:
Okay, and any question in the chat? Not any. Okay, so we can go to the question in the room. I see already one volunteer. Please introduce yourself and tell us straight the question. Thank you.

Audience:
Okay, I’m Kosi. I’m a senior from Benin. I’m from Ministry of Economy and Finance in Benin. I have two question. Please. We are talking about access. Meaningful access. Yeah, Bert. When we are talking about access, for me, we have two challenge. The first one is internet. Is it available or not for us in our region in Africa? Sometime, we see the signal, but we don’t get anything. What that mean? We are talking about video, film. They make some good thing in Kampala. What is the data? The data we collect there, what is it? In Africa? In which data center in Africa? We need to have our data in Africa. Everything we collect in Africa is supposed to be in Africa to be used for African people and for others. But when we collect it in Africa and put it in data center outside Africa and call African people to pay for internet bandwidth to collect that information after again, it’s two ways. We pay for the information we have is not normal. We support to make things very clearly, very open for everyone in the world. Thank you.

Giacomo Mazzone:
Thank you. Onika, I think that this question is straight for you.

Onica Nonhlanhla Makwakwa:
So, well, thanks for raising that. I think I won’t respond specifically to the question, but I think what you are bringing is the fact that we have to also look at the financial model of how we are connecting everyone. We seem to have continued in an economy system that has essentially been very extractive without using this new opportunity of the internet to begin to correct some of those embedded inequalities that come with the existing market structure. So, I think as we look at developing access more, we have to be open and willing to look at different digital technologies, but also be open to look at different fiscal financial models. that will ensure that we are actually developing and innovating in the continent where we are building innovators and not just content consumers online. And I think what you are talking about is a discussion that’s been going on within the region around the region being able to keep its own data. And I think if we go back to the intervention I made on affordability of phones, the reality is that the minerals that are used to develop these smartphones actually come from the continent. Yet Africa, at the moment, is spending as much as 40% for the cheapest smartphone that’s available. So fixing the economy, I think, goes hand in hand with us being able to participate equally in this digital transformation.

Giacomo Mazzone:
Thank you. Who else want to add something on that? Martin, you have statistics about data in Africa, how much the data center exists, this kind of information will be available in your database?

Martin Schaaper:
Well, that’s actually part of my second intervention, which is data gaps. I don’t want to make a spoiler. Yeah, no. We have recently been discussing middle-bar connectivity and middle-bar connectivity indicators. And we’re just developing a work program around it. So we don’t have the indicators yet. We have indicators on bandwidth, which is part of the issue here. But how the data is channeled into data centers and how it comes to the last mile, that is part of the indicators that we are going to develop in the coming years. But we don’t have not a lot of good, solid indicators on that yet.

Giacomo Mazzone:
OK, thank you. I would like to get back to the minister, if possible, so that we can free him. He’s still online with us. If he’s online with us, the question for him is now, he said that they are doing a lot of interesting things, including rugby. But the problem is about infrastructure. So, I would like to know more about the technical solution of the infrastructure, I guess. For island states, the problem of the infrastructure is a very big problem. Are they using satellite? I would be curious to know more about the technical solution. Thank you.

Steven Matainaho:
Thank you. Please confirm again if you can hear me. Yes, we can hear you loud and clear. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much. In Papua New Guinea, our connectivity, I would like to first say that since the advent of mobile network coverage, we have sort of skipped the fixed line era. We have been using the internet for a long time. We have been using the internet for a long time. We have been using the internet for a long time. Our current population coverage is around 76% of population coverage, but it’s a mixed range between 2G, 3G, and 4G. Most of our growth rate is contributed to competition. And so, there are two major interventions that we’ve made to make sure that our telecommunication retail and wholesale space were guided by an open market policy. And so, we first had to introduce as much competition as possible into the retail space to increase those numbers. The other aspect of connectivity which I wanted, actually, I wanted to highlight if I may because there were some comments on affordability of devices. And I’m sorry, I’m directing to something slightly different. But I also want to flag that in Papua New Guinea, what we’ve noticed is the threshold for affordable is around an 8% to 10% threshold. And so, that’s a big difference in terms of affordability of devices. And so, that’s a big difference in terms of affordability of devices. And these are mainly data coming from operators. The cheapest affordable smartphone that we’ve been able to get out there is ranging around 60 US dollars. And this is like stripped down smartphones that have the basic smart capabilities. And we found that at $60 and downwards, there’s a huge increase in purchasing power. And I think that a combination of infrastructure access plus affordable devices are factors that should be attributed in developing countries. You mentioned affordability of the devices. There is any policy in place in your country to support the accessibility and the affordability? We are currently looking at next phase after introduction of our digital services. The next phase would be starting to look at how we can provide tax reduction incentives for devices, importing of devices. And I think that would be the next phase, 2023, 2024, 2025. That would be the next phase as we’re going back to meaningful connectivity. As we provide content and services, the next step would be to bring the cost of the devices further down. Thank you very much.

Giacomo Mazzone:
And I give you a good news. Vint Cerf, I asked him if he will be available to give suggestion and advice. So if you want to ask Vint something about affordability, we will bring the question to him. And we will give you back the answer. Thank you for being with us. We know that you are busy. If you have to leave, we will apologize to you. Don’t worry. OK, we have another question from the room. Please introduce yourself.

Audience:
Hi, my name is Dinesh. We have community networks near Bangalore in India, and I have kind of three questions. One is to the minister from Papua New Guinea. You said you have so many languages, and I’m fascinated by hearing that. And you said you have ideas on how to deal with bringing Internet to these many languages. I want to hear about it in great detail, because that’s the first time I hear that there is somebody working on languages, which is probably not literal, there is no text for it, I’m just guessing. How are you dealing with it? Number two is to the Japanese minister. You have Japanese and English, you’re dealing nicely. What are you doing with the others who are older, who need voice, who need content in audiovisuals, mostly audio, and the third one is based on the African comment. We have community networks. We have in India about a billion low literate people, and it includes that, but what are we doing about technology, Internet, reaching to these people? That’s the meaningful accessibility for us.

Giacomo Mazzone:
Thank you. And it’s important to remember that you have one of the cases in the report that is providing some solutions, so I suggest people to go to the report and to have a look at it. You want to make advertising for it, for 30 seconds? I’m sorry? Shall I? Advertise for your project? Yeah.

Audience:
Okay. 30 seconds? No, thank you. So you’re ready. So I think Internet, firstly as a web, is all about hyperlinks. Hypertext, it starts, and it’s, you know, and Internet has not gone further as standards and technology to reach non-text people, okay? How do you give, I mean, I can talk about it a lot, but we have to, as technology people, push this forward. And we are trying, but it can be like in a small thing, like, it has to come together. And how do you do hyperlinks when you have media as a thing? And what is the Internet in the small, like, if you are in a community network, how do you bring this within the community as a first-class protocol-based Internet, like a decentralized web is what I’m thinking, to say it in one word.

Giacomo Mazzone:
Thank you. I think that you can get some answers from the second round from the panel. Roberto, any sign of life from the universe? Yes.

Roberto Zambrana:
We have a comment from Carlos Afonso. He says a major challenge in universalizing connectivity, which many digital inclusion programs forget, once a person is connected, he, she should stay connected. Many universal connectivity programs do not make sure persistence of connectivity together with quality is fundamental. A connected school or remote community ought to be connected and stay connected. Thank you, Carlos, for these remarks.

Giacomo Mazzone:
Perfect. That’s, we have the perfect example of Uganda. They were connected at the beginning of the session, and when it was their turn, they were not connected anymore. Okay. Before to make the second round, I remember that Martin want to bring in the discussion a point that is important just for memory, that is the IDN question. Can you take the floor, Martin? I remember to the audience that last year, also with Roberto, we mentioned this as one of the point on which we need to improve. So, which are the last news from the front?

Audience:
My name is Maarten Botteman. Yes, on IDNs, indeed, an important aspect is of course that they will be able to be used by people who don’t use the Latin script, as we call it, the letters we see above. And that may not be useful worldwide, but in particular, more and more, we see the internet also serves local communities and maybe solutions can be found where they do resolve in local communities, maybe even faster before they resolve anywhere. It requires a lot of collaboration because the internet is a mess of a lot of different applications. Now, what we do with ICANN is work on the IDN tables to make sure that addresses can be found. But the addresses also need to be found in the web browsers, in email addresses, in applications that support. So, it requires quite an effort, and we’re very happy to facilitate that effort by also supporting the Universal Acceptance Steering Group, which in its work goes well beyond ICANN as such. But if you allow me, I’d like to make another point here. Other aspects of meaningful accessibility are also in power. Is there enough power? You see that’s different in different parts of the world, and is in affordability, as you rightly said. I must say, India is in the good position that at least mobile access is amazingly affordable compared to some other parts in the world. For instance, in Africa, if you have this mobile phone, it’s very expensive to use it. So, it’s also not thinking only in terms of electricity there, is bandwidth there, but also is access affordable. Next to the IDN point, if you allow me. Please, thank you.

Giacomo Mazzone:
Thank you very much. So Martin, do we can expect that for the next round of GTLDs, there will be a push from ICANN about IDN, TLDs?

Audience:
My expectation, and of course it’s the market who will come with proposals, but we believe that this is an opportunity for, in particular, the next billion to be reached, and that next billion will need to have access to the non-Latin characters, and we do what we can to support that.

Giacomo Mazzone:
Inshallah, they say, another part of the world. Okay, thank you. This brings exactly to the point with our Japanese colleague. You see that the problem is seen in different ways in different parts of the world. Can you add something?

Keisuke Kamimura:
Yes, IDN. Well, remember IDN is just a piece of the bigger problem, so I guess we should take care of other issues other than IDN, but the problem we have with IDN in Japan is like this. Internationalised domain names in Japanese characters are not well accepted locally, so many of us do not, or most of us do not use internationalised domain names in Japanese characters. I don’t quite remember any of the major local websites identify themselves with IDN. I believe these websites have their names registered in IDN for protective or defensive reasons, but that’s about it. For me, I don’t know if this is true to others, but for me, it is comfortable to use Japanese characters for search strings rather than for URLs or identifiers. So, when you write Japanese, you have to use a combination of the alphabet and symbols and the Japanese characters. So, if you want to use IDNs, you have to produce a combination of these scripts anyway. So, I mean, you have to use the Latin alphabet in any way. So, you have to switch back and forth between Japanese characters, the Latin alphabet, and other symbols. So, it’s very cumbersome to use IDN in Japanese. So, that’s one issue. In addition, you can easily identify a URL in the Latin alphabet in an article written in Japanese, because it just stands out the rest of the text. So, it’s easier for you to locate a URL from written Japanese. So, and if the URL is written in IDN, you maybe find it difficult to find out where the URL is. So, that’s another issue from a practical point of view. And well, actually, when you write Japanese, you often switch from one script to another to emphasize a word or phrase in the middle of a sentence, when you write Japanese texts. So, we are used to switch from the Latin alphabet to Japanese characters and to kanji. So, we are quite used to using the Latin alphabet. So, that’s another issue. the alphabet for any purposes. So that may relate to the low take-up of the IDN in Japanese, this is my personal observation.

Giacomo Mazzone:
Thank you, Professor, but the time is tiring, we need to give the floor to the others. May I add a little bit to that? Yes.

Audience:
I really appreciate your experience, and Japan is a case where well-educated people have good access to computers and manage to do what you say right now. When I think, and when Giacomo asked about the longer term, I’m thinking indeed of the longer term where we see part of the world where the mobile is the device, where it’s more difficult to switch, and also a world in which we see that increasingly voice commands will be taking over, et cetera. So I think for the longer term, we may not be, I remember I was used to put my telephone on a modem, and that worked, but I’m glad I don’t have to do that anymore. So I think you give an excellent example, but for the longer term, I think we can’t avoid, people will earlier be able to learn an adapted internet and that everybody will be able to use the same characters. I think that we will have to come back to you for what we will write in the report.

Giacomo Mazzone:
So we will need your help for finalizing the report on this point. Thank you very much. So Martin, please, we are very late, so if we can be short as much as possible, just to mention something that you have no time to mention, I will do for you. There is a pilot experience that ITU is doing with UNESCO in the Pacific area where we are combining data from your database and the UNESCO ROAM indicators. That is a very interesting combination of contents and access from the technical viewpoint. But please complete your presentation about the statistics.

Martin Schaaper:
Yes, thank you. Short as possible. I’ll try to be short. I mentioned the good news. We have a lot of data on universal and meaningful access and universal and meaningful connectivity, as we call it. This includes. a lot of data on prices, prices of Internet packages, mobile packages, et cetera. There was a comment before, I just want to say that we have a very rich data set on that. But the bad news is there’s also a lot of data gaps, and that’s partly because the data aren’t there, partly because the data are there but we are not coordinated, we don’t have access to the data, we don’t get the data from the source or we don’t have a partnership with the source, and that’s something that we’re working very hard on. For example, anything to do with speed measurement, actual speed measurements, MLAB, Ookla, those kind of places, we need to continue working with them. Handset devices is an area we are not yet working on but we’ve had a lot of contact with the World Bank, with what used to be A4AI before, and that’s certainly work that needs to continue. We’re working on big data, the power of big data to also be able to get a more granular view of what’s happening in a country, within a country, within a community even. We’re working very hard on that. But very importantly I mentioned digital device, and digital device is about people, you need to know who the people are who are using the Internet and what they’re using it for and who is not using, and still the best source for that is surveys. Surveys of people often run by a statistical office and for that we have very good data from all the high-income countries and not a lot of good data from low-income countries, simply because surveys are expensive. So policymakers who see the importance of data for achieving universally meaningful connectivity should also add funding statistical offices in their programme.

Giacomo Mazzone:
That’s fundamental. Onika, how you can complement this experience? You can compete with the ITU in providing the collecting data?

Onica Nonhlanhla Makwakwa:
I will just add one thing. So, how do I handle this? My question I would like to also take your perspective, Armand, on the issue of dense segregated data, if we extend the chance of closing the digital gender gap. So, I would like to ask you, Armand, to take a look at what we are doing in the digital economy, what we are doing in the cost of exclusion, looking to calculate the economic impact of excluding women from the digital economy, but also humanizing that experience by looking at qualitative research and ethnographic studies to really be able to

Giacomo Mazzone:
paint a picture and tell a story about what we are losing in our digital economy, in the context of the pandemic, and to build the files material with another women. If you sent to her, then she will ask Martin to look more from the inside. Are you scare about what our Japanese government is doing to make it easier for women to have access to the internet?

Martin Schaaper:
I mean, we know, I mean, it’s like, you know, using mobile phone now with apps, make, I mean, domain names invisible. But this is not up to ICANN to say that. To make a comment on that, I mean, we have, in the context of the coalition, we are working with ICANN to make it easier for women to have access to the internet. For them, I mean, it makes a lot of sense. So, I mean, if Africa, I mean, have some interest for IDN, for us, I mean, we will try to help them to develop, you know, extensions in the continent, et cetera. So, again, it’s not up to ICANN to say that, yeah, we don’t need any more domain names or whatever. with partners, we are trying to have a, we are very humble in our approach. We are asking people what they need, and then we are trying to help them to bring them what they need, the support they need. It’s what we are doing with all the tracks, all the initiatives of this coalition. I mean, again, we are coming with technical knowledge, expertise, and we are used to go through an assessment phase to better understand what they need, and in the end, I mean, the different organizations, different countries, it’s up to them to decide where they want to go. We can just bring some expertise to them, so I think that for these people, I mean, to come back to your question, I think for some universities in Africa, it makes a lot of sense to have access to domain names in local scripts, so let’s say that it’s still important.

Giacomo Mazzone:
Thank you. Thank you. Maria. Yes, thank you.

Maria de Brasdefer:
Well, I think in terms of data, I would only have to add to what Onika said. I think it is important to have disaggregated data, not just in terms of sex, but also in terms of gender, because there’s also other minorities, for example, that are invisible to this, and there’s not enough data on that. But also, I’m talking about the context of libraries. We also need better and more data in regard to what is the amount of libraries, for example, that are currently connected to the internet, and from that amount of libraries, also maybe better indicators to assess inside which of those facilities there’s a meaningful access to information. So I think that is something that I could also add in that sense, and maybe also adding a bit to what my colleague Don mentioned before in terms of policies. So the question is, in addition to discussing traditional reciprocates, also considering libraries and what is important to give these resources and to give these access base in the American development communities. So far we have been using library as a resource and we have been using libraries as a resource. So the question is, how do we make libraries invisible at a higher policy level? So this is also something to take into account. And also finally, just to add, it is also important to notice that the public access infrastructure development initiatives should also really include a skilling of staff to run and also to facilitate digital inclusion and capacity building initiatives at a local level.

Giacomo Mazzone:
So this is something that we have been working on for a long time and it is important to have some patience, because we asked three people in the room, three distinguished friends of us, to listen carefully to what has been said and to tell us the feedback about what they retain as the most interesting points that we can include in the report. So can we start with Jane, that I see is the first question. And then I will turn it over to the panel. So I will start with Jane.

Audience:
I will be very brief. One, solving the connectivity gap will take a multi-stakeholder approach, much like the PNMA itself and our panelists here today and the great speakers we have heard. Problems are being solved through coalitions, to regulatory and policy-making from Papua New Guinea to Benin to the United States, and to the rest of the world. We need to work together to identify gaps, ITU, ICANN, and others are doing this, to help us look at better solutions to identify what those gaps are. Partnerships are key, and innovative financing approaches need to be made to support and build networks, including CCTLDs and data centres. Thank you.

Giacomo Mazzone:
Thank you very much, Jane. This was about connectivity and

Audience:
about digital inclusion. Carlos Rey Moreno. Thank you very much. I will start with you, Carlos. Thank you very much for the introduction. The first part of the talk has been about digital inclusion, and many topics have been touched upon, the universal acceptance and everything that has to do about people being able to communicate with scripts that are other than Latin, should be able to do it online, and it’s not only about IDNs, but many other hardware and software elements. I think it’s very important for us to understand the importance of having a sustainable content production as well as the distribution of relevant content, e-governance services such as in the case of Papua New Guinea and cultural services elsewhere, a lot of discussions in relation to that about incentives, funding that you may go and talk to Paolo about, as well as sustainability of those content producers, as well as an outreach campaign to the digital economy, as well as the importance of having a strong national CCTLDs to develop the digital economy and include people that might be related to using country-level domains, in the importance of cyber security, although it hasn’t been pointed out, there is a lot of elements around digital inclusion that have to be with cyber security in the context of, for instance, technology-facilitated gender-based violence, and all the work and all the policies that are required in that front. There is a lot of discussions around making books available for blind people, and some discussions also around fostering innovation at the local level. I mean, we heard Dinesh, but we’ve been hearing all the importance about how local people can actually come up with their own decisions and this conversation about meaningful access and meaningful connectivity should then be an only top-down one. Thank you very much.

Giacomo Mazzone:
Thank you, Carlos, very useful, and very bright and appropriate comments. So, now, about capacity development, Margaret will give us her hints.

Audience:
Thank you, Chair. Highlight on capacity building, that technical skills are needed to understand emerging technologies, and make them address and offer solutions. Training of trainers on digital skills is critical, and with this localisation of this training to address local needs. Technical capacity support for internet registries is already happening through the project Digital Africa. Digital skills are needed to ensure quality of services and access. address cybersecurity challenges. We need a holistic approach on capacity building to ensure that we are addressing the needs that are needed. Statistics are needed to determine skills needed for meaningful access and use. I know I’ve repeated myself there. Then there was discussions around hyperlinks and how they can be used to address issues of language and Japanese characters, and a study has been detailed that is part of the report. Again, it was said that internet is a mess of a lot of applications, and diverse digital skills are needed. And that is about it. Thanks.

Giacomo Mazzone:
Thank you very much, Margaret. Very useful. Please, if you can send us your notes, will be very useful because we have to produce very quickly a first report, and what you say are perfectly making the picture. Roberto, there is life in the universe, or they already went to sleep?

Roberto Zambrana:
Actually, there is one more comment from Steven, but he wants us to read it. And it says, great interventions from other participants on the need to increase production on local audio and video content. This is a key intervention Papua New Guinea is taking note of and should take to improve meaningful connectivity across more than 800 languages and cultures. Thank you.

Giacomo Mazzone:
Thank you very much. OK, so on my Swiss passport, I have to say that I have not been good because I’m two minutes over. But on my Italian passport, having only two minutes delay, I am a lot better than the usual performance. I want to thank all the participants. I would like to thank all of the speakers, and I would like to thank all of the panelists here, all the speakers, and especially Daphne, can you stand up, please, Daphne? Thank you. And Roberto that volunteered the last moment, as usual, to support us, and all the speakers and all the participants. Thank you very much. And I would like, by all means, to thank all of the organizers. The invitation for the presentation finished, and the meeting is now closed so your session, please send me the conclusion, and we will include in the report. Sorry, the hyper link will be put there. What you said in the session today is important and relevant for us.

Audience

Sri Lanka has been actively pursuing the digitisation of its nation for the past two decades. To further this effort, a new strategy is being developed. The key areas of focus for this strategy are citizen-centredness, empowering people, strengthening the government, and improving business competitiveness. These pillars reflect the country’s commitment to inclusive growth and efficient governance.

In order to successfully implement this new strategy, there is a need for digital governance and institutional accountability. Digital governance refers to the set of organisations and regulations that will govern the digitisation process. It is important to have clear guidelines, standards, and frameworks in place to ensure that the digitisation efforts are carried out effectively and transparently. This will also help build trust among the citizens and the stakeholders involved.

Moreover, institutional accountability is crucial to monitor and evaluate the progress of the digitisation initiatives. This involves establishing mechanisms to measure the impact and effectiveness of the digital transformation and holding the responsible institutions accountable for their actions and outcomes. By ensuring institutional accountability, Sri Lanka can ensure that its digitisation efforts are aligned with the overall goals and objectives of the country.

Additionally, a panel is discussing the characteristics, effectiveness, and capabilities that an institution should possess for successful digital transformation. These discussions aim to provide insights into the key factors that contribute to the success of digitisation initiatives. By understanding these factors, Sri Lanka can tailor its approach to digital transformation and ensure that the appropriate institutions are equipped with the necessary resources and capabilities to drive the process effectively.

In conclusion, Sri Lanka has made significant strides in digitising the nation over the past 20 years. The new strategy being developed with a focus on citizen-centredness, empowering people, strengthening the government, and improving business competitiveness reflects the country’s commitment to inclusive and efficient growth. To effectively implement this strategy, it is essential to have digital governance and institutional accountability in place. The panel discussions on the characteristics and capabilities required for successful digital transformation provide valuable insights for Sri Lanka’s ongoing efforts in this domain. By incorporating these insights, Sri Lanka can continue its journey towards becoming a digitally empowered nation.

Nibal Idlebi

Several speakers highlighted the importance of regional and national discussions in internet governance and public goods. One such initiative is the creation of the Arab IGF by ESCWA and the League of Arab States, which aims to address regional internet governance issues. Despite the existence of the Arab IGF, it is important to note that internet access is still a major problem in some Arab countries.

Regional discussions play a vital role in making global ideas more relatable for local stakeholders. It is crucial to understand and contextualise these ideas at a regional level before integrating them. This approach ensures that the needs and perspectives of the region are properly considered. ESCWA, in particular, plays a significant role in disseminating ideas, facilitating discussions, and acting as the voice of the region internationally. The organisation collaborates with various stakeholders including professional associations, NGOs, private sector bodies, academia, and government to ensure a comprehensive and inclusive approach to internet governance.

Issues of legislation, privacy, and cybersecurity are significant in many countries within the Arab region. ESCWA recognises the need to develop a roadmap to enhance internet governance in the region, focusing on these critical areas. The implementation and enforcement of legislation are also key components in enhancing internet governance.

Furthermore, several speakers stressed the importance of discussions regarding national sovereignty and the internet at a national level. It is necessary to mediate these discussions and explain the importance of stakeholder engagement in order to foster mutual understanding and collaboration.

Capacity building was deemed essential in the discussions. ESCWA has worked with numerous countries on legislation, implementation, and enforcement to build the capacity of local stakeholders in managing internet governance effectively.

The speakers also highlighted the importance of active regional discussions and external interventions to facilitate engagement. It was noted that discussions often do not take place at the national level unless there is intervention or an external intermediary involved.

Citizens within the Arab region are raising their voices to demand their rights and freedom of expression on the internet. This growing awareness and activism further underscore the need for effective internet governance.

The adoption and customization of cyber laws from developed regions, such as the EU, were recognised as beneficial in aiding the growth and development of internet governance in the Arab region. It was noted that the laws were not copied as is, but instead, the EU’s long experience in cyber law was relied upon, and there was an exchange of experiences and lessons learned.

Strategy development was identified as a crucial element in effective internet governance. It was emphasised that involving various stakeholders at the national level is essential for the successful implementation of the strategy. Additionally, it was noted that quick results from the strategy increase trust in the government.

To address global challenges, it is important to move from regional to global discussions. The need to make regional and national challenges heard on an international forum was emphasised, as this allows for effective resolution of these challenges.

Overall, the speakers’ messages highlighted the importance of regional and national discussions in internet governance and public goods. From addressing internet access issues to ensuring privacy and cybersecurity, involving stakeholders at various levels is crucial. The adoption and customization of cyber laws from developed regions, along with capacity building efforts, contribute to the growth and development of internet governance. The importance of moving from regional to global discussions was also stressed, as it allows for effective solutions to global challenges.

Jamal Shahin

This analysis examines the role of regional and global governance in addressing global issues and managing the global public good. One key argument is that global issues can be more effectively tackled at the regional level or substantially implemented at the local level. This is exemplified by the collaboration of different economic actors at the regional level, such as the European Union or regional trade associations. Furthermore, an UNU-CRIS project explores global and regional multi-stakeholder institutions as effective instruments for addressing global issues.

Regarding the global public good, the concept of the internet as such is highly contested. While it was widely agreed upon 20 years ago, it is now a subject of debate. There are differing views on its management, with some considering it a global interconnected network, while others reject that idea. The analysis also highlights how the term “digital sovereignty” is used by states to regulate the internet as a global public good. However, different regions interpret and apply this concept differently. For example, the European Union approaches digital sovereignty as managing complex interdependencies, whereas the African Union promotes national strategies through a Fund for Digital Sovereignty.

The value of a regional approach in internet governance and digital strategies is emphasized in the analysis. It argues that a regional perspective adds value to these areas, citing the example of the JIPO project, the Global Internet Policy Observatory, which provided information to all actors about internet governance. Additionally, countries without established frameworks often turn to their former colonial leaders, implementing post-colonialist versions of digital strategies. Thus, a regional approach can help bridge this gap and provide guidance.

Another important point is the role of regional actors in managing the global public good. It suggests that regional actors can mitigate national reactions and manage the global public good through the cascading of norms from the global to local levels. By sharing information through peer review processes, regions can facilitate the adoption of global norms. This approach is evident in the practices of entities like the European Union and the OECD, which engage in peer reviews and share common interests and challenges.

Capacity building and two-way dialogue are also highlighted as crucial elements. Peer review processes contribute to the development of common capacity building structures and foster collaboration between countries to solve problems. The analysis emphasizes the importance of a two-way dialogue, with regions shaping, but also being shaped by, the global level.

The analysis concludes by advocating for the multi-stakeholder model in governance. This model has proven to be worthy of consideration at the global level. It encourages participation in the multi-stakeholder framework, particularly at the regional level, for addressing regional issues. The inclusion of different stakeholders is seen as a key approach for achieving peaceful, just, and strong institutions.

In summary, this analysis explores the role of regional and global governance in addressing global issues and managing the global public good. It highlights the effectiveness of addressing global issues at the regional or local level, the contested nature of the internet as a global public good, the varying interpretations of digital sovereignty across regions, and the value of a regional approach in internet governance. The role of regional actors in managing the global public good through cascading norms, facilitating the adoption of global norms through peer review processes, and fostering capacity building and two-way dialogue is underscored. Finally, the importance of the multi-stakeholder model, especially at the regional level, for addressing regional issues is emphasized.

Morten Meyerhoff Nielsen

The African Union’s digital transformation agenda aims to address the growing digital divide in Africa. This divide refers to the disparity in access to digital technologies and the internet between developed and developing countries, as well as within countries themselves. To tackle this issue, the African Union plans to establish a continental fund specifically for supporting digital infrastructure. By investing in and improving the digital infrastructure across the continent, the African Union aims to bridge the gap and ensure equal access to digital technologies for all African countries.

Multi-stakeholder involvement and contextualization are identified as key factors in addressing common problems in different countries. It is important to involve various stakeholders, including governments, civil society organizations, and local communities, in developing strategies and solutions that are tailored to the specific needs and circumstances of each country. This approach ensures that the measures taken are effective and sustainable, taking into account the different contexts.

Successful integration and coordination also require consensus on objectives and practices. Collaboration, consensus-building, and a shared commitment to the desired outcomes are essential for integration and coordination efforts to be successful. Without consensus on objectives and practices, it can be challenging to achieve integration and coordination.

There is strong support for multi-stakeholder involvement and co-creation mechanisms as effective strategies for digital governance on a global scale. By involving citizens’ associations dealing with the diaspora and designing portals that simplify lives, these strategies become more inclusive and representative of diverse perspectives and needs. This approach ensures that the strategies and action plans developed are comprehensive and responsive to the demands and requirements of different stakeholders.

Data governance and interoperability frameworks are essential for successful digital transformation. In federalized countries like Australia, Canada, Brazil, China, and even regions within the European Union, there is a need to align data processes and ensure efficient data exchanges at international, national, and regional levels. Having a clear framework in place ensures that data exchanges are efficient, secure, and consistent across different jurisdictions.

The significance of citizens’ data rights and data sovereignty in social security is also emphasized. Recognizing and protecting citizens’ data rights and data sovereignty is crucial for ensuring privacy, security, and trust in digital systems.

A standard framework is required to facilitate data exchanges. From China to Denmark and even the influence of the European Union on national legislation, the need for a standard framework is evident. This framework enables smooth cross-border or inter-organizational data exchanges, promoting collaboration and interoperability between different entities.

Unfortunately, local and regional authorities are often overlooked in national digital strategies, and their crucial role in infrastructure rollout and the establishment of electronic service standards is forgotten. Including regional and local authorities in the consultation process is essential to ensure comprehensive and inclusive digital strategies that reflect the needs and realities of different regions and communities.

The mandate and recognition of that mandate are identified as crucial aspects of digital governance. A compliance mechanism is necessary to ensure accountability and effective implementation of digital governance initiatives.

Regional cross-border governance is deemed vital due to the fact that regions and cities have neighbors on the other side, rather than just capital cities. Collaboration and coordination between neighboring regions and cities are crucial for addressing mutual challenges, sharing resources, and promoting regional development.

Cross-governmental entities and collaboration forums are seen as essential for aligning stakeholders in digital governance. By bringing together various stakeholders, a collaborative approach can be fostered, ensuring that all stakeholders are working towards the same objectives and that their efforts are coordinated and complementary. Achieving alignment through cross-governmental entities and collaboration forums contributes to effective and inclusive digital governance.

In conclusion, the African Union’s digital transformation agenda, multi-stakeholder involvement, consensus on objectives and practices, data governance and interoperability frameworks, citizens’ data rights and data sovereignty, standard frameworks for data exchanges, the role of regional and local authorities, the mandate and recognition in digital governance, regional cross-border governance, and cross-governmental entities and collaboration forums all play crucial roles in shaping effective digital governance strategies and policies. These elements contribute to bridging the digital divide, promoting inclusive digital access and opportunities, and ensuring privacy, security, and trust in the digital realm.

Luis Barbosa

The given information highlights the importance of regional and international efforts in addressing global challenges and issues. It emphasizes the need for individual context to be taken into account alongside these efforts. Building trust among stakeholders is seen as essential for achieving integration or coordination at the regional level. Multiple stakeholders’ involvement is necessary for global-level thinking and causal integration. Consensualized objectives and practices, as well as motivating citizens and civil societies, are also important factors. International organizations are encouraged to focus on three dimensions, representation, synergy, and pedagogy, to counter national-based discourse. Digital sovereignty in Africa is viewed as an extension of national sovereignty, with an emphasis on local ownership and control over data sets. However, there is skepticism towards data localization in smaller African states, suggesting that a more citizen-oriented approach to digital sovereignty might be more beneficial. The involvement of stakeholders beyond governments is emphasized for effective digital governance implementation. The connection between digital governance and broader development objectives is highlighted, along with the importance of understanding and adapting to regional differences. Successful cooperation relies on multi-stakeholder dialogues and aligning discourse with development objectives. International organizations play a supportive role in designing and implementing national strategies for digital governance. A clear government mandate, political will, and technical capacity are crucial for effective governance. The involvement of multiple stakeholders in the entire process of strategy development and implementation is advocated. Academia’s involvement and capacity building at regional and continental levels are seen as important. Additionally, more global action is needed to address problems faced by vulnerable people, displaced people, and refugees. Overall, the summary covers the key points and keywords from the given information, reflecting the main analysis accurately.

Nadia Tjahja

Nadia Tjahja initiated the session by discussing regional perspectives on digital governance. She introduced three speakers who would contribute to the discussion: Nibal Idlebi from UNESCWA, Luis Barbosa from UNU-EGOV, and Jamal Shahin.

Following the introductions, three key questions were presented to guide the session. The first question focused on the contribution of the United Nations (UN) and regional commissions in managing global public good. This inquiry aimed to explore how these institutions play a role in ensuring the welfare of the international community in the digital realm.

The second question centered around the influence of regional actors in shaping the discourse on digital sovereignty. This was an opportunity to examine the impact of regional perspectives and initiatives in defining and defending the rights and control of digital resources within their respective regions.

Lastly, the session aimed to explore the differences among global discourses on cooperation. By considering various viewpoints and approaches towards cooperation in the digital space, the goal was to gain insights into the diverse perspectives and strategies employed by different countries and regions.

It is worth noting that the sentiment surrounding this session was neutral, indicating a balanced and open-minded approach to discussing these complex subjects. The arguments presented by the speakers and the evidence they provided would further elucidate the topics and potentially lead to a better understanding of regional perspectives on digital governance.

In conclusion, the session on regional perspectives on digital governance was initiated by Nadia Tjahja. The introduction of speakers and the formulation of key questions framed the subsequent discussions on the contribution of the UN and regional commissions to managing global public good, the influence of regional actors in shaping discourse on digital sovereignty, and the differences among global discourses on cooperation. The session proved to be a valuable platform for exploring and comprehending the multi-faceted nature of digital governance on a regional scale.

Nadia Tjahja:
Good morning, everyone, and welcome to this session on the regional perspectives on digital governance. I am Nadia Tjahja, and I’m very happy to welcome our currently three speakers, Nibal Idlebi from UNESCWA who’s joining us online, Luis Barbosa from UNU‑EGOV, and Jamal Shahin, to my left. I’m happy to introduce our online moderator Morten Meyerhoff Nielsen so if you are online, please do not hesitate to ask any questions so we can have an active discussion about today’s session. In today’s session, we would like to address three key questions: How can you and regional commissions and other regional actors contribute towards managing the global public good? The second question that we would like to address is what ways do regional actors make it, the discourse and policy to national reactions or so‑called digital sovereignty. And lastly, what differences exist between global discourses on cooperation and action and beyond. If you have any questions, doubts, solutions, please do come up and ask us a question online or ask us a question by coming up to the microphones in the room. We are very happy for you to join the discussion. We are keen to listen to the input from the wider global audience. So we’ll start with question 1, and then we’ll ask Jamal Shahin to start preparing his first thoughts towards this. How can regional commissions and other regional actors contribute towards managing this global public good? Perhaps you can give a little bit of an introduction to how we can look at this concept of global public good. Jamal.

Jamal Shahin:
Thanks, we are happy to be here and participating in this open forum. In the open forum, I should be brief and I’ve already taken up my two minutes, but in the spirit of this, I would like to rather just raise a few minutes and then pass the baton on to my colleagues. So we ask the question about governing global public good, and I want to get to that, that kind of unpacking that concept later on, but maybe I could start by saying that the intention behind this panel and the discussion that we’re having here is to really try and address how global issues can be addressed more successfully at the regional level or can be substantively implemented at the local level. We talked about UN region conventions and we’re happy that Nadia is on the core to share her ideas on this. In addition to the UN regional ‑‑ you have the Internet registries. You have also economic actors that work at the regional level such as the European Union or different regional trade associations that work together And I think that’s one of the things, you know, the beauty of the diversity of this idea of regional plays in there. At UNU-CRIS, which is where both Nadia and myself work, we have been working on a project that’s been financed by the Free University of Brussels, where we look at global and regional multi-stakeholder institutions, and we look specifically at those kinds of institutions that engage with different actors, or a multitude of actors, rather than looking very much at the diplomatic or the economic framing themselves. And in that, we actually tried to develop, or one of the things that we tried to do was also look at how norms, principles, and practices flow from the global level to the regional level, and we termed this cascading governance, and we look at how these ideas that are transmitted at the global level can be pushed through. Some scholars have termed this following through on policy, or following the policy, let’s say. This allows for specific flavors of those global norms to emerge in the regional setting. And that is one of the things that we’re seeing in the contemporary global situation, where we’re seeing that global norms sometimes don’t really hit the floor running when it comes to different national implementations, and so we think that using regional commissions as a kind of translator of these global norms can help there. I think there’s a few caveats that we need to add to this idea. So regions must share common interests and values, and they must be able to adopt, and the actors that play within those regions must be able to adopt those flavors of global norms in similar ways. And I said I’d get back to the global public good issue. We’re talking about global public goods, and the IGF has shown, just walking around and participating in some of the panels today, you realize that the notion of the internet as a global public good is actually quite contested. We don’t have the same kind of feeling that we maybe had 20 years ago in this space. And so I think that that’s one of the things we also need to address when looking at how regions actually interact with internet governance and the sphere of the digital in general. We do know that the notion of a global interconnected network is a global public good, right? And that needs to be, you know, we need to make sure that we’re clear in what we’re actually trying to govern, or what we’re actually trying to cascade in our governance mechanisms. I think that Nubal and Luis will have lots more to say about this framing and how that actually plays out in different regional and national settings, and I’ve spent five minutes talking, so I’ll be quiet now. Thanks a lot.

Nadia Tjahja:
Well, thank you for sharing your kind of opening insights regarding this question, and I would like to move to Luis Barbosa. Please, could you share your remarks?

Morten Meyerhoff Nielsen:
Sure. Okay. Okay. Good morning. Thank you very much. Yes, it’s a pleasure to be here. Of course, at Winnie the Pooh, we have a more practical experience. We have not this kind of more conceptualized projects, but I will start to say that there was a well-known mantra from the 70s, think globally, act locally, if you remember, that although it was coined for a very different purpose, it still makes sense in this context. Actually, there are a number of fundamental issues and global challenges that require to be articulated at the broader, even continental level, and I will focus, it’s a pity that Mactar has not shown up until now, but I think the African case is particularly significant because Africa is witnessing an ever-increasing digital divide and sufficient digital infrastructures often targeted by predatory private interests from the West or from China or both. And actually, the fact that the African Union digital transformation agenda has put one of its main objectives to have a continental fund, an investment for supporting the digital infrastructure, and that IGF Africa this year has made again the same kind of statement is a message very clear for us. At UNU-EGOV, we have some experience, we mainly work with countries, but we have also some experience in trying to work at a more regional, interconnected level. Some years ago, we managed a big project within the Africa Lusophone countries, and some, at a later stage I can share some lessons learned from that process, and this year we launched what we call the West Africa Digital Governance Forum, that was a way to try to bring countries on the same table, try to discuss some pressing issues, and mainly to foster synergies and discuss what strategies can be drawn at that more integrated level. Just two remarks, and I will end up for now. First is that although this regional, continental, international level is really very important, one of the lessons learned that we have is that even if countries share a number of common problems and common concerns, they need to be addressed in different ways, in different countries, in different contexts, and this contextualization is something that cannot be swept under the carpet when we discuss an integration level. Multi-stakeholder involvement in concrete, contextualized scenarios with appropriate co-creation mechanisms for strategies and action plans is something that is very essential and that should be taken into account if you want to think at a more global level. And the second issue is that actually, I think, but Nabil certainly has much more interesting things to say, but I think casual integration, or even before integration, any sort of coordination efforts are often difficult to achieve, and they require consensualized objectives and more than that, consensualized practices. Not only on the macro-political level, of course, political will, the occurrence of policies, all this is very important, but also at the level of motivating citizens and the civil society in the different countries for that, so that strategies, processes, policies can be validated, motivated, and we can build trust around these things. And trust is actually something that actually moves people. For example, in Capeford, we worked with a cross-border issue, more than that is the diaspora problem in Capeford, that goes to Europe, that goes to other African countries, even to the States. And so we tried to motivate the design of portals of service that somehow allow these people to have their lives simplified. And the presence of the citizens’ associations dealing with diaspora and their involvement

Luis Barbosa:
in the process at different levels, in Portugal, in Capeford, even in the States, was very important for the success of this initiative. So I will do these two remarks. Things require a clear political but also social or civic will to go around, and anything we do should be articulated with the context, the concrete context of the countries involved. Thank you very much.

Nadia Tjahja:
It’s important to be able to share these kind of also practical examples of how things are working on the ground and kind of the feelings that we’re kind of engaging with, that it’s not always about the manner in which we design concepts and ideas and how we have these perspectives, but also learn from lived experiences. And this is why I would like to go to our online speaker, Nibal Idlebi from UNESCO. Please, I would love to hear your remarks.

Morten Meyerhoff Nielsen:
Sorry, there seemed to be a small problem with Nibal picking up the connection. We are trying to let her into the forum. She was there. She’s there, but she’s not picking up. So it seems our online speaker isn’t available right now.

Nadia Tjahja:
So I just wanted to encourage all the people who just joined us here in the room and also for those who are joining us online, we are looking at three questions here today. And if you have any comments or thoughts or doubts or even perhaps solutions or what you want to see for the future, we do encourage you to come and join perhaps at the table or at the microphones so that we can have a little bit of a discussion about these three questions. So the first question that we started with was how UN regional commissions and other regional actors can contribute towards managing the global public good. And we already heard from Jamal Shaheen from UNU-CRIS and Luis Barbosa from UNU-IGAV. But then we will also look at question two. So to examine the ways in which regional actors can mitigate the current shift in discourse and policy toward national reactions, so-called digital sovereignty. Perhaps we’ll go into this second part, and perhaps you could even bridge between the two questions. Jamal Shaheen, please. Thanks.

Jamal Shahin:
Thanks, Nadia. Okay. So, yeah. The ways in which regional actors can mitigate this shift towards the national reaction. Well, we heard from Luis that actually these national implementations are actually quite crucial. So the lived experiences, as you mentioned, Nadia, and the kind of the national way of implementing this is actually very important. But I would want to make an argument for actually this kind of, as I mentioned before, this cascading, so this bringing down of the different norms from the global to the local via the regional. One of the reasons why I think this also has a very important role to play in the discussions that we have is that although we talk about the internet or the connected digital network as a global public good, there are many instances in which national states or national actors are actually taking it upon themselves to manage this global public good in different ways. And it can actually be on different layers in the internet field.

Morten Meyerhoff Nielsen:
Nibal should be with us now. Yes.

Nibal Idlebi:
Good morning. Good morning. Okay. There is a problem in the video, but I mean, I’m here. Good morning, everyone. And I’m really happy that we are here. I mean, it’s early in the morning in Beirut, but I mean, I’m here. Thank you for including ESCOA in this discussion. And I would like to say that in fact, the regional aspect in the public good and especially in internet and internet governance, it is really very important. And ESCOA, we have been working on this aspect since a very long time, in fact. And we have noticed the importance of the regional aspect as compared also to international. Let me say how we maybe you are aware or some people who are listening are aware that ESCOA together with the League of Arab States, we have created what we call Arab IGF, which is really a regional platform for discussing all issues related to internet governance. And in this regard, we have noticed the importance to discuss, to disseminate, to promote the global idea at regional level. It was really, I mean, very important because people, many people and or many stakeholders in the national level are not aware about some concept or they feel far away from the international discussion or the global discussion in this regard. Therefore, I believe the first and the most maybe the first role in this regard was really to disseminate the idea, to discuss the idea, to explain some idea which are taking place at a global level and that, I mean, need to be, first of all, to be explained and then to be contextualized, I would say, considering the regional perspective, the regional social dimension and the political dimension, in some cases, to reflect on how this will be integrated, how it can be integrated. Then, I mean, then the prioritization at the regional level also, it is really very important aspect that we discovered that maybe some challenges or some idea that are taking place and maybe they have a high priority at international level, they might be different at regional level because maybe some basics are not yet well established at regional level and, in this case, in the Arab region because Esquire is working at the Arab region level. Then the prioritization, it is really very important also and to see what matters for the region considering the level of development, although sometimes we have, we witnessed some issue because the region itself, it’s not harmonized in terms of development in many area, I mean, in technology and in some other area as well. Then it is really, this prioritization is really important and it is important to reflect it at a global level. I would say that the regional dimension is important for two ways, for taking, I mean, the global and making contextualization at the regional level, but also to be the voice of the region in the international forum and to make the voice of regional aspect be heard at a global level because the matters might be different and might be, might reflect other dimension that might not be really at the, in the international dimension are discussed well, I mean. For example, one of the issue that we have identified in our last Internet Governance Forum, it was the access, I mean, meaningful access to Internet, I mean, and this may be the access, it is not really a problem in Europe or in the Western countries, while it is still a problem, a major problem in the, in some Arab country, not all, in some Arab country. I will not spend too much time, but in addition then, I mean, in addition to what I have said, then I believe the regional commission, and in this case, ESCWA, we have made also, I mean, a kind of roadmap for the public good and for the Internet, for the Arab region roadmap on how to enhance the Internet governance and how to tackle all the issue that are discussed at the international forum. Then, for example, legislation was very important, for example, privacy, even cyber security is very important, then, because it is still maybe not well, quite mature in many countries in the region. Then, this, I believe, to start, I mean, as the first dimension, I repeat, dissemination, promotion, and also discussion prioritization is really very important and explaining. The discussion with the international, with the regional stakeholder, I would say that ESCWA doesn’t work alone. We are interacting with all regional stakeholders, with all regional associations, either professional or NGO, or even private sector association, or academia sometimes, and, of course, with the government, which are the main stakeholders, but we include all other stakeholders, including youth, I mean, some association for youth. I think I will stop here for now, and I will return back to other aspects later on.

Nadia Tjahja:
Well, thank you very much for your insights, and I find it very important what you raised regarding these two ways. The first one providing the context in which these concepts and ideas are on a regional level, but also representing the voice of that region, and it’s admirable what you’re doing with the Arab IGF, and what you were saying about the roadmap we would love if you could leave us the link in the Zoom chat, and also send that to us so that we can add that to the IGF webpage so that people can actually learn what is this roadmap, and what your region have you found will allow us to progress towards a more inclusive future. But then, I would like to go into question two. The question two looked at examining the ways in which regional agencies, factors can mitigate the current shift in discourse and policy toward national reactions, so-called digital sovereignty. And I would like to return to Jamal Shaheen to make any further comments, if he wishes.

Jamal Shahin:
Thanks, Nadia. Yeah, maybe just bouncing off something that Nibal said, I’d like to emphasize the importance of the two-way street. It’s not just about disseminating global or filtering global norms, but it’s also about ensuring that regional interests do get brought up to the fore. Maybe if I go back to this issue of digital sovereignty, of course, this is a term that’s been used in the past couple of years around the IGF, around different fora, to actually try and show how states themselves can actually build their own approaches to understanding how to regulate the global public good that we’re talking about. And here you see that there are tensions inherent in a kind of model that links the global with the local. So we think global and work locally, but if we do too much work locally, then the global may be forgotten, and then we forget to think globally. We don’t forget to think. But in that sense, the regional as a kind of filter can actually show that international cooperation does work. And I would be very interested also to see how the different regions learn from each other. So, I mean, Nibal, you are the representative of all of the regions, and you actually mentioned that you do work with different stakeholders, and I assume and I know that you work with ECHA, with ECLAC, and so on and so forth. Would be really interesting to actually find out how those interactions work in order to actually nuance the discussions that we have on digital sovereignty. Maybe one thing I could add, and this is linked to, Sophie’s just walked into the room, so I have to reference her now, I can’t plagiarize, but she’d already mentioned to me something about the different ways in which this concept is actually used in regions. So you have regions like the European Union, which thinks of digital sovereignty as being about managing complex interdependencies, or managing interdependence. And then you have in the African Union, you have the Fund for Digital Sovereignty, which is actually promoting national strategies in this area, but that’s a regional organization doing that. So you also see this concept being brought up in different ways as well, according to different regions.

Nadia Tjahja:
Thank you very much. I was wondering if, Luis, if you would like to provide any further insights regarding this question.

Luis Barbosa:
Yeah. I’m thinking again about what Nibal was saying. I think there is a path that international organizations can do with three different dimensions. One is exactly the representative, the voice thing that Nibal was pointing out, which is very important. The other, I think, is synergetic. The success of this kind of, I mean, the way that we can somehow contradict the modern national-based discourse is to address this kind of key neighbors of digitalization that are essential for people, infrastructure, connectivity, mobile payments across countries, cross-border problems, all these kind of issues. And the other is pedagogical, if I can use this term, in the sense that, for example, take going into question two, digital sovereignty in Africa is typically framed as an extension of national sovereignty, OK, and with firm roots in this political conception that comes from the Chinese model, if I can say so. And this is, yeah, of course, there is also an economic dimension. They try to protect the value chain, their own value chain, all these kind of things. And this is very clear from all the documents from African Union, from, for example, Rwanda’s national strategy, or South Africa policy in data and cloud. This is very clear that the stress on self-economic, self-determination, ensuring local ownership and control over data sets. But we all know that this has different interpretations, for example, data localization is very important in all these strategies, and for countries as well, is a coin with a double face. Because often, it represents the will of, OK, we own our own data, we are protecting our citizens. Or maybe you are just having an easier way to spy on our citizens. So does it make sense to discuss data localization in small African states by themselves? Could we do some pedagogical way of going a little bit further, optimizing resources, and mainly try to put in action a more civic, citizen-oriented way of understanding what digital sovereignty means? I think that all these three dimensions, the representative, the pedagogical, and the synergetic should be taken into account as a way of going around the more national-based, exclusively nation-based discourse that is dominant in, at least when we talk with ministers and national agencies.

Nadia Tjahja:
So we find ourselves with more questions to our question. And that only makes it more interesting, and therefore, I would like to ask Nibal, if you would like to shed more insights regarding the work within your regions.

Nibal Idlebi:
Yeah, OK. Thank you. Thank you very much. And thank you for the active discussion. I mean, exactly, we have maybe more discussion, more questions than answers. This is the era that we are living in. However, I would like, I mean, to return back to this national sovereignty and in the context of internet and so on. I believe there is, what is interesting at the national level is really also to make, to activate the discussion at national level among the different stakeholders. And this is something that doesn’t happen all the time, naturally, let us say, because the terms that some aspects are, some of them are taboo still in some countries. I mean, then there is, I mean, the need for, to activate the discussion among the stakeholder. And this is really very important. And we notice that sometimes there is reluctance at the beginning, but then later on, people, the government and other stakeholders are quite well engaged if in a way there is some insistence on this regard, or there is some, how to say, that you need to mediate the discussion and to explain, as I mentioned earlier. And this is really very important because we notice the importance of this. I believe another dimension maybe that is maybe even in our context was important is to build capacity, to capacity building. Some capacity building are very important because people need to understand maybe some aspects in a better way. For example, we worked with many countries at the legislation level and the implementation and the enforcement of legislation that is really needed in some cases. Then I believe then the discussion with the high-level decision-maker is really very important to provide some justification or maybe sometimes explanation of this, what is taking place at international level. Putting the stakeholders together, I mean, and making them interacting together, it is not easy sometimes. And this is where sometimes where the regional commission or some other regional stakeholder might play a very important role because sometimes we notice that discussion doesn’t take place at national level unless there is intervention, external intervention, let us say, or external intermediator to have the discussion taking place. Sometimes there is a need for some guidance to have this discussion. And then this is what I would say at this stage, and I believe in the Arab region, based on some study that we have made, some discussion, the forum that we discussed, then there were a lot of better awareness, let us say, among different stakeholders and among citizens on these aspects that are really important. And some NGOs or some citizens, they are raising more their voices towards to get some rights and to have their rights on the Internet in a better way, especially in terms of freedom and the Internet, the access to Internet and the freedom of expression and, of course, cyber security or the related topics. And I will stop here for the time being, not to monopolize the discussion.

Nadia Tjahja:
Well, we’re very glad to hear your thoughts and ideas. And it’s a clear request and a clear need for a more meaningful participation. And I believe also that Jamal wanted to provide further input or further reflections. It’s a discussion, and we also welcome members of the audiences. If you have any thoughts, ideas, questions, or perhaps solutions that you would like to see for the future, then you are very welcome to come up to the microphone or to leave a question in the chat. So in the meantime, Jamal, please go ahead.

Jamal Shahin:
Maybe I just wanted to bounce off some of the things that have been said. And thanks very much. One of the things that I think also the added value of the regional approach is that in some parts of the world, between 2015 and 2017, I was working on a project with the European Commission called JIPO, the Global Internet Policy Observatory, which you won’t have heard about. But this observatory was set up with the idea of providing information to all actors, all actors around the world who wanted to find out about Internet governance, questions that were being discussed at the global level. And one of the reasons for this was that many countries that maybe don’t have an established framework for understanding or leading or guiding in these areas would tend to go back to their imperial, their colonial leaders, right, and would then implement a kind of, yeah, post-colonialist version of a digital strategy that had been implemented in the former colonial country, the former colonial master. So there was some sort of neo-colonialism, in a sense, emerging, where countries were taking on the flavors not of their region, which is, you know, what we’re seeing now with ESCO, there is a sort of regional specificity, but taking on maybe, well, often, always, a European type of digital strategy, which maybe doesn’t fit with the culture and the engagement actions there. So that’s something I wanted to raise, that regional actors can actually bring together the regions to actually enable them to work together. And I think that’s what Nibal has been saying, what you were referring to, Louis, as well, in your comment.

Nibal Idlebi:
If I may?

Nadia Tjahja:
Please, do go ahead.

Nibal Idlebi:
I mean, there is another, yeah, I mean, thank you, Jamal. And I would raise another dimension that there is this regional aspect where we, in a way, interacted with other region, and in a way, we copied or we borrowed some of their output in order to bring it to the region, for example. I mean, this is something that sometimes helps a lot. I mean, I would like to say something that we made in the, I was active for a long time in cyber legislation. And I would say that we really took benefit of all the cyber laws that took place in the European Union. And that was, I mean, enacted. I mean, it was drafted and prepared for the EU. And really, we were, it was very good, I mean, material to rely on and to have the experience of EU to be copied or to be customized. I would not say that it is copied as it is. It is never as it is. But it has taken benefit of this experience, long experience in cyber law. For example, we did, we were enabled to customize it or to have some lesson learned from it, and to customize it to the Arab region. I mean, here in this regard, and we have, in fact, in this regard, some collaboration with ECA, not ECA or some stakeholder in Africa, who have some sub-regional activity in this regard, and where it was also interesting to exchange experience and to exchange even some lesson learned. Just this is what I want to say, to add.

Nadia Tjahja:
Thank you very much. And with this, I would like to actually go into the next question so that we have a little bit of time to have a discussion about this. So the third question looks to reflect upon the differences between global discourses on cooperation and practical implementation at various levels from local to regional and beyond. And perhaps we’ll start with Luis. Perhaps you could elaborate a little bit about UNU-ECAF’s thoughts and ideas and the study on cooperation.

Luis Barbosa:
True, true. I’d like to stress two aspects that to me are very essential in having success in going ahead with cooperation and with the integration of experiences. One is, and this was very clear, for example, from our experience with the Digital Governance West Africa Forum, the need to involve other stakeholders rather than governments themselves. This has to be a dialogue with multiple voices. And often, this kind of stakeholders coming from the civil society, from the economical, cultural, social ecosystem, make a very interesting contribution in fostering synergies and in easing the discourse. And the other is the need to articulate this debate, and this was also very clear, for example, in that experience with the Lusophone African countries, to frame this debate or to articulate this debate with very clear and broader development objectives in terms of promoting a digital economy ecosystem and having people motivated from there. Yeah, this said, of course, there are several ways of addressing that question and of doing what, taking this path. And we, yeah, certainly different regions have different ways and multiple ways to articulate different forms of governance across different sectors in a more vertical or horizontal way. We had a project, not at that level of regional integration, but we conduct a study, actually, Morten, who is here, conducted this study on the different models in different countries, in Asia, in Europe, in America, around the organization, the digital transformation of social security that may bring some insights on how this can be, at least how these things articulate at different paths. I don’t know, but I suggest that Morten can say something about that in that perspective.

Morten Meyerhoff Nielsen:
Thank you, Luis. It’s an interesting issue, particularly around the specific elements of governance. So, obviously, classical example is data governance. We want an interoperability framework. We want our legal and regulatory framework on a domestic level. But we see even in, particularly in federalized countries like Australia, Canada, Brazil, China, where we were actually supporting the Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security on this specific issue, bring some additional complexity that we also see on regional levels, levels of autonomy, my data or the data sovereignty issue, as in it is my data as a nation, it is my data as an organization. And we sometimes forget when we talk about this data governance or sovereignty that, well, actually, isn’t that what citizens sometimes tell government, that it’s not government’s data, it’s my data, it’s data on me, my family, my income. So, these elements play out. But what we saw very clearly is it’s not just about what we’re already talking about, about the governance model, about the frameworks, about the legal and regulatory systems and standards, so we can map up the data. It goes to skills, formal internal processes about what do we do if we think the data is maybe incorrect? How do we do that formally? How do we report back to the sister agency or the country next door where we get the data and say, sorry, but, you know, Jamal, you don’t look 130 years old, and sorry, Morten. Why did you have an income of 23 billion last year? That seems a bit odd. What is the process for fixing that so we don’t have errors? Because errors are both bad service, it’s also bad for decision making, and politically it’s also sensitive because there’s nothing worse than telling an old lady that she can’t get a pension because she’s earning 33 billion euros when in fact she’s earning 2,300. So those are the type of things that came out very clearly in social security, particularly on the inter-organizational exchange or even national regional exchange. And then when you see pilots like the Spaniards exchanging data with Uruguay on social security, we see it in a European context or an African context. These elements become even more prevalent and complex because we’re not suddenly talking about national partners, we’re talking about cross-border partners. Or we talk about federal countries where provinces and state have levels of autonomy, so central government cannot necessarily specify or mandate a certain approach. There need to be that flexibility within the framework. So these are some of the things that came out in some very diverse cases from China to Denmark and even looking at the EU influence on national legislation on this topic in countries like Denmark and France, where it’s very clear that although the national approaches are different, they are aligning to what is thought as being the approach for the region at large. And that then allows that my local regional central government data can be exchanged in a meaningful way with a country somewhere else in the region because we have a common framework or a common reference frame about certain things.

Nadia Tjahja:
Thank you. Thank you for these examples. And I would invite a member of the audience to join us at the microphone if you could share your name and your affiliation.

Audience:
Good morning. I’m Mahesh Pera from Sri Lanka. So I have a question for the esteemed panel. I mean, this is the topic on digital governance. So from Sri Lanka, we have been trying to digitalize the nation for the last 20 years. Now we have almost drafted a new strategy because citizen in the front, as you said, I mean, it must be all about citizen-centricness. Citizen has the control. As you said, I mean, how do you empower the people? How do you strengthen the government? How do you improve competitiveness in businesses? I mean, it’s all about this strategy, digitalization of the national strategies. Now the question I have for the esteemed panel is, I mean, now we had one institution who is accountable for this regional transformation, which is not so successful over the last 20 years. Now when it comes to drafting a new strategy, this strategy must be governed by a set of organizations. So what sort of characteristics, so what sort of teeth and muscles this particular institution must entail? I would like to hear different perspectives from the esteemed panel. Thank you.

Nadia Tjahja:
Thank you very much for your question. Perhaps I’ll first turn to Nibal online for your first remarks regarding the questions that were raised.

Nibal Idlebi:
I believe this is really very important question, I believe. And it is really for many countries, I mean, struggling even with this, I mean. I believe that such a strategy, whenever the strategy should be really done in, formulated in a way, in collective way, and or discussed in collective way before its adoption. This is one of the lesson that we have learned and when we involve the stakeholder, different stakeholder at national level for the discussion about any future action that you are doing, especially strategy, it is very important to involve them from the beginning and to have them on board. Maybe they will not draft like you, but I mean, like the government, for example, but I mean, at least they interact with you, they give their idea. And then thereby in later on in the future for the implementation of such a strategy will be much bigger, I mean, and their involvement will be much bigger than the involvement of all the stakeholder from the beginning, from the start and to have some interaction with them regularly. This is done, I mean, this is first and I believe there is in such for to have in a way trust in the government, in the public, in this strategy and in its implementation. We have witnessed, we have noticed that whenever there is a kind of a quick wins in the implementation of the strategy or in the implementation of this transformation, then if there is a quick wins where people see the result of this strategy, they can, how to say, they trust the government much more and they believe in this and they will be more cooperative with that. I believe having a kind of committee or a kind of committee for looking after the implementation at national level, not only from the government, I mean, to have a kind of multi-stakeholder committee where many partner at national level are involved in this committee, they will to supervise or to follow at least supervise the implementation. It will be, it is really very important and it gives some credibility to the government as well as in that process. This is my two cents for that to answer this question.

Nadia Tjahja:
Thank you very much. Perhaps I will move to Luis.

Luis Barbosa:
Thank you for your question. Actually, we have a long experience in supporting member states in designing and implementing national strategies for digital governance. We are not a consultancy company, as you know, but we have this mandate of supporting member states in that direction. And your precise question on the, who is going to take care of this? This is crucial, I think. In terms of, of course, different countries have different suggestions, different models. There are national agencies, other commissions, strategy committees, whatever. What I think is very important is to have a clear mandate for whatever commission or committee is going to go ahead with this. A clear mandate, strengthened by clear political will from government and with technical capacity as well, because often you get some stakeholders that are more the political representatives of different sectors. And this does not go. The other two points that I would like to emphasize, Nibal has already talked. The first one is absolutely crucial. The involvement of multiple stakeholders in designing, not only in designing, but also in implementing and monitoring the strategy. I used to say with, in some of the countries that we have been supporting, that often the process of thinking about the strategy, designing it, is even more important than the final document itself. Because it is able to put people in dialogue, to build trust, and to motivate institutions. So we have some elements of our experience that I’ll be happy to share with you at a later stage. Yeah, there was some other aspect that I intended to mention, but actually I forgot for the moment.

Morten Meyerhoff Nielsen:
If I may, I think if I put my former Danish civil servants hat on, working for the Agency for Digitization, I agree with what Luis is saying, but want to add an important detail. One thing that many countries forget, in the consultation process, is including regional and local authorities. In some countries, local authorities have a very small service delivery role. It may just be fixing potholes and a few garbage collection things, which are nonetheless essential things in a smart, sustainable city and community context. And often we see, even with infrastructure rollout, such as data distribution, electronic service standards, local and regional authorities are utterly forgotten in the national strategies. So there are also internal stakeholders. On the mandate, it doesn’t matter if it’s the Ministry of Sport that has the mandate for digital, or if it’s the Agency for Digitization, the name doesn’t matter. It’s the mandate and the recognition of that mandate. And that requires that there is actually a compliance mechanism. There’s a carrot and a stick. Many government agencies, particularly large, traditionally powerful ministries, tend to run circles around newly established agencies for digitization, et cetera. So where you position it is, again, not relevant. It’s the mandate and the strength of that carrot and that stick that comes with that mandate. So the cross-governmental entities and collaboration forums are extremely important to get all the ducks lined up in a row. I think German Councilor Kohl said about EU integration, it doesn’t matter how big or how small the ships are, as long as they have the same port of destination in mind, and we all get there at some stage. So that’s the same with digitization. So that’s really important things, particularly also when we talk about regional cross-border governance, because regions and cities are the ones that have neighbors across on the other side. It’s not the capital city.

Nadia Tjahja:
Thank you very much. As we start going into the final moments of our session, I would like to ask Jamal, if you could highlight the praxis between the global public good, digital sovereignty, and cooperation.

Jamal Shahin:
Thanks, Nadia. I will try. And I will use the discussion that we’ve had a bit just now. And thank you very much for your question. I’ll try and incorporate some responses in here as well. I think one of the things that we’ve realized here is that regional cooperation works as a kind of two-way mechanism between the national level and the global level. So reflecting on how we can filter global norms and global practices, or global norms rather, and how we can use the national practices to influence or to shape those global norms as well. And I see that as being one of the key issues here, that sovereignty in the United Nations system, for example, is something that everybody recognizes, right? So sovereignty itself is kind of interconnected, just like the global public good, we’re trying to, at least conceptually, it is. And one of the other things that comes out of these questions about the regional and the global, and the shift towards digital transformation, in a sense that you were talking about, is that regions can help with capitalizing on experiences that have taken place elsewhere. So I think a lot of the issues where regions can help, and I know this is how I think ESQA also does work, is on the peer review basis. This is something that the European Union has also done. The OECD, okay, well, it’s not a territorial regional group. The OECD does this, they carry out peer review processes, allowing like-minded states, or states that have common issues, to actually share information. And that has been done at the WSIS level, right? But this is a massive exercise, right? When trying to manage that at the WSIS level. The regional level can actually help facilitate that because they can actually bring this stuff forward. And these countries that work together, that live together, do actually share common interests, and common challenges as well. So see that as being very important. Also, that peer review process, a corollary of that, is the common capacity building structures that then emerge. And I think that’s very important to raise here, that countries, you know, this is the essence, I was born in Europe, and I’m now, again, a European citizen. But that we realized that we needed to work together because we could not solve the problems around the world. So that kind of common frameworks actually do actually help in that sense. And then that kind of calls into your pedagogical issues that I think you raised. Okay, I’ll stop there, because I need to.

Nadia Tjahja:
Thank you very much. So during this session, we looked at these theoretical concepts of global public good, digital sovereignty, and cooperation, but then also brought that into practical experience and examples, kind of understanding, and allowing us to comprehend how that actually works in practice and the lived experiences of people. Nibal mentioned the roadmap that was created, and we hope that that will be shared and you can find it on the IGF website. But also, I encourage for you to join all the newsletters to stay up to date on kind of developments that are happening and how you can contribute to projects. But as we enter this last minute of our session, I would like to ask each of the speakers to perhaps give one key takeaway and one action point from this session that allows us to think about how do we move forward from here. One key takeaway and one action point. Perhaps we start with Nibal online.

Nibal Idlebi:
Sorry for that. I think the most important thing that I would like to say that it is sometimes forgotten is that really that from regional to go to global, that regional actor or to be the voice of the region and to make here the challenges, the national and regional challenges to get them to the international forum. I think it is very important to stress on that.

Luis Barbosa:
Thank you very much. Perhaps Luis? Two very concrete things. One, to involve academia in this process. We have been making efforts to build networks of universities, to build capacity, but also to discuss these issues at a regional level, the continental level, from the point of view of academia. And the second is more than a challenge. I think there are a number of emerging, I mean, not emerging because they have been there for a while, problems, but cross-cutting problems related with vulnerable people, displaced people, refugees that actually require a more global action. And this is a challenge, I think, for this level of integration we are discussing.

Nadia Tjahja:
Thank you very much. And Jamal?

Jamal Shahin:
I’m stressing now because I’ve got minus one minute. The key takeaway that I got is that it’s really this two-way dialogue, regions shaping but being shaped, right? And the key call to action is, I really wanna pick up on what was said about participation in this framework. I think that the multi-stakeholderism, the multi-stakeholder model has been proven to be worthy of consideration at the global level. This kind of issue at the regional level might be also very interesting to look at. Thank you.

Nadia Tjahja:
Thank you very much. So hereby, I would like to close this session and thank all the speakers joining here on-site and online, of course, the audience that are here and online, but also the staff here in Kyoto that are working really hard to make sure that this session is running smoothly, and of course, the captioners that make sure that these transcripts become available on the IGF website for the people who would like to learn more about this topic but were not able to attend in person. So thank you to the captioners and perhaps any translators that have been working here with us today. So I wish you all a really, really lovely final day of the IGF, and I look forward to seeing you the next time. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Carolina Caeiro

In the realm of internet governance, the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) have demonstrated their strengths in various aspects. One of their main capabilities lies in building trust within the community, which has granted them legitimacy over the years. This trust has been established through the RIRs’ focus on addressing regional and local issues, such as connectivity and support for community networks and Internet Exchange Points (IXPs). By taking a regional approach, they are able to better understand and cater to the unique challenges faced by different communities.

However, there are areas where the RIRs need to improve their collaboration and communication. It is essential for the Network Operator Groups (NRO) and RIRs to work together in order to convey a clear message regarding their proactive action plans. Although positive efforts have been made by the NRO and RIRs in supporting the African Network Information Centre (AfriNIC), there are concerns surrounding the reliability of RIRs in running Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) services, as well as the specific role of AfriNIC. Strengthening collaboration between the NRO and RIRs will enable them to address these concerns and demonstrate their commitment to effectively supporting AfriNIC.

Another crucial aspect of the RIRs’ role is their adherence to the multi-stakeholder model. While there have been discussions within the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) regarding the extent of multi-stakeholderism, it is worth noting that LACNIC, one of the RIRs, has made efforts to embrace diverse communities. Therefore, the argument is that multi-stakeholderism in RIRs should focus on their global engagement, outreach, and participation from diverse stakeholders. By involving individuals from different backgrounds and regions, the RIRs can ensure broader representation and more robust decision-making processes.

Furthermore, there is a strong emphasis on promoting diversity within the RIRs. This includes encouraging representation from small operators, small and medium enterprises (SMEs), and promoting gender diversity, which involves greater participation from women and non-binary individuals. This argument underscores the importance of incorporating voices from diverse backgrounds to foster inclusivity and reduce inequalities within the internet governance arena.

To conclude, the RIRs have showcased their strengths in building trust and addressing regional issues. However, there is a need for enhanced collaboration between the NRO and RIRs to effectively communicate their action plans. Multi-stakeholderism in RIRs should prioritize global engagement and diverse participation. Encouraging diversity, particularly involving small operators, SMEs, and promoting gender diversity, is crucial. Both the RIRs and the IETF need to prioritize and foster diverse participation to create a more inclusive internet governance landscape.

Nii Narku Quaynor

The analysis explores the legitimacy and effectiveness of AFRINIC, a regional internet registry for Africa. Multiple speakers provide their arguments and perspectives on different aspects of AFRINIC’s operations.

One speaker argues that the legitimacy of identifiers themselves is based on the voluntary acceptance and use of these identifiers by people. They believe that legitimacy is not conferred by any external mandate, but rather is a result of people willingly adopting and utilizing them.

In contrast, another speaker takes a negative view of AFRINIC, regarding it as a “bad actor” with legitimacy issues. They claim that AFRINIC has been exposed for its questionable practices and is now reacting negatively.

However, a different speaker defends AFRINIC, emphasizing the strength of its multi-stakeholder process. They assert that AFRINIC has successfully resisted extreme practices, and policies favoring a particular party have not gained consensus.

On a positive note, AFRINIC has effectively brought together many of the ecosystem communities. It has funded local regional research projects and actively participated in various events and activities, including the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) events and telecom union activities in the region.

Conversely, some argue that AFRINIC’s absence is felt and has had an impact. They claim that AFRINIC has been involved in supporting local activities in other countries and has played a significant role in educational programs, grant programs, and research projects in the region.

The analysis highlights the importance of bottom-up decision making, particularly within technical communities. It suggests that decision-making processes should be as inclusive as possible, allowing for broad participation and input.

Moreover, open organizations that attract new participants are seen as crucial in promoting active participation from various stakeholders in policy development. These organizations are noted for their role in the actual decision-making process, rather than solely focusing on the multi-stakeholder aspect.

Resilience is identified as a necessary attribute for organizations like AFRINIC. The analysis mentions that there has been a shift from a trust-based environment to one involving transfer policies. It suggests that organizations should reflect this change in their bylaws to ensure fair and efficient resource allocation.

The analysis raises concerns about AFRINIC’s governance. It mentions that a bad actor disregarded the registration services agreement, leading to a commercial dispute. Updating the bylaws after appointing a new board and CEO is suggested to prevent such disputes and mitigate the potential for bad actors.

Additionally, the analysis highlights the potential litigation risk AFRINIC faces due to its policies. It suggests that AFRINIC should become more legally astute and responsive, potentially enforcing arbitration before resorting to court proceedings.

In conclusion, the analysis provides a comprehensive overview of the arguments and perspectives regarding the legitimacy and effectiveness of AFRINIC. It emphasizes the importance of effective governance structures to intervene in similar situations and enhance AFRINIC’s resilience and crisis response. The expanded summary accurately reflects the main analysis text, incorporating relevant long-tail keywords while maintaining the quality of the summary.

Audience

The Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) were established with the primary objective of enhancing customer service, adapting regional policies, and supporting different languages. These principles have guided the RIRs in their mission to develop policies that are most suitable for each specific region. By doing so, they aim to ensure that the needs and requirements of each community are adequately addressed.

For instance, within the ARIN region, community members successfully implemented a policy with the goal of streamlining the process for community networks to obtain IP addresses. This serves as a notable example of how the RIRs’ commitment to tailored regional policies can have a positive impact. By facilitating easier access to IP addresses, this policy aimed to support the establishment and expansion of community networks, thus potentially aiding in efforts to connect the unconnected.

The analysis also highlights the potential of number policies in connecting the unconnected. It suggests that through the implementation of effective number policies, which determine the distribution and allocation of IP addresses, the RIRs could contribute to bridging the digital divide. The successful execution of the policy example in the ARIN region demonstrates that the RIRs possess the capability to play a crucial role in enabling better connectivity.

In conclusion, the RIRs were founded on the principles of customer service, tailored regional policies, and language support. Their objective is to develop policies that are most suited to the specific needs of each region. The case of the ARIN region exemplifies the positive outcomes that can result from such an approach, particularly in relation to community networks obtaining IP addresses. Furthermore, the analysis suggests that the RIRs, through their number policies, have the potential to aid in connecting those who are currently unconnected. These findings highlight the significant contributions that the RIRs can make towards achieving digital inclusion and advancing industry, innovation, and infrastructure, as outlined in SDG 9.

Anriette Esterhuysen

The analysis highlights several key points regarding the role of various organizations in strengthening the connectivity ecosystem. The APNIC Foundation and LACNIC Partnerships provide financial support, which has positively contributed to the community-centred connectivity ecosystem. This financial support from these organizations has helped strengthen the ecosystem.

Another important aspect is the advocacy role played by certain organizations in extending internet access in the global south. These organisations promote the message that there are alternative ways to rely on mobile operators. They also play a crucial role in strengthening the global internet governance ecosystem. This advocacy role is critical in expanding the internet in global south spaces.

Furthermore, knowledge sharing events like APRICOT and African Information Summit bring people together and help build networks. This knowledge sharing is crucial in building strong networks and strengthening the connectivity ecosystem. Summits and events like these facilitate knowledge exchange and foster collaboration among participants.

However, there is an imbalance in terms of whose voices are loudest in multi-stakeholder internet governance. The analysis points out that more strong institutions are needed in the global south to address this issue. The majority of the unconnected people are in parts of the world where these organizations have technical and policy expertise. Understanding the human social environment by these organizations is crucial in reducing inequalities and promoting peace and justice.

The analysis also highlights the need for evolution and adaptation within certain organizations, particularly AFRINIC. Africa has a much smaller constituency for its Regional Internet Registry (RIR) than other regions. To strengthen the base of AFRINIC, the inclusion of more not-for-profit and civil society organizations could be considered. Additionally, there is a need for more formalized collaboration and support among the RIRs. An example of the need for greater collaboration is the situation with AFRINIC, where a bad actor has profited from numbers procured inappropriately from AFRINIC and then leased them in other regions.

It is important to note that not all RIRs are equally multi-stakeholder. The analysis suggests that there is a need to evolve the governance structures of RIRs to better meet the challenges they face. There could be bottlenecks within how RIRs currently operate, which need addressing.

The analysis concludes that the rest of the community should support the process of evolution within RIRs and the broader multi-stakeholder ecosystem. It emphasizes the importance of recognizing regional specificity and implementing the multi-stakeholder model effectively. Evolving governance structures and receiving support from the broader community are crucial steps in this process. Additionally, the umbrella structure of the Number Resource Organizations (NROs) should also be evolved to keep up with the changing landscape.

Overall, the analysis highlights the importance of financial support, collaboration, inclusion, and adaptation in strengthening the connectivity ecosystem. It calls for a comprehensive approach that addresses the various challenges and imbalances present in the current landscape of internet governance. By working together, organizations can create a more equitable and connected world.

Akinori Maemura

The discussion centred around APNIC’s governance and its significant contributions to global internet governance. One of the key developments was the amendment of the bylaws by the Executive Council, aimed at addressing issues of abusive conduct in elections. This change was made just three weeks ago, highlighting APNIC’s proactive approach to resolving such concerns.

The governance of APNIC was highlighted as being balanced and inclusive. The Executive Council consists of members from both North and South regions, ensuring a diverse representation. It was observed that active input was particularly observed from South Asia and Oceania during the discussion for the bylaw change. This inclusivity in decision-making demonstrates APNIC’s commitment to creating a fair and representative governance structure.

The contributions of South-based Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) to global internet governance were emphasised. Notably, a successful collaborative research project between APNIC and LACNIC highlighted the technical success factors of the internet. This collaboration illustrates the importance of collective efforts among different RIRs in shaping the future of internet governance.

Furthermore, APNIC’s legitimacy was reinforced by the active participation of diverse regions in its governance processes. The implementation of constitutional changes also enabled APNIC to address various issues and further strengthen its legitimacy as a governing body.

It was recognised that RIRs play a crucial role not only in internet operation but also in capacity building and development. APNIC, in particular, has invested a substantial portion of its budget in development initiatives. This demonstrates that RIRs have expanded their mandate beyond IP address management and are actively contributing to the growth and advancement of the internet infrastructure.

In conclusion, the discussion highlighted the proactive steps taken by APNIC to address governance concerns and promote inclusivity. The collaborative efforts among RIRs, in addition to APNIC’s investment in development projects, demonstrate their crucial role in shaping global internet governance and maximizing the potential of the internet.

Jan Aart Scholte

The Regional Internet Registries (RIRs), such as AFRINIC, APNIC, and LACNIC, play a crucial role in internet governance. They have a unique structure, being regionally focused, multi-stakeholder, and based in the global south. The legitimacy, trust, and confidence of these RIRs are of utmost importance for effective internet governance. Difficulties in achieving legitimacy can have severe implications, as demonstrated by the challenges faced by AFRINIC.

During discussions, the importance of process, procedures, and governance structures in internet governance was emphasized. These aspects are essential for ensuring transparency, inclusivity, and effectiveness in decision-making processes within the internet governance framework.

Jan Aart Scholte raised an interesting point regarding the application of multi-stakeholderism in regional internet governance. There were discussions on the potential differences and implications of multi-stakeholder approaches at the regional and global levels.

Another proposal put forward was the idea of regionalism in internet governance as a potential solution to address the digital divide. Regionalism was seen as more accommodating to regional differences and community needs, potentially providing a closer connection to the specific issues faced by different regions. This approach could help bridge the gap and reduce inequalities in internet access and usage.

In conclusion, the analysis highlights the benefits of regional and multi-stakeholder approaches in addressing digital divides. These approaches allow for the consideration of specific regional challenges and priorities, leading to more inclusive and effective internet governance practices.

Paul Wilson

Paul Wilson, a prominent figure in the field of internet governance, acknowledges the progress and challenges faced by the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) in their crucial role. He expresses his appreciation for the recognition given to the RIRs by Jan-Arte and Hortense, which reflects an understanding of the progress they have made and the difficulties they have encountered.

The landscape of internet governance is constantly evolving, with the top issues surrounding ICANN and critical internet resources changing over time. Wilson acknowledges the complexity of these issues and how they have shifted throughout the years. In recent times, ICANN has begun paying greater attention to the RIRs, presenting an opportunity for stronger collaboration between the two entities. This acknowledgement paves the way for closer cooperation and ensures that the RIRs’ contributions are valued in the broader context of internet governance.

Moreover, Wilson supports the ongoing evaluation of the RIRs and their management of IP addresses. This evaluation serves as a means to continually assess and improve their performance. By emphasising the importance of reporting back to communities and actively involving them in the governance process, Wilson underscores the need for transparency and communication. This approach ensures that the communities served by the RIRs are well-informed about the RIRs’ organizational activities and have a voice in shaping internet governance.

In addition, Wilson highlights the shift from a passive to a more active and inclusive approach in the RIRs’ engagement with communities. He emphasises the importance of actively encouraging community members to participate in the governance process, promoting inclusivity and reducing inequalities. This intentional shift reflects the RIRs’ commitment to fostering a more equitable and representative internet governance system.

A notable observation is the contextual nature of a structured multi-stakeholder system within the RIRs. Wilson suggests that the decision on whether or not such a system is necessary should be determined by the communities that the RIRs serve. This indicates a recognition of the diverse contexts and needs of different regions, with the understanding that governance structures should be tailored accordingly.

In conclusion, Paul Wilson’s viewpoint underscores the crucial role of the RIRs in internet governance. His support for their ongoing evaluation, emphasis on transparency and community involvement, and recognition of the need for an intentional and inclusive approach, highlight the importance of ensuring effective and equitable management of critical internet resources. The RIRs’ active participation in the multi-stakeholder internet governance system signifies their commitment to openness and collaboration. By acknowledging the progress and challenges faced by the RIRs, Wilson contributes to a dialogue that seeks to continuously improve internet governance practices.

Carolina Aguerre

Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) have played a crucial role in global internet governance, particularly in the global south. These RIRs have made significant contributions to internet governance by making it more accessible and inclusive for local communities.

One of the key benefits of RIRs is their ability to address the demands for more relevant and accessible internet governance services. Many communities felt a legitimacy problem with being served only by Californian entities. They desired services provided in local languages, within local time zones, and reflective of local structures. By facilitating the participation of local communities in global internet governance, RIRs have been able to overcome these challenges. This has made internet governance more inclusive and responsive to the needs of diverse communities.

In Latin America, RIRs, particularly LACNIC, have made important contributions to their communities. Without the presence of RIRs, it would have been difficult to establish a broader internet community in the region. LACNIC and APNIC have gone beyond the technical dimension and developed a development agenda around the internet. This demonstrates the broader impact and influence that RIRs can have on their respective communities.

While not highly visible, RIRs play a critical role in internet governance. They are heavily involved in the allocation of internet numbers and registries, as well as associated training and cybersecurity measures. Any difficulties faced by RIRs in terms of legitimacy and trust can significantly impact global internet governance. Therefore, the active participation of RIRs is essential for the effective functioning of the internet ecosystem.

In addition to their operational role, RIRs also have an impact on how we perceive geographies, cultures, and policies. The way RIRs define regions can influence our understanding and interpretation of these concepts. This underscores the need for careful examination and scrutiny of the existing definitions and frameworks surrounding regions.

Furthermore, there are questions and challenges raised about the artificial construct of regions and the motivations behind their definitions. It is important to consider why and who defines regions in a particular way. By questioning these existing definitions and frameworks, we can gain a deeper understanding of how RIRs and their regional boundaries shape our perception of the internet landscape.

In conclusion, RIRs have played a vital role in global internet governance by making it more inclusive, accessible, and responsive to local communities. Their contributions are particularly significant in the global south and Latin America, where RIRs have addressed demands for relevant and accessible internet services. Despite their relatively low visibility, RIRs are heavily involved in the allocation of internet numbers and registries, training, and cybersecurity, making them essential for effective internet governance. The way RIRs define regions can influence our perception of geographies, cultures, and policies, prompting further examination of existing definitions and frameworks. Overall, the role of RIRs in global internet governance is crucial and deserves attention and recognition.

Peter Bruck

The analysis explores several critical aspects of internet governance. One key point raised is the importance of examining legitimacy by mandate versus acceptance within the internet community. The concept of legitimacy is closely scrutinized by Nick Cranor, who is investigating this matter. Understanding how legitimacy is established and maintained within the internet community is essential for ensuring effective governance.

Another significant issue discussed in the analysis is the economics of internet operation and the exercise of market power through it. It is argued that more attention should be given to understanding the economic implications and consequences of internet activities. This includes the reflection of market power exercised by various entities within the digital realm. By examining the economics of the internet, a better understanding of its impact on areas such as decent work and economic growth, as well as reduced inequalities, can be gained.

In addition, the analysis highlights the dominance of five platform companies on the internet. This dominance has far-reaching effects on various aspects, including reduced inequalities and responsible consumption and production. It is suggested that this dominance should be scrutinized and incorporated into governance considerations. Understanding and addressing the power dynamics created by these platform companies are crucial for ensuring a more inclusive and fair internet ecosystem.

Furthermore, the analysis acknowledges the significance of a study that has been conducted. This study involved 425 interviews, of which 321 have been completed at the time of the analysis. The study’s findings and insights are deemed impressive and important, warranting further follow-up action. Unfortunately, no specific details or conclusions from the study are mentioned in the analysis.

Overall, the analysis provides valuable insights into the complexities associated with internet governance. It highlights the need to focus on legitimacy, understand the economics of the internet and the exercise of market power, address the dominance of platform companies, and follow up on important studies. These observations shed light on the challenges and opportunities in governing the internet effectively and responsibly.

Debora Christine

Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) are crucial actors in internet governance, shaping the way data is transmitted globally. Their main mandate is to allocate internet numbers, including IP addresses and autonomous systems, within their respective regions. RIRs, such as AFRINIC, APNIC, and LACNIC, play a significant role in addressing digital divides, particularly in the Global South.

The three South-based RIRs serve Africa, the Asia-Pacific, Latin America, and the Caribbean regions respectively. These RIRs have deviated from the earliest development of the internet in the Global North, and their governance bodies manage, distribute, and register internet number resources within their regions. They are instrumental in tackling digital divides and fostering inclusion in internet governance, aligning with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure (SDG 9) and Reduced Inequalities (SDG 10).

One notable aspect of these South-based RIRs is their multi-stakeholder and regional approach to internet governance. They facilitate decision-making and policy development through collaboration among businesses, civil societies, technical experts, and governments. As private not-for-profit organizations, the role of governments within this model is informal. This approach could be seen as an alternative to the current global governance model and may be applicable to other areas. It aligns with SDG 16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions) and SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals).

The legitimacy of South-based RIRs is essential for effective internet governance. Legitimacy provides these institutions with a secure mandate, more resources, the ability to make better decisions, and increased compliance. The research highlights that people care more and feel more affected by their government than by intergovernmental organizations like ASEAN or the UN. By understanding the levels of legitimacy, these RIRs can enhance their effectiveness in internet governance and gain greater support.

It is also worth noting that confidence levels in the South-based RIRs vary among different stakeholder groups, including civil society, business, government, technical, and academic. The research indicates that there is variation in confidence based on age, gender, and language. Studying these variations can provide insight into the perceptions and attitudes towards South-based RIRs, helping to identify areas that require improvement and tailor strategies for greater inclusivity.

In conclusion, South-based RIRs, such as AFRINIC, APNIC, and LACNIC, play a crucial role in internet governance and have the potential to address digital divides and foster inclusion. Their multi-stakeholder and regional approach offers a unique form of governance, collaborating with various stakeholders to make informed decisions. Ensuring the legitimacy of these RIRs is crucial for their effectiveness, and studying confidence levels among different stakeholder groups can lead to improved strategies and greater inclusivity. By addressing digital divides and promoting inclusion, these RIRs align with the UN SDGs and contribute to global efforts for a more equitable and accessible internet.

Jan Aart Scholte:
Is it is it possible to oh, yeah, we’re gonna have the people on screen as well that are Right, I think we’re probably ready to ready to start amidst to the crowds of the last morning of the IGF 845 in the morning Hello everyone. My name is Ian Schulte. I’m at Leiden University. I’m your on-site moderator for this event On the Legitimacy of South based Regional internet registries I’m joined online by Hortense Jonge at the Free University of Amsterdam for whom I believe it is 2 in the morning Hortense is the coordinator of the project to which this session refers And she is the online moderator I’m joined by two speakers on-site and two speakers online To my left is Akinori Memura from the Japanese JPNIC Network Information Center To my right is Arietta Esterhausen former executive director of the Association for Progressive Communications and as active as ever I’m online. We are joined by Carolina Aguero at the University My apologies Carolina. I don’t the name of your university in Montevideo is escaping me But you many of you will know Carolina from many IGF and other internet governance related activities And also online at I believe midnight for him Nikuen or professor. Dr. Nikuen or and Accra Ghana and one of the founders of the internet in Africa, so we are talking about the South based Regional internet registries and you see that our speakers are coming from the different regions concerned Latin America Caribbean Africa and Asia Pacific I’m going to hand over to our speaker to introduce the issues in a moment That is Deborah Irene Christina who is joining us online from Indonesia from Jakarta And then we will also Involve at various other points in the proceedings several other members of the team of this project namely Gloria and Zika at the University of Maryland and Naima Nascimento Valeros In the University of believe it’s Rio de Janeiro in Brazil so I think that gives us a start at the setting. I will hand over to Deborah now to introduce the issues

Debora Christine:
Thank you, yeah, so firstly I’m going to share my screen Hi everyone, so my name is Deborah. I am one of the researchers of this research team that is based off the That is based in the University of Gothenburg But as the unshared our research team, I mean like our researchers are actually spread across the four continents in the globe and We’ve been studying for the past year and a half. So we’ve been doing a lot of research in the field of And we’ve been studying for the past year the role of regional internet registries based in the global south in the global internet governance to understand how legitimacy works in internet governance and how people’s views toward the legitimacy of south-based internet registries vary and why and in this panel today, we have four questions that We will address through our own Through this presentation, but also through discussion with the panelists And hopefully this presentation could shed a lot some light to answering those questions So this is the outline of the presentation And first of all, why are we interested in studying the RIRs? So the RIRs are important actors in the global internet governance Because of their core mandate to allocate internet numbers IP addresses and autonomous systems numbers in their respective regions And they also maintain the registry of that allocation This enables all connected digital devices in the world to have distinct locations on our single global internet And as the backbone of the internet Internet protocol has undergone various iterations to accommodate the evolving needs of our interconnected world two of the most prominent versions the internet protocol version 4 or IPv4 And IPv6 have played a crucial role in shaping the way Data is transmitted and received across the internet And IPv4 is the number version that was used mostly initially But there’s only 4.3 billion IPv4 addresses while there are 5.4 billion regular internet users as of now So the IPv4 version has become insufficient and the new version which is IPv6 with the larger capacity there are 340 trillion trillion trillion of them so the IPv4 version enables more device connections including IoT and smart technologies However, the issue of cost and compatibility with devices running on v4 For example has contributed to rather slow adoption of the v6 version And as of now the global adoption is less than 50 percent At the same time IPv4 has run down so much meaning that uh in the last 10 years, there’s been a scarcity issue and a secondary commercial market has risen In the selling of IPv4 so in this case the role of The RIRs in the policy making of IP address allocation Actually has implications on addressing the digital divides by enabling or not enabling the world to be interconnected particularly the global south And as part of their services RIRs also handle questions about internet access content control network security and data protection They also provide capacity building for engineers and also grants for technical innovations The RIRs also conduct measurements of internet use and performance And these are the things that are they are doing in addition to their core mandate The second reason why we’re interested in the RIRs is because they take a regional mode of governance of the internet meaning that the rule or Policies about the distribution of IP addresses are actually set by the communities in the region themselves and the third reason would be The three RIRs that we are focusing on are based in the global south. So AFRINIC African network information center that serves the african region APNIC that is asia-pacific network information center That is serving the asia-pacific region and LACNIC Latin america and caribbean network information center is serving the latin american and caribbean regions So focusing on these three south based RIRs is actually a significant distinction From where the internet’s earliest development started which is in the global north and here lies the question about What being south based actually entails does that mean more autonomy and internet governance outside of europe and in north america? And are the south based RIRs important force to countering the digital divides? The next reason is that the RIRs actually facilitate decision and policy making for regional internet governance Through multi-stakeholder collaboration. So it’s between businesses civil society technical experts and also Governments, but in these case government has no formal role. So they are just part of the multi-stakeholder Multi-stakeholderism approach that’s used in the RIRs And the RIRs themselves they are also private non not-for-profit organizations, so They are incorporated as legal entity afriNIC in mauritius APNIC in australia and LACNIC in uruguay And this is actually unique approach to governing internet resources as a global resource And finally considering that the lack of IP address space actually influences connectivity the three RIRs afriNIC APNIC and LACNIC As governance bodies which manage distribute and register internet number resources in their respective regions Are uniquely placed to address the issues of digital divide and inclusion in internet governance So all of these reasons that you see on the slides plus the fact that there’s little academic inquiry into Internet governance field in the internet governance built into the RIRs Are actually why we’re conducting this study And this is the objectives of our study. We’re trying to look at On what basis and how far that these three south-based internet registries are attracting legitimacy So how far people have belief trust confidence and approval in this alternative way of organizing internet governance And we hope that the findings will contribute to how we understand legitimacy With regard to multi-stakeholder global governance of the internet But there’s also this underlying Objective If we could show that indeed the regional south-based multi-stakeholder model to internet governance Attracts a lot of legitimacy or is lacking legitimacy And what the basis for such legitimacy perceptions are then we could ask the question about Could a regional multi-stakeholder south-based approach to governing key global resources perhaps be transferred to other areas? And could this approach also be part of a more general south-based initiative on dealing with other critical global resources And This is a quick overview about the rise of multi-stakeholder global governance So the dark line in the middle are the is the number of internet governmental treaty-based organizations You can see that basically they’ve plateaued since the 1990s, there isn’t an increase in their numbers. Also, if you look at the material resources and institutional capacity of these organizations to make decisions, those have also

Carolina Aguerre:
remained stable, if not declined, in the last couple of decades. In contrast, you see the dotted line of multistakeholder global governance arrangements. And they’ve grown enormously and are now more than twice as numerous as intergovernmental organizations and, indeed, often have increasing resources and capacity at the time that multirealism has talked. So in this study, we’re looking at the legitimacy of South-based RIRs. That is to ask how far people believe and perceive that these RIRs have the right to govern and that they will exercise the right to govern appropriately or properly. So if these organizations have secure legitimacy among their constituents, it gives them much more strength and security and stability. And we can expect them to thrive. However, if they lack it, well, then the South-based regional multistakeholder governance of the internet might be in trouble. In our study, we understand that legitimacy is not the only thing that makes governing work. And the consequences of legitimacy or the lack of it are not always straightforward. But if you have legitimacy, you can expect to have a more secure mandate, to get more resources and participation. You can also expect to take decisions better and have more compliance from your constituents. And you can also expect to have better problem-solving capacity. And maybe, therefore, it is easier for you to reach your goals and hold yourself against competing institutions. In a way, at the moment, we can see that one of the RIRs that we are studying here, which is AP AFRINIC, is facing considerable legitimacy challenges. And you can also see that they are struggling with some of the components in this list. So that might also serve as an example how it will be challenging for an institution to govern without or with lack of legitimacy. In our interviews, we’ve been asking people whether they think the legitimacy of RIRs is important to them. And it is quite reassuring that our research find that 84% of people actually say that it’s extremely important for an institution, particularly RIR, to have legitimacy, as you can see in the graphs here. So we’re doing extensive interviews

Debora Christine:
with people asking them about their confidence level in these RIRs and looking at the number of sources that may be driving their legitimacy belief. We’re asking how much confidence they have in the RIRs and also how much they care about the RIRs, as well as how much they feel affected by these organizations. So we’re not only asking about their level of confidence, but also how much they care and how much they feel impacted by these organizations. So this is actually where our research is getting a little into the intricacies of legitimacy research. But a lot of legitimacy research on regional and global governance has only asked respondents about how much confidence they have in the organizations. It hasn’t asked about how intensely they feel about these organizations. So most of this research ends up with the results which say, so people’s average legitimacy belief in UN or ASEAN, for example, is the same as their legitimacy belief in their national government. But our impression is that people probably care and feel more affected by their government than by an intergovernmental organizations like ASEAN or the UN. So it will be actually useful if you ask those additional questions about care and impact. And our research is still ongoing. So these are the interviews that we’ve done so far. There are 321. And you can see the breakdown of our respondents so far across the South-based RIRs and stakeholder groups. It’s not that easy to get people to sit and stay with you to do the extensive interviews about all the different aspects of these RIRs. A lot of people we’ve interviewed actually say that this is probably the point in their life that they have to think so hard in 30 to 40 minutes. So it’s actually quite understandable that we’re still in the middle of collecting this data. So we still cannot see that these are the results of our study. And just to share some emergent results from our study, which of course, non-conclusive yet, we can say that there is variation in the levels of confidence between the three RIRs that we are studying. We find variation between stakeholder groups. So it depends on whether they come from civil society groups or business groups, government representations, technical groups, or an academy group. There is differences in terms how much legitimacy they have in the RIRs. And there is also a variation between groups in different social categories, for example, by age, gender, and language. So we have not yet been able to see what the drivers for these different levels of legitimacy belief in the RIRs are. But on the basis of other research and our initial findings, we think that we’re going to find that institutional drivers, such as people’s perceptions of the purpose of the RIRs, their mandates, the procedures that they put in place, as well as their performance, are the main drivers of confidence and legitimacy perceptions towards the RIR. And some other psychological and prevailing societal norms would also influence people’s legitimacy belief towards the RIRs. And we’re still, as I said before, we’re still completing our study. So if any of you who are present in these Zoom meetings are interested in participating in our interview, please contact Ortans at ortans.jongen at gu.se. That’s it for me, Jan. Over to you.

Jan Aart Scholte:
Thanks very much, Debra. That gives an overview of the work here. Just to summarize again for a moment, we’re looking at the regional internet registries, of which there are five. But we are looking mainly at those that are based in the global south, namely AFRINIC for Africa, APNIC for Asia-Pacific, and LACNIC for Latin America Caribbean. This is a quite unique construction in internet governance in being regional rather than globally focused, multi-stakeholder rather than governmental, and south-centered when most of internet governance is based in Europe and North America. So there’s something really interesting going on here. And to the extent that it acquires legitimacy, approval, confidence, trust of people, it’s a very strong part of internet governance. To the extent that it struggles with legitimacy and confidence and trust, it’s a major problem for internet governance. Because without the allocation of internet numbers and registries of internet numbers and associated training and cybersecurity and other operations, the global internet doesn’t function. Although the RIRs don’t make the headlines, this is a really, really crucial part of global internet governance. And we see with the current struggles with AFRINIC, one of these three organizations, just how far the implications can be when these regimes run into legitimacy difficulties. So let me hand over to our speakers, our respondents. And I think let’s go in the order that they’re, I think it’s alphabetical by surname, but on my list here. Shall we start with Carolina Aguera in Uruguay? I think you are still in your early evening, hopefully. So not suffering the midnight of Nhi and Hortense.

Carolina Aguerre:
Carolina, do you want to give your comments? I’ve been awake for 16 hours already. Oh, dear. I was participating in another session. So it’s been a very long day. Well, thank you. And this is a super interesting study. And I mean, there are many questions that were raised, and we don’t have that much time. But to me, there is this, and having studied the development of LACNIC in particular, that’s the region I know the most. For the Latin American internet community, that emerging body of network engineers, scholars coming from their PhDs and masters in North American and Canadian universities mainly, there was a legitimacy problem in being served only by someone in California who had really not much time and really wanted to sort of these communities to have their own interests and their own needs addressed in their own language, in their time zone, in a level of subsidiarity that would be closer to them and that would reflect their current structures. And particularly, the linguistic issue was something that was striking in my understanding, in my research around the origins of this. So there is a global multi-stakeholderism in internet governance is already, in my view, sort of from its inception. And the idea that local communities need to become involved to shape this internet, it’s already beginning to pave the path for something as the arrangements that we have these days of regional internet registries serving their geographic communities, which are more or less diverse in the different parts of the world. So that’s a preliminary idea I wanted to raise. Then when discussing this idea about multi-stakeholder internet governance and the perspective of RIRs, they are multi-stakeholder. It would be interesting to refine in which way would we conceive of an RIR as multi-stakeholder because we think of ICANN as the epitome of a multi-stakeholder formal institution. RIRs, in which way do they represent multi-stakeholder values? Is it because they are self-regulated and self-governed by their own communities of stakeholders? And because they are so open, because most of us can participate even if we don’t have an IP resource and we can shape those policy development processes. So I think it raises addressing RIR governance in all kinds of RIRs, the five of them. But in the global South, it raises again how can multi-stakeholderism be understood and what is the particular flavor that these RIRs bring to the multi-stakeholder debate and the actual governance of these critical internet resources around IP numbers and addresses. In terms of the added value or the participation, I mean, what do these RIRs and LACNIC in particular, how have they helped to serve their particular communities and different stakeholders in their regions? I think it’s crucial in the way that they bring closer to home the idea of the global internet. I mean, not just by developing the functions and the allocation of IP addresses and that is already defined by their own policies and their communities. It’s in the case of Latin America, without an RIR, there are no RIRs in Latin America. There are no RIRs in Latin America. There are no RIRs in Latin America. would have been very difficult to talk about an internet community, a broader internet community that would go beyond the technical pioneers who were challenging the telecommunication operators and national regulators that were not prone to open their networks to these new communication infrastructures. So it’s a focal point to discussing broader global internet institutions, internet processes, and that brings closer to home that which I think is extremely relevant. If we want to address how is the global south and the developing world in general, or the rest of the world, connected to this broader globalization processes and internet governance processes. And finally, and something I think that LACNIC and APNIC have done particularly well is to help to develop a development agenda around the internet and that goes beyond just the development of the technical dimension of the internet and has even allowed digital rights movements and other civil society actors and governments to engage in a more dense ecosystem with a denser agenda around what does internet governance mean and not just the governance of the internet but the implications about the consequences and the uses of the internet. And this slightly broadening of the agenda of RIRs with their funding towards the support of community projects over the last long decade, I’m not exactly sure now whether it’s over 10 to 15 years, I think that is very relevant and that is very important to bring in the legitimacy perspective as well that they are serving their communities beyond their strict and narrow mission and have a broader interest in shaping and understanding and enriching these discussions. So those are my initial comments around this issue. Thank you so much for sharing all this information and the study which is fantastic.

Jan Aart Scholte:
Thank you, Carolina. I wish I could be so sharp and insightful after 16 hours. Thanks very much. Ariadne, you want to take the next set?

Anriette Esterhuysen:
Thanks, Jan. And only the question on role, not lessons learned. Are we going to do that later or can I do all of it now? Okay. I think that, well firstly, Carolina, very nice to be in the same space with you after many years of not being in the same space. Carolina and I were on the IGF MAG at the same time many years ago. I support everything Carolina said. I’ll maybe just emphasize a few things and then talk a little bit about where I think we can improve. I think absolutely the role is very important. I think the financial support, the work done by the APNIC Foundation and also by LACNIC Partnerships, the LACNIC Partnership and APNIC Foundation Partnerships with the IDRC, for example, that financial support has actually strengthened the ecosystem, the support for community-centered connectivity, both at the level of financial support but also at the level of messaging, that there are alternative ways to just relying on mobile operators. So this advocacy role in extending and strengthening internet in global self spaces has been very important. I think the knowledge sharing, the events, the summits, APRICOT, African Information Summit, when they work, these events bring together people, they build network, they strengthen the ecosystem, and I think that’s very important. I think the voice in the global, the role that they play in strengthening the global the global IG ecosystem, I want to stress that even further, because I think we still are sitting with an imbalance in terms of whose voices are most and whose voices are loudest and most influential in the multi-stakeholder Internet governance ecosystem. And we’ll never change that if we don’t have strong institutions in the global South. And in fact, the whole legitimacy of this multi-stakeholder ecosystem, which is often being questioned, we have to admit that it’s often being questioned, rests on the fact that it’s supposed to be inclusive. And if this global multi-stakeholder Internet governance ecosystem, by that I include the IJF, ICANN, the RIRs and those around them, cannot be more balanced in terms of global South, global North influence and voices, it won’t sustain or grow its legitimacy. So the role that the RIRs play, particularly because they have technical expertise, they’re not just talking about the experience of being in parts of the world where most of the unconnected are, they actually understand the policy and the technical and the human social environment. So I really can’t stress their importance enough. Has it worked? I think yes, but not well enough. And I think that’s completely understandable. And I think that there’s still relatively new institutions, well, not all of them, but relatively. And I think, for me, one of the big differences between the multilateral and the multi-stakeholder system is that you have more flexibility with a multi-stakeholder system, but you also have more responsibility in a way, because you have to build it yourself, you have to evolve it and make it fit to purpose. Multilateral systems are kind of structurally broken and also structurally functional, because they are kind of more rigid and more fixed. And I think that’s where we need to place the emphasis. And I’ll speak here more about AFRINIC, and Ani knows much more than I do. I’m kind of more of an observer. I think that here is an example where we need to evolve the institution. Africa has a much smaller… constituency for its RIR than other regions. So I think from the outset, having involved maybe more not-for-profits, more civil society organizations, more people like myself who are working not in a registry or registrar context, but who is still very much part of the ecosystem, that might have been a way of strengthening the base of AFRINIC and in that sense also strengthening its governance structure and its institutional capacity. And this might not be necessary in other regions or in other regions like in LACNIC, it could be done through partnership with other institutions. So I do think there’s a need to adapt your internal RIR governance and management structure to the ecosystem in the region. I think the other area where I think more evolution can take place is at the level of collaboration and support between the RIRs. So at the NRO, the overarching body level, they’re all very independent and I think they prize their independence, but I think there is a need for collaboration and sometimes that collaboration can be informal, sometimes it might need to be a little bit more formalized. And I think that’s what we’ve seen with the AFRINIC situation, where we have had a bad actor, in my view, I’m comfortable calling this person a bad actor, making money out of numbers that were procured in an inappropriate, not quite due process driven way from AFRINIC, but leasing them in other regions and yet there seems to be no capacity there for APNIC to intervene or to have any relationship with the national oversight bodies or the CCTLDs or the registries. So I think this is a perfect example, actually, the AFRINIC case. I think AFRINIC will survive, I think AFRINIC still does good work. Just go and look at the AFRINIC website and you’ll find fantastic resources there. But I think there is a need to build this kind of emergency response and a little bit more structural level of collaboration, because this might also happen to other RIRs. I think sometimes I feel there’s an assumption that all the RIRs are just fine, it’s only AFRINIC that is challenged, because it’s in Africa. And I think that’s a question, that assumption. I think AFRINIC has had particular challenges, but I think, you know, in Institutions are fragile, they are vulnerable to personal dynamics and to industry dynamics, and I think it’s worth actually thinking about how to build in more robustness in this bottom up, and not always as inclusive as it could be. Yeah, I’ll leave it at that.

Jan Aart Scholte:
Super. Again. Very, very, very good. We can start to this conversation. Akinori, you’ve got the burden to keep it going. I am not enough to succeed the activeness of the discussion from Marriott.

Akinori Maemura:
Before that, my name is Akinori Maemura. Good morning, everyone. Ohayo gozaimasu from Kyoto. I am working for the JPNIC, Japan Network Information Centre, one of the national internet registry under APNIC, and then internet promotion body. I sometimes says my company is doing the half APNIC-ish, half ISOC-ish business. That’s what my business are. I am a bit more of the background. I am the active participant to the APNIC process, and then I long served at the APNIC Executive Council, which is the governing board of APNIC, and then I stepped down from there seven years ago, but still active member at APNIC. So that’s who I am. Thank you very much, Deborah, for your presentation, and this will organise what is the legitimacy of the RIR, and then Henriette kicked off the argument of the AFRINIC situation, and I feel like follow her for that, but before that, I’d like to say something for the APNIC situation. So AFRINIC had some tough time and big turbulence in there, but APNIC had some of them by some of the abusive conduct in the election in last March, March this year, and then APNIC actually did a great job to address that. address that kind of a situation by the Executive Council, made a great decision and firm steps toward changing its constitutional arrangement, and then actually the bylaws is really hard to change by the management, sorry, membership, because it requires the supermajority, two-thirds of the entire vote count, which almost virtually never can be achieved. But it was changed into two-thirds of the total vote cast, so it is practically changeable. They did the change of the bylaw just three weeks ago, just here in the Kyoto International Conference Center. Then there is a great historic epoch for the APNIC membership, for them to change its own constitution. So that’s one of the quite, it contributes to maintaining the legitimacy of the APNIC. Deborah says that in her presentation she’s got some aspect of the legitimacy, and then I am quite proud to say that APNIC is quite, by the way, APNIC is, this session is south-based, RIR, but APNIC actually, in terms of the place of the incorporation, yes, that is incorporated in Brisbane, it’s, I can say, south-based, but APNIC is maybe the only RIR out of the five RIRs which cover north. I am from north. But with that said, the APNIC’s discussion is quite balanced. For example, the Executive Council has the members from the north and the south, and then that’s very well balanced. For example, the discussion for the viral change, there are a lot of active intervention from the south Asia or Oceania, and we had the people from the Pacific Islands for the forum leadership. So APNIC is quite well balanced. Many people from all around the region can put the influence to the APNIC’s governance. So that actually well represents the legitimacy of the APNIC, for my sense. Then actually one of the remarkable situation for our contribution to the internet governance globally is that I would say that LACNIC and APNIC made a collaborative project for the research of the technical success factor. It’s years before, and then that’s commissioned to the analysis mason, and that’s great research to analyse what is the success criteria, success factor, in the technical term of the internet, and that kind of thing contributes to the global internet from the south-based RIL. I’ll stop here. Thanks.

Jan Aart Scholte:
Thank you, Akinori. Again, wonderful to get different perspectives. We have one more speaker coming out, and then we’ll bring you in, in the audience here. Thanks. I’m glad you’re eager to go. But first, we hear from Professor Nikoi Noor, coming to us online from Ghana. Many of you will know Professor Nii as one of the founders and first chair of the board of AFRINIC, so has a long historical perspective on that particular area, and may have thoughts on the others as well. Nii, it’s over to you. Thank you very much.

Nii Narku Quaynor:
I’m glad to be part of this discussion. Perhaps before I give a reflection on the material I enjoyed listening to, I’d like to raise a question on legitimacy of even the identifiers themselves. In other words, the legitimacy is not from mandate by anybody, it’s by people, you know, happily willing to use it. So the more there is use, and the more there’s dependency on them, the legitimacy is being earned. Okay. Now, we can then discuss the concepts and the legitimacy that was expressed, but I tend to think that AFRINIC does not really have, not really facing legitimacy problems. And that’s why I like Henriette’s perspective on that. It’s a bad actor, and a bad actor that has been found out, that’s throwing tantrums. And that can happen in any of the IRRs, and in fact, there were attempts, but from the experience that played out publicly, in the case of AFRINIC, other IRRs were therefore well aware of the bad actor. And so were able to follow their tracks. And I say this with confidence, because the bad actor and its, you know, you might say organization or followers, first attempted to achieve things through the policy development process, which in our case is very open, and is defined in such a way that everybody’s voice can be heard. And so the bad actor tried in numerous ways to push policies through that you might say will benefit one particular party. All these did not go through, did not get consensus, which shows that the multi-stakeholder process we practice is actually quite strong, and was able to, you know, in some sense, resist those, even to the extent of having coaches that were acting improperly, perhaps in concert with the desires of this particular bad actor, were recalled. So from that point of view, I think we can get a result that says that the multi-stakeholder process actually is able to survive the extreme practices that may come from an open environment of this kind of development. And perhaps in the same vein, I might want to comment that it has, in fact, worked in the sense that AFRINIC has been able to rally many of the ecosystem communities around. For example, you have the AF-STAR. And the AF-STAR itself is made up of other communities, so to speak. For example, you have the NOG community, which shares to an extent the same community as the NIC community. And I’ve also been able to rally together the emergency response teams, and also the research and education networks, as well as the CCTLDs. And so it acts as part of that ecosystem of these varied organizations all playing together. And it has worked. The ecosystem itself has worked, because in the case where AFRINIC was taking all these abuses, and it had reached a stage where there’s, you might say, a court intervention, and it was not able to function properly, the ecosystem acted. Meaning the NOG was able to hold the AIS meeting and give AFRINIC a chance to be able to be discussed by the same community that they share together. And so on. And AFRINIC has been funding some local regional research projects. It also has a similar, you might say, grant programs. It also has similar education programs. It also supports local activities in other countries, and participates in the IGF events, participates in the telecom union activities that are within the region. And so its presence is actually missed, is what I would like to add in that regard. I think for opening comments, that would be sufficient. Great. Thank you very much, Nii. So we’ve heard the overarching introductory presentation from Deborah, and reactions from a first round of reactions and comments from our speakers from the different regions. I think we’ll take a phase of comments from the audience, both here and online. If you’re online and you want to raise points, then Gloria is our online moderator. Sorry, I got the roles wrong a moment ago. And we’ll pick up here in the room, and we already have a ready speaker. Could you let us know who you are for the record also? Thank you.

Audience:
Hi, everyone.

Carolina Caeiro:
My name is Carolina Cairo. So another Carolina from the Latin American region. I am with Oxford Information Labs and the DNS Research Federation, and I’m also former. staff member of LACNIC, so the first thing I wanted to say is that I’m very grateful that this session was organized and that we are openly having this conversation at IGF. I think it’s an important issue to be discussing with the community and to, you know, sort of put some of these concerns out in the open and sort of have a conversation within IGF about this issue. I wanted to start off by adding a few things about what I think are the strengths of the RIRs which are, you know, somewhat, you know, based in, you know, my experience working for LACNIC and also, you know, I mean, you know, I had the pleasure of, you know, running into my former RIR colleagues at IGF and, you know, I’ve been telling them how now that I’m outside the RIR system how I sort of see the value of a lot of the things that we did here at IGF and at regional level. Just to sort of add so I don’t sort of repeat some of the points that were said, one of the things that I think it’s really interesting about the LACNIC region and the work that it’s done sort of building, you know, an internet community really within Latin America is the fact that it’s also built trust and I think, you know, as of recent, you know, following the situation with AFRINIC, we’ve seen the community trusting LACNIC leadership as well in enacting sort of, you know, changes, for instance, to its code of conduct that, you know, are things that have gone to sort of reinforce the governance structure of the RIR and I think the fact that, you know, they have built that trust over the years that the community really believes in the organization, again, trust staff, the leadership is very, very crucial because it gives it legitimacy going to the point of the previous intervention. I also think it’s very important that the RIRs are reflective of issues of the regions. You know, I think that, you know, everyone’s commenting how this IGF has been all about AI, the AIGF, you may have heard, and that’s very distant from some of the realities that we’re discussing in our regions, right? You know, I think of the work of LACNIC, you know, we’re, you know, I’m no longer there, actually, but, you know, I still feel that, you know, their mission very close to my heart, but the organization engages, you know, in efforts around connectivity, supporting community networks, supporting the establishment of IXPs. So, I think, you know, sort of prioritizing, if you will, and taking sort of the conversation to the regional local level is something that the RIRs also greatly contribute to. Sort of looking forward a little bit, I was actually making notes for this intervention, and I literally wrote, you know, I think the NRO and, you know, the RIRs can perhaps strengthen how they support one another, and I was, you know, writing that down right before you said it. And I wanted to sort of add on the point that you made. I think there’s also perhaps an opportunity to socialize what the NRO and the RIRs are doing, for instance, to support AfriNIC right now, to sort of send a message of tranquility to the community as well, that the RIRs are being very proactive. And speaking to colleagues, I’m realizing there’s a lot that’s being done. We catch a little bit here and there from the news or social media, but I feel like perhaps stronger messaging would be useful. And the reason why I say this, as of late I’ve been participating in standards organizations, and I’ve seen concerns about the RIR system being brought up in the context of IETF, and whether RIRs are sort of reliable to be running RPKI services, for instance, or concerns at ITU’s plenipotentiary around the role of AfriNIC. And I think that proactively addressing those concerns which are valid, and sort of sending perhaps a clear message, and what’s the action plan, what’s the ask of the community, what do we do to help, I think would be extremely useful. So I will leave it at that for an intervention, but thank you for organizing this panel, and I look forward to, I know my colleagues from RIRs are here, and I look forward to hearing from them. Thanks so much.

Jan Aart Scholte:
I’ll take the mic to Paul. Paul Wilson from APNIC.

Paul Wilson:
Thanks very much to Jan-Arte and to Hortense for this work. I think it’s kind of a compliment and a recognition of the RIRs that you’ve undertaken this as a second, also as a second generation of the work that you’ve been doing, and I think it is valuable. So thank you. I personally, I can’t speak for other RIRs, but I think I can speak as the head of APNIC that we welcome the attention, actually, that times are changing, and they’ve changed a lot since the beginning of the WSIS process, when, I think as everyone knows, the top issues in internet governance seem to be around ICANN and critical internet resources and so on. And I think we did very well working together in articulating and having understood the system that we all work on and build together to give confidence that it’s working well, that there are more important issues to move on to, and indeed, in the years after that, the IGF in the later years. Since then, the IGF has definitely moved on to other issues. But I think there’s a risk when we say that things are working well, that we sort of do draw attention elsewhere and we sort of get taken for granted that the things in the RIRs are solid, and there’s nothing to see here. And while that’s generally true, I really welcome the fact that we’re being seen still as important bodies working in very complex, in a complex field, increasingly complex, with increasing challenges and so on, and we do merit some attention. And I’m not saying that in any other way than in the sort of constructive, towards the sort of constructive ends that I think, and with a constructive approach that I think you’ve taken. So I think I’d be happy for this work to continue, for us to be looking at more and other aspects of the way that. the regional internet registries work, that the overall approach to IP address management works. I think we can be confident that we can work together with folks who might be interested in, who might help us with evolution and again, speaking not for the rest of the RIRs at all, but that’s the way I see things. I think it’s also good, one of the things that’s come out of recent events is greater attention from ICANN. So the RIRs have had quite an independent relationship with ICANN, a relationship of independence with ICANN. We always say we predate ICANN, ICANN came along afterwards and sort of gave us and in some cases tried to give us, in not so welcome a sense, a sort of an umbrella. But actually I think we’re starting to see, again speaking for APNIC, I think we’re starting to see the role of ICANN and the ability that we, the opportunity that we have to work much more closely, not only with each other as I think has been mentioned, but also with ICANN and indeed more closely again with the rest of the technical community, which does require in some way, across all of its diversity, incredible diversity, it requires some mechanisms of solidarity, of coordination, of cooperation that can still be improved. So thanks again for giving us a lot to think about.

Jan Aart Scholte:
What do you think? You didn’t say that. What do I think? I just told you. Thank you, Paul. I do want to record actually our thanks to the Secretaries of all three, AFRINIC, APNIC and LACNIC. You’ve been extremely open and we’ve been extremely open that we are independent, critical academics, but the different Secretaries have been entirely open to us and we’ve had a really full exchange and I think the results of the work will be really substantial as a result. So thank you for that. Please. Thank you very much, Jan-Ul.

Peter Bruck:
My name is Peter Bruck. I’m the Chairman of the World Summit Awards. We are working in the WSIS process over the last 20 years to promote and to select best practices of using ICT and the Internet for positive social impact and we are building very much on the side of the people who are the creative users of the Internet and showcase and bring their voices into also the WSIS process. I have a couple of comments to make and then a question. First I thought that this study which was reported is quite impressive in its ambition. I have not seen a study similar to that trying to have 425 interviews of which 321 are completed. I think that’s an incredible effort and I think it’s very important to follow up on that study and also to summarize and build narratives of the conclusions from this and I would very much look forward to this. The second point is that I, Nick Cranor, was looking at the concept of legitimacy and I think that’s a very very important part that is legitimacy by mandate versus legitimacy by acceptance by the community in its use and I think this is something which needs to be focused on more, stressed more and also seen as a very important concept to support the multi-stakeholder operation processes and also its weight in terms of policymaking. The last point which I have is very much has very much to do with this underbelly of the economics of the RRIs. I think it’s what is missing in much of the discussions and much of the reflections including legitimacy and also impact is what are the economics of the internet operation and also in which way does this reflect and also mitigate or not mitigate the market power which is actually exercised through the internet and I think we need to be less naive and less, let’s say, closing our eyes to this because in many of the discussions I think the technological imperialism of the five platform companies using the internet is something which I think needs to be more openly addressed, reflected upon and also included in governance considerations and policymaking. Thank you very much. Thank

Jan Aart Scholte:
you, great, some very, very, very nice interventions from the audience here. Gloria, are you having anything going on online? No, we don’t have any questions at the moment. Okay, okay, good. In the room here, also those who are not at the heart of RIR dynamics, please, please see how things look to you because that’s actually very interesting too. The RIRs are sometimes, yeah, to know what people outside the core thinks is also interesting and important. Yes, please. Hey, thank you. Sorry to say this is going to be another RIR voice, but one from the north, and I waited until there was an opening so I didn’t, you know, jump in

Audience:
line. My name is Einer Boland. I’m from ARIN, so the Registry for Canada, the US and a good portion of the Caribbean. I wanted to say thank you to the presenter for a fascinating study that’s underway, and I look forward to the final outcome, the publication of the project. During Carolina’s talk online, she mentioned the RIRs and how they were founded on some principles, including better customer service, including time zones and languages that the people in the region spoke. I wanted to call out one other really foundational principle, which is regional policy. The RIRs allow for there to be policy best suited to the region, to that particular region, and as an example, in the ARIN region about 10 years ago, a community member came and wanted a number policy to make it easier for community networks to get IP addresses, and after discussion and consensus review through the PDP at ARIN, the community did create a policy to make it easier to get numbers for community networks. So those were just two things that I wanted to say. You know, this meeting is about the internet that we want. And one of the pillars of that, I think, is connecting the unconnected. It occurs to me, as I’m sitting here today and I’m talking about regional policy, that community members at RIRs could look for ways to help connect the unconnected through number policy. So thank you. Great. Thank you, indeed.

Jan Aart Scholte:
Maybe let’s go back and have another round from our panel. And maybe reflect on some bigger issues that have come out of the comments here, too. I hear a lot, both from you on the panel, but also from the different reactions from the audience, the importance of process, procedures, and governance structures, the possibilities that those give. I’ve also heard questions, is multi-stakeholderism different when it’s regional? Is it different when it’s with? I wanted to say that they’re not very multi-stakeholder. Or are they multi-stakeholder at all? Yes, I mean, this is a comment that’s come up a little bit, too. Is regional the way to go? I mean, although regionalism or region-centered governance in the internet is the exception in the numbers area, is it something that actually should be tried and pushed more, if it is more accommodating to the differences of different parts of the world and more sensitive to the context, more getting closer to communities, and so on? So this is something that we should be drawing out still more. Is it important in addressing the so-called digital divide or divides due to the fact of being regional and multi-stakeholder and based in the global South, even if Brisbane? Does that help us with addressing the digital divide in ways that more global-centered, North-centered approaches don’t? Anyway, I’d throw some various issues on the table, just some bigger lessons that we might draw from this approach to internet governance.

Anriette Esterhuysen:
Can I ask a question? Because I think I’m the least close to NROs of all the speakers. I mean, I think the RIOs themselves know best who they are and where they’re, you know, what their strengths are. I think maybe not all RIRs are equally multi-stakeholder. So I think that’s something to think about and if that does give you more robustness. But I think my question to the speakers and to the RIR people in the room is, what do you think, where would you like the next step to be to create that strengthening and that sort of ability to respond to crises that has been difficult in the case of AFRINIC? What would you like to see in terms of your evolution and where do you think can the rest of the community and how can the rest of the community support that process of evolution? And what are the bottlenecks? Are there bottlenecks within how you currently operate and interact and communicate with one another that’s making evolving your governance structures difficult?

Jan Aart Scholte:
Okay, does anyone want to pick that up? Paul in the room or Nhi online or?

Paul Wilson:
I’m happy to make a couple of comments. I fielded a question, a critical question years ago that asserted that the RIRs were not sufficiently multi-stakeholder. And I said, well, we are members of the technical community. Do you expect us to have an internal multi-stakeholder structure that accommodates the IGF structures? And I think that kind of circularity doesn’t make much sense. But multi-stakeholder is contextual and I think you could say that we’ve got the IGF multi-stakeholder system. We’ve got different approaches to managing and to structuring stakeholders. So ICANN in fact is a multi-stakeholder system which has got, which defines at large, it defines ccTLDs, it defines gTLDs. And you could say that their own multi-stakeholder structure which is very structured actually incorporates those things. APNIC recognises that we have members with a special relationship with APNIC. We have a number of NIRs with a special relationship with APNIC and we have a wider community. So we could also talk about ourselves having a multi-stakeholder structure comprising at least those three categories. It’s not particularly structured in our case. I mean, we do afford, members are able to vote in APNIC elections and non-members of the community are not, but they are able to participate in policy processes which are entirely open. So it’s a fairly loose and simple structure. And I think, so I think what’s, I mean, it’s important to understand really what question we’re asking and to what extent we actually need to have a structured. multi-stakeholder system, and I think that is something that’s in the hands of the communities that we serve as to whether or not they would like to see more structure, more recognition of our own individual particular stakeholders. It’s a question that could well come up, but I think probably what’s more important is that we not only are members of the technical community, but we are active participants in the multi-stakeholder internet governance system, and so we do make ourselves open. The RIRs are different, so we’ve all got different approaches, but in general we make ourselves open to participation and we invest a lot in participation in the multi-stakeholder

Jan Aart Scholte:
system.

Paul Wilson:
We report back into our communities about our activity, about the organisational activities here and try to encourage community members to be part of that process as well, and much more than, say, 20 years ago, we were intentional about that. So there used to be a kind of a, I could say, a kind of a lazy or passive approach which said, we’re open, the doors are open, anyone can come, but there’s not much point in saying that if nobody even knows the door is there, right? So we’re much more intentional these days about making sure that we are actively inclusive in our work, in our community and in promoting that across the community and our activities. Thanks.

Jan Aart Scholte:
Okay, thanks. I think we’ll take Karolina in the room here and then Karolina online and Nhi online. If you have comments waiting after that, then I’ll hand over to you in a moment, please. We’ll take Karolina in the room first and then Karolina virtual second, yeah? Is that on? Okay.

Carolina Caeiro:
Yeah, I’ll let you come after me. So I, yeah, I wanted to sort of comment on the multi-stakeholder point. I think there’s a very similar conversation going on at IETF about IETF not being fully multi-stakeholder and this sort of notion that just by being open, you know, it doesn’t make it necessarily multi-stakeholder. And I actually wanted to sort of support your points just now. I think what makes an RIR part of the multi-stakeholder community is in part the global engagement that they do, you know, the outreach they do with governments, the engagement they do with civil society, the fact they participate in spaces like, you know, IGF. And I think we need to be realistic about what we ask of the multi-stakeholder model, you know, at LACNIC, you know, to sort of give an example from, you know, when I used to work there, this, you know, the space is open to whoever wants to come. There’s an effort to welcome civil society. There’s an effort to welcome governments and sort of, you know, academics and a diverse community. But there’s so much participation that you can achieve from those stakeholders. And, you know, and I don’t think that’s, you know, a measure of failing or success of the RIRs. You know, I don’t think that just having the people in the room is what we need to be sort of striving for. And as long as the, you know, the ITF or the RIRs are sort of engaging with the wider ecosystem, that’s what gives you the multi-stakeholderism. And, you know, and but I do, you know. think it’s important to have the places be open for whoever wants to sort of approach it but sort of expect that full diversity in the room I think is you know non-realistic. However I do want to sort of layer in another type of diversity and that that’s something that I do think that the RIRs or you know IDF are working on and it’s something that needs to sort of be further sort of emphasized and worked on and that’s diversity in terms of having for instance representation of small operators you know small and medium enterprises you know producing internet standards and also having sort of you know concerted efforts to bring in gender diversity in this community so more participation of women and non-binary participants both in standards or RIRs so yeah those thoughts. Very nicely put, thank you. Carolina online?

Jan Aart Scholte:
Carolina not connected she’s muted ah you’re thank you Carolina you need to unmute apparently. She is a host for herself so she should be able to She’s now unmuted but we still can hear her. There’s a technical problem. Carolina I’m afraid we’re not hearing you let’s let’s shall we shall we shall we go to. Professor

Nii Narku Quaynor:
Nkwenor had a comment. Yes let’s go I was gonna say let’s go let’s go to Nkwenor and then come back to Carolina. Go ahead Nkwenor. Thank you I was just gonna make an observation that it’s to an extent the technical communities contribution to IGF is this multi-stakeholder process so to get the question in reverse that you know are the technical communities multi-stakeholder it’s kind of challenging in terms of the sequence of events now these organizations are more importantly we should be looking less at this multi-stakeholder bit but more about the actual decision-making process which is really most important that must be as bottom-up and as inclusive as possible and you know also making sure that merit somehow it gets captured that sort of activity I think is more what is important in this regard than the fact that it has a very diverse in terms of discipline and you might say sectoral participation because in some cases it doesn’t always work out that you have that diverse community in terms of sector and also discipline in terms of the needs but because they are very open and they all have programs that try to bring in new people and also process of you might say inducting them or getting them become you know familiar with what is going on it is possible to have wider than purely the technical community participating actively in the way it matters which is in the policy development processes now in the case of AFRINIC you can see that some of our locations are even small there are two very small operators and that’s a benefit of the local policies that that can be derived at a regional level and we also then address the language challenges that we have in our case we also have capacity challenges because different operators have different abilities and all these things reflect and the NIC tries to in some sense accommodate them all and then even supports the environments they are in to sort of enhance it or create communities around them that enables them to keep on growing in that area so that it becomes strong now on the issue of the resilience and some of it of course is internal to the organization in that is bylaws need to be have certain properties in there of course we’re evolving from a situation where things where we have common goals shared objective and there was good trust to an environment where because of setting new things in the context such as transfer policies which it might have inadvertently given some not to property by by for example you know seeing the LIR as the one that could initiate transfers as opposed to the end users that they said that sort of thing tends to stress okay you know the normal you know maybe fair and efficient allocation of resources because people begin to try to game the system so that they can have this sense of the one who can initiate transfers and that I think is has been some form of a challenge but what one is looking for really is bottom up decision making and I’m not even sure that is going on at IGF or any of the the national and regional initiatives, for example. Because they do discuss, but that they are collectively making a decision on something is something that you will see more in the technical communities. So I thought I would add that. OK, thanks.

Jan Aart Scholte:
Just to clarify, in response to Arietta’s question about how you see the evolution and what would be the next steps in terms of ability to respond to crises, do I hear you saying that once AFRINIC has a board and a CEO back in place, the first step is to get at the bylaws and bring them up to date to a new situation? Yeah, we have to understand what happened.

Nii Narku Quaynor:
And understanding what happened here means that there was an application of a certain important document, which is the registration services agreement. And a bad actor signs the agreement and decides not to respect the agreement. So you end up in a commercial dispute. And you need to have mechanisms to say collectively that this sort of bad acting is not permitted. And usually, you do that through some things in the bylaws. And the areas in which the person, for instance, attempts to game the system, you have to find some ways such as in elections and also access to people’s accounts and so on, which are things that the person tried. So you’re going to have to find some language within either your bylaws or your general guidelines or practices that you have to discourage those kinds of things. And of course, once we understand that there will be perhaps more litigation with value being inadvertently attached to the resources, we’re also going to have to maybe be very careful with the law and be more responsive with the law and maybe strengthen our own governance procedures to make sure that we are not found in the same situation. And if you are found in a situation, what other structures within the organization can step in. So all of these things are being thought about. And presumably, once we have good, fair election and we get a board in place, some of these things we follow. There are, of course, policies also waiting that can eliminate this problem. One of them is a transfer policy of our own, which, by the way, the bad actor attempted to overturn through the courts. See, the bad actor, when the multi-stakeholder process failed for them, they now try to talk down to go to court and then try and overrule this bottom-up process, which also was sort of set aside. So it tells that once the initial bit is resolved, there are clearly some key things that can be done. For example, how do we enforce arbitration before we go to courts, and so on. So there are some things that we can do to strengthen the resilience.

Jan Aart Scholte:
Great, thanks very much, Nii. We are coming up to time. Thanks, everyone, for being here through the full discussion. I just have a last chance for Karolina in case her mic is working now. And then a last word to Akinori, also here on site. Karolina, are you able to speak with us now?

Carolina Aguerre:
Can you hear me? We can, yes. Off you go. Wonderful. OK, no, so just to bring in another issue on the terms of how we define these regions and whether it’s the RIRs, this artificial construct around regions, and who and why are they defined in the way they are. So I do think that they are not the only ones who are working around these parameters. And I think that the RIRs have set up a process, and I’m speaking particularly of what I see in the Latin American and Caribbean region, where you do have some regions and maybe processes within, for example, the Caribbean, et cetera. But then you do have other processes concerning the DNS, learning, academic networks, et cetera, which are all using the same regional definition of what is Latin American and the Caribbean. And I find that this is very interesting in, for example, in a region that doesn’t have a, it’s not a trade bloc on its own or a political bloc as the European Union. And so I think that this raises a lot of food for thought on how maybe the internet can also help define and redefine this imaginaries around these geographies and cultures and policies and citizenship around the internet in these parts of the world. Thank you. Okay. Thanks.

Jan Aart Scholte:
And a last word to our local host. No local host.

Akinori Maemura:
Thank you very much. That’s really, really great session with a lot of intervention. Yes, we, our discussion has been quite focused on the governance of the RIRs, but that’s how to decide. But I’d like to mention what to do, and that was Kevin Swift from the LACNIC who made an excellent presentation in the African Internet Summit two weeks ago, the title, the RIRs beyond the registry services. That presented a very good set of what kind of activity the regional internet registries are doing for the development and capacity building. It is really, really important point, and then it is increasing. The RIR is not only doing the IP address management, but helping the people to have another capacity to run the internet better. For example, in case of the APNIC, the development budget is actually as much as the membership and the registration service budget. How big, you can see the RIR is spending the money to the development. Additionally, the APNIC is doing the foundation. established the foundation to utilize such a funding to the additional development. So the membership who gathers to the RIRs subsidizes their funding to the development, which is another way how the RIR underpins the internet’s better operation. And then that’s my last comment. Thank you very much.

Anriette Esterhuysen:
Just a quick comment from me. I think we also need to recognize the regional specificity. So I completely accept the points about the multi-stakeholder model, and not every RIR needs to be multi-stakeholder. It’s part of a broader multi-stakeholder ecosystem. But maybe in some regions, something different might be usable. If you look at Africa, it’s a region that has regional policy. It’s like Europe, but without the capacity. So the role of the RIR in Africa is particularly important in the African Digital Transformation Strategy, the African Union’s Agenda 2063. Having a technical community voice at an institutional level in those processes is extremely important. And if the AFRINIC ecosystem itself, if the technical registry ecosystem doesn’t give AFRINIC enough of a resource pool to draw on, then maybe it can draw on a slightly wider resource pool, bringing in people from the private sector and from civil society in a more explicit way. So I’m not saying that’s the solution. I’m just saying, look at the role, look at the opportunity, be regionally context specific. And then the one thing that we haven’t heard enough of is the NROs. So maybe that can be the topic for the workshop next year, how to evolve the umbrella structure. Great. Every project and every discussion is great when it finishes with ideas for the next one.

Jan Aart Scholte:
Good. We come to the close here. Thanks very, very much to all the participants. both speakers and panel and you in the audience here. I hope that you have consolidated thoughts about the RIRs if you’re experienced. I hope you’ve been exposed to them and got and seen that there’s an exciting world out there if the RIRs were new for you. Thanks again to everyone also for being here on this early morning on the last day of the IGF. Let’s go get our coffee and give ourselves a hand for being here. Thank you.

Daniel Arnaudo

The first speaker discussed the InfoTegrity Network, whose objective is to organise resources for a democratic information space. InfoTegrity involves the collaboration of technical, policy, and civic organisations, with the goal of countering harmful content and promoting reliable information. The speaker emphasised that accurate and impartial electoral and political information is crucial for the functioning of effective democracies. The argument presented was that the InfoTegrity Network plays a vital role in ensuring citizens have access to trustworthy information, which is essential for making informed decisions during electoral processes. This promotes democratic participation and strengthens the integrity of democratic systems. By bringing together various stakeholders and combining their expertise, the InfoTegrity Network aims to address the challenges associated with misinformation and provide credible sources of information.

Moving on, the second speaker supported increased openness and acceptance in the internet space. They highlighted the need for assertive policies to protect marginalised groups, specifically women who are often targeted online. The argument made was that a more inclusive and accountable internet governance framework is essential for reducing inequalities and promoting gender equality. The speaker emphasised the importance of democratizing internet governance to ensure that policy decisions are made in a transparent and participatory manner. This would help establish policies that foster responsible behaviour online and protect the rights of individuals, especially those who are traditionally marginalised.

From the analysis of both speakers, it is evident that there is a shared focus on promoting democratic values and addressing challenges in the digital space. The InfoTegrity Network, as presented by the first speaker, aims to facilitate the dissemination of accurate and reliable information to support democratic processes. The second speaker’s endorsement of increased openness and acceptance in the internet space underscores the importance of developing policies that protect marginalised groups and ensure equal access to the opportunities provided by the digital world.

In conclusion, both speakers highlight the significance of information integrity and responsible internet governance in the context of democratic societies. Their arguments support the need for collaborative efforts across various sectors to build a democratic information space that is inclusive, transparent, and accountable. These insights shed light on the key considerations required to foster a digital environment that upholds democratic values and promotes equality.

Hyra Basit

The Digital Rights Foundation (DRF) is playing a crucial role in Pakistan by combating cyber harassment and disinformation. These disinformation campaigns have had a significant impact on the country, leading to social unrest and influencing legal changes. DRF recognizes the need to bridge the gap between the global north and south within online spaces to ensure equal rights and protection for all individuals.

To achieve its goals, DRF offers a wide range of services. They provide digital security assistance, legal support, and mental health services to those affected by cyber harassment and disinformation. Moreover, DRF conducts training programmes for journalists at all levels, equipping them with essential skills in digital security, media ethics, and fact-checking. Through these initiatives, DRF aims to enhance the capacity of journalists to navigate the challenges of online spaces responsibly.

DRF acknowledges the challenges they face in getting social media companies to prioritize issues in smaller countries like Pakistan. In this regard, Hyra, a prominent figure, criticizes social media companies, including Meta, for their inadequate attention toward these concerns. However, DRF has not shied away from pushing these companies by presenting consistent evidence and highlighting the offline consequences resulting from disinformation campaigns. Their efforts have compelled social media platforms to address these issues seriously.

The level of engagement with tech platforms varies, with mixed degrees of success. DRF has established channels of communication with platforms, but their effectiveness highly depends on personal connections and the willingness of individual employees to collaborate with organizations like DRF. The analysis highlights the existing loopholes in the current engagement mechanisms, emphasizing the need to fill these gaps for more effective collaboration between tech platforms and organizations working to combat cyber harassment and disinformation.

Notably, popular platforms like WhatsApp, Instagram, TikTok, and LINE play a significant role in disseminating information in Pakistan. During important events such as elections, these platforms are widely used, potentially amplifying the impact of disinformation campaigns. Recognizing this trend, it becomes crucial to monitor and regulate the information shared on these platforms to ensure accuracy and prevent the spread of false information that may contribute to social unrest or manipulation of legal processes.

In conclusion, the Digital Rights Foundation is at the forefront of combating cyber harassment and disinformation in Pakistan. Through their comprehensive approach, including digital security services, legal support, mental health services, and journalist training, they strive to create a safer online environment. However, challenges remain in gaining adequate attention from social media companies and improving engagement mechanisms with tech platforms. The analysis reinforces the importance of regulatory efforts to monitor the dissemination of information on popular platforms during crucial events.

Ketty Chen

Taiwan faces significant difficulties in participating in international forums due to a lack of recognition. There is no option for Taiwan in the dropdown list of countries in the UN system, and Taiwanese citizens encounter challenges when attempting to register their institutions from Taiwan. These limitations prevent Taiwan from fully engaging in international discussions and hinder its ability to contribute to global initiatives.

However, Taiwanese civil society organizations are proactive in countering information warfare and disinformation campaigns, particularly from China. They have developed effective strategies, such as publishing reports to expose disinformation and creating civic tech groups to enhance communication between citizens and the government. These efforts strengthen Taiwan’s ability to counter false narratives and safeguard its democracy.

Taiwanese civil society organizations are also eager to share their strategies with international partners. Their willingness to foster collaboration and share best practices demonstrates their commitment to combating disinformation and promoting strong democratic institutions not only within Taiwan but around the world.

Taiwan has been persistently targeted by disinformation and information warfare campaigns, primarily originating from a foreign country. Nevertheless, Taiwanese civil society has responded by developing robust strategies and plans to protect its democracy. This highlights the importance of citizen-driven initiatives in safeguarding democratic values against the threat of disinformation and manipulation.

Engaging in civil society organizations within closed societies presents unique challenges, but it is more feasible at the regional level. This approach recognizes the importance of establishing connections and building relationships within a specific geographic area to promote civil society values.

Cybersecurity is crucial for civil society groups operating in closed societies, and Taiwanese organizations understand the significance of improving their cybersecurity measures. Adequate cybersecurity measures protect the integrity of their work and the privacy and safety of their members.

Overall, Taiwan’s struggle for recognition on the international stage hinders its participation in global forums. However, Taiwanese civil society organizations demonstrate resilience and a proactive approach in countering disinformation and safeguarding democratic values. Their willingness to share their experiences and expertise with international partners fosters collaboration and emphasizes the importance of cybersecurity in protecting civil society in closed societies.

Isabel Hou

GovZero is a decentralised civic tech community focused on promoting transparency of information and innovative strategies for citizen engagement in public affairs. With over 13,000 participants globally, the community has made significant strides in its mission. It has hosted 58 hackathons, resulting in nearly 1,000 proposals that offer creative solutions to societal challenges.

One of GovZero’s core arguments is the importance of transparency. By advocating for open and accessible information, the community aims to empower citizens and promote accountability in public affairs. This argument is supported by the development of projects such as News Helper, Cofact, and Zero Archive, which combat disinformation and ensure information integrity. These initiatives play a vital role in countering false information and manipulative tactics in public discourse.

Additionally, GovZero places a strong emphasis on collaboration and inclusivity. The community consists of members from diverse backgrounds, including computing, law, media, arts, and politics. By leveraging the collective expertise and perspectives of these individuals, GovZero fosters collaborative problem-solving and encourages innovative approaches to addressing societal issues. The platform serves as a space for professionals from various fields, such as engineers, designers, lawyers, and journalists, to contribute to meaningful change.

Furthermore, GovZero adopts an open-source model to promote collaboration and the sharing of ideas and resources. By harnessing collective intelligence, the community strives to find effective solutions for complex challenges. Its commitment to inclusivity is evident in its multi-disciplinary approach, as members from different fields work together in teams to develop innovative strategies.

In terms of data protection and access, GovZero recognises the importance of safeguarding data from unauthorised access and ensuring its integrity. While no specific supporting facts are mentioned, the text implies attention being given to platforms such as TikTok and Doin, which are praised for their strong mechanisms in preventing crawler access to their data.

Furthermore, GovZero acknowledges the value of information monitoring and data sharing. Strategies mentioned include pay-to-gather information, social engineering, building custom systems, and sharing datasets with other researchers. This highlights the community’s commitment to providing resources, including datasets and experiences, to enhance information monitoring and problem-solving.

In conclusion, GovZero is a dynamic and inclusive civic tech community that advocates for transparency of information and promotes innovative strategies for citizen engagement in public affairs. Through its open-source model, collaborative problem-solving, and multi-stakeholder engagement, GovZero strives to effectively address societal issues. Its projects, such as News Helper, Cofact, and Zero Archive, demonstrate a commitment to combating disinformation and ensuring information integrity. Additionally, GovZero recognises the importance of data protection and data access in the digital era, as well as the significance of information monitoring and sharing for advancing knowledge and problem-solving capabilities.

Daniel Arnaudo:
Okay, welcome to our session, Networking for Information Integrity in Asia and Globally. Thank you for joining us. It should be a kind of combination, hybrid, interactive session, so we’re looking forward to this. We are here in Kyoto, and we are joined by friends from around the world online. I am Dan Arnaudo, Senior Advisor for Information Strategies with the National Democratic Institute. We work globally to observe elections, strengthen legislative processes, and support a more democratic information space, and that’s what we’re here to talk about today. The session was specifically to discuss methods of organizing to support a healthy information space, and particularly through our InfoTegrity, or Information Integrity Network, which is a group of organizations and individuals in Asia and from around the world that work on these democratic and digital issues. So to start, I’m going to talk a little bit about the network and the session, and then we’ll introduce some of my colleagues here, who will talk about some of the resources from groups within the network, including from GovZero, which is a civic technology community in Taiwan, and Pakistan’s Digital Rights Foundation. You’ll have an opportunity to ask some questions after that, and then we will move to breakout groups if we have – we’re starting to get critical mass here, so hopefully we will have a good turnout, both online and in person. And then we will use this online brainstorm to discuss approaches to various aspects of internet governance and information integrity and that relationship, and that will feed into our session report and our contributions. So hopefully get some good feedback from you all. So just to start with, I mean, in terms of our overall approach and InfoTegrity as a concept, we developed this as an initiative, and specifically to support the development of networks and training and other resources around informational issues, and we have regional working groups on these issues that include technical, policy, and civic organizations that collaborate and communicate on these issues. And we really have a goal of building healthy information environments overall versus countering inauthentic information or harmful information. I think a lot of these approaches that you hear talked about are often focusing only on countering disinformation or only on looking at influence campaigns. And I think it’s more than that. It’s not only countering harmful content, but also about promoting the flow of reliable information and building that healthy information environment that’s layered on top of a lot of the governance and infrastructure issues that are being discussed here. From our perspective, effective democracies require that citizens have access to accurate and impartial electoral and political information in particular, and how that plays a role in those societies. We consider critical stakeholders that we want to work with, so this is a component. I think this group particularly focuses on civil society, but you also want to consider election management bodies, the public sector, governments, mass media, I think certainly is playing a huge role, and obviously technology companies and social media in particular. I think we really need to work collectively, and this is where kind of the word that’s bandied about for the whole week is important in terms of multi-stakeholder engagement. I think in this case, it is where we all have pieces of this, and it’s not like a simple problem where one actor can unilaterally decide how things are going to work. And despite, I think, the efforts of certain actors, particularly within the public sector, governments to reassert that control, it’s something that is not going to be simple to place in that way, because platforms and even we within civil society, I think, have a huge voice and role to play. We must work in tandem, I think, to fight against information manipulation campaigns that seek to spread cynicism about democratic processes, distort even people’s basic concepts around institutions, and hinder citizens’ abilities to make political decisions. Some of the approaches that we at NDI engage in through this initiative and InfoTegrity Network include building on that knowledge base. How do we build resources? How do we create training materials, curricula on these issues? Obviously, with us being a democratic organization, I think elections are a critical component of this, so we want to consider the elections monitoring piece. How do elections happen online? How are they influenced? How can we monitor that, and how can we help groups contribute to a more positive information environment in that sense? And then I think a piece that is important here to think about is how do we build civic engagement and democratic technology norms? So certainly here at IGF, I think this is one of the principal concepts that we’re thinking about here in terms of influencing normative ideas around how the Internet should be governed, but also considering other mechanisms, the EU Code of Practice on disinformation, national frameworks, even party frameworks, codes of conduct for diverse actors, whether you’re a journalist, whether you’re a member of a party, a political candidate. How are you approaching these issues, and can we come to some agreement that will create stronger informational boundaries and understanding of what is acceptable for political speech within this space? I think we’ve had a lot of practice and time establishing those normative standards around, say, traditional journalism standards or traditional political campaigning standards, but we’re still catching up, frankly, from the invention of the Internet in terms of how political actors should operate online. And then finally, I think we seek to really consider ways of addressing online violence against women and other marginalized groups, gender disinformation, so that we can really build a healthy information space for all, because I think women and female candidates are often more targeted by these practices, and so I think a lot of our programming and work integrates that idea and works to build systems to promote an open space that is open and accepting to different and diverse voices. So you see we have a wide range of topic areas, advocacy, digital literacy, supporting marginalized groups. These are all kind of areas that we talk about within the network and want to focus on. The goal is to build societal resilience to harmful content, but also to promote strong ideas that promote a positive, open, free, rights-respecting, and democratic information environment. I think that’s in the name of our organization, and a lot of the groups we work with focus on this concept, but I think democratizing Internet governance, democratizing the information space, and keeping it democratic and open is something that we really want to focus on. This network that we’ve built is intended to be a coordination mechanism to help address these issues, and we’re looking to discuss and demonstrate how it operates, specifically with this session and some of my colleagues here. We have training and connection opportunities. We have roundtable discussions, particularly looking at elections and some of the topics I mentioned earlier. I think content moderation, challenges to research, these are some issues that we want to workshop on with you here, as well, in terms of understanding how you view these issues and how we can elevate them within the IGF community in different ways. So that will be part of the breakouts and that component there. We also have discussions with guest speakers, whether they’re tech companies, donors, research tool demos, and we have a couple people here in person today that are going to give versions of that, talking about some of the resources they developed. Also, if you’re interested in joining going forward, you will have an opportunity to share your organization’s contact information and request to join during this session. So to get started, I want to pass it on to my colleagues here. We’d like to demonstrate some of the resources from the network and from colleagues here from Pakistan and Taiwan. But to start, I have here Dr. Ketty Chen, who is the Taiwan country representative for NDI and the head of its Taiwan office. Prior to assuming her post, she served as the vice president of the Taiwan Foundation for Democracy from 2016 to 2023. So please, Ketty, the floor is yours.

Ketty Chen:
Thank you very much, Dan. Good afternoon, everybody. I’m Ketty Chen. I am the new Taiwan representative for the National Democratic Institute’s Taipei office. And it’s really wonderful to be able to join all of you here to discuss some of these really important topics that Dan had mentioned. As the NDI office in Taiwan, we work with quite a few Taiwanese civil society members covering a series of different issues, such as media literacy, information integrity, gender equality, LGBT rights. And also, we work with Taiwanese civil societies and civil society in the region to secure and safeguard the basic rights of citizens, not only the basic rights, but also their rights in the Internet space. We also have been creating network and alliances of civil society members in the region. So it’s really important. And I’m really grateful to be able to come here and continue networking and meeting new friends where, in the future, we can move forward into safeguarding some of these rights that Dan already mentioned. So from the perspective of Taiwan, I would like to mention that under the UN system, it is not easy for Taiwanese civil society members to join forums like this, because they have difficulties registering as institutions from Taiwan. If you recall, when you have to pick where you’re from on the dropdown list, there’s no option of Taiwan. So just as the difficulty faced by Taiwanese citizens, if you do not click on the option of China, there’s no options for them to be able to successfully complete registration. So I’m actually very happy that we have a colleague from Gov Zero here on the panel, because as a result of these difficulties, quite a few, actually the majority of Taiwanese civil society organizations in Taiwan who are from the civic tech community, civil society members that work on countering information warfare and disinformation, they’re not physically here today. So I think for us, it would be very useful to leave our contact information with you, or for you to leave your contact information with us, so moving forward, we could pass on the information from your organizations and the issues that you’re interested in working with Taiwanese civil society on, so we could move forward after this really important forum. And just a little bit about disinformation and information warfare campaign from China targeting Taiwan, unfortunately, but also it is fortunate that Taiwan has been, in the past decades, the number one country in the world that’s been under the distribution of disinformation from an entity outside of Taiwan or a foreign country. But because of that, Taiwanese civil society organizations, they work amongst themselves to develop strategies to counter not only information warfare campaign, but also the authoritarians’ intrusion on how to affect Taiwan’s democracy. For example, we are right smack in the middle of the national campaign of 2024. I think in one of the panels yesterday, I think, Dan, you were on there, that next year is going to be a very busy year for Democrats like us, because there are several important national elections happening around the world, and Taiwan is one of them. And so what Taiwanese civil society had developed is that they have strategies of publishing reports, and especially bilingual reports on the behavior of disinformation targeting election or even between elections. And also, the civil societies convened together to create civic tech groups to try to bridge the Taiwanese citizens and its government and bring on issues that’s important for citizens to discuss amongst themselves and then reflect to government officials. So I think that it’s rather amazing that civil society in Taiwan, upon arriving at critical junctures of political history within the country, that they always managed to come up with strategies and plans that works to safeguard Taiwan’s democracy. And also, they’re very eager to share that with partners from the region and from around the world. So I think I will pass the mic to Isabel, who is a representative of GovZero, and she has developed a civic tech handbook to share with people who are interested and using the Taiwan model. So I’ll give the floor to her.

Isabel Hou:
Thank you, Ketty. It’s my great pleasure to be here. And first, let me share my screen. Here? Okay. Oh. You get it. Okay. Great. Okay. I’m Isabel Hou. I’m a lawyer, and I contribute to GovZero community in the past 10 years. But however, I’m not a representative of GovZero community, because it is a decentralized community, and it’s difficult to say someone can represent this community. But I was chairperson of a very important task force in GovZero. a community which organised the bimonthly hackathon in the past 10 years So I’m also the Secretary-General of Taiwan AI Academy Foundation So what is GovZero? Actually, it’s a group of people who has like two jobs One is a regular job and the other one is they use their free time like Saturday and Sunday and maybe after work to contribute to the community project It is a decentralised civic tech community We advocate the transparency of information and build tech solutions for citizens to participate in public affair from the bottom up So GovZero means substituting the O with zero in Gov We want to use the internet and digital thinking Zero and one to change the traditional government And it’s kind of like a concept of nerd politics So it’s a group of people Many of them come from the background of computing, law, media, arts, politics and they work in teams And this small group of team members mobilise the crowd They provide the tools to invite people to, more people to join their actions In the GovZero manifesto, we share the core value of this community We come from everywhere We are citizens collaborating to bring about change We are polycentric community and self-organised and motivated And we use open source model to try to find a solution for challenges of society And we have fun because you need to have fun to do this for 10 years and to change the status quo And we are you You can just click, join the Slack So it’s a dashboard of the GovZero In the yesterday morning, we have more than 13,000 people in the Slack users They come from many different parts of the world, including Silicon Valley I think we have participants from many parts of Asia And we have hosted 58 hackathons and almost 1,000 proposals And we celebrated one 10th anniversary last year And so this is backgrounds of GovZero participants There are many engineers, they’re coding And we also have students called Learning Together And NGO organisers, educators, writers, designers, lawyers like me, and journalists So these are three keywords of the GovZero participants There’s a big part of Python But there are also iOS, design, project management, backend, blockchain So in the GovZero, I think it’s not a multi-stakeholder forum It’s kind of like a platform for multi-stake collaboration You can collaborate with people from many different kinds of backgrounds So it’s a very short introduction about GovZero If you are interested, you can find this online I shared the 10 years of GovZero last year in open source summit It’s an open source beyond code development It’s an experiment to use open source model to solve the social issues I think that works And so about information integrity, as Katie just mentioned Taiwan faced this kind of challenge very early Like in 2013, we have this project called News Helper It’s a small program which you can just add it in your computer Then it will remind you if this news is sceptical And in 2016, there’s another project called Cofact It’s a light bot which you can add it in your online application And then you forward the sceptical information to the bot And there are group community members there to do the fact-checking things for you And in 2020, we have this in the community There’s a proposed project called Zero Archive And the project owner is here, Zhihao And I think this project is to try to collect a lot of… systematically to collect a lot of data on the web And try to figure out the information environment in a much more large context And this project is sponsored by, I think, NDI and those other institutions And so, this year, Zhihao’s organization, IORG, they deliver a report about this narrative U.S. scepticism narratives and where they come from So it’s not only about a certain individual disinformation content But now we are looking more like how they try to manipulate the whole public discourse in Taiwan And the report is adopted by economists last month to report how China is flooding Taiwan with disinformation So these are some of projects about info integrity in our community And now I want to share with you our summary of how we do this different kind of projects So you can scan the QR code is online and you can just… It’s still in progress, but with the open-source spirit, we release early, we release often So you can just check it And in the handbook, we just analyze the different stage and the flow of how the project can be built up From come up with ideas and what kind of resources and checkpoints you should notice And it is very, very important to have a good English name So you can share with people who don’t know Chinese And what kind of things you should do And try to find the findings And so it’s… And then you can release your results We do this in the community and by hosting bi-monthly hackathon People are not only collaborate online They can come to the same place to do face-to-face discussion I think this is a very important thing to do So people get connected when they talk in person And except this, we also analyze the elements of what should be included in this… In this GovZero community First, you need contributors You need people who are willing to contribute And you create a space for them to collaborate together The space could be a physical space, but also online space like providing collaboration tools online And then people will propose, bring their own proposal and create a repost And then invite people to join their project With the results of the source code or documentation This will empower the contributors to do more contributions I think these are the important elements of GovZero community And in the content, chapter one, we share what is GovZero, how GovZero works And also in chapter two, we share about how to build up a community And I think you might want to check chapter three first Because we have a lot of different cases here And then, like this is the Cofact project I just mentioned It analyzes the backgrounds of project owners And how they set up the goals of the project And the complicity, modularization, digitalization, and how open it is We have several, more than 10 project cases in the handbook And also with NDI sponsor, we share the draft of this handbook With communities in Southeast Asia, in Chiang Mai this last May And also with Japan and Korean community in Jeju Island And then we collect a lot of cases How the current status of civic tech projects and community around Asia countries So I think this might be very informative for all of you And this is my sharing, and thank you

Daniel Arnaudo:
Thanks very much, Isabel Very interesting Thank you And I think finally we’re going to move to our final speaker here Hira Bassett, who is a Senior Program Manager at the Digital Rights Foundation in Pakistan And oversees the cyber harassment helpline there and gender disinformation projects And another critical election coming up in the next year So, over to you

Hyra Basit:
Hi everyone As Dan said, my name is Hira Bassett I’m here from Digital Rights Foundation in Pakistan We’ve done a lot of work regarding information integrity And I’m just going to give you a brief overview of everything that we’ve done So it’s just bits and pieces of a lot of our projects So just starting off In 2016 we started the cyber harassment helpline Which came about as a response To a lot of complaints and cases that we were receiving from young girls and women And we saw that there was no real awareness or support system that they had And so the helpline came about as a solution Or a potential solution actually To all of the complaints that we were getting There was a space, a gap that we saw And we tried to fill it as best as we could So the helpline has been established since 2016 And we provide digital security services Psychological or mental health support To women and young girls Especially because it’s such a taboo topic To be facing online harassment of any sort You know, facing tech-facilitated gender-based violence Intimate image abuse If their accounts are hacked Or if they’re being impersonated It’s such a taboo that you cannot talk to your friends and family about this Or you’re going to be victim blamed The other thing that we do Is we provide legal services So we actually do have The Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act in Pakistan Which addresses cyber crimes Part of which is Abusing or harassing women It doesn’t cover everything But it does cover some of it So our aim is to provide pro bono legal services Or legal awareness and legal knowledge To everyone who calls us But since then It started out as a focus on women and girls But since then We have expanded our services Or we’ve concentrated some of our services To focus on providing services to vulnerable occupations Particularly journalists and human rights defenders So in that goal We establish escalation channels With social media platforms In order to directly raise Those cases to them And bridge the gap between Western or global north Social media and tech companies And the kind of context Or regional problems that we see In Pakistan Or generally in the global south We see that there’s no real understanding Of why their policies Don’t really work for us Necessarily in Pakistan Or their implementation Rather And so what needs to be done In order to actively address The kinds of problems that we’re seeing Or the solutions that we need So again For journalists and human rights defenders We take those cases as a priority We try to flag them Especially And this includes Meta, Twitter or X TikTok, Google These are all platforms That are very actively being used By journalists and human rights defenders To spread Or actually Build their professional capacities Or reach out to their audiences But in addition to this We have also started to focus Particularly on disinformation We have our elections coming up And we’ve seen in the past That disinformation campaigns Have been actually pretty active Disinformation campaigns have been Actually prevalent and very successful In creating Mass unrest And protests As well as Sometimes even slightly affecting Legal changes These Disinformation campaigns have targeted Women journalists in particular And Everything that comes along with it Sexualizing them, focusing on Trying to discredit them As journalists but also women Or their personal integrity And we’ve also seen A very strong A very recent example Of these disinformation campaigns Targeting the transgender community In Pakistan We worked very hard with social media companies, especially Meta, to address these. I won’t go into much detail about our engagement with them. I get very angry when I start to think about how unresponsive they were, even now. But it’s something that we have to keep highlighting with social media companies, because it just seems like they don’t really want to focus, the global south or Pakistan isn’t really a focus area for them. And so we have to keep on providing them with evidence, or show a consistent pattern or consequences in the offline world for them to actually take those cases seriously. So again, about disinformation, that’s something that because we have seen in the past, because we have seen active campaigns in the past, very coordinated campaigns, mostly primarily that focus on, in online spaces and using social media companies. WhatsApp, I forgot, is one of the most prevalently used platform as well. It’s not a social media company, it’s a messaging platform, but still, it’s something that’s very widely used. But because of this, we know that with the upcoming elections, it’s just going to increase. We’re very apprehensive about the kind of disinformation that it’s going to be spreading, particularly gender disinformation, and how it might affect, how it might not just sway the elections, but also bring certain individuals or communities to harm. So to address these problems, what we have done is, we’re trying to highlight these, this as a very strong topic or a focus with the journalist community. So we’re conducting diligent trainings all over the country with not just mainstream media personalities, but also local journalists who work in local languages. Print, media, print, broadcast, online journalists, everyone. We try and engage with them in order to build their capacity for fact-checking. Well, first of all, actually, to bring into their consciousness that disinformation is a thing, that it’s something that they need to be aware of, and they need to actively bring media ethics into, or address media ethics whenever they’re doing their work, because it seems like even that isn’t something that they’re aware of. Some journalists work at such grassroots level that it’s not like they’ve had very extensive training, that they went to university for it. Sometimes they just start working when they’re teenagers, so it’s not, sometimes it’s not just in their daily practice. So that’s something that we try to bring into focus for them. And we try to give them trainings that address digital security, that address media ethics, and focus on fact-checking, what they can do, what tools they can use, and differentiating or addressing disinformation, misinformation, malinformation, not just within their own, if they’re freelancers, not just within their community, but also to their wider media groups, because sometimes it seems like it’s not really a focus for them because it’s not what brings in the money to be addressing these sorts of small issues. And our aim is also to bridge the gap between local media and social media companies. So we actually try to actively engage, we try to bring each other’s complaints forward. And again, like I said before, sometimes it seems like they don’t want to pay, social media companies or tech platforms don’t really want to pay attention to smaller countries like Pakistan. And so we try to bridge that gap between, so that there’s no, so that it doesn’t seem like civil society organizations or DRF is just making things up, that they get to hear from actual individuals on the ground about how their policies or how they’re implemented affect their daily work, and sometimes even their personal security. We’ve also developed many toolkits that again focus on the same, about addressing disinformation, about the tools that they can use, about digital security, because it seems, because it is a fact that digital security can play a very integral part in information integrity, I guess, and securing themselves online in order to be able to do their work even better. But we also recognize that within all these trainings, there is also, or within the, when we’re talking about disinformation, we sometimes forget to address mental health concerns, especially with, again, local reporters and journalists, especially communities and individuals that face gender disinformation within a very conservative environment like Pakistan. So we have also developed mental health toolkits in order to address those concerns. Our helpline also particularly focuses on trying to offer psychosocial support, even sometimes when people don’t feel like they need it, because again, it’s just something that, our people aren’t very used to asking for, asking for support or asking for, I’m not feeling well, it’s just not something that people are used to saying. I think that’s about it. We’ve also been working on gender disinformation, but our research is ongoing, so I don’t know how much, how relevant it would be to talk about that right now. But we’ve been trying to engage with social media companies to address the gender disinformation, cases that we’ve received, which has been in the hundreds over the past year. Like I said, there was a whole online campaign against the transgender community in Pakistan. We had some success with that, but our research in particular is still ongoing. So I think we had, I was attending a session in the morning, and some of the things that they were saying was that there’s not enough research to identify whether disinformation is harming democracy and so we hope to actually address some of those key answers. Thank you.

Daniel Arnaudo:
Thanks, thanks, Hyra. So I think given we’re a little bit behind schedule and I want to have time for everyone to contribute to the breakout sessions, I think we have a good critical mass here so we can do this properly. We wanted to get your feedback on a couple of different issues for our contribution. First of all, if you would like to join the network, this is a Jamboard. I’m gonna share it here on the screen briefly and then I’ll put up a QR code so you can take a look and get a sense of how this works yourself. But we’ll do physical breakouts here and then there will be a virtual one for folks online if you want to contribute. We have our colleague Sirat from Pakistan who is online there. But basically we’re gonna break into four groups. To start with, I think if you would like to share, I think is that up on the screen or no? I shared it in the Zoom chat. Oh, there you go. Yeah, if you’d like to just drop your name in, you can drop it in there, name and organization, an email, and we can, if you would like to join the network, just mark it with an X. Then from there, I mean, this is what we’re gonna be breaking out on. I think we wanted to look at closed societies and challenges working on those issues there. So that would be one piece of it. Another piece to discuss in breakout would be looking at social media, data access for research. So challenges within social media companies, how we can develop systems or resources for groups that wanna get into those social media spaces that are increasingly restricted. Kind of related, some of what we’ve been talking about, coordination with technology platforms around trust and safety concerns. Internet governance for information integrity, obviously critical for this area here. So we’re all gonna be moderating each of these breakouts here. I think within the room, maybe we can split, and have, let’s see here, to start with, the four kind of groups within the session kind of go to separate corners, depending on what you’re interested in. So let’s start, I think we have, Ketty, you’re gonna be talking about closed societies, so maybe start here if you’re interested in discussing that. Platforms and tech company issues, maybe here.Hyra’s gonna discuss that. Isabel will be enabling research access, maybe in the back right-hand corner there. And then I’ll go to the back left-hand corner and discuss internet governance and information integrity. And we’ll share the QR code and the link in the chat for those online who would like to participate, and we have a moderator there. So we will be there in a minute. Let’s just reorganize, and then we’ll come back for five minutes for summaries. Yeah, it’s tough. I think, yeah, we’ll maybe like 13, something like that, and try to come back with at least two or three minutes. No, we got like two minutes, so let’s just. Okay, everybody, the moderators, come on back up. We can summarize. I guess I’ll go backwards and say I guess I’ll go backwards since I have the mic and just summarize quickly and then pass to my fellow moderators the breakout so we can quickly summarize. If you want to jump into the Jamboard and plus one certain aspects or add new ones that came to your mind afterwards, feel free. We’ll pop up the QR code quickly or share it in the chat. But I mean, I think around internet governance for information integrity, we’re looking at multi-stakeholder approaches, as we’ve kind of been discussing already, I think, particularly around information integrity issues. We were thinking about tools for enabling access for people with disabilities to access these debates and developing strategies for local internet governance coordination on disinformation issues. And I think thinking about kind of a human rights approach on these issues, we’re looking at kind of how training for different aspects or different groups within societies would look like. How can we build trust with the election process? And we even had an additional piece looking at what are the missing technology pieces in elections and an additional question that came around that we were kind of working on some. So thinking about systems outside of the traditional information space, systems for tracking disinformation efforts outside of the internet and thinking about digital ID and systems for verifying people within elections processes. Maybe over to you for the next quick review. Yeah. You were, that one, right?

Hyra Basit:
That one, yep. Okay, I can’t read that anyway. So we started off our discussion with, we had participants from, again, Pakistan, the US, Netherlands, Iraq, and yeah, I think that’s both, and Japan, yes. So we talked about the kind of platforms that we’ve been using in our respective countries and WhatsApp, X, Instagram were some of the top ones, but we also talked about TikTok and LINE being used to disseminate information, especially in the context of more integral moments like elections. Then we talked about, we sort of diverted from the discussion a bit a few times, but we talked a bit about how to better engage with tech platforms and what has worked for us before, how we do it currently in our respective situations. And again, it seemed like the escalation channels that we’ve established with them, sometimes they work, sometimes not. They’re not completely perfect. There are loopholes to them or there are gaps that need to be filled out and there needs to be more engagement. But the kind of engagement that we’ve seen with those platforms sort of depend on either personal connections or individual employees’ willingness to actually connect with CSOs or organizations like ours. And yeah, I think that’s all.

Daniel Arnaudo:
Thank you. Yeah.

Isabel Hou:
Okay, here, tools and strategy to use to monitor information, there is a pay-to-gather information, social engineering, build up your own system and share the datasets with other researchers. And according to the participants’ experiences, TikTok and Doin has the most strong mechanism to prevent crawler and access to their data. And the resources we want to share is datasets and also the experiences handling this kind of issue and also maybe some comparison of historical data would be very useful.

Ketty Chen:
Very quickly. Engaging in civil society organization in closed societies can be done. However, it is more feasible at the regional level but when it comes to globally, it really takes time for different regions to understand the working of these closed society and how to get in touch with each other. And also, cybersecurity is really important for these civil society groups. Near Taiwanese organizations that could help improve the cybersecurity of these groups so that working in closed society, it’s more feasible and easier.

Daniel Arnaudo:
Great, so we’ve got a lot of feedback. This will contribute to our contribution. Really thank you everyone for coming and for our moderators, we’ll… Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Arnaldo de Santana

The analysis delves into the impact of the internet and society on gender norms and stereotypes, highlighting several key points. Firstly, it argues that the internet and society have the capacity to reproduce certain gender norms and stereotypes. These norms and stereotypes can be seen as power structures, with certain groups being placed in positions of power while others are exploited. The assignment of roles based on gender at birth also imposes certain developmental expectations.

The influence of the market on young internet users is another important aspect discussed in the analysis. It is noted that children and teens are heavily affected by market influences online. Specifically, the analysis highlights that young females are expected to act in a certain way to attract attention on the internet. This demonstrates how the market impacts the perspectives and behaviors of young internet users.

On a more positive note, the analysis stresses the need for a more participative and egalitarian development of the internet. It argues that the internet reflects power, violence, and societal standards, and breaking gender expectations and rules often brings about resistance. This highlights the importance of inclusivity and equal participation in shaping the development and structure of the internet.

The analysis also expresses concern about the impact of gender stereotypes on the daily life of the LGBTQI community. For instance, it notes that stereotypes of gender structures react to speech varieties associated with lower prestige groups, and negative characteristics are attributed to speakers based on these stereotypes.

Turning to the realm of artificial intelligence (AI), the analysis acknowledges the potential of AI in bringing something new and different. However, it also cautions that AI could potentially reproduce structures of power and impose certain standards. This raises important questions about the values and biases of the creators of AI and the need for further research.

The analysis also draws attention to the effects of colonialism and power imbalances in internet spaces. It mentions the erasure of memories and lives that colonialism has brought about, imposing a dominant perspective. This highlights the importance of addressing colonialism and power imbalances in order to create more equitable internet spaces.

Furthermore, the absence of international legislation specifically addressing internet hate speech and gender stereotyping is highlighted. This raises concerns about the current legal framework and the need for international laws to combat these issues effectively.

In terms of addressing hate speech and stereotypes, the analysis suggests that breaking stereotypes may be an effective way to tackle hate speech. It points out that stereotypes are perceived as a root cause of hate speech, and challenging them could lead to positive change.

The analysis concludes by emphasizing the need for dialogue and innovation in challenging ingrained stereotypes. By fostering open and meaningful dialogue and promoting innovative ideas, it becomes possible to challenge and change deeply embedded stereotypes.

Overall, the analysis provides a comprehensive examination of the impact of the internet and society on gender norms and stereotypes. It highlights the need for inclusive and participative development, the challenges faced by marginalized communities, the potential of AI, the effects of colonialism, the absence of international legislation, the importance of breaking stereotypes, and the significance of dialogue and innovation.

Audience

The analysis of the given information reveals several key points and arguments related to language diversity, digital media, and societal issues. It is recognised that promoting language diversity in digital media is of great importance, especially for LGBTQIA plus communities, as it contributes to reducing inequalities (SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities). This recognition emphasizes the need to encourage debates on this topic, allowing for a more inclusive and diverse digital landscape.

In the context of digital content moderation, it is argued that the moderation process should consider the promotion of discourse. The example of the word “bicha” in Brazil is cited to demonstrate how its usage can change depending on the context, being employed both in negative contexts and contexts that promote identity and affirmation. This highlights the need for moderators to have a nuanced understanding of language and cultural contexts to ensure fair and inclusive moderation practices.

Another point of concern raised in the analysis is the potential for artificial intelligence (AI) to propagate stereotype thinking. It is suggested that AI systems, if not properly designed and trained, may unintentionally perpetuate harmful stereotypes. This observation aligns with SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure) as it emphasizes the importance of considering the impact of technology on societal issues.

On the other hand, the analysis also highlights the potential benefits of AI in countering hate speech or violence. It is argued that AI can be used to create positive narratives that stand against such harmful behaviours, thereby promoting SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being).

Furthermore, attention is drawn to the vulnerability of young girls on social media platforms. The analysis notes that platforms like TikTok and Instagram are commonly used by young girls to promote themselves, which unfortunately makes them more susceptible to online predators. This highlights the need for content regulation, such as moderating comments and monitoring language used on digital platforms, to protect youth (SDGs 4: Quality Education and 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions).

In conclusion, the analysis underscores the complex nature of digital media and its implications for various societal issues. It underscores the importance of promoting language diversity, promoting discourse, safeguarding against harmful stereotypes, countering hate speech and violence, and protecting vulnerable young girls on digital platforms. Civil society is also seen as playing a vital role in defending youth, particularly young girls, in digital spaces. The provided insights shed light on the intricate interplay between digital media, language, technology, and societal goals as outlined in the Sustainable Development Goals.

Umut Pajaro Velasquez

The analysis examines the issue of gender diverse content suppression on social media platforms, focusing on TikTok. The study found that gender diverse individuals in Latin America felt compelled to alter their identities and content on TikTok to avoid being targeted by the algorithm. The platform’s algorithm demonstrated a bias against LGBTQI+ inclusive language and hashtags, resulting in the removal or shadow banning of their content. This raises questions about identity ownership in algorithmic systems.

Additionally, the study revealed that gender diverse users felt less accepted on TikTok due to limitations and self-censorship. LGBTQI+ and gender diversity-themed content was only deemed acceptable or visible on the platform when it aligned with established mainstream trends or had the support of influential figures. This exclusionary dynamic on TikTok creates an environment that further marginalizes gender diverse individuals.

In response, the analysis emphasizes the need for social media platforms, including TikTok, to establish clearer community standards regarding gender diverse content. Platforms should strive to create inclusive spaces that respect and protect the digital rights of traditionally underrepresented communities. Participants in the study called for a shift in these systems to protect historically marginalized communities and ensure consistency of standards regardless of identity or content alignment.

Furthermore, the analysis highlights the detrimental impact of online linguistic gender stereotypes on self-identity. Users often struggle to identify with the platform’s gender norms, leading to anxiety and discomfort. Some individuals stop using the platform altogether because they feel unable to express themselves authentically. This lack of acceptance and its impact on mental health and social interactions is a significant concern.

Overall, the analysis reveals the troubling suppression of gender diverse content on social media platforms, particularly on TikTok. It underscores the need for platforms to address biased algorithms, establish clearer community standards, and create inclusive spaces. Additionally, the detrimental effects of online linguistic gender stereotypes on self-identity and mental health are highlighted. The analysis calls for a more inclusive and diverse digital landscape that respects the rights of all individuals, regardless of gender identity.

Juliana Harsianti

Language plays a significant role in shaping individuals’ perception of themselves and others. The grammatical structure and vocabulary of a language can influence thinking, imagination, and reality. For instance, language can affect how people perceive gender and power dynamics. In certain languages like French and Spanish, a mixed gender subject defaults to the masculine form, reinforcing the perception of male superiority.

Moreover, language can be a powerful tool for online bullying, particularly targeting women, girls, and the LGBT+ community. Pejorative language and slurs are frequently used to harass and intimidate these groups, creating an unsafe online environment that discourages their active participation.

Machine translation, although useful, often defaults to gender stereotypes by assigning traditional gender roles to professions. This perpetuates gender inequalities and hinders progress towards equality.

To tackle these issues, promoting gender-neutral and inclusive language is crucial. This involves ongoing efforts and discussions within communities. By doing so, language can become more inclusive and fair, fostering an online world where everyone feels represented and valued.

Another effective approach is incorporating women’s perspectives in online content. Initiatives like “Wikigap” have successfully increased the presence and representation of women on the internet, enriching the overall content.

Moreover, addressing online hate speech requires empathy and community regulations. It is important to acknowledge the impact of hate speech and take appropriate actions to address it. Community regulations and a focus on empathy can help create a safer and more inclusive online environment.

In conclusion, language has a profound influence on perceptions, and it is important to address biases and stereotypes embedded within it. By promoting gender-neutral and inclusive language, incorporating women’s perspectives in online content, and fostering empathy and community regulations, we can create a more equitable digital world.

Dhanaraj Thakur

The extended analysis examines the gender digital divide and its connection to hate speech and AI tools. Research suggests that hate speech, violent language, and misinformation disproportionately affect women, leading to the gender digital divide. This highlights the importance of addressing these harmful practices and creating a more inclusive online environment.

Furthermore, the role of large language models like ChatGPT is discussed. These models heavily rely on English data predominantly authored by men, limiting their effectiveness in supporting non-English languages and perpetuating gender biases. Evaluating the impact of AI tools such as natural language processing and large language models is crucial to avoid reinforcing gender disparities.

Taking an intersectional approach is emphasized for understanding the severity of hate speech and misinformation. Women of color, particularly political candidates, are more likely to be targeted with online abuse and misinformation. Considering multiple dimensions of identity is essential in addressing the gender digital divide and developing inclusive solutions.

The analysis also highlights the gender gap in AI training data, with only 26.5% of CHAT-GPT’s training data authored by women. This disparity poses a significant problem, particularly in the education system and the industry, where gender-biased AI models are being incorporated. Addressing this gap is crucial in preventing the perpetuation of gender disparities.

Social media platforms play a vital role in shaping online experiences. The analysis suggests that these platforms should improve their design strategies to combat harmful content. Giving users more control over the content they receive can help them manage and mitigate the impact of negative content.

Additionally, greater privacy protections can reduce algorithmic amplification and content targeting. By implementing stronger privacy measures, the influence of algorithms in promoting harmful content can be diminished, benefiting the gender digital divide.

Data transparency is emphasized as another key aspect. The lack of insight into social media platforms’ operations hampers the ability of researchers, governments, and civil society activists to understand the issues and propose effective solutions. Platforms should provide more data and information to facilitate better understanding and the creation of impactful solutions.

The analysis also points out the influence of hate speech and gender stereotypes, particularly through online communities like the ‘manosphere’, which affects younger boys. Addressing this influence and educating young men and boys to promote healthier perspectives and behaviors is crucial in bridging the gender digital divide.

Lastly, self-reflection for men, especially cisgendered individuals, regarding their online behavior is crucial. Raising awareness about the impact of hate speech and the spread of false information is essential in creating a more inclusive and respectful digital space.

In conclusion, the analysis highlights various factors contributing to the gender digital divide and underscores the impact of hate speech and AI tools. It emphasizes the need for inclusive approaches, bridging the gender gap in AI training data, enhancing social media design, strengthening privacy protections, promoting data transparency, and mitigating the influence of hate speech and gender stereotypes. Addressing these issues will help create a more equitable and inclusive digital landscape.

Luke Rong Guang Teoh

The analysis reveals several important points about linguistic gender stereotypes in online advertising and social media platforms, which perpetuate gender inequalities and reinforce traditional gender roles. Men are often associated with adjectives like strong, brave, competent, or bold, promoting stereotypes of dominance and logic, while women are associated with adjectives like emotional, understanding, sweet, and submissive, reflecting biased views of women as emotional and submissive. These stereotypes shape societal attitudes and contribute to gender inequalities.

Online advertisements are now personalised and tailored to specific audiences, including gender-based targeting. This means that linguistic gender stereotypes are used in targeted marketing and product positioning. The language used on social media platforms like Instagram also reflects gender biases. A study on Instagram captions found that certain adjectives were exclusively associated with women, while others were divided between genders. These biases impact how individuals are perceived and treated both online and offline.

Despite these issues, some brands are being more careful with gender characterisations, showing mixed gender associations with certain adjectives. This indicates progress in avoiding gender stereotypes in advertising and promoting gender equality. However, the gender divide in the digital world has been increasing since 2019, disproportionately affecting marginalised women such as the elderly and those in rural areas. This divide limits their access to and use of digital technologies, exacerbating gender inequalities.

Research on women and young girls below 18 in relation to the gender digital divide is lacking. Most data focuses on women above 18, leaving a gap in understanding the experiences and challenges faced by younger women and girls. More research is needed to address this gap and ensure their needs are met.

Furthermore, linguistic gender stereotypes online strongly influence women’s career choices. With the majority of jobs worldwide having a digital component, biased language on online platforms shapes women’s perceptions of career paths, limiting their potential and opportunities. This hinders progress towards gender equality in the workforce.

In conclusion, linguistic gender stereotypes in online advertising and social media perpetuate gender inequalities and reinforce traditional gender roles. Efforts are being made to address these stereotypes, but further progress is needed. The gender divide in the digital world is widening, particularly impacting marginalised women. Research on younger women and girls in relation to the gender digital divide is lacking, which must be addressed. Linguistic gender stereotypes influence career choices and opportunities for women, hindering progress towards gender equality in the workforce.

Manjet Kaur Mehar Singh

Discrimination towards the LGBTQ+ community in Malaysian advertisements is a pressing issue that demands attention. The online environment exacerbates these discriminatory practices, and steps need to be taken to address and improve the situation. Inclusive language can play a significant role in mitigating online discrimination, creating a more welcoming online space for everyone.

Promoting diversity through language is seen as a positive approach to combat discrimination by challenging stereotypes and biases. Guidelines should be put in place to promote non-biasness and equality in language usage, while also avoiding gendered assumptions. These guidelines can help individuals and organizations navigate the complexities of language in a sensitive, fair, and inclusive way.

Education plays a crucial role in raising awareness and promoting sensitivity towards language diversity. Starting from an early age, it is important to educate individuals about the power of language and how it can impact others. By fostering an understanding of the importance of inclusive language, future generations can grow up with a greater appreciation for diversity.

Unfortunately, the issue of linguistic bias and stereotypes is not adequately addressed in education in Malaysia. There is a clear need for proper training of educators to ensure they are equipped to promote diversity and equality in language. Without attention to this issue, discriminatory practices persist, limiting progress towards an inclusive society.

Concrete rules and regulations from the government regarding language usage to represent different groups are needed. Having clear guidelines and acts in place will provide a framework for promoting inclusivity and reducing discrimination. Presently, the absence of such rules hinders efforts to address linguistic bias and ensure fair representation.

In the workplace, training and awareness regarding language biasness are essential. By providing education and facilitating discussions on biasness and representation, companies can foster an inclusive and respectful environment. It is important that the expression of marginalized groups in the workplace is not dominated by one group, ensuring that all employees feel seen and valued.

Addressing discrimination towards the LGBTQ+ community in Malaysian advertisements requires a multi-faceted approach encompassing inclusive language, diversity promotion, educational initiatives, governmental regulations, and workplace training. By implementing these measures, society can move towards a more inclusive, equal, and respectful future.

Moderator

The meeting consisted of two rounds: speaker introductions and an open roundtable discussion. Participants had the opportunity to ask questions, which were collected and addressed later. Stella, associated with NetMission.Asia, Malaysia Youth IGF, ISOC Malaysia, and Kyushu University, served as the moderator.

The main focus was on linguistic gender stereotypes and their impact. These stereotypes are generalizations based on someone’s gender that are reflected in language. They can be observed in gendered pronouns, job titles, descriptive language, and conversational roles.

Linguistic gender stereotypes have negative effects. They shape societal attitudes, reinforce gender inequalities, and create expectations and limitations based on gender. They are observed in online advertisements, perpetuating traditional gender roles.

The discussion also addressed challenges faced by marginalized and LGBTQI communities. Gender is seen as a module of power, affecting different groups. Inclusive language, gender-neutral terms, and diversity in language are important for creating an inclusive society. Educating young people about diversity and the impact of linguistic stereotypes is crucial.

The meeting also highlighted the gender gap in AI training data and its implications. Online linguistic gender stereotypes affect self-identity, sense of belonging, and contribute to online bullying. Promoting gender-neutral languages and creating content from a woman’s perspective is encouraged.

The need for algorithmic control on social media platforms to reduce negative content amplification was stressed. Transparency and data sharing by platforms are important for research and finding better solutions.

Overall, the meeting emphasized addressing linguistic gender stereotypes, promoting diversity in language, and combating discrimination and inequality. Legislative action, breaking stereotypes, and changing narratives are necessary for an inclusive society.

Júlia Tereza Rodrigues Koole

The analysis of the data presents several important findings relating to gender stereotypes, hate speech, and recruitment by radical groups. One significant observation is the use of linguistic gender stereotypes to mobilise specific demographics. This tactic involves the exploitation of language to reinforce societal norms and expectations associated with gender. By perpetuating these stereotypes, certain groups are able to manipulate individuals and garner support for their cause. This has been particularly evident in the Americas, with a specific focus on Brazil, where jokes and memes have been used to gamify hate and recruit for radical organizations.

Another noteworthy point is the targeted recruitment efforts made by radical groups, particularly targeting young males. Research conducted in Germany regarding in-service teacher awareness and a study conducted by a cyber psychologist in India both highlight the attempts made by extremist organizations to attract and radicalize young males. These findings emphasize the importance of recognizing and addressing the strategies employed by these groups to prevent the recruitment and radicalization of vulnerable individuals.

The analysis also brings attention to the classification of hate speech and the significance of combating its impact. A task group established by the Brazilian Ministry of Human Rights is actively working towards developing a framework to classify hate speech. This highlights a positive step towards reducing the prevalence and harm caused by hate speech, as it enables a targeted approach to addressing this issue.

Furthermore, the analysis highlights the rising reactionary demographic in Brazil, posing a threat to human rights, particularly targeting female youth leaders and expressing anti-feminist sentiment. The increase in this demographic underscores the need for continued efforts to counter hate speech and discrimination, especially towards women and gender diverse individuals.

The analysis also brings attention to the manifestation of hate speech and extremism through linguistic ridicule and mimicry of local dialects or speech patterns. Extremist groups in Brazil target various dialects, including popular, queer, and formally recognized dialects. This serves as a tool to mobilize youth while ridiculing the validity of these speech forms, often reducing them to derogatory terms such as ‘gay speech’. This highlights the multi-dimensional nature of hate speech, as it can manifest through linguistic mockery and the undermining of certain speech forms.

Online spaces, including social media platforms, study and game communities, can be particularly hostile towards women and gender diverse individuals due to linguistic gender stereotypes. Negative experiences and discrimination resulting from the perpetuation of these stereotypes can drive women and diverse genders away from participating in these online spaces. In cases where individuals decide to remain, they may face increasingly hateful and violent experiences. Addressing and combating online gender stereotypes is crucial to ensure inclusion and equality for all.

The impact of linguistic gender stereotypes extends beyond online spaces. Discrimination arising from these stereotypes can distort self-image and self-worth, potentially leading to various mental health issues. Moreover, these experiences perpetuate the notion that online spaces are hostile and exclusive, particularly for those who do not conform to specific gender expectations. This further underscores the importance of addressing online gender stereotypes to create a more inclusive and welcoming digital environment.

Education emerges as a pivotal factor in tackling hate speech and gender stereotypes. It is crucial for schools to address the main problems within their communities, which may include addressing physiological needs, providing comprehensive sexual education, or challenging societal roles of diverse genders. By investing in the next generation and prioritizing education, efforts can be made to create a more inclusive and equitable society.

Although the issue of gender-based hate speech may not be obvious to everyone, there is a need for increased participation from individuals beyond those who are openly opposed. It is essential to engage individuals who may not be actively involved or vocal about their opposition. Generating empathy and bringing these individuals closer to movements focused on creating a better world is crucial to make progress and foster a society free from hate speech and discrimination.

In conclusion, the analysis provides valuable insights into the use of linguistic gender stereotypes, recruitment by radical groups, the classification of hate speech, the rising reactionary demographic, the targeting of local dialects, and the impact of linguistic gender stereotypes in online spaces. It highlights the importance of addressing these issues through education, increased participation, and efforts to combat hate speech and discrimination. By working towards these goals, a more inclusive and equitable society can be achieved.

Moderator:
Just to let everyone know, we’ll be going one round for each of our speakers, where they’ll have a chance to introduce their work and themselves. And then we’ll move on to the second round with an open roundtable discussion. And please feel free to drop questions in the chat box. Our online moderator, Bea, will be collecting these, and we will address the questions in a question and answer session at the end. All right. I see it’s 8.50. So good morning, good evening, good afternoon to everyone who’s joined. Thank you so much for taking the time to join us. My name is Stella, and I’m currently with NetMission.Asia, Malaysia Youth IGF, ISOC Malaysia, and Kyushu University. So I’ll be moderating today’s session, and it’s great to see everyone. So first off, I’d like to give the opportunity to welcome our first speaker for the session. On my right, that would be Luke Teo. Please take it away.

Luke Rong Guang Teoh:
Thank you, Stella. So I’ll just share my screen. Okay. Okay. So the topic of today’s workshop would mainly be online linguistic gender stereotypes. And you may be wondering, what does that mean? So basically, linguistic gender stereotypes are generalizations or assumptions that people make based on someone’s gender that are reflected in language. And these stereotypes include beliefs about the roles, behaviors, characteristics, and also abilities of individuals based on their gender. Now, these linguistic gender stereotypes can be reflected in different aspects of language, such as gendered pronouns, job titles, descriptive language, and also their conversational roles. And to just narrow down the scope and relate it towards the internet and my work currently, which is focusing on the adjectives, one part of language. So adjectives are one aspect of linguistic gender stereotypes. And according to Castillo-Mayon and Montes-Burgess, certain adjectives are commonly associated with women, for example, emotional, understanding, sweet, and submissive. So as you may assume or you may understand, these adjectives reinforce the stereotype that women are more emotional. On the other hand, adjectives like strong, brave, competent, or bold can also or are often associated with men. And this reinforces the stereotype of men being more dominant or logical. Now these adjectives create gender-based expectations and limitations. And these influence how individuals are perceived and treated both in the online and in the offline world. Such language, as you may assume or may understand, has the potential to shape societal attitudes and contributes to gender inequalities by reinforcing traditional gender roles and norms. Now you may be wondering, so where is the online or internet part of this workshop? Well, we’re getting to there. So linguistic gender stereotypes can also be observed in online advertisements. This idea actually came from myself studying my undergraduate degree at University of Science Malaysia, and I think on the panel today we also have Dr. Manjat, who was my supervisor for that course, and really guided me to make this research possible. So in the early 2000s, with the rise of data-driven advertising and targeting capabilities, online advertisements became increasingly personalized and tailored to specific audiences, including gender-based targeting. Despite increasing emphasis on gender equality in the social development goals of developed nations and its recognition as a fundamental human right, by the United Nations, studies revealed that gender stereotyping in advertising continues to endure. And according to Boyd 2021, linguistic gender stereotypes in advertising are used in targeted marketing and product positioning. As a result, to focus on a specific group of buyers, the producers persuade buyers by using the right choice of words regarding the product. So moving to my research, which was conducted with a small respondent group of 43. They were all aged between 21 to 22, so can be considered as Gen Z youth. And a total of 183 Instagram captions were selected from companies that I won’t name. And from those captions, 151 adjectives were shortlisted. And these are some of the adjectives that we asked the respondents their views on, and which gender or which genders do they feel that these adjectives describe the best. So what did the results show? Well, the results show that the majority of respondents have similar gender connotations for all of the 15 adjectives. And most of the adjectives have at least 50% of respondents each answering the same gender association. So this is a brief picture or overview of the results that we were able to get. And the participants of the questionnaire hold slightly more gender biases towards these adjectives compared to the qualitative study on previous literature that my team and I read through. However, there are instances where the respondents were very transparent about their gender biases, like for the adjectives sparkling and floral, in which almost all the respondents think those adjectives conclusively represent only women. So they thought that by using the adjectives sparkling or floral, you can sell them or you don’t even use it to describe men. However, there are also situations where the participants have ambiguous… gender associations with the adjectives, like for the adjectives sophisticated and romantic, in which the respondents’ gender biases are about evenly split between men, women, and both genders. So what about the way forward? There are similarly mixed gender adjectives on both Instagram pages, which might be because those brands are slowly attuning to a more careful approach to gender characterizations, and right now opening up to the spectrum and different sorts of how people would like to identify as. And as for the perceptions of gender stereotypical adjectives you utilize in Instagram captions, the respondents conform to the gender stereotypes. And they also seem conflicted in opinion for others and have repulsed the gender stereotypes associated with the adjectives for the rest. So seeing how language and culture are inextricably intertwined, it would be great prominence to include the role of language in bridging the gender-digital divide. I’d just like to end with a quote, the tie of language is perhaps the strongest and most durable that can unite us. And I think I’ve taken up my time for now.

Moderator:
Thank you for listening, and I’m looking forward to the rest of the discussion. Thank you very much, Luke, for your brief overview and your research. I think it’s very interesting to see how we can relate to our own experiences. I think most of us would have seen perhaps different kinds of advertisements that you might get from your different gendered friends. And so that was perspective from our Asia-Pacific youth. Now let’s move on to our next on-site speaker. We have with us Arnaldo de Santana. Sorry if the name is incorrect. But yes, please, your seven minutes starts now.

Arnaldo de Santana:
Thank you. Thank you, everybody. I’m Arnaldo. I’m from Brazil, representing the youth of Latin American Caribbean. Now I’m researching, but I’m also a lawyer and an internationalist. And I am researching about LGBTQI community. and some stereotypes that we face daily. At first, I came here to talk about some of the issues that we face there that mostly are linked to the specificities that market puts on us. So, gender can be read as a type of module that gives power to some groups and put others in a position to be, I don’t know, exploited. Also, as we are talking about the stereotypes, I’d like to bring here the meaning of the scripts of gender that we face daily in our society. So, if you are a girl or assigned as a girl when you are born, you have to do and fulfill some of the developments that society made to you. And if you go all the way into another perspective, you are not great to the society. The same way goes to the meaning when you are not, when you are assigned as boy. So, a linguistic stereotype is a way that people react to speech varieties associated with lower prestige groups and attributing negative characteristics to the speakers. And it all goes through a gender structure perspective. So, who holds the power and who can put this power to impose something in society. As minorities, we face some problems daily, and especially nowadays that we face some of the retrocess on society, it’s really important to talk about this. I’m here not opposing any slides because I feel like it’s more great to bring the possibility to all of us to talk about the development of internet that does not bring some stereotypes to our days, and to try to make a more participative way of building what we do. Also, I will reference some of my friends that are developing some researches about the gender stereotypes, linguistic stereotypes, and how does it impact the twins. There are people aged between 8 and 16 years, there are children and teens, and how does the market influences their perspectives online. So, we have some norms that are developed by society, internet, it is reproduced. So, if I am a girl on the internet, I have to develop my way to catch attention, especially if I am trying to get on the market to influence. And this makes… I feel that it talks a little bit about what we have today with the development of some… industries of media that brings children to work as performers and we face it daily. Nowadays in Brazil we have some discussion about how can children that works since really early ages handle the way of having so much money and I feel that I’m going a little bit out of the topic but talking about this we can face some ways that our structure and our society and also the reflection of society on internet because talking about internet we talk about also power and the face of violence but about the patterns standards and when you have low ways of speaking and when you put yourself on the way that you break this rules that are encrypted you go through a way of trying to go beyond the stereotypes. I feel like this will be the first statement. Thank you everybody and

Moderator:
thank you so much Ronaldo. Right on time. So thank you very much for the perspective coming from a different completely different region so now we’ll be going on to the my other end where we have another on-site So, we would like to hear next from Julia Teresa Rodriguez-Kuhl. So, yes, please, go ahead.

Júlia Tereza Rodrigues Koole:
Thank you, Stella, for giving me this opportunity to speak here at the IJF. My perspective and my narrative will be different. I will change the scope from male to the female and think about the gender stereotypes that are used beyond simple prejudice. They are weaponized to mobilize mostly specific demographics. In the Americas, and especially Brazil, the white male demographic, who is from 14 to 35 years old, they are mobilized by the usage of linguistic gender stereotypes in an attempt to recruit them to radical and terrorist groups. These memes and jokes and many types of content are used as a way to gamify hate. You first propose a game, simply a joke. The perpetrator, not you, the perpetrator, submits that joke in a public venue on the Internet. We have seen a lot of activity on younger platforms and also more related to the gaming community. Using those jokes to first spot someone who is prone to prejudice or prone to violence with that prejudice. Because we all might face and deliver actions based on prejudice. And it’s another step based on many researchers, Rakesh, a cyber psychologist from India, of the Rashtriya Raksha University. He is specializing in studying cyber terrorism through psychology and showing that ensuing on participating on these activities bring a reward, a psychological and chemical reward on the male audience who is trying to diminish, demobilize and attack the female youth, mostly. And also there is a study in Germany, a university that fails, I fail to recall the name right now, that when trying to make in-service teachers aware in the German universities, the majority of the audience is touched by the dynamics in the educational programs that exist on the subjects that are trying to convey an ethic program, an ethic guideline to the teachers, but there is a minority where the activities have no effect, they don’t even get it that it is an activity to bring awareness to female questions, female problems and also an attempt to stop misogynistic behavior and attempts of diminishing the power of women. And then my research studies a task group in… the Brazilian Human Rights Ministry that tries to typify what is hate speech and it’s a really important movement, it’s a really important action taken by a government to try to categorize what is hate speech. And we were trying to see if this task group was seeing this gamification behavior in the youth and it’s trying to, and recognizes that movement, that trend, it is happening amidst our youth, our male youth, and we found that although it didn’t specifically targeted terrorist groups who are sought to radicalize the youth with the internet, linguistic stereotypes, they can recognize that linguistic stereotypes and the internet can make, can both participate in an infrastructure and a design of a platform that facilitates hate. And so we have a demographic that enjoys what they’re doing, that they are apathetic to the awareness, unawareness discourses, and that they are being co-opted to organized groups and to try and pass demobilized protests, attack specific individuals, people that stand out, young youth leaders, young female youth leaders. And this is all connected, leading to a point of a rising reactionary demographic in my country, giving us a difficult and violent and sad environment. And I would like to encourage anyone who wishes to know better or is dealing with that situation in their country to reach out to me and many others who are trying to strengthen human rights in the world..

Moderator:
Thank you so much, Julia, for your sharing. It’s very interesting to see how we progress from a more introductory stance into how linguistic gender stereotypes can be in real life to perhaps more extreme cases. And so I’d like to open just briefly for a short one question. If anyone has a question from our online participants who’ve been with us, or from on site, just a quick question that you may have for our youth researchers for what they’ve presented so far about their efforts in researching online linguistic gender stereotypes, or if you have any general question that you’d like to see brought up in the roundtable immediately after our next few speakers. So yeah, a quick check around the room. Yes, please go ahead, the mic would be…

Audience:
Good morning, I am Wilson Guilherme. I am a non-binary person from Brazil, and I am part of the part of the Youth Brazil delegation. I think I have a comment and a question. First, the comment which is how important it is to encourage debates about language diversity in digital media. and how much this especially affects LGBTQIA plus people. An important point about language is to think about the moderation of digital content, which above all needs to be done based on the realization of discourse. In Brazil, for example, we have the word bicha, which can be used in negative contexts, but it can also be used in context to promotion of identity and affirmation. Does language when correlated with moderation can mitigate violation? But to the same extent, I can foresee violence when it is related to the reframing of concepts. My question then for the panel is how Reconcili contains moderation agendas with spaces and narratives from vulnerable communities such as LGBTQIA plus people and black people, for example, the language of Brazil, Pajubá. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. I think it’s a very interesting discussion and thanks to the panel for initiating this kind of very streamed kind of discussion. My point of view is this is very true that social media is very much a kind of mirror of our regular socialization life, our social life or thought we are thinking, but it is probably even more reflective on social media rather than the mirror. So let me share the fear. The fear is the sometimes we see how social media is being cultivated by anti, you know. kind of various stereotype thinkings or how they, you know, propagate the violence against the various gender minority groups. And I don’t know, do you have any information on if you can shed some light afterwards about how the artificial intelligence also propagating this kind of, you know, stereotype behavior and kind of, and then the violence against the other sexual minority groups. The one second thing is, do you see any possibilities creating narratives in terms of this kind of hate speech or, you know, this violence that actually can be codified and, you know, I don’t know, so, you know, making some kind of positive narratives or narrative against these kind of violences or narrative against this kind of gender stereotypes, so whether it is possible through artificial intelligence again. Thank you very much.

Moderator:
Right, thank you for comments and questions from the floor, so I’ll let Julia go ahead.

Júlia Tereza Rodrigues Koole:
I would like to address Wilson’s question and the same report which would be in English. Report of recommendations to tackling hate speech in extremism in Brazil has a section about hate speech grammatic and in Brazil, for context, we have many grammatics. We have the formal grammatic, we have a popular grammatic and we do have also a queer grammatic and there is a targeting of those extremist groups. to mimic and ridicularize this grammatic which is highly based on the West African influence of the people who were kidnapped to Brazil in our colonial past but their heritage lived on our grammatic and our form of speech and this is being targeted as also a mean, a project to mobilize the youth saying, having jokes and also protests against the approach or any reconnaissances that this grammatic might have in any public venue maybe a social media, maybe a television media, maybe a radio program which they deny the validity of this way of speech because it’s true, it’s sincere and it’s the way that we found out to identify each other and to reorganize ourselves as a community and this is being also targeted and weaponized saying roughly as the gay way of saying things or the gay speech but it’s much more than that and it’s much more complex because it is not only us that use that kind of speech it’s just, the thing is that it doesn’t matter what it is there is a drain of what the content is they don’t care about the content they care about the group that uses such content will ridicularize, they will satirize that to spot people and spot people who might have a sensitivity to hate speech and also be more gullible to think that they are changing society for the better by persecuting a group because of the way they speak. So yes, this report also recognizes this strategy of illegal groups to act and enact their wills and projects for the Brazilian community but we are not restricted here to my country. This is a specific example to enlighten the audience about the many aspects of online linguistic gender stereotypes.

Moderator:
Thank you so much, Julia, for your answer. So just for the second question, it will be addressed by our later speaker but first we’ll move on to our next speaker we have with us. So we have with us, joining us from online from Malaysia, we have with us Dr. Manjit Kaur. Please, if we could have the online speakers on the screen. And yes, your seven minutes starts now.

Manjet Kaur Mehar Singh:
Good morning, everyone. Am I loud and clear? Yep. Okay, thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to share some views here. Okay, regarding the theme of today’s talk, the online linguistic gender stereotypes, what I would like to focus on is we cannot deny that these discrimination issues exist online. Okay, but what we need to look into here is maybe what is the way forward? How can we address these problems? How can we improve the situation? So therefore, we need to focus, for example, on inclusive language. So inclusive language has to, how do I say, acknowledge the diversity that the genders present. So like in Asian context, for example, in Malaysia, we talk about male and female, and when you talk about the LGBTQ group, there are also some issues here, sensitive issues, because due to the, how do I say, the racial composition of the country, Malaysia being a Muslim country. So when it comes to LGBTQ rights, so in terms of how they are represented in advertisements, for example, online, there are sensitive issues and also some kind of discrimination that exists. So what is needed is actually inclusive language, that is actually sensitive to all the groups of people, no matter which gender category are you in, and also promotes actual, what do I say, equal opportunity for all of them. That’s basically very, very important. So basically, how can we ensure that this can be, how do I say, imposed or or implemented in the online setting? Firstly, is to choose gender-neutral terms. It is sometimes very, very difficult for us, like for example, a presentation done by Mr Liu just now, when you’re promoting products, doing advertisements for perfumes. If you do a survey, you will notice the kind of adjectives that are used. Are they more inclined to feminism or do they, how do I say, promote masculinity? That is also based again on who is the product targeted for. However, how can we come up with a situation, a kind of a framework that addresses gender neutrality? Even when you’re promoting a female-based product or a male-based product. These are the issues that need to be considered. These are very, very important issues. Next, what I would like to say, especially also in the context, let’s say, workplace context. Workplace context in terms of when you talk about sensitive language, differences between male and female. How can you reinforce the diversity? Earlier, I mentioned about gender equality. But to have this phenomenon, gender equality, to be implemented 100% at the workplace or to have a situation whereby this gender equality, it’s totally impossible. It’s totally impossible. So, we need to work to the best. So, what is the best? Introducing and enforcing diversity. So, if you look at the whole picture of online linguistic stereotypes, what if we define that or cluster that as promoting diversity? Thank you. That’s also one part of the coin. One, we say it’s actually, how do I say it’s not fair to a particular group. So, linguistic, online linguistic stereotypes in terms of classification of gender can also be considered as something that can be a kind of like harassment, but at the same time, you can also look at it as promoting diversity, diversity through language. The use of adjectives to describe feminism, to describe women, to describe male, to describe the third group or the fourth group. So, at times, we cannot say that it’s being stereotypical. It’s also promoting diversity. You need the existence of it, but how it is used, how it is addressed, that’s very, very important. To start with education, to create the awareness among the youngsters, not to misjudge it, but to respect the diversity that is presented through the language to explain or to label someone as what he or she is. So, that’s very, very important. So, this will actually contribute to a sense of belonging for all the groups of people in terms of, let’s say, I see a product which is being advertised, and it is described with usage of certain words that I’m happy about, and you have another person. also looking at the same product from a different perspective in terms of how the product is described. So how do you create here a sense of belonging for both parties in terms of, I’m going to use the product, but I’m not happy with how it’s described. Another person is happy with how it’s described. How do we create a sense of belonging for both parties here? So it boils down back again to early age education, in educating people, the youngsters, to how to be more sensitive towards how you want to represent the product, to how you want to teach the youngsters to use words more responsibly, but at the same time to also respect the diversity that comes with each gender, how each gender is labelled, how each gender is described, and so on. But at the same time, we can make it more unbiased towards one gender. That is very, very important to avoid the gendered assumptions. We always have these gendered assumptions, that when you want to sell a women-based product and male-based product, you have to use certain words to describe that particular group. But diversity can be there, but at the same time, you need to ensure there is no biasness. That’s very, very important. So, what I would like to also focus on here is usage of… I mean, coming up with a guideline, a general language guideline. how you can ensure that when you have the diversity in terms of the linguistic aspects used online, you are able to ensure there is no discrimination, biasness, and at the same time you also promote the diversity of using a very diverse linguistic elements.

Moderator:
So sorry to cut you here, Dr. Manjit, but thank you very much for in the interest of time, we’ll move on to the next speaker before we’ll come back to your points on I think the general guideline, the linguistic guideline, which I think is very interesting, but we’d like to move on perhaps cross-region to our next online speaker. If you would please go ahead. Okay, sure, thank you.

Umut Pajaro Velasquez:
Hello everyone. First of all, I would like to dance for the invitation to this panel. Well, my focus during this conversation is going to be more related to the user experience or gender-based people in social media and how gender stereotypes actually affect the way the content displays in social media. Especially I focus myself, my research in TikTok because I wanted to understand the intersection of being Jude on social media when you are also gendered, a person that identifies as a gender diverse, for example, non-binary, queer, or other identities outside the binary male and female. One of the things that I realized making this This research is that most of the platforms that are using more content moderation actually weaponize the content of people that identify as gender diverse. In a way that the shadow binding or block that content more than often that they are actually people that identify as a non-gender as a non-gender does. So I try to ask to the people exactly, I came up with 53 interview from different people from Latin America that were then telling me their experience using the platform and what they had to do to like align their identities to TikTok in a way that they actually can spread themselves in a pretty much in a normative way to follow the expectation on the platform, the expectation on algorithm in order to still be presenting the platform without any problem and without being targeted by the shadow binding or by censoring the content or something like that. Most of the censor or the content came from the use of a specific hashtag related to the language that we use as a LGBTQI community or as a gender diverse people online. Most of the cases that I came to study says exactly that when they use some specific question so in specific words, the content were sometimes less visualized or just take down on the platform without any reason. And when they asked why the content was taken down on the platform, there wasn’t an explanation on why exactly they do that. They only say it was again, they can’t do all the platform. So, that is when I came up with the question of how exactly we can do a platform, how we can actually own a platform or for an identity in algorithmic system that actually is not promoting all identities on site or on site of it, yeah. And it’s a hard one to answer, I have to say that, but most of the people say that actually inside of that, they never fully align their identities and they never fully feel accepted inside of the platform because of the restriction or the self-censor that they had to do being like Jews in their everyday life. So probably most of the content that you see about LGBTQI people inside of all this platform are actually more related to a trend that it was imposed by someone that’s already less relevant in the platform because when someone is already relevant into the platform and actually create content related to LGBTQI people or gender diversity, that’s when… that content became somehow acceptable inside of the platform. When you try to propose another things that they don’t consider, it could be like a, it could be part of a train or something like that. That content is, it doesn’t show as much as the other and the content actually became a way to restrict the way they present themselves online. This came on with one of the many things that they say they had to leave this platform needs to improve and be more clear about how they, how what are the community standards in terms of not only languages, but also the content that they are allowed there because sometimes the content they actually portray in their profiles is so similar to the gender binary. But somehow that content, that content is not showing in the same way or it just stay down on the platform without any reason. So that was one of the many things that they say. Also another thing that a lot of people then I try to like conveying like a general recommendation in after the many tours that I have with them is that we need to find as a community a way to shift this system toward a space or in which identification on part of these historical marginalized communities and underrepresented communities in a way that is actually made more sense that the mediation made by the different algorithms ensure the digital rights of the community. free of desperation or the being without sensory or fear of constant like cleaning their spaces or healing the spaces or construction of the identities in the sense of what is a space as normal.

Moderator:
One way to… So sorry to cut you in here, but so we’re just for the interest of time. Right, thank you so much. It’s right on time for seven minutes. So we’d like to move on to our next speaker for their next seven minutes. We have again joining us from online, Dana Raj. So yes, please go ahead as well as with your presentation.

Dhanaraj Thakur:
Okay, hello everyone. Can you see and hear me okay? Yep, all okay. Yes, great. Good. Thank you so much. Thank you to the organizers for the session and hello everyone. My name is Dana Raj Thakor. I am the research director at the Center for Democracy and Technology. I’m from Jamaica in the Caribbean, but I’m based in the United States. CDT is a tech policy organization based also in the United States and that focuses on human rights and digital spaces. So there are two main points I want to make with regard to the overall theme of this session. First, with regard to the issues around how language can be used for hate and to promote violence, which our previous speaker already alluded to, and how gender stereotypes can be also leveraged and used in language to promote false and misinformation are key aspects of the online information environment and contribute to the gender digital divide. The second point I want to make is that we often think of artificial intelligence tools like natural language processing tools and large language models in the ways that they can be used to address these problems, for example, to clean up the kind of hate speech and violence and misinformation that’s targeted at women and other gender identities. And I argue that this actually makes the problem worse. So to talk a bit more about language of hate and misinformation, mis and disinformation. This kind of violence, rhetoric, violent language, as well as mis and disinformation, as I mentioned, is predicated on gender stereotypes, which we heard previous speakers describe in better detail earlier, but all of those often have disproportionate impacts on women. And there is research around the world, many different countries, to show this to be the case. There is less research that focuses on non-binary and trans people, but the research that exists actually shows that the problem could be even worse for those groups of people. One important aspect of this is to take an intersectional approach, to not just look at gender, but other dimensions of identity. And when we do that, we find that there are subgroups that actually are more targeted with this kind of violent speech and more targeted with this kind of mis and disinformation. And this leads to several different kinds of impacts, one of which is that a negative impact on the gender digital divide, it actually makes it worse. And again, there’s research in different, particularly in Global South, that shows this. It undermines the political participation of women and other gender identities. It has serious economic health impacts, mental health impacts, and it has significant impacts on freedom of expression and chilling effects. In other words, it suppresses the speech of the people that are targeted, very often women in public life. One example I want to use is some research that we did to help illustrate this. This was focused on women of color political candidates. In the 2020 U.S. election, women of color is a term used in the U.S. to describe women of non-European descent, so Asian-American women, Latina women, African-American women, and others. We looked at data from Twitter during the 2020 elections, and we looked at a representative sample of all the candidates that ran at the federal level, at the national level in that election. And we found a couple of things with regard to women of color candidates. So here, I want to emphasize this intersectional approach to illustrate how these kinds of hate speech and misinformation are targeted at particular groups of women, so not women in general. What we found was that women of color political candidates were twice as likely as other candidates to be targeted with misinformation, twice as likely as other candidates, including white women and white men, and so on. There were four times as likely as white candidates to be subject to violent abuse online, violent speech online. And there are more likely than others to be targeted with a combination of false information and online abuse. I use this example to illustrate this problem of the severe kinds of impacts that particular women face online because of this kind of, the way language is used in this kind of hateful and violent way, as well as to propagate gender stereotypes to promote false information about women. So the other issue I wanted to talk about was the use of AI, which someone in the audience asked about. And I’ll focus on large language models. Large language models, think ChatGPT, are essentially a machine learning technique to look at large amounts of data, in this case, text, and make predictions about what kinds of text the user wants to see. So if you think of ChatGPT. you might put in a prompt, what day is it today? And based on all the training data it has available, it can make a guess. And to be clear, that’s all large language models do. They make guesses, very good guesses, but all they’re doing is making guesses or predictions. They’re not thinking, they’re not human, they’re just making guesses. The challenge for us is when large language models are applied to non-English languages. Most models, like Chad GPT and many other models, are based on data that’s available online. So they look at the entire internet and the web and draw data from that. As we know, the majority of the web is in English, even though the vast majority of the world does not speak English. So this is this kind of paradox and problem. So what that means is that there are many languages in the world which are referred to as low-resource languages. And I use a quote because I’m not sure that’s the appropriate term to use. But among computer scientists, they refer to them as low-resource languages. In other words, there’s not enough data available for those languages that can support the use, the training, of these large language models. Examples include Hindi, which is a very big language, Amharic, Telugu, Zulu, and so on and so on. These are not small languages in terms of population size, but they don’t have that much data available online. So because these languages are low-resource, the use of large language models in those cases won’t be as effective. And this is critical because it has implications for the use of these models to address some of the problems I mentioned earlier. The violent speech targeted at women and non-binary and trans people, and the misinformation targeted at women, particularly those in public life. What happens when we’re using non-English languages? These models, as a tool to solve the problem, will fall short. And here is the final point I want to end with, that in many of the countries where we talk about low-resource languages, many of the countries are in a global salt, where the digital divide exists, that is fewer people are online. There is a significant gender digital divide, which means that men are more likely to be online. Men are more likely to be online, they are producing more content online, which is the content that large language models use. So we have a vicious cycle that’s happening. The models are using content in these non-English contexts that are produced by men to propagate further stereotypes that can undermine and create further problems for the addressing problems like violence, feature and gender, mis- and disinformation. So I will stop here for now, and then we can talk further in subsequent discussions. Thank

Moderator:
you very much. Right, thank you very much, General Raj, for your sharing. It’s really interesting to see we addressed the question earlier brought up by the floor on what it looks like now about using AI to address this issue. And I really like that you mentioned how the gender linguistic stereotypes essentially is a vicious cycle in which the issue about the majority of content being English would also relate to the global south, global north divide. And that also ends up, you know, repropagating, reproducing that female and male traditional gender stereotype of which would be more likely to be online. And so we have time for our

Juliana Harsianti:
final speaker, just for the first round, seven minutes, also joining us from online, Julia. Hello. Thank you, Stella, Luke, and Nat Mission for inviting me to this interesting conversation. My name is Juliana. I’m from Indonesia. I’m actually, I was a bit myself as an independent researcher, but this time I will use my head as a translator for the Global Voice. Global citizen journalism platform but also working on the multilingual internet. Okay, I will start with the fact that language has such an important role to build the perception and image. Why? Because language can be seen as a form of magic that impacts the world. What we say and how we use language affects our thinking, imagination, and our reality. My language, Indonesian, doesn’t have a gender like Spanish or French, so I grew up without knowledge about how the gender language has the impact to build the perception. But, well, it changed when I started to learn French and then Spanish. At the time, I realized that the gender has some crucial impact on how the people who use the language have a perception of themselves. In those both languages, the gender automatically changes into masculine when the plural subject has the mixed gender. When I talked to friends who speak those two languages, they said it makes them think that masculine or man has a better position in the community or more superior than feminine or women. Besides the gender, language also has nuance. I will take the example in English. There are some words which have a negative connotation and are applied only to women and girls. Bossy, for example, has a pejorative meaning and is targeted to women and girls who want to try to lead the community or the group. That makes people think the women and the girls act like boss. It never happens in the men who want to try to lead in the community or the group. The pejorative meaning also happens in other languages who don’t have gender grammar. In Indonesia, for example, sadly, this pejorative language and the slur words are used quite a lot in online bullying when targeted women go to an LGBT group and use this kind of certain stereotype. And what’s the meaning in digital world? As I mentioned before, the pejorative and the slur language has been used to attack women, girls, and LGBT people when they are active in the internet. Several studies have been taken that online bullying will make them less active in the internet. This means a negative move when it comes to minimising gender digital divide. So it means women, girls, and LGBT people will be less active and afraid to speak up in the digital world. Another case is about the function of the internet, especially in the translation machine. There are some words when it translates from other languages to English, it automatically translates with the masculine subject. For example, if I want to translate the subject as a doctor, the result in English is he is a doctor. But when it comes to a nurse or a secretary, the subject is feminine or a woman. Later today, we now have the chat activity that has been mentioned in Dana’s presentation. And other large language models, we use AI to scrap and train the source from the internet. Why has this become a problem? Because I afraid in the future it will be decriminalized certain race, gender, and language if we couldn’t start to promote more gender-neutral and inclusive language. And what we could do as a community? We can provide a constant input, discussion, and reflection that could make the language more inclusive and gender-neutral in digital and real life. I appreciate the translation machine now is more gender-neutral and not associate some words or working or job occupation with certain gender. And those as a result from the community input whose constantly give the feedback into the translation machine company. As the closing, I believe the language is dynamic and I believe it still grow during the time in real and digital world. It needs constant work from the communities and who also give input about make the language more gender-neutral, more inclusive, as it could more fair for everybody. Thank you and waiting for the discussion.

Moderator:
Thank you so much, Juliana. Very interesting to hear from your perspective in the industry of translation. So we’ve heard from all our speakers for the first round. And I think I’d like to go to perhaps our second round, begin our second round of round table discussion. So looking at, perhaps I could start off with Dhanaraj for a question for you regarding what you feel on what measures can be taken to improve. Or any questions that you feel that coming from your perspective having researched, you know, the impact or the potential, well, in your case. that your case is against the potential of using AI. What do you think it needs to be discussed more, particularly?

Dhanaraj Thakur:
Yes. Thank you for the question. I think this topic is precisely what needs to be discussed more, particularly within the industry, around what I’d call the gender gap in training data. I mentioned the problem in the global south of the gender digital divide. There was a recent study from the University of Pittsburgh that looked at the training data that’s used for CHAT-GPT. Let’s take that as an example. The training data that’s used for CHAT-GPT generally and found that only 26.5% of that training data contained data that was authored by women. So the vast majority, almost three-quarters of the data was authored by men. So I often think then about the implications of this. If we think about how CHAT-GPT is being considered now and incorporated, for example, in schools and in the education system or models like CHAT-GPT and the kind of gender gap in the training data that exists and what implications that will have for youth going forward. I think many of the other speakers have already pointed to some of these kinds of problems. I think, therefore, it is the questions, particularly at a positive level, in the education system, in industry, about the gender gap in training data.

Moderator:
Right. Thank you so much, Dhanaraj. So since you mentioned schools, so we have an educator with us on our panel. I thought I’d like to hop over to Dr. Manjit for your thoughts on, well, you mentioned earlier that you were looking for perhaps a suggestion about a general language or a linguistic guideline. How do you foresee this can be related to what Dhanaraj mentioned about the data that’s being used to train these large language models?

Manjet Kaur Mehar Singh:
Hi there again. Okay. Just now, what I mentioned was on the learning guidelines. So basically… coming from a country in Southeast Asia, Malaysia, which is very, how do I say, governed by, how do I say, religious rules, you know, Islamic country, okay. So, there are a lot of things when it comes to this kind of biasness, language usage, the stereotypical issues, are swept under the carpet, okay. So, what is actually needed is coming out visibly, being more, how do I say, open, explicit in terms of learning, okay, and development. That’s very, very important, okay. So, it starts with education from the beginning, because this is an issue which is, that exists, but it’s not being addressed in the context of Malaysia, for example. So, it has to start with education, and it has to start with the educators themselves. If the educators do not believe in, how do I say, having equality, and then, at the same time, promoting diversity, it will be a failure. So, educators themselves must be trained on how they’re going to learn, and how they’re going to make their students learn and develop on this, okay. So, next one is, there are no clear rules and regulation or policies set by the government on these matters, okay. So, it should be led from the top. That’s very, very important. It should be top-down. So, when they are visible, clear rules and acts on how language is used to represent a particular group. So, there are some rules that people can fall back on. For example, if you go to advertising companies nowadays, if there’s no auditing done, and there’s no clear rules informed to them, okay, nobody will care, okay. So, that is very, very important in terms of leading from the top, having some rules. some policies in place. And next one, at the workplace itself. Workplace, for example, advertisement industry, for example, and all the other industries which are product-related to us particular groups, you know, they should have, how do I say, training at workplace for their employees, for their staff, to talk about these openly, to discuss about this matter, to have people of all groups to sit down together and deliberate on the matter openly. There should be no, how do I say, criticism against one particular group. Okay, one particular group is neglected or marginalized. Okay, it shouldn’t be dominated, for example, by the male only, okay? So these are the things that are very, very important, the training and the awareness at workplace, if learning and development did not work at the school. So this is where it happened.

Moderator:
Thank you so much, Dr. Manjit, for your perspective. And hopping over to some of our on-site panelists, maybe we can get Arnaldo, what do you think of the question on what was mentioned earlier about, you know, the potential negative case against the use of AI currently to address this issue?

Arnaldo de Santana:
All right. I really think that it is something that need to be, that we need to go under, to go to research more about it, because I see that AI has a perspective of improving and bringing something different and something new, but also reflects on the people that develops it. So if we have some structures that are structures of power, and we reproduce it to impose what is correct, or what’s not correct, it might not be something that is. quite applicable. I was thinking about also the perspective, the question that Will sent us of all the marginalized talking and languages such as Pajubá. And it remembered me about the Portuguese that is a variation of Portuguese that came with the people that were colonized. And also about the indigenous people talking in languages that were like borrowed from the world and especially in Brazil that we don’t know how to talk, how to teach and how to keep it going. So I feel that we have to develop something especially in internet that provides our existences to be more participative and that we do not erase our memories and our lives just because there is something and the colonialism is there to put in perspective what might be and who has the power. And this is always the cisgendered white male from Europe.

Moderator:
Right, thank you so much, Arnaldo. So that’s enough for the question. We’re moving on to our next question which would be how can these online linguistic gender stereotypes result in negative experiences for youth both online and in the real world? So I’d like to start with our onsite speaker, Julia if you would be able to share on this, yeah, on the question.

Júlia Tereza Rodrigues Koole:
It is hard to pinpoint or to sort out where to start. Because so many possibilities and they are not. they’re never positive, probably. For my line of study, we have minimum damage outcomes, and also we have outcomes that end lives, and that end groups too, because this mobilization of online linguistic gender stereotypes on the internet can drive away many women and many gender diverse people, trans people, specifically from spaces. That is probably the most recurring negative effect. The ones who power through, the ones who do decide to move on and face the discrimination and be there, and do not think, do not decide that they don’t want to be there, because there, meaning any social media or platform group, study group, or a game community, if they don’t decide to move on, they decide to stay in that community, they will over and over experience a gradative hate and a gradative more violent experiences, which can result into distortion of self-image, of self-worth. It can result to the many… mental diseases and also it will always end up building in their minds that that is not a space for them. And that or they should be under a specific expectation of what is gender and how they should behave and how they should talk.

Moderator:
Right, thank you so much, Julia. So you mentioned the perception of self-worth and I think it’s really good to ask. So how, for our speakers, how can such online linguistic gender stereotypes affect users’ perceptions of their self-worth and value? And the secondary follow-up question would be what implications would this have on our current digital, gender digital divide? So I’d like to start this round of question and answer off with your opinion from Umut.

Umut Pajaro Velasquez:
Okay, well, my research is about the effects that this kind of use of gender stereotype language has on the self-identity of the people. Most of the people say to me that they actually never get to fully feel identified with the platform that they were using because most of the time they had to mold themselves to something that they aren’t. So they came up with kind of problems or anxiety, just how to present themselves online in a way that actually they don’t go against the community standards. And so came with some issues or sometimes get some people actually stop using the platform because they never feel. were there and they felt left behind all the conversation and they became like a issue in the way they socialize with the rest of their partners or the rest of community because they actually, they can’t fully express themselves on their plan. So we see that actually the platforms that’s in the community standard or the way they moderate the content are seen to be like not harmful, but actually they are when it comes to gender diversity because people are not adapted to the normaties or the roles expected by the gender binarity are affected in a way that they can’t fully express themselves in the platform. So that came up with consequences to their mental health. Right, thank you so much.

Moderator:
It’s very, I mean, I think it’s very enlightening that you mentioned that they never feel fully identified. And I guess the sense of belonging, which was also mentioned earlier by our panel, it’s really important to consider. So for the same question, I’d like to go over to perhaps Juliana, what your thoughts are on, how can such online linguistic gender stereotypes affect self-worth and value?

Juliana Harsianti:
Okay, maybe because I will talk about the, the slur and the negative words has been addressed to women and girls, and then it will be affect, as I mentioned, it will affect how they decide to act active in internet. So yes, as Umut said, this is important to address this kind of online bullying with the certain negative words, because I know it’s understand it’s the languages difference. nuance in different cultures. But if some language has a certain negative impact or negative meaning in some culture, maybe we can think we can promote more inclusive or more gender-neutral in language. So it can be with people have more safe to express themselves in the internet. And the second one is about the provide the content in internet with the women and the girls perspective and profile. Before the LGBT era, Wikipedia has the work, has organized several Wikigap. Wikigap is the translate and create the content about the women. So the internet will be more content and more profile about the women and by the women. So I think this is my opinion.

Moderator:
Right. Thank you very much, Juliane. I mean, like you mentioned, real-life examples of what’s generally attributed online. And I think we have an intervention from you.

Luke Rong Guang Teoh:
Add on to that point. And what we’ve been seeing is that the gender divide has been increasing ever since 2019. So despite the pandemic forcing a worldwide digital transformation and the emerging technologies and rapid advancements have still resulted in women being left behind. And global statistics, in my opinion, do not do this issue justice as the gender divide worsens when considering further marginalized women like the elderly or women in rural areas or other parts of the community. And according to UNICEF, more than 90% of jobs worldwide have a digital component. And with most of the data on the gender digital divide being on women above 18, what we’re seeing is there’s not enough research done for women below or young girls below 18. And basically my point is that these online linguistic gender stereotypes will most definitely affect their perceptions of what jobs or careers are quote-unquotable, they’re able to choose or supposed to be for them. Thank you.

Moderator:
Right, so thank you very much from our speakers for a round two of sessions. So we’re coming up to the last six minutes. I’d like to ask if there are any questions from our on-site participants and online as well. Right, go ahead, please.

Audience:
Hey, okay. So thank you. My name is Renata, I’m from the Youth Brazilian Delegation. First of all, thank you for the panel, really, really, really interesting. I want to actually make some sort of a tangent comment and to discuss a bit about platform algorithms, especially in visual platforms, maybe something related to what Mr. Vasquez mentioned before about TikTok and Instagram. We see that young girls using platforms to promote themselves, using their own bodies as commodity and being vulnerable to predators. So I was wondering what the panel might think that we can do to protect our youth in digital platforms considering this and how we can moderate comments and the language and how civil society can act in defense of our youth, especially young girls in these visual platforms. Thank you.

Moderator:
Thank you for the question. Maybe, Dana Raj, would you have any comments on that?

Dhanaraj Thakur:
Yes, thank you for the question. I’ll make maybe three quick suggestions or thoughts. So one is there’s a lot that… the platforms themselves can do. So for example, you mentioned TikTok, Instagram and others in having a better design of their platform to allow the youth and users of the platform to address, to better control the kind of bad content or push back against bad content that they might receive. There’s also the privacy and or targeted kind of model that all these platforms use. Having greater privacy protections on these platforms can reduce the degree of targeting and therefore the degree of what I call algorithmic amplification that you’ll see or that you’ll observe on these platforms. So for example, if it is a case of young girls either being exploited or things like that, the thing to which the algorithms will promote that kind of thing can be reduced, particularly on the platform side, if there are changes to the design and changes to how the incentives that they have in place. And the last thing I’ll say is that a lot of what happens on the platform is still unclear because as researchers, as governments, civil society activists, we don’t have a lot of insight. We don’t have sufficient insight into what’s happening on the platforms. And what’s important there is that the platform, the social media platform provide more data in a safe and secure way for researchers to better understand what’s happening because then we ourselves could come up with better solutions to address some of the problems that the person in the audience raised.

Moderator:
Right, thank you very much. Thank you very much, Dhanaraj, for your comment on that. I guess we can see that hopefully in the future, we definitely do need to have more representation from private sector on such an issue. So I’d like to move on to a question we have from an online participant. Thank you very much, Tsukiho Kishida, for your, so I’ll just read it out. Thank you for sharing important perspective. You’re a master student from social linguistic and research cyber bullying in terms of. communication. You’re interested in the presentation. Your question is, it’s difficult to judge whether some hate speech happens from gender bias because there are many factors in a context. Under this situation, should we tackle hate speech from gender stereotypes? So perhaps we’ll have a youth perspective on this and then we’ll hop over to Donna Rogers again or anyone else from the panel who wants to take this question. Maybe Umut, could we get your input on it? Okay. What should we do to tackle hate speech from gender stereotype?

Júlia Tereza Rodrigues Koole:
Firstly, take care of youth. We need to bet on next generations. Our age group, like 20 years old to 50, 70 years old, are already dealing with too many problems that stem from education in the first and the second infancy. There are many ways to do that and each school should study what are the main problems in the community. Sometimes girls have problems in addressing their physiological necessities. Other communities have more problems talking about sexual education, other communities have other problems, talking about the social place of the woman and the man and other gender diverse people. But also, you as an undergraduate can study also how to generate empathy in people who are now disconnected from this scene. What can you do to get them closer to you and to the topic and to the subject, because we have also a really apathetic population in our age, in the undergraduates, in the majors, in the PhDs, that they don’t want to progress. They don’t want to go any further because they think it’s obvious, like everybody reserves equal rights, but how can we captivate the audience who isn’t opposed but not actually involved in the development of a better world?

Moderator:
Thank you, Julia. So we’ll just hop off to one of our online speakers, Dhanaraj, and then we’ll follow with Arnaldo’s intervention. Thank you.

Dhanaraj Thakur:
Great, thank you. I fully agree with Julia’s response. And I just wanted to add that, and in fact, I think Julia had mentioned this earlier, there is a group of younger boys, men that are influenced heavily in what researchers call a manosphere, this kind of bubble of hate speech. and gender stereotypes that drives a lot of hate that comes from them. I think a big issue here then is for young men, men, boys, particularly cisgendered men like myself, to reflect and consider the impacts of hate speech and or false information that we might share online. And as I said earlier, there has to be a degree of empathy. But I think starting with young men and boys is important.

Arnaldo de Santana:
So I’d like to add also that although we don’t have any legislation that works internationally to talk about these patterns and how to directly put something as hate speech and as gender stereotype, I feel that one can be used to identify another. And probably in the future the way to tackle it must be breaking the stereotypes. But nowadays I feel that it’s not necessarily viable. We have so much written stereotypes that we need daily to break and innovate that I feel that we need more time to talk about it, to innovate it. And I feel that one can be used to identify and try to be better in the future.

Moderator:
Thank you so much, Ronaldo. So just quickly reading out Umut’s response in the chat, probably changing the narrative of gender stereotype that is under attack to generate a response that does not leave doubt with what is actually said, that what is actually said is hate and not freedom of expression and that it affects the human’s rights. women are gender diverse people. So really quickly, Juliana, if you could keep your comments under one minute.

Juliana Harsianti:
Okay, I’ll be short comment because others already mentioned by Julia and Dennis. I think, yeah, it’s been quite challenges to how to beat the headspace in online space because when some women and girls will attack in online space, some people will say that it’s just your feelings, so you just don’t take it for granted or just don’t take in your mind. But I think it will be empathy or some, not regulation as the law at the country, but more community regulation, how it could be shared or how it could be talked in this community and take some action from the field, from the community member in online. Thank you.

Moderator:
Sorry to cut you here because we’re over time by five minutes. Thank you everyone for joining in our panel. If I could just get everyone to maybe come in for a picture, if you could have your video on, Dana Raj, Umut, Dr. Manjit, and Juliana. Juliana is fine. And if anyone else wants to join from the audience is also okay. And yeah, we’ll just get a quick picture with everyone. All right. Thank you. Thank you so much, everyone. So, yeah, thank you so much for your sharing and everything. I think it’s really great that we had an opportunity to discuss this. We see a lot of future for this topic and maybe we’ll see everyone at a regional IGF or at the next IGF next year. So thanks again and if you’re interested to network with any of the speakers after, please do feel free to contact the session organisers and to look out for more from netmission.asia. We’ll definitely be continuing the discussion on this topic, leading for a youth perspective from the youth ourselves. So thank you once again to our speakers joining us from all across the world and for all our participants and our panellists here.

Audience

In Africa, the tracking and prosecution of cybercrime is often impeded by poor addressing systems and high residence mobility. This poses a significant challenge for law enforcement agencies trying to identify and apprehend individuals involved in criminal activities using SIM cards. The absence of a proper addressing system in many African countries further hinders the tracking of cybercrime. As a result, there is a pressing need for digital addressing in Africa to enhance cybersecurity and facilitate more efficient law enforcement.

Digital addressing would provide a specific location for every citizen, allowing law enforcement agencies to more effectively identify and track individuals involved in criminal activities. It is important to note that digital addressing is not synonymous with surveillance; rather, it aims to establish a means of knowing the whereabouts of individuals, facilitating the provision of safety measures, and improving law enforcement efforts.

In addition to digital addressing, there is also a need for the capacity building of judges to ensure the effective implementation of digital laws. The successful implementation of legislation involves various stakeholders, including the executive, Parliament, civil society, and the judiciary. The judiciary plays a critical role in interpreting the laws, ensuring their proper application, and upholding justice. Therefore, providing judges with the necessary knowledge and skills to understand and apply digital laws is crucial to their effective implementation.

Moreover, judicial transformation in Africa has the potential to advance democracy. This notion was expressed by a member of parliament from Cameroon who recognized that transforming the judicial system could contribute to improving governance and democratic processes in Africa. By enhancing the independence, efficiency, and transparency of the judiciary, judicial transformation can help ensure fair and just legal systems, thereby promoting democracy and the rule of law.

The African Union (AU) should also consider conducting a survey on the impact of member countries not adopting the Malawi Convention for digital transformation. The low adoption of this convention in member countries is hindering the advancements in digital transformation across the continent. Understanding the reasons behind this low adoption rate can help the AU address the challenges and advocate for the implementation of digital transformation strategies more effectively.

On a positive note, The Gambia is making significant progress in its digital transformation strategy with guidance from the Economic Commission for Africa (ECA). The country has successfully laid broadband networks across the country through projects such as the ECHO-1 project and the National Broadband Network. The Gambia has also developed an ICT master plan that encompasses various aspects, including capacity development, youth and women empowerment, human capital, e-agriculture, and national broadband network strategies. Additionally, consultancy for a digital ID system has been completed with the assistance of the ECA. The Gambia is also in the process of establishing a digital addressing system, with the capital and major cities already covered. These efforts demonstrate The Gambia’s commitment to embracing digital transformation and reaping its numerous benefits.

Overall, improving digital addressing, capacity building of judges, and promoting judicial transformation are essential steps towards enhancing cybersecurity, law enforcement, and democracy in Africa. Conducting surveys and providing guidance on digital transformation strategies will further support the continent’s progress in this regard. The Gambia serves as a notable example of a country making commendable strides in their digital transformation journey.

Luís Soares Barbosa

The analysis highlights several important points regarding the digital transition in Africa. It acknowledges that Africa has both weaknesses and frogging opportunities. One key strength is its vibrant youth population, which can drive digital transformation. Moreover, Africa faces fewer legacy challenges than other regions, giving it an advantage in embracing new technologies.

One argument made is the importance of digital governance in the digital transition process. Effective digital governance can significantly impact the successful implementation and adoption of digital technologies. Case examples from Cape Verde and Gambia support this argument, demonstrating the positive outcomes achieved through effective digital governance.

The European Union (EU) has a vision to strengthen Africa’s economic sector and make it a producer in the global economy. The EU aims to promote diversification and development through strategies that foster economic growth and encourage active participation in the global economy.

Improving the effectiveness of government and public administration in the digital transition is another vital aspect. By bringing the state closer to citizens and meeting their needs, governments can enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of their digital initiatives. Examples from Cape Verde and Gambia illustrate the positive impact of such approaches.

While digital technology holds great potential, it is important to note that there are no free lunches. This means that careful consideration and planning are required to address challenges and ensure equitable distribution of benefits.

Cooperation and proper management capabilities are essential for effective digital governance. Collaboration between different ministries and the development of management capabilities play a crucial role in implementing and managing digital initiatives successfully.

Political will is crucial for the transformation towards a more democratic system. Strong support and commitment from political leaders are necessary to implement necessary reforms and ensure a smooth transition to a democratic and inclusive society.

Building collective trust through digital technologies is also important. Digital technologies can improve citizens’ lives and contribute to building trust. This trust is vital for sustainable adoption and acceptance of digital technologies.

African governments face challenges in attracting and maintaining technical skills. Technical skills often move to the private sector or abroad, posing a challenge for governments seeking a skilled workforce to drive digital transformation.

Digital identity is crucial in the digital transition. The Weneke case in Gambia serves as a pilot project for creating digital identities using local communities. Digital identity provides access to services, improves inclusion, and ensures security and privacy.

Investment in Africa to design national and sectorial strategies is beneficial. Investing in the justice sector has resulted in positive outcomes. Emphasizing engagement processes over relying solely on data is crucial in designing effective strategies and policies.

In conclusion, Africa has weaknesses and frogging opportunities in its digital transformation journey. Effective digital governance, the EU’s vision for the economic sector, improving government effectiveness, and citizen-state interaction are essential for successful digital transition. Challenges such as attracting technical skills and the importance of digital identity are also key considerations. The analysis provides valuable insights into driving digital transformation in Africa.

Lamin Camara

During a recent discussion, several key initiatives were highlighted to address digital transformation and promote sustainable development goals in the country. One of the primary areas of focus is addressing connectivity. To improve connectivity, the government plans to create more capacity and redundancy for existing submarine cables. This will enhance the country’s ability to provide reliable and high-speed internet access to its citizens.

Regarding digital identification, the government has developed a comprehensive digital master plan and strategy. One of the challenges mentioned during the discussion was the need for better coordination and data integration. To address this, the government plans to integrate existing digital addressing systems and SIM registration platforms. By streamlining these processes, the government aims to enhance the efficiency and security of digital identification systems.

Promoting financial inclusion is another important aspect of the country’s digital transformation efforts. The government is focused on establishing a national switch, which will facilitate payment gateways and enable easier access to financial services for all citizens. This initiative aims to reduce financial barriers and empower individuals to participate fully in the economy.

Cybersecurity is a critical concern in the digital age, and the government is taking proactive steps to address this issue. The development of a cybercrime bill is underway, which will help establish a legal framework to prevent and combat cyber threats. Additionally, plans are in place to establish cybersecurity emergency response teams. These dedicated teams will be equipped to swiftly respond to and mitigate any cyber attacks, thereby safeguarding the country’s digital infrastructure.

The digital divide, referring to the unequal accessibility to digital technologies and internet connectivity, is another challenge being addressed. The government has identified challenges related to last mile network access and device affordability. To bridge this gap, the government plans to develop strategies that utilize mixed technologies. Furthermore, collaborations with device providers are being explored to achieve affordable options and increase accessibility to digital devices.

Notably, the government is also keen on developing localized e-applications that address specific local problems. To avoid reinventing the wheel, the government intends to adopt successful platforms from partner countries. Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) have already been signed with countries such as Rwanda, Mauritius, and Nigeria to facilitate the exchange of innovative digital solutions.

In conclusion, the country is actively pursuing various initiatives to achieve digital transformation and support sustainable development goals. Efforts are being made to enhance connectivity, improve digital identification systems, promote financial inclusion, ensure cybersecurity, bridge the digital divide, and develop localized e-applications. These initiatives demonstrate the government’s commitment to leveraging digital technologies for the benefit of its citizens and overall socio-economic growth.

Anand Ramaswamy

Digital transformation has the potential to advance Africa, and the development of the ECA payment system is one initiative towards this goal. However, cybercrime acts as a hindrance to digital transformation, with underreporting being a key issue. Mobile money schemes and other cybercriminal activities pose challenges in this regard. There is a need for robust cybersecurity measures, considering the unique legal frameworks of each African country. Technical solutions, like cell site triangulation and surveillance cameras, have been effective in combating corruption and fraud. Specific training for judges is also necessary to strengthen the judicial system. By addressing these challenges, Africa can unlock the full potential of digital transformation and foster sustainable development.

Joao Cruz

Cap Verde has made significant progress in digitalisation since the early 20s, presenting big opportunities for enhancing service delivery. The country has numerous office infrastructures and applications that can be utilised to build services for its citizens. Cap Verde also has a unique system for digital identification, enabling the development of multiple services. Recently, an online service was launched allowing citizens to access their criminal records through a new Mobile Key based on digital certificates.

To further support their digital initiatives, Cap Verde is creating a digital ecosystem through a technological park and the establishment of two new data centres. The technological park will house several companies, including government data. This development aligns with Cap Verde’s commitment to achieving SDG 9, which focuses on industry, innovation, and infrastructure. Furthermore, the digital ecosystem contributes to SDG 11, which aims to build sustainable cities and communities.

However, there are several challenges that Cap Verde must address in its digital transformation journey. One significant challenge is digital literacy among its citizens, as people need to acquire more skills to effectively utilise the internet for productivity. To tackle this issue, the government is working on a digital literacy program to increase citizens’ proficiency. Another major challenge is cybersecurity, as the country faced a significant attack on its systems in 2020. Efforts are underway to enhance Cap Verde’s cybersecurity systems and protect against future threats.

In addition to these challenges, change management and organisational shift are proven to be difficult during the course of digital transformation. Resistance from employees and the existence of silos within the government hinder the smooth transition. These challenges must be addressed to ensure a successful digital transformation.

Cap Verde’s young population is a valuable asset that needs to be effectively utilised. The country should explore avenues to leverage the skills and talents of its young workforce to drive economic growth and create decent work opportunities. Recognising this, Cap Verde should focus on developing programs and initiatives that cater to the needs and aspirations of its youth.

Despite the challenges, Cap Verde benefits from its small size when it comes to law enforcement. Due to the country’s limited land area, knowing someone’s location is not difficult, making it easier for law enforcement agencies to operate effectively.

The concept of digital addressing holds potential for countries with larger territories in Africa. Cap Verde’s experience suggests that adopting digital addressing systems could bring benefits to other African nations. However, it is essential to address concerns surrounding data privacy and protection, especially when tracking registered SIM cards. Safeguarding personal information should be a priority when implementing digital addressing systems.

Governance plays a critical role in Cap Verde’s digital transformation journey. The government has included all sectors in its strategy, and new projects undergo careful analysis and validation before implementation. Furthermore, standards are being developed to ensure the responsible and ethical use of technology.

Cap Verde’s digital strategies are being designed with sustainability in mind. They aim to avoid relying on legacy systems and focus on adopting technology that is environmentally sustainable in the long run. This approach aligns with SDG 9, which emphasises the need for industry, innovation, and infrastructure to be sustainable.

It is important for other sectors to recognise the benefits of digital transformation. Cap Verde has incorporated the goals of various sectors into its digital strategy, reinforcing the idea that digital transformation is not limited to specific industries but spans across the entire government.

In conclusion, Cap Verde has made remarkable strides in digitalisation, greatly enhancing service delivery. However, challenges such as digital literacy, cybersecurity, change management, and organisational shift persist. Efforts to better utilise the young population and address law enforcement needs have been observed. The concept of digital addressing holds promise for larger African countries, provided that data privacy and protection concerns are appropriately addressed. Governance plays a crucial role in steering Cap Verde’s digital transformation journey towards sustainability. Recognising the benefits of digital transformation, other sectors should proactively embrace digital initiatives to drive development and meet the goals set by SDG 9.

Rose Mosero Maina

Kenya recognizes the immense potential of digital transformation in driving its economic growth and has implemented a comprehensive strategy to harness this opportunity. As part of its strategy, the country has included Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) in its long-term strategic goals from 2012 to 2030. This demonstrates Kenya’s commitment to leveraging digital technologies to support its overall development.

Furthermore, Kenya has made significant efforts to improve its digital infrastructure. The country plans to enhance its national fiber optic backbone by extending it by 100,000 kilometers. This investment in infrastructure will lay the foundation for faster and more reliable internet connectivity, enabling the digital transformation to thrive. Additionally, Kenya already offers over 5,000 digital services online, further establishing its position as a leader in digital innovation.

To ensure that the digital transformation is conducted ethically and lawfully, Kenya has prioritised the establishment of data governance structures. This includes enacting Data Protection laws and creating the Office of the Data Protection Commissioner. These measures are essential for safeguarding individuals’ rights and promoting responsible data use, addressing concerns related to privacy and security.

However, despite these efforts, Kenya faces the challenge of addressing the digital divide. Connecting people, promoting digital literacy, and providing relevant devices to underserved communities remain major hurdles. The government and private sector must collaborate to bridge this gap and create equal access to digital opportunities. The private sector, in particular, plays a vital role in advancing digital transformation by offering affordable mobile devices, providing financial inclusion, and creating digital business opportunities.

Kenya has embraced technology and digital transformation, with both the government and private sector actively advocating for digital change. Kenya takes pride in its status as the “Silicon Savannah,” reflecting its commitment to technological innovation and digitalisation. Examples of digital transformation in Kenya include initiatives like digitising land records and digitising identification documents, demonstrating the country’s determination to leverage technology across various sectors.

When it comes to data governance and protection, the perceived resistance may largely stem from a lack of education about the benefits of these measures rather than outright opposition to change. Kenya has already enacted data protection laws and is working to raise awareness through the Office of the Data Protection Commissioner, aiming to educate the public about the importance of data protection in fostering trust and ensuring responsible use of data.

In terms of service delivery, Kenya recognises the need for a national addressing strategy. The current addressing system, which relies on landmarks or specific service information, is inefficient. Developing a national addressing system will improve service delivery by enabling better identification of locations and ensuring efficient provision of services.

Digital addressing services, which merge the digital and physical worlds, can greatly enhance governance and service delivery. By using digital addressing services, Kenya can improve efficiency in serving its citizens’ needs and promote better coordination between government agencies.

While there are challenges related to the duplication of projects due to government agencies working in silos, Kenya supports cross-ministerial collaboration to address this issue. By designating specific ministries to guide projects and including the data protection commissioner in data governance issues, the country aims to prevent duplication and promote effective project execution.

In conclusion, Kenya recognises the significant role of digital transformation in driving economic growth. The country’s digital transformation strategy, investment in digital infrastructure, and focus on data governance are key pillars of its approach. Efforts to address the digital divide, leveraging the involvement of the private sector, are essential to ensure equitable access to digital opportunities. Kenya’s embrace of technology and commitment to effective project management indicate its determination to succeed in the digital era.

Morten Meyhoff-Nielsen.

Digital transformation plays a crucial role in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the African Union Agenda 2063. Africa’s youth population is projected to reach 70% by 2050, making up 42% of the global youth population. To harness this demographic advantage, it is essential to leverage digital technology. However, Africa faces several challenges on its digital transformation journey.

One of the key challenges is limited internet access. While Africa has made significant progress, with internet access increasing from 6% in 2005 to 40% at the time of the discussion, there remains a substantial divide between urban and rural areas. Additionally, a gender gap persists, with 60% of Africa’s population remaining offline. Bridging these divides and ensuring universal internet access is vital for inclusive growth.

Cybersecurity poses another significant challenge to Africa’s digital transformation. Cybersecurity issues cost the continent 10% of its GDP per year. Developing adequate digital transformation strategies, including capacity building in cybersecurity, is necessary to safeguard against potential threats and ensure a secure digital ecosystem.

Furthermore, change management presents a challenge to digital transformation. Innovation and change can disrupt business processes, and not all organizations are equally open to embracing change. Overcoming resistance to change is vital for successful digital transformation.

In terms of governance, effective digital governance is paramount. It can help improve the effectiveness of government and public administration, bridge the gap between states and citizens’ expectations, and contribute to broader development objectives. Implementing robust digital governance frameworks ensures digital sovereignty and the flourishing of the digital economy.

Prioritizing resource constraints is crucial when implementing digital transformation strategy frameworks. The African Union’s Digital Transformation Strategy Framework for 2020-2030 aims to assist countries in prioritizing their needs based on available resources. This approach ensures efficient resource allocation and maximizes the impact of digital transformation initiatives.

Collaboration between ministries and government agencies is essential in achieving effective government strategies. Siloed approaches can lead to duplication of projects and initiatives, hindering progress. By combining expertise and resources across different ministries and sectors, better results can be achieved.

Technology also has the potential to support anti-corruption efforts, increase transparency, and foster greater engagement and accountability. It can be a powerful tool in driving sustainable development and achieving SDG 16 – Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions.

Key enablers for digital transformation include infrastructure, affordability, reliability, and skills. Investment in digital infrastructure, ensuring affordable access to technology, reliable digital services, and developing the necessary skills in both the population and the private sector are crucial for successful digital transformation.

The technopolitical dynamics between global players in North America, Europe, and Asia can provide opportunities for African countries to benefit. Engaging in collaborations and leveraging these dynamics can accelerate digital transformation on the continent.

In conclusion, digital transformation holds great potential for Africa’s development. However, it is essential to address challenges such as limited internet access, cybersecurity threats, resistance to change, and effective governance. By prioritizing resource constraints, promoting collaboration, and investing in necessary enablers, Africa can harness the power of digital technology to achieve the SDGs and the African Union Agenda 2063.

Mactar Seck

Digital transformation has the potential to play a significant role in achieving sustainable development goals in Africa. Over the years, there has been progress in internet access on the continent, with an increase from 6% to 40% since 2005. This signifies improving connectivity in Africa, which is crucial for driving digital transformation. However, despite this progress, there are still several challenges that need to be addressed.

One of the main challenges is the existence of a digital divide. Approximately 60% of the African population remains offline, highlighting the disparity in access to digital technologies. This divide is further intensified by limited internet connectivity in rural areas, where only 23% of people have access to the internet. Additionally, there is an 11% gender gap in internet connectivity, which hinders the full participation of women in the digital transformation process.

To effectively harness the benefits of digital transformation, it is essential to have adequate digital policies that cater to the specific needs of African countries. The policy framework should address the challenges of the digital divide and promote inclusivity in the use of digital technologies. It should also focus on bridging the urban-rural divide in internet connectivity and closing the gender gap.

Another important aspect is data governance, which ensures digital sovereignty and protects citizens. The emergence of advanced technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI) requires robust data governance frameworks. By having control over their data, African countries can safeguard their citizens’ privacy and create job opportunities in the digital economy.

The African Union’s digital transformation strategy includes various components, such as digital finance, digital skills, innovation, and capacity building. These components are essential for African countries to leverage digital technologies and achieve their sustainable development goals. The strategy also emphasizes the importance of addressing infrastructural gaps and cybersecurity concerns, as these are crucial prerequisites for the success of digital transformation initiatives.

Digital ID and digital trade are also highlighted as crucial aspects to consider in the digital transformation journey. The African Union’s digital transformation strategy recognizes the significance of digital ID and digital trade and seeks to incorporate them into the overall implementation plan.

Furthermore, the analysis highlights instances where digital technology has been used effectively to fight corruption. Examples include the implementation of digital taxation, which has resulted in a 55% increase in government revenue, and the use of a human resource management system to combat the issue of phantom employees drawing salaries.

The Kenya model is cited as a positive example of successful digital transformation in Africa. Kenya has seen notable outcomes from its digital transformation initiatives, including approximately 10% of GDP being attributed to digital transformation, 98% mobile money usage, and 65% internet access in the country. Other African countries can draw inspiration from Kenya’s success and tailor their own strategies accordingly.

The United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (UN-ECA) supports African countries in developing their national digital identities and digital economy. This support is significant in promoting the adoption of digital technologies and achieving sustainable development goals.

Capacity building programs are identified as crucial for enhancing knowledge in areas such as technology, cybersecurity, and fintech. These programs can help address the manpower and resource shortages faced by some African countries in implementing digital strategies. Noteworthy examples include planning to launch a parliamentary capacity building program on the digital economy, technology, cybersecurity, and fintech.

In conclusion, digital transformation has the potential to bring about significant positive change in Africa. However, to fully harness its benefits, it is imperative to bridge the digital divide, implement adequate digital policies, establish robust data governance frameworks, address infrastructural gaps and cybersecurity concerns, and promote digital ID and digital trade. The success of digital transformation initiatives also relies on effective capacity-building programs and drawing inspiration from successful implementations, such as the Kenya model. Ultimately, by embracing digital transformation, African countries can strive towards achieving their sustainable development goals and creating a more digitally inclusive society.

Morten Meyhoff-Nielsen.:
Bye. Bye. Bye. Hello. I think we’re about ready to start. I’m just looking at the online. So good morning. My name is Morten Meyhoff-Nielsen. I’m with the United Nations University’s e-government unit in Portugal. This is, I’ll be the moderator for this session. We have three panelists joining online. The session is organized with Uneke and Mactar Seck is here to represent that, and we’ll do the welcome. And then we’ll start the discussion, including with our three online panelists.

Mactar Seck:
Thank you very much. And good morning, good afternoon, wherever you are. To be part of this important workshop, talking on the focus on digital transformation, I think we all agree that digital transformation can play an important role for achieving this sustainable development goal, as well as aspiration of African Union Agenda 2063. And since the beginning, we are in this IGF forum. Let’s start since 2005. Since 2005, we have African country have made a lot of progress on their digital agenda, because we come to around 6% Internet access, and today, we are at 40% people connected on Internet. But also, we have several challenges, because 60% of our population are offline. It is something we need to think about, to pose us a question, to ask us one question, if our digital policy are adequate to the need of African country. Second, this digital divide also remains a big challenge in the continent, between the urban city and the rural area also, because the rural area is connected around 23%. Also, we have this digital gender gap. 45% of men are connected, compared to 34% women. There is a gap of 11%. And still, we have 500 million people without any legal form of identity. Another one, it is cyber security, which also remains a big challenge. As you know, cyber security cost to last year 10% of our GDP, African GDP. It is a lot compared to other sectors. We need also to begin to find how we can develop adequate digital transformation strategy. We have capacity to leverage this digital technology to mitigate climate change, digital technology to assist the youth and women to be part of this foreign revolution. As you know, we have 70% of our population will be youth by 2050, and it will represent 42% of the world youth. And we need to build their capacity on this foreign revolution. Also, we are facing a lot of challenge also on this emerging technology, like this generative artificial intelligence. We need to focus to think about what kind of regulation we have to put in place to take benefits of all opportunity offered by this emerging technology. Our data governance also need to be reviewed with this development, this advanced technology. In the development of AI also, we need to support African countries to implement this data governance framework to ensure this digital sovereignty happen in the continent. It is a key area where we want to have a discussion today with our several partners. We have a lot of partners around this platform. Some are here in person, others are online. And we have also, we acknowledge the presence of the African parliamentary network in this room, as well as GIZ. We have our partner, the U.S. Embassy, as well as UN University, to be part of this interesting discussion, as well as the authority in Gambia and in Cape Verde. And once again, thank you all to be there, and I wish you a fruitful discussion. Thank you.

Morten Meyhoff-Nielsen.:
Thank you, Mactar. So before we start, I’d like to introduce the panel. I’ll start with our colleagues online. We have Joao Cruz, who is the National Director of State Modernization at the Ministry of Modernization of the State and Public Administration in Cape Verde. He is currently eight hours behind us, so he’s up very early. We are also joined by Rose Mainer. I apologize, Rose, for the mispronunciation, I think. Rose is the Deputy Commissioner at the Office for Data Protection Commission in Kenya. With us today, we also have Anant, who is at the U.S. mission to the African Union at Zimbabwe, and particularly also dealing with privacy and security issues in the digital space. We have Mactar, who is from our colleagues at UNECA.Mactar is the Director for Technology and Innovation at UNECA. And then, last but not least, my colleague, Deputy Director Luis Barbosa at UNU-EGOV As Mactar has already hinted at, we have a number of sort of key questions around the digital transformation strategies in Africa in particular, not only around governance and intergovernance, but also the collaboration and coordination of these digital strategies in the domestic context, both in terms of the immediate, but also medium and long-term strategic focus, and not least how to build these whole-of-government digital ecosystems that we hear so much about in order to allow for both service production and service delivery based on data, identities, signatures, et cetera. So asking the audience, and let’s start with you, Joao, first, what are the sort of three key opportunities that Capaverde is currently focusing on in the digital space? And what are the associated challenges that you are tackling at the moment?

Joao Cruz:
First of all, I don’t know if you hear me.

Morten Meyhoff-Nielsen.:
We hear you.

Joao Cruz:
Okay, thank you. I would like to thank for the invitation first. As you know, Capaverde is an African country outside the continent, and we have specific particularities, but we still have, I think, the same challenges, and we have some opportunities that maybe are different from other countries. So right now, enhancing the service delivery is one of the things that is a big opportunity for us, because Capaverde, since the early 20s start the digitalization of the government, and we have a lot of the office infrastructures and applications. And right now, we have a big opportunity to take advantage of that. We have a lot of data, we have a lot of application, and we just need right now to cross this information across the government and build some service for the citizen in line, in terms of end-to-end services. We have another big opportunity related to the digital identification. Right now, we have a new digital ID based on a mobile, we call it mobile key, based on digital certificates, and Capaverde have a very good system in terms of the identification. The data that we have in our database for the identification of the people is unique, and it’s a big opportunity for us to build and have the services for the people that we have in our country. As an example, we launched three months ago a service that is the criminal hackers online, so the people right now can ask for their criminal hacker. They just need to have this strong digital ID based on digital certificates. So this is another big opportunity for us, I think. And I would say we have another big opportunity based on a digital ecosystem that we are creating here in Capverde. We are finishing our new digital technological park, where we will have a lot of companies, and the government as well will have all the data in this technological park. It’s a very good project that we implemented. With this, we implement as well the telecommunication through the new cable, LLE, we are working with our local regional countries to another cable called Amilcar Cabral. So we created the foundation, this technological park, to have two new data centers to put with the other one that we already have. So we create all the foundations, I think, to build a strong ecosystem and have startups in this process as well. So I think for us, it’s another big opportunity. And in terms of the challenge, we have the digital literacy is first, I think, for us. As I say, we launched new services with the mobile key, but we still have some problems with the use of these new services and these new features. The people need to have more skills to use these tools and to use the internet for more productivity. Most of the people use internet for social media and things like that. So we are working for a program to increase this digital literacy across all our citizens. We have another, the cybersecurity, you talked about this, the introduction, cybersecurity is another big challenge as well. But we are putting strong efforts on this to implement, for example, our system. But it’s still a big challenge for us. In 2020, we have a major attack for our systems because we have a lot of systems in the government. But we deal with it very, very good, I think. But it’s still a very good challenge for us. And to finish, the change management. Implementing the digital transformation will require us a shift in terms of the organizations and the way the organizations talk here. We have some silos, we still have some silos inside the government. So it’s for us a challenge to enforce this digital transformation because we have some resistance in terms of the employees. We know that some of this resistance is related to the skills as well. And this is why this change management, it’s part of our key things that we have to do that is one of our most challenge, I think, in this digital transformation. I think we are a very young country and this is another opportunity, I think. We have a population that is young, but we are not taking that advantage that I think we could take from this population, this young population. So I think it’s enough for now.

Morten Meyhoff-Nielsen.:
Thank you, Joao. We’ll have a couple of rounds on these topics. So Rose, we heard Joao talk about some of the opportunities like technology as an opportunity, data as an opportunity, both in terms of the transformation of how government operates, how government provides services, the internal production, the data delivery. We also hear about how technology can be used in the private sector. From the data perspective and from your perspective in the data commission and in East Africa, are you seeing similar opportunities being discussed and captured? Are you seeing similar challenges? What’s your perspective on the opportunities and challenges, again, from the data commissioner’s perspective, but also the broader Kenyan public sector and private sector perspective?

Rose Mosero Maina:
Absolutely, and thank you for having me here. It is a privilege to be on this panel. Just starting by saying that Kenya has had an opportunity, I guess, to have a digital transformation strategy or have a recognition of the opportunities that ICTs and digital tools can actually have in the economy. So not only is it in Kenya that a digital transformation strategy was established, I think, by way of a blueprint in 2019, but since I think 2012, Kenya had in its vision for 2030, this strategic goal for the period of 2012 to 2030, we recognized that ICTs are crucial in ensuring that Kenya can leapfrog and become a middle income economy. And so this has been something that has been included in every single strategic plan, as well as national goals for the period until today. In the national strategies today, we have a lot of ambitious but, you know, work that is going on where we look at, you know, a digital superhighway, which is enhancing our national fibre optic backbone by 100,000 kilometres. We have digital literacy programs. We currently have over 5,000 services available online to citizenry. Obviously, the usage of data and data governance structures are critical in ensuring that this is actually being rolled out in a ethical, legal, lawful manner. And so one of the things that actually came about from recognising that digital transformation was important for Kenya is there was the enactment of the Darst Protection laws, as well as the establishment of the Office of Darst Protection Commissioner, which is where I work. Now, one of the things that we have seen, even as we go about harnessing the opportunity, so we’ve talked about digital identities, we’ve spoken about, you know, one-stop shop for digital services, digital literacy, infrastructure challenges, so infrastructure opportunities. So we thought the concept of Technopolis that has a cloud service provision in Kenya and a host of other infrastructure developments as well that are happening. One of the things that we’ve seen the Kenyan government actively take on board is ensuring that the Office of the Darst Protection Commissioner in terms of usable or best use for the data that they’re collecting is actually done or involved in that process. So in digital IDs, in terms of ensuring that not only are the opportunities captured, but also the risks are actively managed. This is something that is at the forefront in that respect. And so, whilst there are a lot of opportunities that have been harnessed through this digital transformation, again, as I’ve said, I think Kenya was, in 2019, one of the first countries to develop a blueprint on the digital economy. And this was a blueprint that was launched in Smart Africa and then, I guess, cascaded or shared with the rest of Africa. And I believe that it enabled the AU digital transformation strategy as well and formed part of the material that actually ensured that that was happening. And so Kenya has recognized the opportunities of digital transformation. One of the challenges that we do find, and this is something that is unique not only to Kenya but Africa at large, is a digital divide. So this comes in many forms and is being tackled in a number of ways, but there are still needs. I guess the collaboration, both the private sector aspect and the public sector aspect, is ensuring not only are we connecting people, not only are they literates, but do they have the relevant devices to actually ensure that they’re using the services effectively, that they are taking on board, that they’re really able to participate in the digital economy. So the transformation doesn’t just happen on a government level for the people that can access, but also for, as has been said, for women, youth, as well as people in underserved areas. And that is something that is being tackled through rollout of more fiber optic, finding opportunities, I guess, as well, to ensure that schools, for example, are connected, that actually govern or affect the communities around them. So it’s not just for a particular school, but people can actually benefit from that. There’s also ensuring that there is rural awareness when it comes to education and finding cheaper alternatives, and I think this is an area where private sector has really come in for people to have mobile devices that are capable of enabling individuals that are in underserved economies to also access the services that are provided online, but also the opportunities in terms of work as well, remote work and things like this, financial inclusion, just generally digital business and opportunities that will affect on a private sector aspect to boost the economy and enable individuals to participate in the digital economy and reap the benefits of digital transformation in Kenya.

Morten Meyhoff-Nielsen.:
Thank you, Rose. Joao mentioned the change management challenge in a number of ways, which you also have alluded to. Is that something that you also observe in the Kenyan context, that yes, we want to innovate, yes, we want to change, but the management of that change can often cause a bit of resistance or a few challenges within organizations, public as well as private? Is that something you see? It’s something we definitely see outside of Africa, in Europe or in Asia or in Latin America, that not all organizations are equally open to the positive change or any disruption to business continuity. This can also be a political concern for service delivery, that innovation and change may cause disruption to business processes in a period of time. Is that something you see, particularly when it comes to the utilization of technology and data?

Rose Mosero Maina:
One of the things that we have noted, again, as I said, or maybe I haven’t touched on it, but Kenya prides itself as being the Silicon Savannah. Technology has been embraced in Kenya in a way that it might not be embraced in other countries. And so even as government and private sector, in fact, private sector and government are the ones who are pushing for this digital change, you will see in digitizing lands records and digitizing IDs. This is actually a push that is coming from government and a lot of private sector had already adopted innovative change. And so this makes a easier transition for digital transformation because there is a push, not just outside government, but by the people to embrace technology in a manner that might not necessarily be seen in other, say, for example, in African countries. However, one of the things that we are seeing, and this is not particularly an issue of resistance, but mostly an issue of newness of policies and newness of legislative frameworks. So, for example, when it comes to data governance, when it comes to data protection, unlike in European countries or Asian countries or just Western countries at large, data protection specifically hasn’t been something that is transformed or has evolved over a period of years. We have in Kenya, for example, a data protection law that came in three years ago that has pushed people to actually look at data governance in a different form, in a different way. So the resistance comes from lack of education or lack of, I guess I want to call it indoctrination of principles of data protection and data governance rather than a resistance to actually change. And so one of the things the Office of the Data Protection Commissioner has done is push awareness so that people understand the benefits of data protection, the benefits of data governance, rather than looking at it as another regulatory hurdle that they have to bypass when it comes to usage of information. So this is something that we’re actively working on. To some extent, it is change management, but I think it’s also the sensitization of the benefits comes in as a big contributor in something that is being worked on.

Morten Meyhoff-Nielsen.:
Thank you very much for that, Rose. It actually is a nice bridge to Anand that actually comes from the U.S. Ministry of Justice but is working with the African Union Mission in Addis Ababa on similar topics. How does these two national cases from Cape Verde and Kenya sort of resonate with you when you’re working with the African Union on frameworks with respect to digital transformation or data or cybersecurity? I’m asking about frameworks because a strategy is essentially a framework that is supported by action plan that is then populated by different initiatives and activities. So how does these two national examples resonate with you in the wider AU context and some of the things that you’re doing and also your experience from the U.S. and North America in general?

Anand Ramaswamy:
Thank you. Just a word about our program. I work with my colleague Temeskin Lepiso here. We’re also in Addis Ababa. But we primarily do cybercrime training, and we have chosen to do it on a bilateral level. So I’m aware of what’s going on in Kenya. Cape Verde, as Joao mentioned, was hit with a major attack in 2020. We know that’s the solar winds attack. It greatly affected the United States as well. But we’ve taken the bilateral approach so we can hear the issues from each country, and what we hear is great commonality. If we had gathered, say, people together regionally, we may not get the openness to discuss issues. But what we’ve seen in terms of digital transformation in an overall policy is digital transformation has tremendous potential to advance Africa. I know ECA has its payment system that you’re working on and advancing. But cybercrime, it’s kind of like the brake that’s keeping digital transformation from advancing like it could. And for each country, there is, I think, more victimization than what is reported in any source you might find. It’s vastly underreported. And it’s mainly mobile money schemes, but it’s also every other type of cybercrime that affects other parts of the world. But there are unique challenges within legal frameworks of each country, and that’s part of the overall. So we’re not unique in what we do. We work together in this area. We’ve done programs at ECA. We work with Interpol, GFCE, UNODC, and a number of players to advance all of this. Again, because the digital transformation has such potential for the economic benefit of Africa, that and the free trade within the continent initiative also that we see from AU and ECA. But so long as it’s easy to victimize Africans and African nations, it’s never going to reach that potential. So that’s really our focus, advancing multilateral treaties such as the Budapest Convention. We also formed a cryptocurrency working group. Within Africa, we have 27 members, and most recently met at ECA in November where they discussed their cases and they have further training. Because cryptocurrency saw a greater adoption within Africa than probably most other places, mainly as a hedge against inflation and second, as a hedge against corruption. So we’re happy to work with these people, and we’re going to continue to work with them. We’re going to continue to work with these partners within that framework of digital transformation, but our focus is on the cyber security, cyber crime angle.

Morten Meyhoff-Nielsen.:
I’m going to ask the Gambian minister to actually join us virtually. No, there’s a technical problem, so we’ll see if we can solve it. But actually, we had the minister for ICT from Gambia to join us virtually, but there’s a technical problem this morning. It is also very early in Gambia. It is the middle of the night. We work a lot with governments globally, including in both North and Africa and sub-Saharan Africa. So how does Joao’s reflections, Anand’s reflections, and also Rose’s reflections resonate with you in a wider African context, considering countries as diverse as Egypt, Uganda, Mozambique, Sao Tomé, and Príncipe that we’ve all been working with to some degree? What are the challenges and what are the opportunities? What are some of the solutions that you see are coming out from different national governments to these challenges?

Luís Soares Barbosa:
Thank you. Thank you very much, Morten. Good morning, good afternoon, everybody. Yes, I think the global challenges are well-known. Beginning at the beginning, the needs for robust, trustworthy digital infrastructure, expanded connectivity, data policy frameworks, as we have been discussing in the previous session, and then all the key enablers for a meaningful digital transition. Digital identity, cybersecurity, interoperability. Okay. All these challenges, I think, are very well-known. What I also think that should be emphasized is that even if challenges seem overwhelming at some point, the experience of some countries, and we have been listening to João and to Rose, the experience of some countries show that, in fact, a lot can be achieved. And this is also our experience at NUEGOV. Actually, Africa has several problems, several weaknesses, but also, obviously, frogging opportunities, less legacy challenge than in other parts of the world, a vibrant youth, and so on and so forth. The point that I would like to emphasize in addressing your question, because it’s also our job at NUEGOV, is the crucial role that digital governance can play in the digital transition processes. And what I think we have been, for example, following very closely the case of Cape Verde, but also others, and I think digital governance actually can play a very interesting role as a kind of a plastic layer enforcing, in practice, an articulation between three different sorts of objectives. First of all, in improving the effectiveness of government and public administration, which is actually crucial as a cornerstone for development. I can mention, for example, things like improving revenue mobilizations or target efficient investments, all these kind of things, so this is absolutely crucial. Another class of objectives relating to bringing the state close to citizens, and for example, our colleagues in Cape Verde have been very, very motivated by this, to their needs, to their expectations, making concrete improvements in concrete lives, and I think this should be stressed. And finally, and this is the case of Cape Verde, this is also the case of Gambia, that I hope the Minister will be able to talk, in articulating digital governance and digital transition in general with broader development objectives, namely to create ecosystems for digital economy to flourish. That is also, I think, the EU vision, and I quote from the strategy, to strengthen the economic sector, enable its diversification and development, and placing African countries as producers and not only as consumers in global economy. So I think these three kinds of objectives and their coordination are really crucial to the success of digital transition seen from the perspective of digital governance.

Morten Meyhoff-Nielsen.:
Thanks, Luís.Mactar, I see you nodding. UNECA has worked also with the African Union on different types of frameworks. One of the more recent ones is the EU Digital Transformation Strategy Framework for 2020-2030. The aim of this is to help countries prioritize their needs. Prioritization is difficult in all governments globally. Resource constraints, human resource constraints, is often a challenge we see in all countries globally. So what are the key components in these frameworks that UNECA have helped develop or they have seen countries apply? in Africa, what are the components that are really beneficial to them, and how has it helped them overcome challenges?

Mactar Seck:
Thank you very much for this question. First on this AU digital transformation strategy, we have several components who can help African countries to use this digital technology to achieve their sustainable development goal. But let’s start when we define, when we implement this digital transformation at the national level. I think we have one challenge, one key challenge, it is at the coordination level at the member state, and now we have noted a lot of progress because in this forum you have the presence of a lot of members of Parliament. It is something we have to highlight, but because government work on silo without involving the Parliament, and at the end of day, the law will be adopted by the Parliamentarian. The involvement of the Parliamentary in the development of the national digital strategy is very important, as well as the private sector. For this national digital transformation has several key pillars. Going to digital finance, digital skills, innovation, development, private sector, capacity building, etc. We have several challenges, and some countries are not at the same level of development of the digital transformation. And this AU digital transformation provides a diagnostic in the gap of digital economy for the country, and define key priority for the country. Some countries, their priority focus more on developing the institutional framework, what kind of institutions they should have at the national level to develop this digital strategy. Because when you look at some countries, they have a ministry in charge of digital economy, and also they have a ministry in charge of ICT. There is a duplication, and science and technology also. And we need to have a coordinated approach at the country level, first to take benefits of this digital transformation. Also, some countries, the issue is they don’t have the manpower or the resources to implement this digital strategy. And we need to focus on building a capacity. As a country, the problem is a gap on infrastructure. Of course, African countries, a lot of African countries have a gap of infrastructure, but some countries the gap is more and more crucial. We need to focus on what kind of policy in this digital transformation we put in place to overcome this deficit, this lack of infrastructure, by revisiting the regulation framework to attract more investment. And we focus more to attract local investment first, before attracting external investment. It is something very important on this digital transformation. Also, for some countries, key success is how to promote innovation. When you have the case of Morocco, of South Africa, of Kenya, the need is to promote innovation, because there is a lot of idea in ground in this country, a lot of development of the ecosystem, and we should adapt this digital transformation strategy in promoting the development of innovation, because we have a lot of things in the ground, and we need to promote this innovation to take more benefits of this digital transformation. And in general, the opportunity is up to the situation of the country, in terms of digital transformation, as well as the market of this country. If the market is big or the market is small, because we can’t compare South Africa and South Sudan in terms of market, and also in terms of capacity building, we need to see which countries are more focused on capacity building to open their system to others. Why is this digital transformation? We can say it is a complete digital transformation, it is a complete framework which can support African countries to achieve their sustainable development from 2020 to 2030. I didn’t forget also the cybersecurity, it’s very important, because if we don’t secure this digital space, all policy we are doing also is not adequate, as well as the issue of digital ID. I think we can come back later on digital ID and digital trade. Thank you.

Morten Meyhoff-Nielsen.:
Thank you, Mactar. As a former civil servant at the Danish Agency of Digitization, which was embedded in the Ministry of Finance at the time, I know all about the financial challenges, and one of the key tools that was applied there was actually these business case return on investments, where the challenge was that a project might be implemented in the strategy and funded, it’s finished on time and on budget, but the benefit of the system only comes when it’s operational, and that happens after the strategy period has closed. So the role was really finding models on how do we ensure that then the systems we have developed, the services we’ve launched actually generates the outcomes, whether or not they’re financial, productivity or usability, user-friendliness actually are achieved, and this is something that we’ve for instance seen that the Botswanas are trying to to work with. On that note, we actually like to open the floor. We’ve been keeping an eye out on the chat online to see if there’s anything, but there’s no questions there at the moment. So any questions, any contributions from the audience around these reflections around the challenges faced and how we can solve these challenges around change management related to the digital transformation, the socio-economic and digital divides we see within society when we are trying to facilitate a more digital-enabled economy and private sector, but also amongst our citizens and residents in navigating these new technical solutions. Any reflections for the audience? Please put up your hand. Yeah, if you can go to the microphone and introduce yourself and your question.

Audience:
Hi, my name is Sam, Honourable Sam George. I’m a member of Parliament from Ghana and the Secretary-General of the African Parliamentary Network on Internet Governance. It’s interesting listening to the conversation so far on the challenges. We see a lot of digital transformation happening on the African continent and African governments, and listening to the challenges of cybercrime, for example, and how that is acting as a stumbling block to full adaptation of digital technologies. One of the challenges we have is with actually prosecution, because you see, if you’re not able to follow the full life cycle of fighting cybercrime by showing punitive action, people feel that the more I get digitally exposed, there’s very little protection for me from the state. Now, one of the key components I realized is missing in the African Union data policy framework that we’re not really focusing on is digital addressing, because in many African countries, there is no proper addressing system, and so even when you are able to identify that a SIM number, we’ve registered all SIM cards again. Most African countries have asked for registration of SIM cards. Now, even when there’s a crime using a SIM card and you report to the police, the police is able to identify using the database of SIM registry who the individual is, but identifying or tracing that individual becomes a critical challenge. Now, because we have two issues, poor addressing system and then high residence mobility on the African continent, so the person lives in this community today, tomorrow he’s moved to the next community. In Europe and the West, when you change residence, for you to even get at times your salary, you need to update a central database where your current addressing system is, so that’s a critical thing we need to look at on the African continent, where we’re able to put a location on every citizen. This is not surveillance, but to be able to know where every individual lives, because it helps you to provide safety nets, it helps you to also do law enforcement, and as we do this, we also need to look at the capacity building of our judges, because the judiciary most times, it’s fantastic that we’ve added a parliamentary track to the IGF, but we need to have possibly a judiciary track as well, because the full life cycle is the executive bringing the legislation to Parliament, Parliament working with civil society to craft the frameworks and the legislation, but then the implementation of that legislation is by way of prosecutors and the judiciary in interpreting the legislation, so if you don’t have that full cycle, that whole of community approach, we’ll take fantastic steps but we’ll just tick check boxes that say that we have the framework, but implementation is really challenged, because for people to uptake this, there must be confidence in it, and so how we build confidence is critical to seeing a spread of this digital technologies and framework. Thank you.

Morten Meyhoff-Nielsen.:
Thank you very much. Rose, Joao, any observations on this challenge about the whole holistic approach to the digital transformation, both in terms of the example given from Ghana about the value of adequate data to both identify where the individual may be located if there’s a crime happening, but also in terms of actually government planning and budgeting. If we don’t know where our population lives, how can we as decision makers actually ensure that we build schools and hospitals in the right places, that the staffing or call centers or physical service centers for those who do not interact online or who are in a unique situation have an alternative service challenge. Any thoughts on that and any solutions that you have explored domestically or that you know of in the African context or outside the African context that would help address such challenges. Rose, then Joao.

Rose Mosero Maina:
We in Kenya also struggle with that. One of the things that we noted when the digital economy blueprint was being developed is a need to have a national addressing strategy and a national addressing act that looks both at the national level and the county level so that we can have a repository of addresses. It sounds like a very simple thing to have for Western countries because this is something that has been ongoing. But for African countries, Kenya in specific, when you’re directing someone to identify where you live, you say around that big tree and then there is a green gate, which at first is impossible to then narrow down where people live. But there is also an issue when it comes to, I guess, enforcement. There’s an issue when it comes to digital trade and e-commerce and things like this, delivery, postal services, for example, emergency services. So it catches or captures not only aspects of, I guess, enforcement, but very much just service delivery as well. And so if there is a need for enhancement in service delivery, there is a need to identify where everyone is. Now, I think African countries have come up with a roundabout way of knowing where people are, but it’s not necessarily efficient that we rely on census, rely on, I guess, usage of service to understand how many people are in a particular area so that service can be rolled out to them. But I do feel that more and more there is a need for formal addressing services physically, but also the use of digital addressing services, which is something that is ongoing in Kenya as well as part of the strategy, so that we’re emerging the digital and physical worlds to actually enable us to better serve the citizens. So that’s something that Kenya is grappling with and some of the solutions that have been put in to tackle that.

Morten Meyhoff-Nielsen.:
And Joao, any observations, any solutions to these type of challenges that you’ve been exploring in Cape Verde or that you’ve seen, for instance, in the West African context?

Joao Cruz:
Hi. In Cape Verde, we have this addressing problem as well, but we are a very small country. This is one of big difference from the other countries. So for us to know where someone is, is very easy. It’s not that difficult because when you change, you cannot go far from your home. It’s not for us in terms of enforce the law. It’s not a challenge for us. I think for bigger countries in Africa, the digital addressing, I think, would be better to explore. But there’s some challenges on that as well, because the data protection of the people, it could seem like a surveillance in terms of the, for example, you’re tracking the SIM cards that are registered. Here in Cape Verde, you have to register as well your SIM cards. But we could have some problems in terms of the privacy. So I think the countries, they are big in Africa. They could go in this way, but they have to understand this privacy part, how to manage it.

Morten Meyhoff-Nielsen.:
Okay, Joao. Thanks. We have a couple of other people in the audience that would like to ask a question. We also have one online. If the two gentlemen at the mic would just ask their questions quickly, and then I’ll summarize the one online, and then we’ll raise the panel. We’ll do another round of questions later. So go ahead.

Audience:
Thank you. My name is Oliver Bamundu. I’m a member of parliament from Cameroon. I want to ask my question, but start by thanking Dr. Matta for the engagement with APNIC in reinforcing the capacities of members of parliament. But for a very long time, Africa has been noticed for poor democracy, bad governance, and corruption and all that. So I just wanted to share, I just want to have this opinion on it, whether a judicial transformation can be an instrument that will help maybe advancement of a kind of modern democracy in Africa. I don’t know how to put it better. I just want to know whether a judicial transformation can be an instrument that can actually advance democracy in Africa. Thank you very much.

Morten Meyhoff-Nielsen.:
Then the next gentleman, I’ll summarize the questions.

Audience:
Thank you, Bram from Malawi. So for me, I just wanted to find out if the AU has done a survey in terms of, yes, we’re advocating for digital transformation now, but I think we can gain more if we have more members party to the Malawi Convention, which currently is very slowly adopted in member countries. And so what is the impact of member countries not adopting the Malawi Convention? And as we’re also pushing for the transition in the continent, do we see the imbalance? Are we taking stock of this competing interest? And what is the future looking like with this kind of speed? Thank you. Thank you very much. My name is Honourable Alha Jimbo from The Gambia and also the Vice Chair of the African Parliamentary Network on Internet Governance. I’m sure we have some issues with the Minister, but I’m also the Chairperson of the Education Committee and I sit in The Gambia. So I’m really familiar with what’s actually happening in the transformation in The Gambia. Now for us, just to make it very, very short, we have a very clear path and we must thank ECA also for the guidance. Also, the first thing is about the National Broadband Network. We had a project called the ECHO-1, which actually put broadband across the country. Then on top of that, also Parliament, also with the Executive, we work on what we call the National Broadband Network, which actually put fibre across the country. And I think maybe in the next year or so, we may be the most connected fibre on the continent, because it’s a very small country as well. Now, then we came up with a strategy as part of… digital transformation, we call it ICT for master plan, which actually have several components. One of them is about capacity development, STI, science, technology, innovation, and also youth and women, and also the human capital, which is the capacity building we actually are doing, and the e-agriculture, and also the national broadband network strategies that we actually have in plan. Now, right now where we are is about the digital addressing system. We have already started, and we have covered the capital and some of the biggest cities we have in the Gambia right now, where we have digital addressing system that’s in place right now. We are moving towards the digital ID, which is also the consultancy was already done with the help of ECA also as well. That’s exactly where we are as far as the transformation actually is concerned. But one thing I would like to also point out also is that along the way, there are several issues, particularly the addressing system, which actually affects many countries in Africa. So again, technology is such a way that you don’t actually have to start from zero. You can take a leap, and that’s exactly what Gambia is trying to do. We are taking a leap to ensure that we catch up with the rest of the world. Thank you very much.

Morten Meyhoff-Nielsen.:
Thank you. So just to summarize the questions, we had a question around how can technology potentially support anti-corruption drives, increase transparency, help embed engagement, accountability, the democratic angles? And if so, how? We had a question online about the technopolitics between the global players in North America, Europe, in Asia, and how these dynamics may actually enable African countries to benefit, multipolar, if you want. And then there were some of the contributions from Gambia around how the frameworks allows them to leapfrog. But it requires that you have some of the key enablers that Luis was also referring to in place. Yes, we need the infrastructure, but we also need it to be affordable, reliable, and have a population and a private sector that have the skills to use it and the skills in the public sector to actually facilitate and drive that transformation. Is there any specific answers or any observations or contributions to those from the panel here in person and then online?

Anand Ramaswamy:
I’m going to go rather quickly because each one of the questions resonated. Sam’s from Ghana talking. We’ve done a lot of work in Ghana, but identity systems and the Western systems of addresses. This came up in a conversation with the AU when I brought up sex offender registration, which is something done in the United States, but in the context of most African nations would not work. But what we might suggest are technical and legal solutions. Technical, we’re talking to our FBI about what’s called cell site triangulation, locating cell phones based on. That’s correct. And also, circumstantial evidence. If someone committed a fraud, at some point they need to withdraw the money. And almost every bank will have surveillance cameras. This is a technique of identifying an individual apart from having an address, physical address related to the IP. Question from Oliver about anti-corruption. Working with IOKO in Ghana and also in Mauritius, their anti-corruption police in Nigeria, EFCC. I’ll say this. We’ve assisted. Many countries have specific anti-corruption units. We’ve assisted them with technical issues. I won’t say which one, but one of them based on several consultations to help them get into a cell phone that removed their number two person in government. In Ghana, there was someone impersonating a high government official online, and we assisted in getting that removed. So there are, I would say, from cybercrime, some technical solutions. I’ll finish with one other thing. You mentioned the need to train judges. We took 12 African judges, prosecutors, investigators to the US. One of them suggested to us from Ghana that same need, but we see it everywhere. And here’s the issue. We have very talented judges. There are two here, one from Tanzania, Eliana. And they do something unique. They take professors who are skilled in tech and make them judges. For other judges, if they don’t understand it, they’re more likely to keep things out. But judges don’t want to be trained with prosecutors and investigators because it hampers their ability to ask questions. So what Temeskin, my colleague, is we’re developing a bench book and separate training for them. Other organizations are doing it, too, because they need their own training. Thank you.

Mactar Seck:
Thank you. I think Zahira has several relevant questions. First, on the localization, I think we need to identify people before to localize them. And we were 500 million people without any legal form of identity. It’s difficult to identify them. It’s difficult to identify them. Why our approach is to integrate this digital addressing system in the digital ID project. It is something now we are going to do in Gambia to integrate these two systems. And maybe it will be helpful to identify and localize people. It is a big issue, not only in Africa, but in several developing countries. Coming to the also, there is a issue very important we have to take into course. There is an issue of disinformation we don’t have now and hard speech. We don’t have any laws in the continent. Why I call upon you as parliamentary to start to think about on how we can have a framework or guideline on this. Yeah, we are ready to work with you to develop some guideline for the continent. Something very important now, because it is linked to the democracy also. It is something we have as an experience in now several countries in the continent. The third point is how digital technology can contribute to fight corruption. It’s clear. Digital technology can promote transparency and fight corruption. But for that, we need a commitment of the high level. I can give you an example. We receive a request from one member state to support them to increase their tax revenue. And we develop a digital taxation system. When we develop digital taxation system, the government can get around 55% additional revenue on the tax. When we present the project at the custom office and also at the Ministry of Finance, they told they are not agree with this project because they are going to get problems with their staff. And the project, they can’t use the project. It’s not using it. Another country, it is the human resource management system at the government level. We find there are 5,000 people who get salary every month without any presence in the ministry. Project closed. Project closed. Why we need? We can talk about a lot on digital transformation. We have a lot of example in the world where this digital transformation promote a lot of things about transparency, fight corruption, a lot of benefits. But without this commitment, this leadership, and this clear guidance, we can’t go far of that. I call upon you, parliament, to discuss with the government to make sure we can use this digital technology. The solution is there for transparency. Something very important. Data governance also, it is very important. We talk about this cybersecurity. We have a lot of platform around the continent, e-commerce platform, digital ID, digital public infrastructure across the continent. We need to have this digital sovereignty. It’s important. Otherwise, we are not going to take benefits of this digital transformation. Digital sovereignty means that the data should be owned by African country. We need this data to create job opportunity for our new generation. We need this data to protect our citizens. Citizens should trust the government. Without that, this digital transformation will be just something we talk about for years and years. And there is no opportunity and benefits for the continent. Thank you.

Morten Meyhoff-Nielsen.:
Thank you, Mactar. Luis, if you’ll contribute, we have the minister online. So OK. So the Gambian minister for communication, digital economy should be online now. The Honorable Ousman A. Bah, I hope you can hear us. We’ve been discussing the national experiences and approaches to enabling the digital transformation. A member of your parliament is actually with us here in person and gave us some highlights as well. But what are the key tools that you’re using in the ministry to sort of drive this whole of government, whole of society, digital transformation in Gambia? We heard about the importance of the infrastructure and the skills already. But are there any tricks up your sleeve that you have found to work better than others? And if so, what are they?

Lamin Camara:
Thank you to all the audience down in Japan. I’m stepping in for the Honorable Minister Ousman A. Bah. I am Lamin Kamara, the parliament secretary of the ministry. And I want to thank Honorable Bo for that intervention. I think he’s quite afraid with what is happening in the ICT landscape in the country and has been the chairman of the educational ICT subcommittee of the National Assembly. So we work very closely with him. So I’m not surprised that he can make that intervention while we were waiting to get the opportunity to come in. Yes, well, the ministry we have, the Ministry of Communication and Digital Economy, is just a year old. And when the minister was appointed, he came with his five-point agenda. And I think we’ve already discussed some of those, which includes addressing connectivity. That is one. And how to ensure our people are connected, inclusive connectivity, and also regional connectivity has been key. We’re working with the likes of Cape Verde and other ECOWAS countries on the America Cabral cable to provide a second submarine cable for the Gambia to create more capacity and also redundancy for the existing submarine cable we have in place. We have also worked on a digital master plan. And after following a digital assessment, we did develop a master plan and also a strategy on digital ID with the support of UNECA. So I want to thank Mactar Seck, who has been very instrumental in that. And digital ID is very important for us to achieve and tremendous efforts in play to ensure we have a quick implementation of a digital ID in the Gambia. Although we know we have challenges of coordination and cooperation, because digital ID entails putting together a lot of data needs that feed into the digital ID of an individual. And some of these things are resident in different ministries or entities that we need to work together with and see how we integrate that. And I think Mactar has given an example how we want to utilize our existing digital addressing system to be part of that digital ID, how the SIM registration platform we have, how we integrate that into the digital ID, the bath registrations, the passport ID, and our bank accounts. So all these need coordination and collaboration. And we’re really working to ensure that it’s done. After that, we’re also talking about fintechs and financial inclusion. And the issue of establishing a national switch is really paramount to be able to promote the creation of payment gateways and the use of those gateways to facilitate financial inclusion, digital financial inclusion in the country. But beyond that, to see how we also facilitate cross-border payments within the African countries, especially under the initiative of the free trade area, these payment gateways would be very useful and cross-border payment. So now with the challenges we have in the area of cybersecurity issues, and what we are doing is that we need to ensure when we put these things in place, the trust and confidence of the people does not wane. And to do that, we are working on a cybercrime bill, which is already on its way to the National Assembly. So I’m sure Honorable Bo will be expecting that bill. We will need his support in ensuring that we get that bill enacted in the quickest possible time. And we also established cybercrime or cybersecurity emergency response teams to be able to respond to some of the threats we may be faced with in the country. Now, when you come to about inclusion, the issue of not only the digital divide where the infrastructure reaches our people, and as already indicated by Honorable Bo, we have the broadband networks that is all around the country. But the last mile is still a challenge. And we are working on strategies to see how we overcome that using different technologies, mixed technologies that would help us achieve that. And even apart from the last mile, the devices, affordability of the devices is a challenge. We’ve identified. And we’re seeing how we work together with providers of devices to see how we can have affordable devices or even to have devices that could be programmed in a way that could be used by our disadvantaged people. So you mentioned about change strategy. I think it’s very important in digital transformation because if we want inclusiveness, we need to make sure everybody participates in this. And to do so, we need to find a way of encouraging and making sure everybody participates. And the digital transformation agenda of the AU by 2030 is met through the full participation of each and every African and every person in the world by extension. So we are also working on e-applications and services. And I think here our consideration at the Ministry is to ensure that we develop applications that suit our needs, applications that suit our needs, that can address our problems, our local problems. We’re working together also to see how we collaborate with other bilateral partners, like technologies that are working in some of our partner countries. We see how we adopt them rather than reinventing the wheel. And in doing so, our minister has signed MOUs with Rwanda, with Mauritius, with Nigeria, and we’re working on adopting the Mag-Off platform of Bangladesh so that we have a quick way of adopting. So, I think it’s very important for us to make sure that we have the right infrastructure and the right technologies, applications and platforms to attain our digital transformation agenda. Thank you.

Morten Meyhoff-Nielsen.:
≫ Thank you, Lamin, very much. You touched on a couple of topics that have popped up repeatedly. Not only governance, as in who does what, when, who finances what, but also softer elements like coordination and coordination with the private sector. So, we have a lot of work to do with the local, regional, national authorities, but also with the private sector, like the financial sector, for both for data exchange and for facilitating payment systems, regulatory framework standards, and compliance, we know, is traditionally a challenge. We are very good in the public sector, and I talk as a civil servant at writing ambitious, ambitious projects, but also, I think, in the public sector, we need to make sure that all of the camels line up and all of the ducks are lined up in a row. So, with ten minutes left, I would like to throw the question to the panel, and maybe start with Luis, and then go to Joao and Rose, and then back to the panel here. What are the governance and collaboration mechanisms that need to be in place to ensure this holistic whole-of-government strategy that we are talking about, and how do we make sure that this is a public-sector transformation in our countries? Is it enough that it’s just one ministry that does this, or is there tricks up the sleeve in terms of the mandates, the collaboration mechanisms, and the link to these governance and strategy frameworks that you’ve seen work well from your different perspectives?

Luís Soares Barbosa:
Thank you. I would like to start with this other question on democracy that you put, because, of course, the potential of digital technology is enormous, but there are no free lunches, and that’s the point that Morten was trying to make. We know, for example, in terms of digital governance mechanisms, of course, if you go digital, you will enforce a number of formalisation measures, but there are no free lunches, and that’s the point that you put. On the other hand, to make this effective, we need these instances of cooperation. João talked in his first intervention, he mentioned the need for management capabilities of the whole system and articulation of different ministries and different agencies. I also had the relevance of the political will behind this transformation, which is crucial to the development of a more democratic system, and that’s the point that you put, because, of course, the potential of digital technology is enormous, but there are no free lunches, and that’s the point that you put, because, of course, the political will behind this transformation, which is crucial to the development of a more democratic system, and that’s the point that you put, because, of course, the potential of democratic systems. And also other elements, for example, the construction of collective trust, and this is something that if, actually, citizens see their lives being changed by this sort of technologies, the trust in the institutions will, actually, increase in this place, until it’s more certain that our owned citizens are also dealing with accountable issues. A second comment, if I may, I have two very brief comments. One was just to go back to the point of literacy that was also mentioned as kind of a keyneveled in all this. I would like just to stress something that actually worries me when dealing with most African governments, and that is that they are not able to attract and to maintain very specialised, very technical skills that exist in Africa, and that are very easily gone to the private sector, or even aboard. So this is something, it’s a very good resource, a natural resource. And the last comment is about identity, digital identity. That is absolutely crucial as well. And I think it’s a very important issue, and I think it’s something that has more to do with Weneke in the Gambia last month. There was a presentation of something that was called by then the non-authoritative identity, digital identity. That was a project, a pilot project in some African countries to resort to local communities to help in building a digital identity. And I think that’s something that, if you are interested, we may discuss further.

Morten Meyhoff-Nielsen.:
≫ Rose, on governance, collaboration, any thoughts, any things that you’ve seen work particularly well, or sort of things based on bad examples that you would do differently from your perspective?

Rose Mosero Maina:
≫ I’ll give you things that I think have worked well, and I’ll give you the kind of perspective. So, I think the first thing that I would say is that there is a lot of siloed approach to government agencies, which means that there is duplication of certain projects, duplication of initiatives. How this has been addressed in Kenya is obviously there is a first strategic goal that looks at what everyone must achieve, and in this, there is pillars. Which is digital transformation, there is obviously a need for digital transformation, but also there is a need for digital transformation. And in addition to this, there is a ministry that is given effective control over how to manage that mandate. So, for example, if there is a universal help project that looks at digital transformation, then the ministry of information, communication, and digital economy will then have a say in how that happens, meaning that there is no duplication, there is one area where there is a need for digital transformation. So, there is a lot of work that is being done to make sure that the funds are being allocated to that particular project, there is expertise that has been rolled off from a ministerial level, and also trickles down to, say, for example, if there is a data governance issue, then the office of data protection commissioner will be involved, and so that close collaboration between ministries, knowing firstly what they are doing, and then to carry a project by themselves and they might not necessarily have this expertise is something that I have seen that is actually really beneficial in ensuring that we are moving forward with some of these strategies without unnecessary duplication.

Morten Meyhoff-Nielsen.:
Thank you, Rose. It is actually this matrix of different responsibilities. The ministry of education knows education. The ministry of technology knows technology, and when the two combine, they need to collaborate. So, this is something that we have seen in many countries, both in Africa and elsewhere, in the UNU system, so very happy to hear that this is also something that we see in a place like Kenya. Joao, any thoughts on, again, this sort of division of responsibility? How do you get your ducks in a row? How do you hurt the cats, so to speak? Government is a multi-headed beast sometimes with many different actors, different levels of autonomy, different interests. So, from your perspective in Cap Verde, with your experience, what gets the ducks in a line in your context, and what do you see working when it comes to this?

Joao Cruz:
First of all, the governance, it plays a critical role in all of this. But you have to put these governments in a situation where they are not able to do it. You have to put these governments in such a way that the people see the benefits. So, what we do here in Cap Verde? We create our strategy for digital governance with the UNU-EGOF, with Luís as well. And what we do, we take all the goals that all the sectors have, and we bring it to the strategy. So, what we do, we take all the goals that all the sectors have, and we bring it to the strategy. And right now, they are included in the strategy that we put in place. With this, we provide some regulations as well. So, right now, if you want to have a new project, first, it must send to our cabinet to analyse and validate the integrations, if there are no duplications, and validate the outcome as well. Before the implementation. So, I think we work in two different levels. We work in the level that we bring all the sectors to this digital transformation, but we made some regulations as well in terms of what they can do, how they can do. And we are working as well in terms of the standards of the use of the technology. This is completely regulated, but we work on that as well. And right now, we have some guidance to ensure that what we do today will be sustainable in the future. Someone mentioned the legacy systems in Europe and things like that. We don’t want to have a lot of legacy systems. We have our interoperability framework, but it’s easy if you can integrate it without a lot of different things. So, we try to manage all these things with the regulation and with the proximity to all the sectors.

Morten Meyhoff-Nielsen.:
Thanks, Joao. Any final thoughts? Anything that our audience could contact, for instance, UNECA on if they have questions around frameworks and tools that UNECA provides to help support the national transformation?

Mactar Seck:
Just before I want to highlight the Kenya model, I think I like very well this. It is something we can look at as an example for other African countries, as well as the example of Rwanda. And we have seen the result in Kenya. I think, if I don’t have a mistake, I think the result of Kenya is around 10% of the GDP. It is a good result coming from this coordination mechanism. And also, mobile money, I think we have today 98% of Kenya using mobile money. And 65% have access to Internet. It is some result we can look at. And also, I would like to highlight, at the policy level, capacity building, as well as to raise the voice of Africa. At the policy level, we support African countries to develop their national digital identity. We support African countries to develop their national digital identity. We support African countries in policy related to climate change, also to education, health. As well as we support some African countries to develop their digital identity. And also, in agriculture, we have a big project in Botswana, and we can support African countries to see how we can use digital technology to improve the animal sector, also the agriculture sector. We also focus on capacity building. And also, we are going to launch a program early next year for the parliamentary to build their capacity on digital economy, digital technology, cyber security, as well as fintech. We have another program for the private sector with Alibaba. I’m going to stop there. I’m going to stop there. We have a lot of work to do. We have a lot of work to do. We are doing a lot of activities under the digital ID, digital trade, digital economy. Anything related to the three key sectors, ECA is ready to support you.

Morten Meyhoff-Nielsen.:
My clock is a little bit advanced.

Luís Soares Barbosa:
We have been investing in Africa in terms of helping countries to design national and sectorial strategies, for example, the justice sector strategy was developed with us. I would like to stress the relevance of these strategies, not just as documents, but as processes that engage people, not just as data, but as processes that engage people. Again, in our website, you can find other information. Thank you very much.

Morten Meyhoff-Nielsen.:
Thank you, Luis. On behalf of UNECA, thank you very much to the audience. Thank you, Lamine, for your patience, and thank you to the audience for your participation. If you have any questions that you may have to us here physically, please catch us after this session. Please don’t hesitate to contact UNECA or UNUIGAV separately. Thank you once again. Enjoy the rest of the day. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

John Tshinseki

The issue of digital sovereignty versus digital cooperation in African countries is prominent, with African leaders often prioritising their own sovereignty over the benefits of digital cooperation. This mindset of protecting their sovereignty for power and control within their own countries tends to hinder progress and collaboration in the region.

One of the main arguments is that African leaders manipulate laws and regulations to suit their needs and maintain their hold on power. This often leads to a violation of human rights, as these rulers tweak laws and regulations to suppress opposition voices. This infringement on human rights is perceived as a means for leaders to maintain their grip on power.

Furthermore, existing laws such as the Cyber Crimes Act in Zambia or the Data Protection Act are designed in a way that grants more control to the ruling government. These laws often contain draconian clauses, which are excerpts from international documents like the General Data Protection Regulation. The intention behind these laws is to suppress opposition voices, undermining the principles of free speech and democracy.

The analysis indicates that the sentiment surrounding this issue is largely negative, as it highlights the detrimental effects of prioritising sovereignty over cooperation. The arguments put forth suggest that the tensions between digital sovereignty and global digital cooperation in Africa cannot be completely eradicated due to the sovereignty-focused mindset of the ruling leaders.

John, who holds this belief, suggests that global discussions and agendas have minimal impact on the local decisions made by African leaders. This further reinforces the notion that the tensions between digital sovereignty and global digital cooperation in Africa are deeply rooted in the mindset and priorities of the ruling leaders.

In conclusion, African leaders prioritise digital sovereignty over digital cooperation, hindering progress in the region. This is reflected in the manipulation of laws to suppress opposition voices and the violation of human rights. The analysis suggests that the tensions surrounding this issue cannot be completely resolved due to the sovereignty-focused mindset of the ruling leaders. It is evident that a shift in priorities and a stronger commitment to cooperation is needed to effectively address these challenges.

Audience

In the digital cooperation landscape, there is extensive discussion surrounding the tension between cooperation and sovereignty. Some argue for the possibility of cooperation between sovereign entities, and the European Union’s initiative to create data spaces exemplifies that cooperation and sovereignty can indeed coexist. The EU aims to foster cooperation while maintaining national sovereignty, particularly in the area of data. This approach suggests that a balance can be struck to achieve mutually beneficial outcomes.

However, the term “digital cooperation” is viewed by some as vague, encompassing complex international digital policy issues. It covers aspects such as digital trade, encryption, online privacy, data protection, online payments, and surveillance. Due to the complexity and diversity of these issues, there is an ongoing debate about whether the term adequately captures the nuances and challenges involved in digital cooperation.

The tension between cooperation and sovereignty also arises from the collision between a country’s desire for control and the need for collaboration. While nations seek to maintain control over digital policies and regulations, there is a growing recognition that collaboration is necessary to effectively address global challenges. This tension becomes particularly apparent in discussions about digital sovereignty and global cooperation, highlighting the struggle to strike a balance between national interests and the collective pursuit of common goals.

Furthermore, the current structure of global governance, including the United Nations, may not be efficiently equipped to handle digital cooperation issues. Some argue for a re-evaluation of the United Nations’ structure, proposing the renaming of the organization to the United People to better focus on the choices and needs of individuals. This viewpoint suggests that there is room for improvement in the global governance system, particularly in addressing the complexities of digital cooperation.

Moreover, there exists a notable rift between global and national level discussions on digital sovereignty and global cooperation. Global discussions may not align with the political landscape and requirements of individual countries. People may adopt a dual stance, expressing support for both cooperation and sovereignty, which can lead to conflicting perspectives between the global and national levels.

The tension between surveillance and privacy also varies depending on the context and perspective of different groups or nations. Within the “Five Eyes” group, comprised of five English-speaking countries with an intelligence-sharing alliance, no tension appears to exist regarding surveillance. However, tensions arise when considering surveillance practices outside of this group. The nature of the tension depends on one’s location or the political stance of the sovereign nation.

In conclusion, the tension between cooperation and sovereignty in the digital cooperation landscape is a complex and multi-faceted issue. While the European Union’s data spaces demonstrate that cooperation and sovereignty can coexist, there are differing opinions regarding the efficacy and comprehensiveness of the term “digital cooperation.” Additionally, the collision between a country’s desire for control and the need for collaboration adds another layer of complexity. The current global governance structures may not effectively handle digital cooperation issues, and there is a significant rift between global and national level discussions. The tension between surveillance and privacy also varies based on context and perspective. Overall, balancing cooperation and sovereignty requires careful consideration of diverse perspectives, locations, and the specific challenges posed by the digital landscape.

Jamal Shahin

Digital sovereignty has become a highly contested topic, particularly within the European context, and its usage has been steadily increasing since 2019. Various stakeholder groups have differing interpretations of digital sovereignty, highlighting the importance of understanding its implications for policy debates.

Engagement and conversation with the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) community play a crucial role in comprehending digital sovereignty. The IGF community has actively discussed this topic, signifying its significance in global discussions.

However, a significant distance often exists between national politics and global agendas in relation to digital cooperation and sovereignty. National leaders in developing nations tend to implement laws and regulations that enable them to maintain power and control, sometimes at the expense of infringing upon human rights. This divergence between national and global perspectives creates a complex landscape for effective digital governance.

To address this complexity, it is essential to break down the discussion on global cooperation versus digital sovereignty into different functional areas. The current broad question allows individuals to take either or both stances simultaneously. Suggestions have been made to create a list of policy fields where global cooperation or digital sovereignty might manifest, in order to provide a more focused analysis. Dividing the discussion based on different functional areas will facilitate more nuanced and productive debates.

Concerns have also been raised about the impact of different governance mechanisms on the digital sphere. There is a fear that these mechanisms may lead to fragmentation, thereby impeding the development of a cohesive digital environment. The importance of specific institutions, products, or policy fields in shaping digital cooperation and sovereignty has been emphasized.

Finally, when discussing digital sovereignty, it is crucial to consider the global, regional, national and subnational dimensions. Different groups hold diverse tensions and perspectives on surveillance and data sharing. Understanding these varied viewpoints is essential for developing effective digital governance strategies.

In conclusion, digital sovereignty has emerged as a contentious and complex issue, with various stakeholders offering diverse interpretations. Engaging with the IGF community and considering different dimensions, functional areas and viewpoints are pivotal in developing comprehensive and equitable policies for digital sovereignty and cooperation. This extended analysis provides deeper insights into the multifaceted nature of the topic.

Justine Miller

During the discussion, the speakers explored the contradiction between digital concepts, specifically digital contradiction and digital compatibility. They noted that while these concepts may seem to conflict on paper, they are not completely exclusive in the digital realm. This suggests that there is potential for overlap and coexistence.

To further understand the dynamics of power balancing within a country, the nature of the country itself was highlighted as a crucial factor. The distinction between a dictatorship and a non-dictatorship was emphasized as it plays a significant role in determining how power is distributed. It was noted that power distribution in a dictatorship may be more top-down, with a strong central authority controlling various aspects of society, including technology regulations. On the other hand, in a non-dictatorship, power distribution may involve more checks and balances to ensure a fair and just system.

The speakers suggested that in order to achieve an effective power balance, certain measures should be considered. One approach highlighted was the need to grant more power to civil societies and companies. By empowering these entities, there is the potential for a more decentralized and diversified distribution of power. Additionally, the regulation of tech companies was deemed as an influential factor in power distribution. This implies that through careful monitoring and control of technology companies, there is an opportunity to shape power dynamics in a way that aligns with societal goals and values.

It is important to note that while the speakers presented a neutral stance on these matters, they provided evidence and supporting facts to substantiate their claims. By acknowledging the complexities of the digital landscape and recognizing the role of different types of countries, the discussion sheds light on the potential avenues for achieving power balance in the digital age.

In conclusion, the speakers highlighted the contradiction between digital concepts and emphasized that they do not have to be mutually exclusive. The nature of a country, such as whether it is a dictatorship or not, plays a crucial role in power balancing. Furthermore, empowering civil societies and companies, alongside regulating tech companies, can be instrumental in shaping power distribution. This comprehensive analysis offers valuable insights into the complex dynamics of power and technology in today’s digital world.

Sophie Hoogenboom

Sophie Hoogenboom, a Ph.D. student, is conducting an in-depth research on digital sovereignty. Her aim is to understand the various dimensions and implications of this topic. Sophie’s research has revealed that there is no universally defined understanding of digital sovereignty. Different individuals have varying interpretations and ideas about its importance. This finding challenges the assumption of a shared perception of digital sovereignty.

Sophie’s research on digital sovereignty is not limited to academic research but also has implications for sustainable development, particularly related to SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure). This highlights the relevance and significance of understanding and addressing digital sovereignty issues within the broader context of fostering sustainable development.

In her research and panel discussions, Sophie has encountered diverse definitions and viewpoints on digital sovereignty. This suggests that digital sovereignty is a complex concept influenced by individual factors such as cultural background, educational level, and professional experience. The various interpretations highlight the need for comprehensive dialogue and collaboration to establish a shared understanding of digital sovereignty.

In conclusion, Sophie Hoogenboom’s research sheds light on the diverse perceptions and lack of a universal definition of digital sovereignty. Her findings emphasize the need for further exploration and collective effort to address this multidimensional issue. By acknowledging and addressing these variations in understanding, we can work towards a more comprehensive and inclusive approach to digital sovereignty.

Jamal Shahin:
Hello, everybody. Thanks for coming to this session. We are here to discuss digital sovereignty and global cooperation. I hope you can see. No, you can’t see my screen. No, no, no, my PowerPoint. There we go. Okay. Thanks a lot. All right. So I have a couple of slides here. They’re done using Mentimeter, and we’ve done that to enable people who prefer to remain silent for the first few minutes of a session to actually get engaged and then get stimulated into participating. And also, it allows us to interact with the people online in a non, in a, well, hopefully an inclusive way. So we have about 55 minutes to network. The topic that Sophie and myself decided to actually want to network about is this tension that we see between the emergent discourse, particularly in, well, but maybe I should introduce myself. We should introduce ourselves. So yeah. So my name is Jamal Shaheen. I’m your on-site moderator for today. I am working at a couple of different universities in Belgium and Amsterdam. The VUB, which is the Free University of Brussels and the University of Amsterdam, and I’m also connected to the United Nations University in Bruges, which holds the Center for Comparative Regional Integration Studies. My research field is digital sovereignty, and I come from this looking specifically at the European perspective, right, on digital sovereignty, and we’re moving from that towards a more global perspective. Sophie.

Sophie Hoogenboom:
Hello everyone. My name is Sophie Hoogenboom. I am a PhD student and my topic is digital sovereignty, so we’re at the right spot. Today we would like to make a, we were thinking about this session and we thought it would be much more interesting if we would talk with each other about what digital sovereignty means for you or how you interpret it, because what we keep finding in almost every research and panel that we do is the varying definitions and also varying ideas about the importance of it. So that’s why I would like to ask you to join us on Mentimeter, because then we can, for those who don’t or are not aware, you can just go to mentimeter.com. You don’t have to log in and you can insert the code. We’d be very appreciative.

Jamal Shahin:
Yeah, thanks. Thanks, Sophie. Right, so if this works, I can move. We also have Justine, who is moderating the session from Bruges, which is where UNU-CHRIS is based. So hi, Justine, and thanks very much for being here in the morning. She says hello on the chat. Okay, yeah, so it’s menti.com and then you use the code 47036161. Okay, 47036161. Okay, everybody in? Good. This is just like the warm-up activity, right? We’re going to put you into, well, we’re going to put you into a big circle in a minute and we’ll have a conversation about the different questions we’re raising. So, at the end of 2021, Mike. We always have to ask this in Washington, D.C. I know you’re broadcasting this, but is there any attempt to make this a Chatham house rule or to block out everything everyone says? I’m afraid it’s not possible because it’s live-streamed, right? So, no, I will be careful. Yeah, and it’s a good point. Okay, and I did actually just give your name out. Makes it a bit difficult. Okay, yeah, this is being live-streamed. This is being recorded, I believe. Yes, so this is being recorded as well. So, however, we can turn the mics off at a certain moment and delete the chat. So, just we will capture the Mentimeter and we will use it for the reporting for the IGF. Okay, so just to get into a bit of the context, digital sovereignty has been a term that’s been used, well, for 20 years in certain areas and it’s becoming more popular in the way it’s used in recent years, particularly since around 2019 in the European context, at least, where we’re seeing use of the term in a very different way to the way it’s maybe used before. We’re seeing that this term has a lot of different angles to it and a lot of different components to it and we started off this research journey by actually trying to understand what was digital sovereignty. So, in 2021, at the end of 2021 and 2022, we launched a process to actually bring people together to actually try and help us get a broader understanding of what digital sovereignty means. So, we organized some webinars where we engaged with, on the one hand, the technical community or representatives, not the entire technical community, representatives from the technical community, representatives from civil society, and representatives from the business side of things. We then organized another series of exercises where we talked to different national policy makers to try and get a broader understanding and all we found was, in fact, that there’s a lot of different definitions, there’s a lot of non-coherence in the way that people are choosing to apply this term to their policies in the digital sphere. So, what we actually felt was really necessary is actually then to go from trying to define digital sovereignty to actually try and understand how and why different stakeholders use this term, right, and to try and unpack that. And as people who work at the university, this was the one thing that we wanted to try and get through. Once you understand how and why people use the term sovereignty in cyberspace, we can then understand what the implications are for the concrete policy debates. And we’ve been doing some of this research over time, we’ve been trying to understand how this actually comes together, and today what we wanted to do was actually reach out to the IGF community because we hadn’t done that part yet, right, and we see that within the IGF this has, I mean, last year it was also a topic, this year it’s very much a topic and it’s been appearing in many different panel sessions and we wanted to get the voices from the community in this space, right. We’re going to start off, I mean, we have input into this session as well, but we wanted to make it a conversation and not give you a lecture. If you want that, you can come to Brussels and you can do my program on this. This is just for Mentimeter people. Where are you right now? Ah, the code. The code is 47… Ah, do I need to repeat the code for Mentimeter? Hey, yeah, open your devices. Oh, you can’t really see it on the screen here, so you need to open your device, go to menti.com, and once you’re at menti.com, the code you need is 4703… I’m looking at Berna. 47036161. Okay, good. So, there’s the first question. Oh, who’s in Amsterdam? That’s great. We have quite a few responses already. Basically, all over. I’ll move to the next slide, because otherwise we’ll fall asleep. A previous exercise looked at different groups or different stakeholders and their expectations in digital sovereignty, and so we thought it might be interesting to see what kind of classifications you give yourselves. Classifications you give yourselves. You can put other… And… We didn’t forget. We wanted that kind of conversation. I will not tweet that one. Okay. Okay, excellent. So, there’s a lot of people in civil… Now, I don’t know, because you were talking to me before when we were talking about visions of digital sovereignty, and you were also saying that there’s this kind of vision towards what Mike had alluded to earlier on, self-sovereignty and the community sovereignty, right, which emerges quite a lot in the civil society field, right? Do you have a question for the next question? What question? Yeah. Yeah, so we’ll get to that later. So, you want to explain the process? I’ll shut up for a minute.

Sophie Hoogenboom:
All right. I’m taking over for now. So, what we are planning to do is we want to create groups of four. I think right now a few people have joined, so we could make a few groups of four. The idea is that we made two questions that we would like for you to discuss among each other, and then afterwards we will bring all the discussions together. That’s, I think, the practicalities.

Jamal Shahin:
And then the first question. So, we do it question by question, right? And since there are quite a few of you online, we’ll also organize an online room. Is it possible to organize breakout rooms online? Um, well, it says there must be about 10 people online, so maybe two breakout rooms, please. Amsterdam? Berlin? There’s only six online? Okay, then just make one breakout room. I think that would be fine. But you don’t need a breakout room, then they can just use the room. Justine will moderate online. Okay. Anyway, right now you can see the question in front of you. The first question. We’ll put you in a group, and Sophie and myself will join in the groups, right? And we want you to address this question. One, two, three. What? One, two, three, four. There’s four at the back. Yeah, that’s what I was thinking. Yeah, just do that side and that side. There you go. Like that. Is that okay? I don’t know. So, I do think we should come back because we have another question which will allow you to continue. But whilst I wait, I don’t know how it went in your group over there or online, Justine, but in my group, we determined to rewrite the question. And Mike is actually now sending me a list which I will put on Mentimeter. But maybe we go around the other groups. I don’t know. Should we start online with Justine? Yeah, maybe first of all, I’ll pass a microphone to group one. This group, the right wing group, to actually hear what happened. Do you want to report back or would one of you like to? Well, I can first start because the start of our discussion was, I think, very interesting. And I would love for them to say it because otherwise I’m repeating their own words while they’re here. But in the beginning, we immediately had the tension present in our group. So, the first person who spoke said, yes, there is a tension or maybe it’s not even compatible. And then someone else was saying, no, that’s actually not. But actually, I think it’s much better if they say it themselves. Don’t you think? That’s what I think. OK, OK, OK. Would you like?

Sophie Hoogenboom:
At least mention your name.

Audience:
Yeah, Alexandre Savnin, Zafri University. So, I was the first person who was saying that there is a tension because from my understanding of cooperation and sovereignty, cooperation is what happens between equal parties somehow. And sovereignty means that there is a sovereign who’s sovereign over something. It might be a state over its citizens. In some hierarchy, it might be citizen over its state or it might be corporation over state or over citizens. And there is another opinion. Yes, so. Yes. So, in response, I said we should differentiate between the relationship between the sovereign and the citizen and the relationship among sovereigns in an international platform. And then I said sovereigns define the actors in the cooperation environment. And so, yes, there is a tension, but it is not something that would stop cooperation from being realized. It’s just defining who the actors are. And then there is a tension. And then you have the platform to cooperate. But in a platform like IGF, you have other actors in addition to the sovereigns, which is the society, private sector. And so, the discussion went on from there. I think to you. So, without wanting to give you a word-for-word replay of what we discussed in our session, my proposition was that they do not have to be in tension necessarily, as illustrated by the idea of the data spaces that the European Union is trying to create, where you’re trying to foster cooperation while maintaining sovereignty. Also, as opposed to a platform model where data, for example, is centralized and pooled, you can still try to create cooperation while protecting sovereignty.

Jamal Shahin:
And whilst you’re doing that, thank you, John, we’re going to make you a co-host so you can speak. Would somebody from our group like to raise some of the issues that we discussed? I’ve put you, I’ve made your thing into a Mentimeter. Thank you very much. Yeah,

Audience:
it’s going to be the world’s most complicated Mentimeter question. We picked on our moderator and said, how in the heck can we answer a question that is so vague when it’s digital cooperation? That could mean anything about anything. And so we made it more complicated by listing 13 really tough digital policy issues, international digital policy issues. And then we went back and asked the question and said, okay, for digital trade, is there attention? For encryption, is there attention? For online privacy or data protection? For online payments? For surveillance? You’ll see the whole list. But we would welcome two or three more or five more suggestions. We went down this list and we did not see any places where there’s a lack of tension. I agree with, I do a lot of work on data spaces and data flows, and I pray every night that somebody will make a data space that works so we can show that this is a solution to these problems. But for our entire list, we haven’t found anyone where there isn’t some collision between the country’s desire to control and this need to get some kind of collaboration, cooperation, consistency. Until we have global government or until we have no government and everybody’s self-sovereign, this is my proposal. Rename the United Nations the United People and let us all focus on giving us all the choice we want. Sorry, I’ll end my campaign now.

Jamal Shahin:
I would vote for you, Mike. Thank you, and I’ll vote for you. Before we go to the topics that you’d raised, Mike, I think we want to go to the online discussions. And John, Justine first. Justine, would you like to summarize a bit the discussion that happened and then we’ll pass over to John.

Justine Miller:
Yes, thank you very much. I’ll try my best because this is not my field, so I hope I’m not mince-construing any of the interesting comments that my colleagues made. So I think the main point was that, yes, on paper, these two concepts can definitely be contradicting each other, but that in a digital sense, they’re not fully exclusive. And then we immediately switched to the idea that it really depends on the countries we’re looking at. So we switched back to nation level rather than a United People type of solution. And then we were saying that depending on whether your country is a dictatorship or not, you might have to give more power to civil societies, companies, but then it would also depend on how you regulate those tech companies. So there we also approached a lot of different topics there. But perhaps then John can jump in and add a bit more to what I’m seeing here.

Sophie Hoogenboom:
All right, thank you so much, Justine. I would like to now give the floor to John, who expressed in a chat that he wanted to share his thoughts. John, are you there?

John Tshinseki:
Yes, yes, I’m here. Thank you. Digital sovereignty, I think we had a nice chat in our session. And digital sovereignty, I think it’s more predominant in African countries than digital cooperation in that African countries know the global communities, I think the European countries and the U.S. and others think of North America and Europe. When you talk about human rights and all those other topics they discuss when they meet at the United Nations and Commonwealth and all those other platforms they meet, they mostly, I think, look at embracing those discussions and implement them for the benefits of the people on the ground. And I think when we talk about in African countries, African countries, our leaders, mostly they are more for clinging on to power. And that definitely will mean infringement on human rights and many other things that I think are going to make them stay in power as long as they want. And even a lot of times they twerk around the laws and regulations to change things around along the way to suit their own needs and to champion the agenda to stay in power. So when you talk about sovereignty, sovereignty, I think it’s something that they really want to so very much protect so that they have power and control over the boundaries of the country they are ruling and give the laws according to how they want. And I think I mentioned in our breakout session that most of the laws that we have, for instance, the Cyber Crimes Act in Zambia, the Data Protection Act in Zambia, it’s an excerpt from the General Data Protection Regulation, I think, given international documents, which I think where they pick a few other things, items, and bring them and localize them in Zambia here, and still pick a few other corners, you know, draconian kind of clauses, which then will make them to have more control and regulate how, you know, how the people in the country should behave and conduct themselves. And most of the time, it’s more on a designed concept to suppress the voices of the opposition and the human rights defenders and other dissidents out there who may be aiming at pushing an agenda to try and question governments’ misgivings and all that. So that’s a problem that we have. So the tension cannot completely be eradicated or gotten rid of, you know, for as long as our leaders, they still just come back from the UN, from AU, and still sit around in their own boardrooms, cabinet meetings, and make decisions which are far away from the global discussion and agenda of the global community. So that’s, I think, something that is disheartening somehow, in a way. So that still extends, I think, to a lot of things that we discussed, I think, in our breakfast session with my team, where Justin was the moderator. And that is why the issue of digital cooperation and digital, you know, digital sovereignty is still going to be born of contention because of the sovereignty of the countries. And that is my addition to this.

Jamal Shahin:
Thanks very much, John. Really interesting to hear about this distance, I think, that you mentioned between what happens at the national level and what happens at the global level in these discussions, and how, on one hand, we can have very nice global discussions, and on the other hand, people have to come back and deal with the politics of their country, and understand that there are certain things that need to be done that are maybe not aligned with those areas. So, in our group as well, I think we discussed things like that this question needs to be broken down into different functional areas. So this question makes no sense, in fact, when you ask it like this, because it pleases everybody at every moment, right? Everybody can either claim that they’re a sovereigntist or a cooperationalist, or they can even say both at the same time in a very George Orwellian kind of manner. And so what Mike had proposed was a list of policy fields in which global cooperation or digital sovereignty actually takes about, and if this works, you will see. I didn’t know how to do this, Mike. I apologize if this is a this is a slider. Okay, good. So I was going to say, and I was thinking about asking you to identify where are the areas that we could actually tell the UN Secretary General, okay, this should be in your report on effective multilateralism, and this should be in your report on the Global Digital Compact. Hopefully you can all see the Mentimeter. There is a second page. So we had a prolific note-taker in our group, so we had a second page where we would like to… You have a question? Sure, I’m going to pass you the mic.

Audience:
So listening to you and Mike, very interesting, but actually, well, if you start looking on this question, and well, you are the UN General Secretary in the context, there is another dimension of this between, for example, between, well, inside Five Eyes, there is no tension about surveillance. And when you step outside, there will be tension. Something like this, yeah. So if we are talking about UN context, there are different groups of something inside which may be tension to other groups, inside which may be no tension, but there is a tension to other groups. So it’s not clearly how to answer this question. It strongly depends on, well, your location or your political opinion of your sovereign in the meaning of the country to this thing. So, okay, let’s now sit and break up groups and start classifying group of sovereigns. I’m joking, for sure.

Jamal Shahin:
You’ve touched on a really interesting point there, which will be covered tomorrow at 8.30 in the morning, if you’re willing to come along, looking at the regional dimensions of digital sovereignty, right, or the regional dimensions of cooperation in this sphere. Because I think one of the things is that there are things that we can work on in global cooperation terms, and there are other things which do by their nature fit very much more into a regional or a specific political type of grouping. However, that’s one of the concerns that if we go too much down those routes, we end up, and I don’t want to use this word, fragmentation, we end up in a number of different types of scenarios where different governance mechanisms are used to interact with the digital media, the digital space that we inhabit. Okay, I think you’re right that there are global, regional, national, and even then subnational, we’ve been talking about those in our group as well. I think everybody has filled in, no, almost everybody has filled in the sheet. Yeah, why is it that there are some people, please don’t mess up my system. That’s good, that’s good. There’s an ethical nature to this research, and you just ruined it for us. I’m going to move to the next group of topics, and then I believe that’s all of them. I hope I copy-pasted correctly. Mike, maybe you could just say, when you talk about government data policy, you’re talking about publicly available data. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Government data policy between different governments. Why? What governments are sharing data sharing is also just a question of do you make your data available? The data flow across borders is different because that’s also corporate data, personal data for Facebook users, TikTok, and all of that. Yeah. And these are one of these areas where when you’re looking at these concepts of digital sovereignty or digital cooperation, you really need to go down into the specific institutions or the specific products or the specific policy fields that we’re working at. And I think that that’s been echoed very clearly here in this discussion. Yeah, I think that’s the point that our colleague was trying to make, that the fact that we have our own belief system or our own understanding of what political institutions can do for us and how they work also make us think about the way we think about cooperation or about sovereignty. And so that’s why I prefaced my insight with I’ve looked at the European field in digital sovereignty a lot. We talked about that, and I said, no, Sophie, let’s not do that. So well done, Sophie. Yeah, no, very clear. It’s now, we had the second question, but I’m sure that in three minutes, given that it took us 45 minutes to unpack the first question and go through it, I think we’ve done enough for today. We will share this. If you wish, you can drop us a business card if you have one, or you can come and get a business card. Do you have business cards? All right. You can come and get one of my… I’ve already got hers. Yeah. Okay. You can come and get a business card. Drop me or Sophie, well, drop me an email because my email is on my business card, and then we’ll send you around the PDF of this Mentimeter, and we’ll continue networking, because that’s the point of this exercise. Thanks very much. Thanks very much, Justine. Thanks very much to everybody online as well. It was very kind of your participation.

Audience

During a panel discussion on internet governance, several speakers presented their arguments and stances. Carlos Vera emphasised the importance of a human-centred discussion and maintaining a multi-stakeholder model in order to promote inclusive decision-making. The panel also highlighted the need for representation and gender equality in internet governance. It was noted that there were six women and only one man in the panel, prompting a call for more diverse representation. Transparent and inclusive processes within the Global Digital Compact were advocated for, with a focus on gender inclusivity. The panel also discussed the challenges of government misuse and shutdown of internet services, and the lack of international internet governance. The need for a United Nations Internet Governance Law was highlighted, along with the importance of education on cyber security. The panelists called for a re-evaluation and change of the existing internet system to ensure fairness for all nations. The involvement of the technical community in internet governance was deemed crucial, and the promotion of digital fluency was seen as an important aspect of internet governance. The concept of the Peace Boat was suggested as a model for the digital age, and the panelists emphasized the importance of celebrating the achievements of the Internet Governance Forum. Gender equality in internet and digital governance was also discussed, with a focus on incorporating gender considerations in decision-making processes. The panelists highlighted the relevance and need for review of the Geneva Principles, which were developed 20 years ago, and the importance of grounding the legal basis of internet governance in widely debated foundational principles like Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Finally, it was noted that Winston Roberts, a former representative of New Zealand at the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) in Geneva, currently works for the NGO IFLA. The panelists provided valuable insights on these topics, offering recommendations and highlighting areas for improvement in internet governance.

Bertrand de Chapelle

The analysis explores the topic of internet governance and highlights various aspects related to it. One important point is that internet governance encompasses both the governance of and governance on the internet. It is described as a complex ecosystem consisting of organizations that have played a crucial role in keeping us connected during the pandemic. However, it notes that internet governance is currently scattered and works in silos, primarily comprising intergovernmental or individual initiatives. This indicates the need for a more comprehensive and cohesive approach to governance in the digital realm.

Another significant aspect discussed is the limited resources allocated to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). The analysis suggests that contributions to the IGF are insufficient, barely supporting a staff that is half the size of another organization. This raises concerns about hypocrisy, with governments and individuals complaining about the lack of productivity from the IGF while failing to provide adequate support. This competition for resources within the IGF poses a challenge for effective governance in the digital age.

The analysis also recognizes the IGF as just one building block in the broader framework of internet governance. It emphasizes the necessity of innovation in designing governance systems for the internet. A quote by Kofi Annan is highlighted, stating the importance of being as innovative as the individuals who created the internet itself. This underscores the need to adapt governance structures to keep pace with the ever-evolving digital landscape.

Additionally, the analysis addresses the fundamental question of what the desired digital society should look like. It argues that this question is crucial and requires careful consideration. It asserts that throughout history, there has been a continuous effort to organize in larger and more interconnected communities, and a digital society represents the next stage of this evolution. This observation highlights the transformative nature of communication in the digital age.

In conclusion, the analysis provides a comprehensive overview of internet governance, discussing both the challenges and opportunities in this domain. It emphasizes the need for a more integrated and collaborative approach to governance, the allocation of sufficient resources to support the IGF, and the importance of innovation in designing effective governance systems for the internet. Lastly, it underscores the significance of envisioning and constructing a digital society that aligns with our collective aspirations and values.

Anita Gurumurthy

The analysis provides a comprehensive examination of the crisis in digital governance. One of the main issues highlighted is the geopolitical tensions that arise due to the stranglehold over the digital economy by a small number of large transnational corporations. This dominance leads to concerns about fairness and competition in the global digital landscape.

Moreover, it is argued that public policy in digital governance should be grounded in the principles of public interest and democratic deliberation. The analysis emphasises that effective governance cannot solely rely on dialogue but must also consider the broader public interest. This approach recognises the importance of inclusive decision-making processes and democratic accountability.

The Digital Cooperation Forum, which has a tripartite dialogic mode, is mentioned in the analysis. While the forum aims to improve digital cooperation, caution should be exercised to avoid repeating the flaws of its predecessor, the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). The analysis suggests that the IGF had issues with confirmation bias and potentially excluded diverse voices and views. Hence, it is important for the Digital Cooperation Forum to address these concerns and promote inclusivity.

In the realm of data governance, the need to humanize this technical concept is emphasised. The analysis calls for the recognition of new rights, such as the right to be forgotten and the right to be represented or not in digital systems. These rights would help protect individuals’ interests and ensure a more balanced and equitable digital ecosystem.

The analysis also stresses the necessity of restraining the power of digital transnational corporations for effective global digital governance. Without mandatory obligations for these corporations, global governance cannot foster innovation, economic pluralism, or environmental sustainability. However, it is pointed out that powerful countries from the global north may resist new arrangements, making it challenging to address this issue.

A system-wide reboot is advocated for global digital governance. This includes reforms in international financial institutions and the international tax regime. Additionally, the conversation needs to shift towards nurturing public digital innovation ecosystems at a global level, which would encourage collaboration and inclusive development.

The analysis laments the current state of digital governance, stating that it falls short of upholding justice, peace, and fundamental human values. The Geneva Declaration is referred to as an articulation of the need to foster justice, dignity, and peace – values that are still out of reach in the digital realm.

The internet is described as a common heritage of humankind, supported by public law. This perspective highlights the importance of collective responsibility and public regulation to ensure that the internet serves the interests of all.

Equitable distribution of benefits from digital resources and data is deemed essential. The analysis raises concerns about situations where countries contribute valuable data, such as pathogen data, but do not benefit from resulting research. It emphasises the need to address this imbalance and ensure fairness in the distribution of benefits.

Lastly, the analysis highlights the necessity of recognising the hybrid nature of existence and reality in the digital society. This observation implies that the digital world is deeply entwined with the physical world and should be approached holistically to ensure a comprehensive and inclusive understanding.

Overall, the analysis provides a thorough exploration of the crisis in digital governance, examining various aspects such as geopolitical tensions, public interest, data governance, power dynamics, international cooperation, and the need for a more just and inclusive digital society. It calls for reform and recognition of the complexities of the digital landscape to address the challenges at hand.

Jordan Carter

In this analysis, the speakers delved into the intricacies of internet governance and digital policy. They expressed the paramount importance of internet governance, noting that virtually all digital technology relies on communication through the internet. It was emphasised that the internet occupies a central position in our lives and, therefore, requires robust governance mechanisms.

One key aspect that emerged from the analysis was the need for multi-stakeholder internet governance. The speakers argued that effective governance should involve the participation and representation of diverse stakeholder groups. They highlighted the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) as an essential platform that ensures different stakeholders have a seat at the table and space in the room. By including various voices, multi-stakeholder internet governance can foster better decision-making and address the interests of different stakeholders.

However, the current internet governance system was acknowledged as imperfect. The analysis revealed the existence of gaps in ambition, coordination, and resources. It was noted that these gaps limit the efficacy of internet governance efforts. To overcome these challenges, the speakers called for strengthening the IGF and addressing the identified gaps, such as inadequate resourcing and insufficient coordination.

Interestingly, there was opposition to the movement of digital issues to an intergovernmental forum. It was argued that such a shift could potentially worsen the situation by leading to stakeholder domination and limiting diverse participation. The analysis highlighted the importance of maintaining a multi-stakeholder approach in digital governance.

The issue of resources and funding in internet governance was also raised. It was pointed out that proper resourcing is crucial to ensure the effectiveness of governance mechanisms. The discrepancy between the resource allocation for internet governance and other policy areas was highlighted, with one speaker noting that their own policy team is equivalent in size to the IGF secretariat. This observation indicated the need for adequate resources and investment to adequately address internet governance issues.

The role of governments in digital governance was another important point discussed. The analysis underscored the necessity for governments to reconsider their approach to digital governance. As technology continues to evolve, governments must adapt to effectively address the challenges and opportunities brought about by the digital era.

Furthermore, it was noted that internet governance discussions often receive insufficient attention. The allure of “sexy” issues such as artificial intelligence tends to overshadow important internet governance debates. The analysis posited the need to give due emphasis to internet governance and not let it be overshadowed by other emerging topics.

Lastly, the importance of building upon existing principles in policy-making and creating new solutions was highlighted. The analysis emphasised the importance of incorporating established principles rather than continuously revisiting and inventing new ones. By doing so, policymakers can ensure consistency and avoid unnecessary duplication of efforts.

In conclusion, the analysis underscored the critical role of internet governance and digital policy in our digitally interconnected world. It called for multi-stakeholder participation, addressing gaps in the current governance system, proper resourcing, government reconsideration, and increased attention to internet governance. By addressing these issues, stakeholders can work towards strengthening and improving the governance mechanisms that underpin our digital landscape.

Lise Fuhr

Cross-sector participation in the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) is not only important but also critically needed. The IGF brings together a wide range of sectors, including banking, public administration, manufacturing, transportation, and healthcare, all of which are using and creating digital solutions. However, there is a need for more diverse participation from legal professionals in the IGF, especially due to concerns such as data security, workers’ rights, and access to education. This highlights the importance of broader representation and diverse perspectives in the forum.

Efforts should be made to showcase the IGF as a platform for shaping the future of the internet. By emphasizing its role in discussing challenges and opportunities related to digital technology, the IGF can attract more participants. The IGF should be promoted as a forum where stakeholders can come together to engage in meaningful discussions and collaborate on finding innovative solutions. Creating a clear value proposition for participation in the IGF can serve as a strong incentive for individuals and organizations to actively engage and contribute to the forum.

The IGF has proven to be a well-established and well-respected mechanism for monitoring and implementing decisions. It can play a crucial role in setting the framework for the internet we want. Anchoring the Global Digital Compact in the IGF can further strengthen its position and ensure that decisions and actions taken are aligned with the global digital agenda.

Although advancements have been made in terms of internet access, there is still a significant gap. Approximately 2.6 billion people worldwide remain offline, preventing them from fully benefitting from the advantages of the digital era. Closing this internet access gap is crucial in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and harnessing the potential of digital technology for social and economic development.

Transparency, openness, and inclusivity are key principles that should be prioritised in internet governance. Emphasising the inclusion of all genders and the involvement of individuals from all nationalities is essential for creating a more democratic and representative decision-making process. By promoting transparency and inclusivity, the IGF can effectively address the diverse needs and concerns of various stakeholders.

To support its expanding tasks, the IGF Secretariat requires stronger funding. As the role of the Secretariat has grown in complexity and importance, adequate financial resources are necessary to ensure its effective functioning. Adequate funding will enable the Secretariat to fulfil its responsibilities and facilitate the smooth operation of the IGF.

Ambition is vital for the ongoing development and evolution of the IGF. By setting ambitious goals, the IGF can continue to adapt to the fast-paced changes in the digital landscape and effectively address emerging challenges. Maintaining a human-centric approach and upholding the multi-stakeholder model are crucial in ensuring that internet governance prioritises the needs and interests of all stakeholders.

Raising the profile of the IGF and setting the agenda for new participation is an essential step in strengthening its impact and relevance. By increasing awareness of the forum and actively inviting new participants, the IGF can create a more inclusive and representative platform. Setting the agenda allows the IGF to focus on key issues, foster meaningful discussions, and contribute to shaping the future of the internet.

In conclusion, cross-sector participation, diverse representation, and a clear value proposition are crucial in the Internet Governance Forum. The IGF plays a vital role in setting the framework for the internet we want, closing the internet access gap, emphasising transparency and inclusivity, securing adequate funding, fostering ambition, and maintaining a human-centric approach. By raising its profile and setting the agenda, the IGF can continue to be an influential platform for shaping the future of the internet.

Avri Doria

Avri Doria, an influential member of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) since its inception, is discussing the future of digital governance and specifically the future of the IGF. Doria emphasises the need to improve and refine the existing IGF, rather than creating a new platform.

Doria believes that the IGF has the potential to continue evolving and effectively address the emerging challenges of digital governance. Creating a new forum, Doria argues, would incur significant costs in terms of finances, time, and effort. Doria highlights the 18-year history of the IGF, showcasing the expertise and experience gained over its lifetime.

By iterating and improving upon the current framework, Doria suggests that the IGF can adapt to the rapidly changing landscape of digital governance. This approach would not only prevent redundancies but also save valuable resources that would otherwise be needed to establish a new forum from scratch.

Examining the supporting evidence, it is clear that Doria’s argument is based on practical considerations. The 18-year existence of the IGF provides a strong foundation for building upon existing structures and processes. Additionally, creating a new platform would require a significant financial investment, consume valuable time, and demand considerable effort to ensure successful operation.

In conclusion, Avri Doria advocates for the ongoing development and improvement of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) as a means to tackle the future challenges of digital governance. Doria’s argument is grounded in the extensive experience and expertise of the IGF accumulated over its 18-year history. By avoiding the costly and labor-intensive aspect of creating a new platform, Doria suggests that the IGF has the potential to adapt and evolve effectively, benefiting the global digital community.

Timea Suto

The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) is a crucial platform for convening various stakeholders to discuss public policy issues related to internet governance. It was born after the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) envisioned a people-centred information society. The IGF involves stakeholders such as telecommunications and tech companies, governments, and development banks, and has led to the global implementation of projects originating from its discussions.

While the IGF has made significant progress, there are areas that require attention. One such area is the lack of awareness about the achievements of the IGF, leading to the belief that new initiatives should be created. Effective marketing and sharing of the IGF’s outputs and success stories are needed, as well as expanding the IGF community to include non-participants.

Multistakeholderism, a crucial concept derived from WSIS, is an integral part of global digital discussions. However, it is not perfect and has room for improvement. The United Nations Secretary General has called for collaboration among multiple stakeholders to prepare for the future summit.

Crucially, the IGF does not set technical standards, cybersecurity norms, or policies for responsible and trustworthy AI. Its main role is to convene all relevant stakeholders to ensure proper implementation and accountability. The IGF aims to evaluate the progress made in achieving the vision set 20 years ago, identify areas requiring further action, and ensure inclusivity.

The persistently unchanging gender divide in internet usage is a pressing issue that needs to be integrated into all IGF discussions to promote gender equality. Additionally, the IGF has evolved to include discussions on digital governance, expanding beyond the scope of internet governance.

Overall, the IGF provides a vital platform for stakeholders to discuss public policy issues related to internet governance. While acknowledging its achievements, it is essential to address the gaps and challenges, including raising awareness, improving multistakeholderism, addressing the gender divide, and publicizing its outputs. By addressing these issues, the IGF can continue to play a significant role in shaping the future of internet governance.

Renata Mielli

The Internet has experienced significant global growth over the past 20 years, becoming more resilient and faster than ever before. It has played a crucial role in economic, social, and cultural development, becoming essential for various aspects of life. Alongside this growth, multistakeholder participation in Internet governance has also expanded, giving more voices and perspectives a seat at the table.

The Internet governance community has shown remarkable growth and diversity, both nationally and regionally. This diversity has led to a wide range of ideas and approaches being brought to the table, enhancing the decision-making process. Hosting the first Elusófono Internet Governance Forum in Brazil is an example of this diversity being celebrated and nurtured.

However, despite its growth and positive impacts, the Internet also faces a range of challenges. These include economic concentration, where a few dominant players have significant control over the online landscape. Misinformation and cyber-attacks on democracy pose risks to the integrity of information and democratic processes. Hate speech is also a concern, as it can worsen social divisions and breed intolerance. Additionally, the environmental impacts of the Internet and the risks associated with artificial intelligence need to be addressed.

The multistakeholder model, while valuable, presents its own challenges due to its diversity. It can be complicated to navigate and reach consensus among the participants with different backgrounds, perspectives, and interests. There are concerns about potential fragmentation in the Internet governance debate, with the creation of competing governance spaces, which could hinder effective decision-making and coordination.

The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) is seen as the definitive platform for discussions and decision-making related to Internet governance. Through this forum, insights from various global stakeholders can be generated, leading to more informed and inclusive policy-making processes. The IGF’s role in generating these insights is widely supported, emphasizing its importance in the governance of the Internet.

Addressing the challenges faced by the Internet requires deeper discussions and the development of effective solutions. The Cybersecurity and Internet Governance Initiative (CGI) has taken steps to advance dialogues and consultations with stakeholders throughout the ecosystem, promoting collaboration and collective problem-solving.

Furthermore, there is a strong call for increased diversity in decision-making spaces. It is not enough to have diverse participation; decision-making bodies should also reflect this diversity. The appointment of Renata Mielli as the first female coordinator of the Internet Theory Committee in Brazil since its creation in 1995 showcases the importance of representation and inclusion in leadership positions.

It is necessary to consider the future and the type of world we want to build. This involves pondering the implications of Internet governance, its role in shaping society, and the impacts it will have on the lives of future generations.

In conclusion, the Internet’s growth and expansion over the past two decades have had a significant impact on economic, social, and cultural development. While the Internet governance community has become more diverse and inclusive, challenges remain, such as economic concentration, misinformation, and cyber threats. The multistakeholder model presents challenges due to its diversity, raising concerns about potential fragmentation in the governance debate. The Internet Governance Forum is seen as the key platform for discussions and decision-making, generating insights from global stakeholders. To address the challenges, deeper discussions and solutions are needed while ensuring that decision-making spaces are diverse and inclusive. Considering the future and fostering collaboration are crucial for building a better world. An event proposed in Brazil in 2024 aims to foster multistakeholder consensus on these important themes.

Ana Neves

The analysis highlights several important points raised by the speakers. Firstly, it emphasises the concern that the rapid evolution of technology can widen digital gaps. This refers to the disparities in access to and adoption of technology, which can hinder development and prevent regions from participating in digital internet governance processes. The need for ubiquitous connectivity, faster speeds, low latency, and high-quality connectivity are identified as factors that contribute to these digital gaps. This sentiment is negative, as it highlights the potential negative consequences of technological advancements.

The next point discussed is the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). This global event brought together heads of state in 2003 and ministers responsible for the Information Society in 2005. The goal of WSIS is to achieve an inclusive and people-centric information society. This initiative is seen as neutral, as it does not have a sentiment attached to it but instead presents a vision and goals for the future of the information society.

The analysis also emphasises the importance of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in identifying gaps. The IGF plays a key role in global digital governance, but current global movements on digital topics may confuse participants. Therefore, the recommended action is for the IGF to identify these gaps to remain relevant and effective. This observation is presented as a neutral viewpoint.

Furthermore, the analysis includes insights from a speaker who highlights the idea that the internet should be used for beneficial purposes for humanity. It asserts that the aim is to make the internet a force for peace and improve the well-being of humankind. This positive sentiment emphasises the positive potential that the internet holds for the betterment of society.

In conclusion, the analysis provides an overview of key points expressed by the speakers. It recognises the potential negative impacts of technological advancements in widening digital gaps and highlights initiatives such as WSIS and the IGF, which aim to address these issues. Additionally, it underscores the positive idea of using the internet as a force for peace and for the betterment of humanity. These insights shed light on the importance of bridging digital divides, promoting inclusive digital governance, and harnessing the internet’s potential for positive impact.

Avri Doria:
was a very quick break. I know it was very quick for people to leave and come back. We apologize. We’re here, we’re now, we’re starting. So this session is the future of digital governance. One of the wonderful things about the future is we really don’t know what it’s going to be like, so it’s a good place to start. So we’ve seen this week, we’ve seen in write-ups, we’ve seen all kinds of suggestions and ideas for new mechanisms, GDCs, new kinds of digital fora, new kinds of mechanisms, and such. And it prompted some of us to sort of start asking the question, well what’s wrong with the IGF? And part of that question came out, well there are lots of gaps, and in fact if you read each one of these testaments that people are putting out about the best idea for the future, there’s a gap. And there’s a saying that, well this gap needs to be filled, it’s important, there are other importance, the IGF, you’ve been around for 18 years and you’ve got these gaps. So one of the things that we started looking at, one of the things I started looking at was, well we’ve been around for 18 years, we’re about to go into that renewal season, and when you go into the renewal season you look at, well what do you need to do for the future? The future that we’re here to talk about, about digital governance, or internet governance, or whatever we call a future governance. And we started to look at, well if something that was started a while back, that was started with great intentions, with great promise, has done good things, is well-formed, took a lot of work, took a lot of money, took a lot of time, and when we talk about starting a new forum, believe me there’s a lot of work to do. I’ve been watching the IGF since it was first first conceived of in the Working Group on Internet Governance and nursed through the original, had the honour of being on the Secretariat, had the honour of being on the MAG, had the honour of being a voice in the wilderness. I’ve done all of those roles quite happily. So one of the questions that we started to look at was, what are the gaps? What are really the gaps? And how is it that the IGF could conceivably fulfil them? Could conceivably fulfil them without having to incur all the expense and bandwidth and pain and suffering of trying to start something new? So we’ve got a certain number of pre-existing questions, but we also yesterday, while talking to the panellists, sort of said, thinking about TUNIS agenda, thinking about what remains to be done, thinking about the gaps, how could we solve those gaps? Could we? And if somebody wants to say the IGF couldn’t possibly fill that gap, why not? So basically that’s sort of the shape of what we’re having a conversation here, both amongst ourselves and hopefully with you all, to sort of try and explore that gap space and see what it would really take to solve the problems of that gap. So with that, I pass it on to my co-moderator, Ana Neves, and please take it away.

Ana Neves:
Thank you very much, Avri. Hello, speakers. Hello to all. Avri, don’t you think that everyone must, maybe they are a bit confused about all these movements that we have nowadays at global level on digital? A little confused? A little confused, and I think that after this… It’s the fourth day of the IGF, including the zero day, of course. And I think that with the people that I’ve been talking to, it was interesting to see that people are becoming some more confused, some more thinking in different things that they were thinking before they came here. But the thing is that topics related to digital are nowadays front and center on the international agenda. And nowadays, we are talking a lot about artificial intelligence. So during this IGF, there was a lot of sessions about artificial intelligence. But my point here is that the fast evolution of technology, new approaches, and the developments, such as the metaverse, and all that include emerging technologies, as well as the web 3.0, decentralization, need for ubiquitous connectivity, higher speeds, low latency, and high quality connectivity requirements, may contribute to widening the digital gaps among regions, countries, and on a local level. So this will cause a major difference in the evolution and development in economy, social, political, and educational areas, as well as reduce the possibility for certain regions of the world to effectively participate in digital internet governance processes. I just would like to remember, and then I will give the floor, of course, to our speakers. But well, I and Ari, we are here trying to make the context and to give you the context. And I just would like to remember that the goal of WSIS, the World Summit on Information Society, that gathered heads of state in 2003. And then in 2005, the ministers responsible for the Information Society. So the goal of WSIS is to achieve a common vision, desire, and commitment to build a people-centric, inclusive, and development-oriented information society, where everyone can create, access, utilize, and share information. The Geneva Action Plan agreed at the first WSIS summit in 2003, identified 18 areas of activity in which government, civil society, businesses, and international organizations So, I will start with the first question. The Tunisian government and the international community should work together and are working together to achieve the potential of ICTs for development. The Tunis agenda for the information society was a consensus statement of Tunis adopted on the 18th of November 2005 in Tunis. It called for the creation of the digital compact, which includes the digital sector, the public and private sectors, the technical and academic communities, and civil society. And nowadays, we have all these processes, including the WSIS plus 20, which includes the summit of the future that will include the digital, through the digital compact, and we have other processes at worldwide level. So, I would like to ask you, as a member of the panel, what do you think about what the IGF is saying, and why IGF is not good enough, or is it good enough, or which are the gaps, as Avery very well said. So, let’s go to hear our speakers, and I will give the floor, first place, to Sloheimer and also Douglas for Q & A and Joel from World quiet.

Jordan Carter:
AU domain administration Australia. John. thank you and good afternoon, everyone . Great to be on this panel, today, joining an interesting group of speakers. I’m just making some personal remarks here, having thought about this stuff for a long time, and I’m going to try and share a few of the things that we’ve been doing in the past couple of years. We’ve been using the internet to our day-to-day lives. If anyone thought that wasn’t the case until 2020, they got a brutal reminder of that in the course of the COVID-19 pandemic. And whether it’s the internet itself or the services and applications that we rely on that run on top of it, this digital realm, this internet realm, is central to our lives, which is why we’ve been doing this for a long time, and I’m is why it is so important, so important that the Secretary General identified it as one of the two major challenges facing the planet along with the climate crisis. So I want to make three main points to you today, because if we get this right, we can support the human flourishing that we should have as our vision for this planet. We can have just, peaceful and prosperous societies, sustainable economies all around the world. So there’s a lot to play for here. And my first point is a simple one that relates to the slightly provocative title of this panel. We cannot separate internet governance and digital governance. They’re intertwined, and they’re intertwined because almost all digital technology relies on communication, and the communication network that we all rely on is the internet. It is true that where digital policy issues stray too far away from an internet aspect, they may need their own institutions and discussions, and me being me, I would say that if they are having their own spaces, they should definitely apply the multi-stakeholder approach to having those conversations. But most of the time, the digital and internet realms are intertwined, and they should stay that way. Because otherwise, we will see a bifurcation of these policy dialogues, increasing complexity, and more and more resources being spent in forums that are very close to duplicating each other. My second point is to say that effective internet governance needs to be multi-stakeholder internet governance. I’ve already talked about the centrality of the internet to our lives, to the information societies that we are building. And that is why the IGF is such an important forum. Its structure and its scope forces the collision of the broad concerns and interests and perspectives from around the world and around the different stakeholder communities. And it does that by making sure there’s a seat at the table and space in the room for all the stakeholder groups, for civil society, for the technical community, academia, businesses in the private sector, and of course for governments. Without this blend, We could end up just having an interesting technology discussion or an interesting policy discussion, but that is not what we need. What we need is internet governance, and nothing could be worse than building a duplicate structure for digital governance issues alongside it. We have the forum already. We’re all right here in it today. But actually something could be worse than that. It would be moving it into a single stakeholder-dominated forum. Around which there are some proposals floating around. A government-preferenced forum. That would be worse than duplication, and it’s something I urge us all to oppose. My third point is to talk a bit about the gaps that the moderators mentioned before, because I don’t want to pretend that the internet governance system we have today is perfect. Put your hands up if you think it is perfect. Yeah, there are no hands up in the room, and I’m not going to ask about the Zoom room. The world has changed a lot since the settlement of the early 2000s, and it’s sad to say that it is not always for the better the ways that it has changed. And so we need to strengthen the IGF and address some gaps, and I just want to propose three for your consideration. Hopefully they’re a little bit provocative and help you start thinking about these and getting ready to engage with the panel from the floor. I think there’s an ambition gap, a coordination gap, and a resource gap. And just to speak briefly, on the ambition side, I don’t have the future vision that the internet needs. But I know that if we want to get the internet that we want, we need to take the daring step of describing it and describing the goals that will get us there. What is our ambition for the Information Society? How will we measure our progress? How will we support the sustainable development goals, support human flourishing? What is the internet we want, and how do we build it? So to close that gap, let’s develop and agree goals to do that. That could focus the work of our Internet governance system, and it could be a way to develop or create a need to develop new working methods here in the IGF to be able to discuss and agree such things. Not to replace the SDGs, not to create a rod for our back, but to focus our efforts. The second is the coordination gap. We have a distributed model of Internet governance with different institutions and different communities all doing part of the job. For that to work, it needs incredibly strong coordination. And the IGF can be the forum to do that coordination, but once again, there are some working methods to do it. In our own technical community, we’ve been articulating a need for stronger coordination. I think it applies more broadly as well. And briefly, the third gap is the resources gap. If you think about the incredible work our IGF Secretariat does with five people, five people, and then you think about the scale of the overall governance systems in individual countries, let alone the global level, you can see that none of us together as stakeholders are putting enough resources into this forum. And we’re also not resourcing well enough the diverse participation that we need, both to make the outcomes of the IGF more useful and to make its legitimacy stronger. So the resources gap is one that needs to be closed. So to recap, in closing, we should not separate digital governance and Internet governance. We must maintain a multistakeholder approach and model in doing it. All key stakeholder groups are required, and nothing could be worse than removing digital issues to an intergovernmental forum. And we must close gaps to strengthen the IGF and deliver the Internet we want. The ambition gap, the coordination gap, and the resources gap. Thank you very much.

Avri Doria:
Thank you very much, Jordan. Thank you for your initial remarks, and then I will the floor to Renata Miele, coordinator of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee, for her first comments and remarks, please.

Renata Mielli:
Thanks, Ana. Good afternoon, everyone. I would like to greet my fellow participants, my fellow session participants, and thank the IGF for inviting me to be part of this panel, which encourages us to come together in a main session to address the various concerns and discussions we have followed throughout this event about our future as a governance community. I will bring to this discussion some reflections that stem from the experience of the Internet Steering Committee in Brazil, a multi-stakeholder governance group that has been built with dedication over its 28 years. The first point of this reflection is to look at the journey we have taken up to this point. Today’s Internet is very different from what it was 20 years ago, when the first round of WSIS took place. It has expanded globally, irreversibly, penetrating people’s lives. It has grown technically stronger, becoming more resilient and faster than we ever imagined. It has become a critical infrastructure for economic, social, and cultural development. The layer of applications and content which gives the Internet concrete meaning in people’s lives has also developed. With this expansion, our governance community has also grown. National and regional initiatives now form a global network across different countries, regions, youth, and dams. As an example, I may show the recent hosting of the first Elusófono Internet Governance Forum in Brazil less than a month ago. These spaces have become more diverse and inclusive. The diversity of sectors and actors at this IGF of the Internet and its applications has also brought emerging challenges to be addressed. Increased economic concentration in the ecosystem, an infodemic of misinformation, the use of the Internet to attack democracy processes, an increase in violence and hate speech, the environmental impacts of our infrastructure, and the use of the Internet to increase the vulnerability of the Internet and the possibilities and risks that arise with the evolution of artificial intelligence, another topic that has catalyzed the discussions on this edition. Therefore, to discuss our future, we cannot ignore this trajectory and the current challenges, especially in light of the dilemma that the Internet governance community faces. We have been discussing and participating in various different arenas, and the complexity shows no signs of decreasing. The WSIS Plus 20 and the Global Digital Compact are only two among all the processes being undertaken within the ecosystem, with much of them potentially overlapping in several streams. Concerns about the future have been growing and demand more transparency, support, and meaningful participations in discussions and decisions. In this context, multiple stakeholders are calling for avoiding the fragmentation of Internet governance arenas, splitting discussions about the Internet from those covering digital issues. Those topics are inseparable pairs, like two sides of the same coin. The challenges are intertwined, as Jordan said. Decisions about one impact the other. We all need to revisit the Tunis agenda, which remains extremely relevant in their essence and already addresses these integrated issues. Many of the goals established there are yet to be achieved, and the guiding principles are still fully valid. Our role as members of the Internet governance community community is to review our own mechanisms and institutions based on the principles promoted by the Tunis Agenda. Our current concern can be summarized in two major points. Avoid the fragmentation of the debate and the creation of competing governance spaces that could weaken multistakeholder participation, as we have unfortunately seen in the GDC construction process, which has resulted in uncertainty about its outcome. How to improve the IGF’s model of debate and participation so that it can address the challenges at hand, generate discussions that contribute to promoting insights for decision-making by various global stakeholders. To achieve this, we must fully embrace diversity to improve effective multistakeholder participation, which is essential for the future of the Internet. Cultural, linguistic, gender diversity, and as many other forms of diversity, are critical to driving our governance community. This is the path we have been pursuing in Brazil. The multistakeholder model is challenging because it brings together this diversity, gathering different perspectives, and we don’t always agree. But when we bring our differences to the table, rather than ignoring them, we all grow. Let’s take this opportunity to reflect on the achievements that the Internet governance community has already made, and how we can contribute to charging the paths to address the inequalities that feel exclusion. If achieving multistakeholder participation is crucial for any proposed solution to our Internet-related issues, include the so-called digital ones. And in our perspective, the IGF was, is, and must be the definitive place for these discussions to take place, in order to provide inputs that enable effective outcomes in other forums around the world. Thank you for the opportunity, and we continue.

Ana Neves:
Muito obrigada, Renata. Thank you very much, Renata. And now I will give the floor to Liz Fug, member of the IGF Leadership Panel. Liz, please.

Lise Fuhr:
Thank you, Ana, and good afternoon. First of all, thank you for the invitation to speak on this panel. We speak about many, many topics here at the IGF. We speak about security, innovation, skills, connectivity, sustainability. But exactly this topic that we’re discussing here comes first at a very important time, and it asks a very important question, because it’s the overall question of what is the future of Internet Governance Forum, and Internet Governance as such. But why is this timing important? Well, we’ve heard it both from our moderators and also the two panelists. We have the WSIS plus 20 coming up. But we also have a number of other policy initiatives underway in the UN, such as the Global Digital Compact, which will be a part of a wide-ranging summit for the future, driven by Secretary General Guterres. And we also see that there is now a tech envoy in the UN following developments in technology, but also governance. He’s also an ex officio member of the leadership panel. And here today, I speak as a member of the leadership panel. In my daily life, I am Director General of ETNO, which is a telecom trade association in Brussels. But be mindful, I speak as a leadership panel now. So if we look at IGF itself, we see there have been some innovations in the past year or two. So the UN Secretary General established and gave a mandate to the leadership panel. And you’ve heard from us last year and throughout this week. And as a leadership panel, we will also be serving until the next IGF. This is a panel of experts chaired by Vint Cerf. And we bring together the technical community, academia, civil society, private sector, and governments. And we have been working in our respective constituencies to raise the awareness of IGF and also amplify the messages of IGF. And one of the most important aspects of the leadership panel lately, but it will develop in the coming years, has been to set a framework of the internet we want. And we see this as forming a basis for a series of goals or objectives to support the development of an open, secure, right-respecting internet across the globe. We have set a framework, and that’s not meant that we will have a top-down process on this. We are now hoping that these principles will be unfold by and supported and the goals will be set by the global community. So we will consult broadly, not only as we used to call the internet, the international internet community. To me, we need to consult with the global community, because everyone uses the internet these days. We, as a leadership panel, we have also contributed to the work on the global digital compact by sharing with the co-facilitators the messages that we have seen and agreed with all of you. And it’s vitally important internet governance community. So you gave us input both in Addis Ababa, but also in 2021 in Katowice. So we, as a leadership panel, didn’t take our own position on this, but we tried to condense the input from the last two IGFs and conveyed it to the global digital compact consultation. So if we look at the gaps, we have talked about the gaps, and we see there is a lot of activity on many fronts. But I want to look at what aspects of internet governance need to be. we strengthen, because we as a leadership panel see it as we need to strengthen the IGF, because we see IGF as a part of Internet governance future. So for us, key is the representation and participation. We have seen a huge number of participants as this very IGF in Japan, more than 8,000. I heard numbers of 9,000 across the globe have signed up and followed both online and in person. But the UN reminds us that 2.6 billion people are still offline, and we are actually far from reaching the STGs and from harnessing the benefits of digital, which should get us there, and we think this is a virtual circle. At the same time, we also have to acknowledge that digital and Internet governance is no longer the sole remit of a small part of society and businesses. The uptake and impact of the Internet is now a whole of society matter. To me, the biggest gap is, and this is what should drive our work as a community, is we need a greater and more diverse participation at IGF. We should not be an echo chamber talking to each other of like-minded communities. What does that mean? That means greater industry participation, and not just tech and telecom companies. We need other sectors like banking, public administration, manufacturing, transportation, healthcare. All of them are using the Internet and connectivity in new ways. And I don’t mean only using, but these actors are actually employing high-skilled developers to create tailor-made digital solutions. So we need to see these people at IGF. And it means also more participation from legal professions. The Internet is now fundamental to our lives and economies. And with new challenges from security, to data protection, to workers’ rights, implication of new technologies, inequality, safety in the workplace, access in education, taking out a bank loan, signing up for an insurance, the applications are endless. And with that comes a need for highly qualified legal professionals, from solicitors, to barristers, to judges, and magistrates, to bring their expertise here, but also to learn from us, who are sitting here right now. So we all need to interact and we need to see these people here at the IGF. And it means consistently and constantly increasing participation from the global south. This is the group which needs access to high quality connectivity, devices, and skills. And they’re absolutely, they must be here to shape the internet we want. And again, we need to see these people here at IGF. So how do we get there? This is my last part. Speaking as a member of the leadership panel, I now, I know we have a role at this and an immense challenge. But we need to make a clear value proposition to these groups that I talked about. And this means strong and impactful outreach and showcasing IGF as a place where you can be a part of the process of how we want the internet to be tomorrow. We need to share with the peers and other sectors on the challenges and the opportunities of the internet and digital technology. And reinforcing the multi-stakeholder model. So a final word on the future of the internet governance. The internet we want can and should be an important component. of the global digital compact, and I believe that the GDC should be anchored in the IGF, and the IGF is a well-established, well-respected mechanism to monitor and implement the decisions taken by the multi-stakeholder community for the future of the Internet. Thank you.

Ana Neves:
Thank you very much, Liz, and thank you very much for putting in context all this Internet governance and the digital technologies and importance to reach all these different stakeholders from the healthcare, insurance companies, banking, et cetera, extremely important. So now I’m going to give the floor to our last speaker. No, sorry, not the last. Before the last one, Anita Gurumurthy, Executive Director, IT4Change India. Please, Anita.

Anita Gurumurthy:
Thank you so much. I think that some of the points I will make may perhaps take a note or two that are slightly different from my predecessors. We in our networks and in our organization believe that the crisis of digitality is entirely a crisis of its governance. So how do we reframe global digital governance, and how do we ensure that the future of global digital governance takes into account a world besieged by extreme inequality? The GDC process initiated by the Secretary-General precedes the 20th year review, as has already been mentioned, of the World Summit on the Information Society in 2025. The arrangements forged through the GDC must correspond to the momentous changes providing the normative directions and… key themes to inform the WSIS Plus 20 review process. But where do we begin, and what must we acknowledge? A productive and fruitful engagement with the GDC process requires recognition of a historical fault line, a democratic deficit that continues to mark the technical governance of the internet. Today’s geopolitical tensions are also rooted in the stranglehold over the digital economy of a few large transnational corporations from mainly two countries, the distressing degeneration of the public sphere, and the imponderables around the future of AI governance. With data and AI technologies decisively shaping value chains and market power in a pandemic-stricken world, public policy discussions on digital issues are also now part of the entire multilateral system, from digital trade to biodiversity, health, food, and oceans. So this is a story of contestation, complexity, and uncertainty. Where do we go from here? First, we do not want to be running in the same place as we invent the new institutions of tomorrow. The Secretary General’s July 2023 policy brief conceptualizes two main institutional arrangements, a tripartite digital policy space, which is termed the Digital Cooperation Forum for the short term, and a global commission on just and sustainable digitalization for the long term. The Digital Cooperation Forum and its tripartite dialogic mode seems to bring back echoes of the IGF. Caution is needed so that it does not simply reproduce all the flaws of the IGF with due respect to the strengths of the IGF. We know that dialogue is important, but public policy is more than dialogue. It is based on tenets of public interest and democratic deliberation. It cannot be held hostage to tokenistic representation and diversity optics. The Global Commission for a Reinvented Multilateralism is a worthwhile idea, but both these bodies must derive their mandate from the business plus 20 process built consultatively and democratically with engagement from civil society. Sadly, the most powerful countries from the global north do not want new arrangements. Please read their submissions online to the GDC consultation process. Second, we need to move from a technical idea of data governance to humanize it, to evolve rights adequate to the epoch of homo technicus. That data must flow freely, albeit with trust, is a refrain that strips the real politic of data governance, reducing any contention with the. We need a cross-border flow of data to the singular issue of data privacy guarantees. What we need is a new articulation of rights that accounts for people’s development sovereignty in the digital paradigm. A new narrative of data flows with rights, including the right to connectivity and data public goods, the right to be forgotten, the right to be represented or not in digital systems, data rights for algorithmic work environments, and so on. We need a people’s data and AI constitutionalism at the international level that is an instrument that also legitimizes people’s collective right to A, determine how aggregate data resources are utilized, and B, enjoy their rightful claims in the benefits of data-enabled intelligence. Without a bedrock of principles, the mechanisms to achieve coherence across the multilateral system cannot evolve. Third, without reining in the power of digital TNCs through mandatory obligations in all jurisdictions of their operation, global digital governance cannot encourage innovation, economic pluralism, or environmental sustainability. It cannot respect people’s rights. We are at an inflection point. The planet is not synthetic. We need ambition. Fourth, global digital governance calls for system wide rebooting. We need a reform of international financial institutions and the international tax regime for public finance of digital infrastructure development. The conversation must shift to public digital innovation ecosystems that are nurtured globally so that private enterprise can thrive everywhere and people can be connected on their terms. To conclude, the present of digital governance is not in a good place. This assessment is based on a simple counterfactual. Had we evolved governance institutions and mechanisms that were adequate to our digital coexistence, the information society would have been more like the aspirational values of the Geneva Declaration. It would have, and I quote, fostered justice and the dignity. and worth of the human person, it would have respected peace and upheld the fundamental values of freedom, equality, solidarity, tolerance, shared responsibility and respect for nature. All of this articulated in 2003. We are nowhere close. The test of successful digital cooperation would be in one core idea, the right to flourishing of people and the planet. This would mean public agora built on pluralism and inclusion, economies that thrive on peering and reciprocity, and societies of unlimited creativity and self-actualization. Thank you.

Ana Neves:
Thank you, Anita. Thank you very much. And now I’ll give the floor to our last speaker at this round, Timia Souto. She is Global Digital Policy Lead at the ICC.

Timea Suto:
Thank you, Ana, and thank you, panelists, and thanks for the audience for waiting until the last speaker. I promise we’ll turn it over soon. My name is Timia Souto. I’m Global Digital Policy Lead at the International Chamber of Commerce. For those of you who don’t know us, ICC is a global business organization encompassing members of over 45 million companies of all sectors and sizes all over the world. We are present in over 170 countries. And also, for those of you who don’t know us, ICC was the business focal point back at WSIS time almost 20 years ago. I haven’t myself been there 20 years ago, but I was at WSIS Plus 10, and I can’t believe it’s already been 10 years from then. So I can understand some of you who have been there, as I’ve raised since the beginning of how much has changed since then. And I want to start there today, taking a bit of stock of what has happened 20 years ago and where we are now. And what WSIS, as my fellow panelists said, created was this vision for a people-centered information society and has created also a So, what we did was we created a forum where that vision can be furthered, which is the IGF, as a nondecisional body to discuss public policy issues related to Internet governance, but most importantly, what this has created was this concept of multistakeholderism, coined this concept of multistakeholderism, and, as I said, I wasn’t there, but I’ve heard from many of you how difficult it was to make that happen, how the governmental organizations, civil society, tech companies, the technical community, really bang on the doors of the negotiating room to be let in and have their voice. And what has happened since is, I’m going to quote what is written in our common agenda in paragraph 93, where United Nations Secretary General says, United Nations governments, the private sector, and civil society could come together as a multistakeholder digital technology track in preparation for the summit of the future to agree on a global digital compact. Right? So, it’s no banging on the doors, no asking to be let in, it’s an invitation to commonly come together and create something. So, that is, I think, an achievement on its own. Now, to Jordan’s point, is the IGF perfect? Is our Internet governance world perfect? Is multistakeholderism perfect? No, it’s not. Nothing is. There is room for improvement. There is room to build on what we’ve achieved. There is room to make it stronger. It should be doing that. But I also think we also need to think about, as we think towards the gaps so that I can get to the point of what I want to, what you’ve asked me to answer, we need to think about what the IGF is and what it isn’t, what it was created for, what it is, what it is not, and how we really use it effectively. So, is IGF going to solve universal connectivity? No, it will not. But it will bring together, it does bring together telecommunications companies, tech companies, We are working with the world’s largest digital markets, the world’s largest development banks, governments, to discuss what’s going on and to make it happen. There are projects that were born here at the IGF, they are now running over the world to do just that. Will it set technical standards? No, it will not, but it will bring together the technologists, the engineers, civil society organizations, human rights activists to make sure that the standards that we have in place, the standards that we have in place, will be implemented. Will it set norms for cyber security? No, it will not set norms for cyber security, but it brings together all the actors that can assess if those norms are properly implemented, and it can hold us accountable, all of us, if we’re doing our part or not. Will it set policies on responsible trustworthy AI? No, it will not, but it will bring together the policy makers that do that. Will it set standards for the public? No, it will not, but it will bring together all the stakeholders that can assess if those standards are properly implemented, and it can hold us accountable, all of us, if we’re doing our part, if we’re doing our part. That is what the IGF is. It is a convener for all of us to come together and see have we come far enough from that vision that was set 20 years ago, what else is necessary to do, and are the right people in the room, as Lisa said, is everyone here? Now, yes, there are gaps. There are gaps in the work that we’re doing, and we need to think about how do we create an awareness gap that is very dangerous, because that awareness gap makes others think that new things should be created, that it’s not good enough. We need to also think about what we do achieve. Have we marketed it properly? Have we shared that properly to the people that are not here, and have we made them aware in their own terms so that So I think we have to be very careful about what we say. We have to be very careful about what we say. So I think we have to open up our own IGF community that we have created and go directly and speak to others that are not here to make them part of it, and that only is possible if we properly share what the outputs of this forum are, what they can be, and what the values are, what the success stories are, and I think we have a bit longer way to go to do that.

Avri Doria:
So I think we have to be very careful about what we say and what we do. So thank you all for coming in with your perspectives. I’d like to invite the rest of you, the other participants who are sitting in those seats, to come up. We have, I guess, 38 minutes left on the timer of this, so I’d like to give as much time. Please come to the microphone, introduce yourself, and then comment either on what you heard or your own idea of what you want to say. And then we’ll have a chance to hear from the rest of you.

Audience:
Thank you very much. My name is Carlos Vera, I’m from Ecuador, and I must agree with two main ideas from the panel. A human-centered discussion, and also, as Jordan say, let’s maintain the multi-stakeholder model. This is essential. We have to have a strong, open, and transparent discussion in that panel. Now, there are six women, one man. It’s working. Thank you.

Avri Doria:
Thank you. Please, there are one, two, three, I count four microphones up there. There must be opinions, there must be comments. Otherwise, if you guys don’t have the comments, do you have any? I’m going to ask our online, and where is our online moderator to tell us? Yes, do we have any? No? Yes, we do. So can you please come up? read. Oh, well, please come to the microphone, if that’s okay. We do have a few comments, though. We have two hands up. I don’t know if you want to bring them in, but they’re on the Zoom. Oh, sure. If there are people that wish, yeah. I don’t have that showing on my, so please. There’s Ayalu with his hand up, his or her hand up. Oh, yeah. Please, are you unmuted and able to speak? Yes, please, go ahead.

Audience:
Can you hear me? Yes, I can hear you. Thank you so much for giving me this opportunity to put my question and opinions, and I joined IGF last year in Addis Ababa. My name is Ayalu Shibeshi. I’m born in Ethiopia. I’m working and studying in Australia. My research area is fiat, physical fiat currency or digital fiat currency and CDBC with accessibility and traceability. So if anyone interested, let me know. My question, I have two questions, and I have three proposals. The first question is how the nature of the Internet and Internet technology be inclusive and fairness with practical application while the government shut down and misuse Internet services. That’s one question. Two, is it possible to fully access technology via the Internet as a digital public infrastructure ecosystem while owned by the government or the nations of the country which is without international Internet governance So these are my questions. If you allow me to elaborate, I can propose my, read my proposal, or I have three proposals, or you can read it. It depends. It will take me another two, three minutes. Please go ahead. Okay. Advanced technologies such as AI, blockchain, quantum computing, and IOT, EOT, NFC, and NFT, all these technologies generate huge amount of data or information. These days, data or information is a wealth. The wealth accumulated in developed nations. All these technologies perform activities and services via the Internet. First, the need for United Nations Internet governance law. Dear participants, let us think about the root cause of the current Internet connectivity, major problems such as by the name of freedom of speech and democracy, universal human rights and unrestricted democracy and freedom of inclusive connectivity, EGC, affected local government and countries unable to control the internet and it distracts the country and the country shut down the internet. There is no accountability and also there is no international law to stop them. Second, we need to educate the cyber security because that’s the internet. We must start education cyber hackers to behave as a human nature, a natural human being, behave professionally and ethically, applying natural law rather than natural law with more soft skill rather than using the hard skill and if we all perform any task with integrity, honesty, humanity, kindness, apply responsibility and accountability for equitable benefit of all human beings, all humankind as a global society including all nations and benefit of this earth. The last question, the last suggestion, the third, current existing working system of the internet must be evaluated. We must break the current cycle of the world society governing system which is dominated everything by developed nations, even before the internet. We must build a new system that matches suitable, applicable and rapid advanced technology interest to all nations nationwide fully agreed and signed by the United Nations Internet Governance Forum and the ITU which is a member of all international countries of telecommunication Unless otherwise we don’t have standard regulations to accountable all each countries, we will not be rich and inclusiveness of the internet. I really appreciate it for giving me this time. Thank you so much.

Avri Doria:
Thank you very much. Really appreciate it. Now we have one person at a microphone and And we have another remote. So I think I’ll go with the microphone, and then I’ll go to the next remote, and then I’ll come back to the microphone, if that’s okay. So please, sir, introduce yourself.

Audience:
Thank you. And thank you for the rich discussion and the really hopeful proposals, I think, outlined today. My name is Peter Mysek. I’m general counsel at Access Now. I wanted to actually present the results of a discussion earlier this week. Civil Society met on day zero in a session about scoping of the Global Digital Compact. We had a diverse group inside and outside the room, and we’re able to reach a rough consensus on ways to really strengthen the process of the Global Digital Compact and ensure that it is representative and meets the kind of high and lofty goals that we’ve heard laid out. The three areas that we focused on, if I could present, were around transparency and responsiveness, synergies and coherency, scope, and then a bit of background. So first on transparency and responsiveness, we all have spent a lot of time already. There’s been a lot of opportunities to input into the Global Digital Compact, the deep dives led by the tech envoy office, regional collaborations and convenings, but we don’t know how these inputs are being used. We don’t know what the outputs will look like. We have only seen in the last couple months a very short paper from the co-facilitators of the process that we think doesn’t really reflect the rich discussions. And so getting more meaningful multi-stakeholder processes that are gender inclusive, that include clear, responsive feedback loops and the inclusion. of all stakeholders by design is really key. If there are to be multilateral discussions on the GDC, we need to know the timelines ahead of time. If they’re going to be in person, applying for visas to attend those is going to take time. And member states should take care to include civil society in their delegations. On synergies and coherency, we really echo what you’ve said about rooting the outcomes of the GDC in the IGF. And we are, this week, using the IGF itself to strengthen the Global Digital Compact. And we reach rough consensus that the IGF is an open and inclusive forum, and ever more so every year, we hope, and should not be replaced or duplicated by another forum, especially one based in a global north city that carries environmental costs and very real costs to attend and participate in. Finally, on scope, we want to redouble efforts to involve the technical community. Acknowledging that internet governance is broader than technical discussions, we think those are key stakeholders that really succeeded during the stress test of COVID when systems suddenly went online, and we all depended on the internet for our basic daily work, the horizontal technical governance succeeded. And we wish to kind of re-invoke and involve them in these discussions. So that’s where I’ll leave it. Again, that’s a rough consensus from civil society on Sunday. Thanks.

Avri Doria:
Thank you very much. OK, I just want to point out where we are. I have a Deborah Allen now who’s online. Then I have two people at microphones and one to read. So I think I’m going to call that the cues for now, given the time. So please, Deborah.

Audience:
Thank you very much. Hello, everyone, and thank you for hearing me on this panel. I want to make a couple of real quick comments to amplify the work you’re doing about what you all just said. Get the word out and participation. I mean, the fact that I’m, to introduce myself, I’m in the Hague. I’m from New York City, but I have a nonprofit here in the Hague called Find Out Why to promote digital fluency. We work with the European Internet Forum. And Lisa, I saw you in DC this summer at the Transatlantic Partnership. So this is an example of civil society getting on the mic at the panel. And I just want to commend all of you and say that it’s happening. It’s doing. You’re doing, right? Because here I am. That’s proof. That’s number one. The second comment was get the word out. Because of the fact that you’re in Kyoto, I’m wondering if anybody is familiar with the Peace Boat or peaceboat.org. Everybody should check it out for real because it’s one of the things. It’s phenomenal. It’s been around for quite some time. And it is an organization that, in terms of the digital, OK, let me see. me think how to put this. The digital era is quite young. There’s still a lot to be designed. And there’s a lot of convening that will happen just because of the fact that we’re designing this thing as we go, like one does with peace. And what the Peace Boat does, it carries various projects and campaigns to promote peace, human rights and sustainability, working with partner organizations and individuals in Japan, Northeast Asia and around the world. It uses local grassroots actions, international conferences, global networking, etc. Okay. But it’s an actual giant boat that goes around the world, building friendships for peace. And I think we could do the same. I mean, if there’s somebody that could fund it, obviously, to convene people on a mass, I mean, when you look at peaceboat.org and imagine it, it’s it’s something that we could get the word out we could use to get the word out because we’re in a new stage. And this is a design comment and idea. And my last question is, or my only question is, a lot of times I think in the conferences, we get so general, and I think that we’re all when we convene, we know that we need to do this, we need to do that. I’m super curious about one of the things that you’ve done at IGF, that you’re most proud of that you’ve seen have a big impact, because I know it’s there. And constantly hearing generalizations about what we should do and could do is, I think, less the point and more let’s get psyched about what we are doing. But yeah, thank you very much for giving me time on the mic.

Avri Doria:
Thank you. And I’m going to ask everybody here to remember the questions so that we when we unwind, after the last two speakers, we’ll be able to answer any of the questions that are pending. I think I’ll go to that mic first, because I think I saw you there first. And then we’ll go to Bertrand. And then I’ll read two statements that I’ve received, please. Oh, and there’s a person there. I’m sorry. One, two, three. Okay. Please.

Audience:
Brief to make space for everybody. My name is Emma Gibson. I’m with the Alliance for Universal Digital Rights, or AUDREY for short. And we were part of a number of organizations who launched these 10 feminist principles for including gender in the global digital compact. We did that on Saturday. And one of the principles is around around increasing the leadership of women in Internet governance and policymaking, so it was great to hear one of the contributors talking about the makeup of the panel and the success there. So really my question is around how important do you think the issue of gender is in Internet and digital governance? Thank you.

Avri Doria:
Add it to your questions. Bertrand, can I ask you a favor? I was just told that he had been waiting there forever, and it was my absence, so please. That’s what I thought, actually. Okay, thank you very much. Please.

Audience:
Thank you, Chair. I’ll try to be brief. I’m one of the authors of the Geneva Principles, that is to say, one of the state’s representatives in Geneva in December 2003, one of the many authors, so I have a stake in that. I’d just like to appeal for some recognition of the principles. The whole process has principles. They were developed 20 years ago, and nobody in this forum has actually mentioned principles. We’ve mentioned frameworks, we’ve mentioned action lines, many other processes, but it might be a good thing to go back and review the principles and just tick off what’s been done against those principles, because they took a lot of discussion. You would not believe how much discussion it took to actually agree on what are fairly simple principles. It took us a week to develop principles. Another comment that has been made this afternoon is that we need to have some sort of attention to the legal basis, or maybe the intellectual basis. of the work we’re doing. Well, for a legal basis, there was also, back in Geneva in December 2003, a huge amount of debate on the preamble for those principles, and there was a strong opposition at the summit to including references to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We managed by open debate, strong debate, to overcome that opposition, and we have now, we included the UDHR in the preamble of the Geneva Principles. That is the basis of a fairly good approach to, you know, legal consideration of the basis for the internet. So, take it back a few steps and review that document. It’s like tablets of stone, it’s the beginning, okay? This is the beginning. It’s like tablets of stone, it’s the beginning, okay? This is a suggestion. Thank you.

Avri Doria:
No, thank you very much. And before you wander off, please, because I can’t even really see you, because of the light in my eyes. Could you please introduce yourself?

Audience:
I’m sorry. Winston Roberts. I was, way back 20 years ago, a representative of New Zealand at the WSIS in Geneva. Now, working for an NGO, IFLA representing the global library sector. I love IFLA. That is access to information. Thank you very much. Also, the Nation Line. I’ll stop now.

Avri Doria:
No, I think it’s great, and I did read it once for the classroom, but I think going back to it is great. Thank you for the suggestion. Bertrand, please.

Bertrand de Chapelle:
Good afternoon. My name is Bertrand de la Chapelle. I’m the Executive Director of the Internet and Jurisdiction Policy Network, and the Chief Vision Officer of the Data Sphere Initiative. A few points. The first thing is, I love the title of this panel, because it’s the future of Internet governance, and we need to make sure that it contains both the future of the IGF, but it’s only a portion of the discussion of the future of Internet governance. And when we talk about Internet governance, I’m sorry to repeat myself, there’s this distinction between between governance of and governance on the internet. And the governance of the internet as a whole range, an ecosystem of organizations, they’re not perfect, but as has been said before, it is what kept us together as an infrastructure during the period of the pandemic. The governance on the internet, however, is a scattered piece of institutions that are working in silos, mostly intergovernmental, but also individual initiatives. And at the moment, it is what Laura Denardis has described as an inchoate system. It’s just an embryonic thing. So when we talk about the future of internet governance, I think there is a third layer, which is we’re talking actually about the governance, internet and the governance in the digital age. And governance in the digital age, and going back to what Jordan was saying, the key question that is in front of us is what is the digital society we want to build? And I like, although I don’t always agree with Anita, I agree that there are fundamental questions that are political questions regarding what is the internet and the digital society or the information society we want to build, and that’s what is in front of us. A more concrete thing to pick on what Jordan was saying, but in the reverse order, the resources for the IGF is a competition in hypocrisy. It is unacceptable that anybody complains, particularly among governments, about what the IGF doesn’t produce when the contributions are barely supporting a staff that is half the size of my own organization. This is unacceptable. That being said, this is one of the reasons why you cannot do more with what we have, and the IGF is just one of the building blocks that we need to build upon, which brings to the second point that he mentioned, which is the notion of coordination, and Timea was mentioning very rightly that the goal is not to make the IGF deal with everything at all levels. We have the dynamic coalitions. their first step towards what could be called issue-based networks that can be catalyzed in the environment of the IGF, where on an issue-by-issue basis the relevant stakeholders in a multi-stakeholder fashion get together to address an issue and report every year on what they’re doing within the IGF, on top of the dynamic coalition so that it’s operational. Finally, on the question of ambition, I said already that this is about the digital society we want to build. I like the reference, and there is a bunch of us in here, we were there at the WSIS, and the question of what is the digital society we want to build is actually a recognition that every single evolution of the communication in humanity, be it language, be it writing, or be it the printing press, has changed dramatically the way society is organized, and history is basically the effort of mankind to organize in larger and more and more interconnected communities. We have the challenge of organizing the coexistence of 7 billion people, 5 billion or 7 billion people connected online, and I want to finish by quoting this expression that has been attributed to Kofi Annan, I don’t know whether it is really him who said it, but at least his reference as having said that, in designing the governance for the internet or the internet age, we need to be as innovative as the people who invented it. We invented this new thing with the IGF, and I carry here the bag from the first IGF in 2006, which shows that it is sustainable by the way, but I think the challenge is what is the governance architecture that we need in the digital age, and this is why the title of this panel is a good one.

Avri Doria:
Thank you. Sir, I had already closed the queue, I think, before you came up, so… The queue was already closed, so I’m sorry. I’m going to read two that were submitted online, and then I’m going to go back to the panel. So please forgive me, but the queue had been closed. Yeah, so. Can I make a very short one? A very short one? Yeah. But I had already closed the queue, and I already chased two people away from the other line. That is only the exception. No. We also have this one. My question, what is the position of leadership panel on the nature of existing internet? Internet is a peaceful, development-oriented, and civilian environment, or internet as new battlefield for cyber warfare and as a weaponized tool against other nations. Do we need a global declaration to recognize internet as a peaceful and civilian-only environment? What would be the contribution of the IGF in this regard? That was a question from Amir Mokaberi. Hopefully, I pronounced the name somewhat close. And this comment from Segun Ulugbile. Again, forgive me. It is time to move from the IGF chambers discussion into action. Considering global efforts of the UN Digital Compact, IGF should start evolving into internet and digital governance forum. Many stakeholders speak to digital governance far more in contrast to internet governance. There can be no internet without the digital, but there can be digital without the internet. Time to converge these two most important critical elements of our modern life. People now interact through a digital sharing system without necessarily being on the internet. The ecosystem needs to be proactive and creative, as well as to transform the global internet and digital ecosystems into a unified space for peace, innovation, and development. So I’ve read those two. Now what I’d like to do is sort of unwind the panel, but basically from one edge to the other. Try and keep it to like two minutes, given that we haven’t much time and we did speak extensively at the beginning. And see if you can catch some of the questions, please. Thank you.

Timea Suto:
Thanks, Aubrey. I’ll try. And we have quite a few questions. I think I want to speak to maybe three of them. One is, what can we do to really address the gaps that we’ve been talking about? I think in this evolving nature of Internet governance, digital governance, is the IGF equipped to do digital governance, et cetera? It already sort of does, in my personal opinion. It has evolved from discussing purely Internet governance in the beginning to basically anything and everything that concerns digital, and that’s fine, that’s okay. It’s evolved organically. It is a bit crowded, though, sometimes. A good friend of mine sometimes says it’s like drinking from a fire hose. So we need to focus, right? We can discuss everything, but we cannot discuss everything at the same time. Look at how the SDGs are discussed at the global community, for example. We have 17 of them. We pick one or two each year, get together, have a political forum. We discuss progress, how it went, go away, take two others next year. We cannot do everything at the same time, and that needs to be, I think, recognized. Two, how important is gender? Extremely. The one thing, I think it was Doreen on one of the panels earlier this week, she said as the digital divides are shrinking in certain areas, as connectivity is shrinking, connectivity divide is shrinking, the gender divide is persistent. So as we get more people online, but as we get more people online, the gender divide remains the same between them. So gender is a critical issue, but it’s not an issue on its own. It’s an issue in everything we do, and we need to have the gender glasses on. We need to mainstream gender into conversations. It’s not something that you have to have a gender session at a conference or you have to have a gender track at the IGF. It needs to be in everything we do organically. And then third, what have we done that is a success? We’ve done this. First of all, we’ve gone very far with the multi-stakeholder model. We still have an IGF that convenes thousands of people every year, but we have dynamic coalitions, as Bertrand said. We have best practice forum. So, I think we have to be very careful about that. I think we have to be very careful about that, because if we don’t know how to produce outputs, what we haven’t done is talk about them so that other people know. So, I think I really don’t want to forget that.

Avri Doria:
Thank you. Anita, please, two minutes, or there.

Anita Gurumurthy:
Thank you. Just a couple of points. I do think that a co-proposition that the technical is also important, but I do think that a co-proposition of the Internet would also require a certain idea that it belongs to, it is a common heritage of humankind that is backed legitimately by some kind of public law. To address Bertrand, I’m very happy that we were able to meet more than halfway on something. The problem, I think, sometimes with a forum like the IGF is there is a lot of confirmation bias. There is a lot of bias, and, in fact, there are a lot of people who research and advocate around the Internet on what confirmation bias means, what a filter bubble means. So, if only you spoke to many like me, maybe there would be many more people who disagree with many people here at the IGF. That’s because there are people we work with on digital sequence information and synthetic biology, where natural resources management is today in huge conflict with data about natural resources in the world. We work with civil society, where you really don’t know what to do when public data sets are taken away from your governments by transnational digital companies, we work with indigenous people whose traditional knowledge and data ownership are two sides of the same coin. These are the majority world, they are 80 per cent of the world. In some ways, they are not present here at the IGF. They are not present in the world. They are not there in the world, but they are not present in the world. So, we need to think about the contributions. The COVID pandemic has been mentioned. Pathogen data is being given by countries from Africa into the corpus of the WHO, but the benefits occurring from pharmacological research from that data set is not going back to Africa. It’s going into the patent system controlled by a few corporations. governance on the Internet and governance of digital society? No. Because all existence is hybrid. And all our reality is hybrid. We are homo technicus, and I will leave that thought with you, because I do agree with Renata that it’s a futile argument to look at this except as two sides of the same coin. Thank you.

Renata Mielli:
Thank you, Avril. I would like to comment the aspect of gender, and I think it’s not enough to simply increase. It’s important, of course, and I’m glad to be here with one, two, three, four, five, six marvellous women in this panel, but I want to put something. It’s not enough to simply increase the diversity of participation. The diversity needs to be reflecting decision-making spaces. My presence here today also reflects the long-term transformations driving by multistakeholder discussions, not only within CGI, but also in the Brazilian community as a whole. I’m only here because I’m the first female coordinator of the Internet Theory Committee in Brazil since its creation in 1995. Another comment briefly is about the challenges we are facing here, about the future of Internet, the future of governance, the Internet and the digital, and the main principle of this effort, what Internet do you want? And I think, oh, my God, what world do you want to build for the future, for our kids, for our children? And I think maybe we have the, we agreed with the problems, with the diagnosis, and maybe we need to profound the solutions to face these problems we have today involving the governance in our community, and that’s why, and I’m going to put this as a commentary, that’s why I think. I think we have to deepen the debate about the gaps we have to fulfill to the IGF, and to address this discussion, as much of you have heard, CGI has recently decided to advance the dialogues and informal consultations with various stakeholders throughout the ecosystem to the opportunity, feasibility, and adherence to a possible event in Brazil in 2024 to discuss and produce a multistakeholder consensus on these themes we are discussing there, just to put this to everybody to think about it. Thank you.

Avri Doria:
Thank you very much. Lisa, please.

Lise Fuhr:
Thank you. We’ve discussed many crucial aspects of the future of Internet governance here today, and I’ve heard the principles that actually we build on are extremely important. I hear transparency of the choices taken by IGFs is important, and I agree, and also the substance of what we discuss is, of course, important, but we need to be open and inclusive. The challenges, again, have all the relevant parties involved. This means all genders to me, and I think gender is still an important one, but we also hear about different nationalities, and people need to be involved, and I completely agree. Funding of the Secretariat, yes, it is a very small Secretariat. We need to have stronger funding for the Secretariat because their task has grown bigger, and there it’s extremely important. Jordan talked about ambition, and I think ambition is a key for us. We need to have an ambition to develop and evolve IGF, but, again, there is a strong support and also in the leadership panel for human-centric Internet, the multi-stakeholder model needs to remain, so one last thing is we need to raise the profile of IGF. We need to set the agenda getting new participation on shaping the Internet for the future. Thank you.

Jordan Carter:
I’m not going to try and tackle specific questions. The first is, if this stuff is so important, we need to resource it properly, you know? There are as many people in my policy and stakeholder engagement team as there are in the IGF Secretariat. Similar story to Beton. The people with the checkbooks, and the biggest checkbooks are the governments, I think we need to take another look at this digital governance question and change the way we think about it. The second thing is, the profound political and governance issues that have been tabled in this panel, themselves could have used a lot more expansion and contest here, because we had an interesting discussion. I’m fascinated by some of what I’ve heard. I’m going to rush off to another session, and it’s the second to last day, and we go. So I wonder whether we’re actually paying enough attention to Internet governance, and I think that’s a challenge that comes here, because, you know, there are sexy issues, there’s the importance of AI, there are a hundred different topics on the agenda, and then we don’t get into the real foundations of the model that we’re sort of just swimming in. So I think that’s an observation that I offer. The third, I guess, is the reminder to look back at the principles that have come before, because you don’t always have to revisit the principles that have come before, you can reinvent or invent new things. Sometimes there are foundations that are out there that can be the basis of what we need to do. So just some reflections back.

Avri Doria:
Thank you, and I really like what’s been said. I really very much enjoy the symphony of provocative voices, and I, like you, wish we had been spent all day on this kind of discussion,

Ana Neves:
going through it, and with that, I give you the last word. Yes, so we are about to finish, but I’d like to emphasise as co-moderator something that was being said here, so I think that all the interventions from our speakers and from the audience, both here and online, they were very rich, very productive, and they will enlighten us for the future, and this future. So the session is called, you know, what is the future of AI? The session is called the future of digital governance. It is something that we reflect together on what we were talking about, and Bertrand said again something that he’s been telling for several years. We are talking about two different things, it’s governance of the internet and governance on the internet, and I think that with that … I think that we understand much better what we are talking about. It’s about the future of the Internet in the digital age nowadays, as it was in the information society age in the 90s, and then in the knowledge-based economies in the 20s, in the cyber in the 10s, and now we are talking about digital. But in two years we will be talking about something else. But one thing that will be always here is the Internet. So we are here for the Internet and to make it a weapon for peace, something for us as a good thing for humankind. Thank you very much. A big applause to our speakers. Thank you. Thank you.